August 2003 Archives

The following are comments posted on Cardiff Giant.

No doubt everyone who reads Cardiff regularly is sick of the discussion on the remarks made by President Bush a few weeks ago, namely those referring to all Americans as sinners. Since our august editor posted his remarks on the issue (all eight pages of them) I have grown ever more troubled, not because of the statement’s implications for gay-rights, whatever they might be, but because of the strong feelings I hold on the use of religious ideology in our civil government.

It was not the original intent of the framers to create a Christian nation. The First Amendment makes it clear that the designers of our democracy wished to ensure that no religion of a politician would become that of the state. Many would argue, the Supreme Court included, that a separation between religion and the state can be read in the first amendment, and that such a clause covers more than an official state church. This implies intuitively that no religion or church has preferred status n the eyes of the state. In other words in a “welcoming nation” (the words of the president), all religions are accepted and all religious practices are tolerated to the extent that they do not violate statue.

Neill says that an overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, in fact he calls the US a “Christian-infested” nation, and this is no doubt true. This reality is employed to justify the declaration that everyone is a sinner, and yes, my problem is that this rhetoric is specifically Christian. Despite what Neill may think all Americans, not just the Christian ones, elected this president and though they may represent the majority of his votes the President does not represent Christians, he represents Americans. In that spirit any president must refrain from using his personal religious ideology to govern the nation; this includes justifying a law on overtly religious grounds.

On a side note: Neill claims that the President will make a legal argument for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. However, there is no legal basis for any such a law. In fact, because it relates to an institution of religion, such a law is unconstitutional from the get go, as well as representing a form of discrimination against those who do not fit a certain theologically defined norm. There is no legal argument to be made for discrimination against homosexuals or anyone else for that matter*. It is clear that many politicians understand the unconstitutionality of such a policy on religious and discriminatory grounds and have therefore opted to amend the Constitution itself in order to ensure their religious views win prevail.

*In case one thinks of affirmative action as such a basis, one will see that the purpose of affirmative action, however flawed it is in practice, is to end the discrimination of minority groups, not perpetuate it.

If any of you subscribe to or read Details magazine you are probably familiar with the “Know + Tell” section that precedes the bulk of the book. This month the section features the patent number Wrigley will be given if it’s application for gum with sildenafil citrate is awarded.

Anyone know what sildenafil citrate is? Well if you think it sounds like a medicine you’re right—it’s the generic name for Viagra.

Wrigley won’t be able to market the gum until 2011; that’s when the patent on the drug expires.

The following comments appeared on Cardiff Giant.

Crime in the US fell last year to the lowest level since records started being compiled 30 years ago, the US Justice Department reports. [BBC News]

Last week Wired reported on a story about a high school student in Oklahoma charged with a “felony count of planning to cause serious bodily harm or death”. The motivation for this charge was a fictional short story the student wrote about an attack on his high school by students.

The statue under which the student is being charged was passed in 2001 in the wake of the school shootings. The law states that it is illegal to “plan, attempt, conspire or endeavor to perform an act of violence involving or intended to involve serious bodily harm or death of another person”. Evidently this law also proscribes the writing of fiction by high school students.

The ACLU has gotten involved with the case, claiming that the law is too broad and amounts to a restriction of thought. Read the article for more details, including why the prosecuting DA thinks the law he is using to charge the student sucks and should be changed.

Last night Katie and I went to see 28 Days Later. Usually I don’t like scary movies, especially ones involving rabid zombies, but in this case I have to make an exception. This flick was great and just the right amount of spooky and surprising. I recommend you see it today.

The following comments appeared on Cardiff Giant.

So we all know that the the RIAA and it’s fearless leader Hilary Rosen killed Napster, everyone’s favorite music source (and just when the Mac OS version was released, too!). We also know that they claim a dramatic decrease in music sales last year was due to a much higher increase in file-sharing services like Kazaa. My first argument is that perhaps the decrease in sales was due to the 13% decrease in the number of albums produced last year as well as the overall shit quality of what was released. I mean last was the year that brought us the musical wonders of a solo Justin Timberlake, Aviril Levine, Lil’ Bow Wow, Lil’ Romeo and others.

But that’s not all, oh no, not by a long shot. In addition to inundating the world with heinous tunes they have also taken to suing their customers. According to CNN “the music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day”. A subpoena in this case is the prelude to a lawsuit that could impose penalties of anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song downloaded illegally. I read somewhere that based on these numbers along with the number of people the Industry claims are downloading music illegally lawsuits would total $97 trillion. Now I’m all for copyright protection and intellectual property rights for creative people. These people work hard to produce what they do and to market it as they do. What I don’t understand is why the industry fails to see that a large part of the impetus for illegally downloading music is it high cost and it’s questionable quality. Consumers are unwilling, in my opinion, to pay $19 for 9, 10, 11 songs of which they have heard only one or two, and of which only one or two more are any good. I know this is definitely the case for me, I just can’t afford it. In addition to the cost-prohibitive nature of current CDs is the ease of digital music. What is the first thing you do when you buy a CD? Rip it on to your computer? That’s what I do, because I use my computer a lot and it makes it possible for me to put it on my iPod as well (something that thank God is still legal). Digital music is easy and immediately available; it’s cheaper and easier to distribute; it has a higher profit margin because it cuts production costs significantly. Since Apple introduced it’s iTunes Music Store in April I have purchased about 3 full albums and 10 or 15 single songs. I hardly ever buy music because it costs too much and I don’t DL music much because I have a Mac and alas Kazaa, et al. don’t like us Mac users, plus it’s just easier (and cheaper) than buying a CD. Therefore digital music encouraged me to BUY and not to steal.

But the RIAA is still not done. Now Hilary Rosen has been asked by the Administration to advise the interim Iraqi government on drafting intellectual property laws. The Register has more on this, but basically the current Iraqi IP law is much more liberal (in a legal, not political, sense) than the current US IP law, and that is a good thing.

A recent report by a Presidential commission recommended that the US Postal Service work with the Department of Homeland security to develop sender identification and mail tracking systems for all US mail in an effort to fight terrorism via the post.

This is a frightening thing as far as I am concerned because of the dramatic invasion of privacy and potential tracking capabilities it implies. Now of course the entire point of the recommendation was the make tracking mail sent by terrorist easier, but a program of mandatory sender identification would put the entire nation under yet another microscope that is ripe for misuse by government.

The following are comments made on Cardiff Giant.

A recent report by a Presidential commission recommended that the US Postal Service work with the Department of Homeland security to develop sender identification and mail tracking systems for all US mail in an effort to fight terrorism via the post.

This is a frightening thing as far as I am concerned because of the dramatic invasion of privacy and potential tracking capabilities it implies. Now of course the entire point of the recommendation was the make tracking mail sent by terrorist easier, but a program of mandatory sender identification would put the entire nation under yet another microscope that is ripe for misuse by government.

Last week, after President Bush made his unfortunate statement regarding gay marriage, I was speaking to Chris, a friend of mine who happens to be gay and also happens to have just graduated from a seminary uptown. The conversation turned to talk of the “we are all sinners” statement. After a few minutes of discussing the appropriateness of such a comment and the invasion of religious doctrine into government policy Chris made a brilliant observation: because marriage is a religious rite it technically does not fall under the purview of the government. He went on to say that all “marriages” should actually be civil unions, that clergy should be stripped of their power to act in the name of the state, and instead anyone wishing to be “married” should be required to apply for a civil union at a courthouse and if one chooses, to be married in the ecclesiastical sense separately. His argument is that not only does this provide for equal treatment under the law but that it enhances the sanctity of the marriage rite and further separates religion from civil government.

The following comments appeared on Cardiff Giant.

Today I’ll be more brief than normal as I don’t seem to be able to comment on anything else besides gay-related issues and I don’t want to be “typecast”.

Last week, after President Bush made his unfortunate statement regarding gay marriage, I was speaking to Chris, a friend of mine who happens to be gay and also happens to have just graduated from a seminary uptown. The conversation turned to talk of the “we are all sinners” statement. After a few minutes of discussing the appropriateness of such a comment and the invasion of religious doctrine into government policy Chris made a brilliant observation: because marriage is a religious rite it technically does not fall under the purview of the government. He went on to say that all “marriages” should actually be civil unions, that clergy should be stripped of their power to act in the name of the state, and instead anyone wishing to be “married” should be required to apply for a civil union at a courthouse and if one chooses, to be married in the ecclesiastical sense separately. His argument is that not only does this provide for equal treatment under the law but that it enhances the sanctity of the marriage rite and further separates religion from civil government.

On the Vatican issue I have to say that a religious institution has the right to outline its beliefs and morals regardless of the prevailing mood (or lack thereof if you believe some) regarding any moral issue. However, I resent deeply the implication that homosexuals are any more or less likely to commit crimes like pedophilia, incest, molestation or rape. There is no evidence to support this claim an therefore it is inappropriate for an institution with as much clout, not to mention intellectual history, as the Catholic Church to make such irrational assertions.

I agree with Nick that it is probably not possible to achieve legal status for gay marriage, but that does not mean that the codification of legal barriers to such should be permitted under any circumstances.