In the Middle East, dates are written with the month after the day, and this particular tidbit of information only makes the recent terrorist attacks in Jordan all the more tragically symbolic. On the ninth day of the eleventh month (November 9th, 2005), suicide bombers entered three hotels in Amman, Jordan, and detonated bombs that killed 56 people. They managed to kill good fundamentalist Muslims who hated the United States with a passion, and by doing so, they engaged in a rare public relations faux pas. The people of Jordan flooded the streets outside the hotels chanting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi!" in a demonstration that was astonishing due to the fact that it was organized by anti-Western Islamic hardline trade groups that have expressed sympathy and support for Al-Qaida and other Islamic terror groups in the past.
The Jordanian people found their own personal limit for terrorist activity on November 9th, because terrorism found its way to their doorsteps and neighborhoods with its insidious ways. No longer could they look at the television screen and cheer for the stretchers bearing wounded American civilians, because the images on the screen showed them the consequence of tolerating or endorsing terrorist activity for their own countrymen. Allah, it seems, is not without a sense of delicious irony.
Al-Qaida didn't attack an occupying force in this attack, it didn't assault a foe that was Western in origin, it instead attacked Arab Muslims in an ambush made all the more vicious by the messages Al-Qaida posted on the Internet afterwards. These messages justified the killing of Muslims because they lived in “a backyard garden for the enemies of the religion, Jews and crusaders ... a filthy place for the traitors ... and a center for prostitution.” Jordanians obviously did not agree with Al-Qaida's assessment of their homeland or the cold-blooded murders of their countrymen.
The "center of prostitution" was actually a wedding. Two individuals were about to be united in holy vows before their maker when they and their guests had their sacred ceremonies cut short by a suicide bomber. Not one Jew was listed amongst the casualties, which likely rendered the attack a total waste in the mind of even the most hardened terrorist. The vast majority of the victims were probably good solid Jew-hating Muslims who felt great glee when they viewed the images broadcast on Al-Jazeera of the effects of the Al-Qaida masterminded Iraqi insurrection. They did not deserve the fate that befell them. They certainly did not deserve to be slandered with invidious terms after their deaths.
This day will likely live on as the most maladroit moment in Al-Qaida's history. They slaughtered their political and spiritual base in these attacks, and they denigrated their victim's memories by labeling them as foes of Islam, Jews, and consorts of harlotry. Al-Zarqawi could possibly face pressure to resign by his colleagues, just as Trent Lott felt pressure from his colleagues to resign after his ringing endorsement of Strom Thurmond. Al-Qaida cannot afford to alienate the base on which it depends.
The public relations arm of Al-Qaida needs to spring forward to engage in damage control. They should find a willing cleric who will postulate some consolation prize for those who lost their relatives in the attacks. Extra virgins in paradise, perhaps? Who knows what conciliatory message will be crafted to assuage the current wrath of the Jordanian people towards Al-Qaida.
In the meantime, the countries of the Middle East should realize now more than ever what the leading cause of death for snake handlers happens to be (take a wild guess). Those countries who allow terror to flourish within their borders or who harbor and give safe passage to terrorist figures only set themselves up for grief at a later date. Al-Zarqawi spent three years in a Jordanian prison, but he was pardoned by the King. On November 9th, he showed the world his deep capacity for gratitude by killing 33 Jordanians and 23 other people of varying nationalities. His original sentence was fifteen years, and had he been held for the duration of his original prison term, these attacks would likely not have occurred.
Terrorism breeds instability and chaos wherever it is tolerated, and until recently Muslims have been willing to tolerate that instability and chaos so long as it was directed at Americans and Jews. Nowadays we see a new trend: terrorism is being used as a weapon against Muslims who apparently aren't Muslim enough to satiate the stringent requirements of men such as Al-Zarqawi. Perhaps Muslims will now realize that it does not pay to look with romanticism upon the antics of such men and their groups, because they might one day find themselves on the receiving end of an attack. We can only hope that this will be the case.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The IRS, Churches, and Politics: Dy-no-mite!
The IRS has notified a California church that its tax-exempt status could be revoked after a guest speaker gave a sermon that opposed the war in Iraq along with the tax cuts proposed by President Bush. All Saints Episcopal Church has a history of supporting Democratic and liberal causes with sermons and its website, which included the church's opposition to three propositions on the ballot in California's recent special election, saying that the three initiatives would “alter the very fabric of our lives as a democracy by limiting the right to representation and the right to express a political point of view.”
The church did cross the line from mere postulations on spiritual matters to go into the realm of political expression, and the IRS does possess the right and responsibility to go after tax-exempt organizations that do such things given that they are forbidden to make political statements by law. All Saints was wrong to engage in political expression, and no amount of braying and howling by its members and leaders will change this basic fact. Church rector J. Edwin Bacon labeled the IRS actions as “a direct assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” However, there are those of us who see the actions of All Saints and other churches who make such statements under the auspices of freedom of religion as a direct assault on the separation of church and state in this country.
What is troubling about this instance isn't the fact that All Saints is being confronted with legal consequences for its actions, but instead the fact that not one church has been prosecuted in the same manner for any statements of support it might have made for the tax cuts, Republican leaders, and the various wars our country is engaged in. We know that these churches are in existence. In Waynesville, North Carolina, nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church were voted out of their memberships after pastor Chan Chandler told members from the pulpit that those who planned to vote for John Kerry should repent or leave the church. Despite the fact that some forty potential witnesses left the church in protest over the methods and reasons used to eliminate the nine members who were voted out, the IRS has yet to take action against East Waynesville Baptist Church.
Legal enforcement of the laws prohibiting political expression and involvement by tax-exempt organizations such as churches should be uniform. The facts as they exist currently suggest that uniform enforcement and application of the law is not the strong suit of our Internal Revenue Service. It isn't that East Waynesville wasn't as vocal about its political leanings as All Saints was, because the East Waynesville incident was publicized throughout the state of North Carolina and was even covered by the Washington Post. In forty-five seconds, I was able to Google search and find the story of East Waynesville on the Internet. Surely the Internal Revenue Service could have done so, if in fact the enforcement of federal regulations against political interference by tax-exempt churches was so important to its agents and leadership.
The All Saints incident highlights a troubling trend that has existed for some time: the partisan use and enforcement of the power of supposedly independent government agencies to selectively eliminate illegal dissent on the part of churches whose misfortune happens to be that their view is not in vogue with the powers that be. Illegal speech should be prosecuted because it is illegal, and not because it conflicts with the prevailing political winds.
The following articles were used as source material in this blog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9962725/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700972.html
The church did cross the line from mere postulations on spiritual matters to go into the realm of political expression, and the IRS does possess the right and responsibility to go after tax-exempt organizations that do such things given that they are forbidden to make political statements by law. All Saints was wrong to engage in political expression, and no amount of braying and howling by its members and leaders will change this basic fact. Church rector J. Edwin Bacon labeled the IRS actions as “a direct assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” However, there are those of us who see the actions of All Saints and other churches who make such statements under the auspices of freedom of religion as a direct assault on the separation of church and state in this country.
What is troubling about this instance isn't the fact that All Saints is being confronted with legal consequences for its actions, but instead the fact that not one church has been prosecuted in the same manner for any statements of support it might have made for the tax cuts, Republican leaders, and the various wars our country is engaged in. We know that these churches are in existence. In Waynesville, North Carolina, nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church were voted out of their memberships after pastor Chan Chandler told members from the pulpit that those who planned to vote for John Kerry should repent or leave the church. Despite the fact that some forty potential witnesses left the church in protest over the methods and reasons used to eliminate the nine members who were voted out, the IRS has yet to take action against East Waynesville Baptist Church.
Legal enforcement of the laws prohibiting political expression and involvement by tax-exempt organizations such as churches should be uniform. The facts as they exist currently suggest that uniform enforcement and application of the law is not the strong suit of our Internal Revenue Service. It isn't that East Waynesville wasn't as vocal about its political leanings as All Saints was, because the East Waynesville incident was publicized throughout the state of North Carolina and was even covered by the Washington Post. In forty-five seconds, I was able to Google search and find the story of East Waynesville on the Internet. Surely the Internal Revenue Service could have done so, if in fact the enforcement of federal regulations against political interference by tax-exempt churches was so important to its agents and leadership.
The All Saints incident highlights a troubling trend that has existed for some time: the partisan use and enforcement of the power of supposedly independent government agencies to selectively eliminate illegal dissent on the part of churches whose misfortune happens to be that their view is not in vogue with the powers that be. Illegal speech should be prosecuted because it is illegal, and not because it conflicts with the prevailing political winds.
The following articles were used as source material in this blog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9962725/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700972.html
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
France Is Burning!
The French government has recently discovered that melting pot societies often lead to meltdowns of a sort. Three hundred of its towns are in turmoil as French youths riot over the accidental deaths of two teenagers who hid themselves in a power substation to avoid the police. The two criminal masterminds were electrocuted as a consequence of their unfortunate choice of a hiding place, and ever since, France has been gripped by a youth rebellion primarily composed of North African and Muslim teenagers.
The French government has revealed its ineptitude and total lack of comprehension in the process of its response to the rioting. Consider the statements of Jacque Chirac, French president and domestic leader extraordinaire: "[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected." Well, it is doubtful that they feel respected even now, but they are certainly aware of the power that they have achieved through fear. Close to 2, 600 automobiles have been firebombed, buses have been torched, hospitals and kindergartens have been set ablaze, all by the youthful misunderstood cherubs who apparently emote their angst in tongues of fire.
They have thrown rocks and gasoline bombs at the police, who might have justifiably discharged a firearm or two to protect themselves, but there is no evidence that the French police have been empowered to take such action to combat the extreme lawlessness that they and their countrymen are imperiled by. The issue here is one of cause and effect, action and consequence: if you hide in a power substation, you might be electrocuted. If you hurl incendiary devices at the police, thereby threatening their well-being and lives, you might be shot, injured, or killed for doing so. That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, but France is a society that has suspended reason for the time being.
Why has France suspended reason and surrendered to the consequence of its illogical policy of appeasement in the face of teenage anarchy? It has done so because it is a liberal society, founded on humane ideals that forbid reaction against even the most vicious and destructive forms of human behavior, lest one be compromised morally by the reaction. The French government can rightly say it has the moral high ground by repeatedly turning the other cheek to the rioters and brigands who set the streets ablaze each night, but with the high ground comes millions of dollars in property damage and the dangerous precedent that lawlessness is a means to an end.
Sociopaths have a curious tendency to disregard moral overtures because they ultimately respect one thing only: power. If you exercise greater power than they can exercise, you can subdue them and manage their behavior. If you exercise greater negotiation skills and superb diplomatic dialogue, you do not stem their behavior or its destructive results. You will never reach someone who has indicated a wanton disregard for moral or secular law with appeals based on moral or secular law, because they do not care. Their lack of caring is a prime indicator that they might be criminal in intent and purpose.
The teenagers who have taken to the streets in France to senselessly destroy schools, buses, hospitals, and businesses do not care to be understood. They do not care to make a point. They care for one thing: destroying without consequence. The French government's policy of appeasement and containment has empowered young thugs to boldly go forth and pillage. If the French government were to actually send out police and military forces who used force in the form of tear gas and rubber bullets (and possibly even genuine bullets), the unrest that has paralyzed the French countryside in fear each night would come to an abrupt end.
There would be those who erected graffiti memorials to the dead and eulogized them as martyrs and casualties of an unjust and uncaring society, but the French government would provide its citizens with the things that governments are supposed to provide their citizens: order and civil peace. Jacques Chirac can plead endlessly with the miscreants who burn and pillage nightly in his country; he can reason eloquently with them if he wishes to do so, but he will find that their characters render them incapable of hearing such speech. The character of the average rioter can be moved to cessation of destructive action by one thing only: a display of force that is greater than any he can muster, a force that could imperil the one thing he truly values, which is his life.
It remains to be seen if the French government has the willingness to muster up such a force in response to the chaos that has held its country captive in the past week. Perhaps negotiation is the answer and Chirac needs to request an audience with the rioter's potentate, whomever he may be, in order to set the terms for a peace. In the meantime, how many schools and hospitals will be burned, and how many French citizens who respect the law so much that they actually abide by it will be put at risk by their government's indecision?
The French government has revealed its ineptitude and total lack of comprehension in the process of its response to the rioting. Consider the statements of Jacque Chirac, French president and domestic leader extraordinaire: "[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected." Well, it is doubtful that they feel respected even now, but they are certainly aware of the power that they have achieved through fear. Close to 2, 600 automobiles have been firebombed, buses have been torched, hospitals and kindergartens have been set ablaze, all by the youthful misunderstood cherubs who apparently emote their angst in tongues of fire.
They have thrown rocks and gasoline bombs at the police, who might have justifiably discharged a firearm or two to protect themselves, but there is no evidence that the French police have been empowered to take such action to combat the extreme lawlessness that they and their countrymen are imperiled by. The issue here is one of cause and effect, action and consequence: if you hide in a power substation, you might be electrocuted. If you hurl incendiary devices at the police, thereby threatening their well-being and lives, you might be shot, injured, or killed for doing so. That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, but France is a society that has suspended reason for the time being.
Why has France suspended reason and surrendered to the consequence of its illogical policy of appeasement in the face of teenage anarchy? It has done so because it is a liberal society, founded on humane ideals that forbid reaction against even the most vicious and destructive forms of human behavior, lest one be compromised morally by the reaction. The French government can rightly say it has the moral high ground by repeatedly turning the other cheek to the rioters and brigands who set the streets ablaze each night, but with the high ground comes millions of dollars in property damage and the dangerous precedent that lawlessness is a means to an end.
Sociopaths have a curious tendency to disregard moral overtures because they ultimately respect one thing only: power. If you exercise greater power than they can exercise, you can subdue them and manage their behavior. If you exercise greater negotiation skills and superb diplomatic dialogue, you do not stem their behavior or its destructive results. You will never reach someone who has indicated a wanton disregard for moral or secular law with appeals based on moral or secular law, because they do not care. Their lack of caring is a prime indicator that they might be criminal in intent and purpose.
The teenagers who have taken to the streets in France to senselessly destroy schools, buses, hospitals, and businesses do not care to be understood. They do not care to make a point. They care for one thing: destroying without consequence. The French government's policy of appeasement and containment has empowered young thugs to boldly go forth and pillage. If the French government were to actually send out police and military forces who used force in the form of tear gas and rubber bullets (and possibly even genuine bullets), the unrest that has paralyzed the French countryside in fear each night would come to an abrupt end.
There would be those who erected graffiti memorials to the dead and eulogized them as martyrs and casualties of an unjust and uncaring society, but the French government would provide its citizens with the things that governments are supposed to provide their citizens: order and civil peace. Jacques Chirac can plead endlessly with the miscreants who burn and pillage nightly in his country; he can reason eloquently with them if he wishes to do so, but he will find that their characters render them incapable of hearing such speech. The character of the average rioter can be moved to cessation of destructive action by one thing only: a display of force that is greater than any he can muster, a force that could imperil the one thing he truly values, which is his life.
It remains to be seen if the French government has the willingness to muster up such a force in response to the chaos that has held its country captive in the past week. Perhaps negotiation is the answer and Chirac needs to request an audience with the rioter's potentate, whomever he may be, in order to set the terms for a peace. In the meantime, how many schools and hospitals will be burned, and how many French citizens who respect the law so much that they actually abide by it will be put at risk by their government's indecision?
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Samuel "The Bull" Alito
Much has been made of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's prior record on civil rights in the past few days. Alito possesses the requisites for consideration as a conservative in that he opposes a broad reading of anti-discrimination laws, but he also brings forth skeletons from the Princeton past. While a law student at Princeton, Alito was quite the liberal in terms of sexual mores.
As a student at Princeton, young Alito came out against government regulation in the boudoir, stating that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.” This was some thirty years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sexual conduct, thereby inserting a constitutional right to such behavior into our jurisprudence. Alito could thus be looked upon as an intrepid trailblazer in legal philosophy by liberal groups, but it is doubtful that this will happen.
The motto of today's liberals is clear: What have you done for us lately? Samuel Alito, alas, has done little. He has set the bar high in discrimination cases, finding that the use of prosecutorial strikes against black jurors in 13 of 14 instances indicated the very reasonable possibility that such strikes were racially motivated. Fourteen out of fourteen would have cemented his certainty in that instance, but a paltry thirteen merely piqued his interest at the possibility.
He also supported the idea that women should be legally required to notify their spouses when seeking an abortion, but fortunately for the liberal cliques, he was a simple dissenter on the issue. The audacity of his legal reasoning is clear even today: why, men could be taken to be equal partners in conception with an equal say if Alito's views were allowed to prevail! It shows how far we have come as a society: equal partnership in conception used to be considered a prerequisite for the act, perhaps even a positive thing, but nowadays it is a mere albatross around the neck of oppressed wives who simply want to be able divorce their husbands from the decision to terminate a pregnancy they jointly entered into with said husbands without having to formally divorce them in a court of law. The gall, I say!
Lest you think it was easy for Justice Alito to arrive at such a gutsy dissenting viewpoint, consider what he is quoted as telling Senator Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Senate minority and the fifty-seventh ranking Senator overall: "He told me that “he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge.”" One can see Judge Alito in that crucible of a moment where, sweating blood and cracking under the strain, he crossed his personal Rubicon, never to look back on those glorious days of youth spent discouraging government interference in private acts between adults lest he be turned into a pillar of salt.
Yes, Samuel Alito is a rare breed of jurist. He agonizes, pains even, over his decisions. The law is an occasion to emote, dear citizens, for such a man as Alito. I feel a groundswell, a massive surge of support arising for Samuel Alito from that bastion of legal emoting and hand wringing known as the Democratic Party. He is their kindred spirit, a man who realizes that the law has a human side that sits opposite the ink and pulp if you will flip the pages over often enough in an effort to discover it.
There is hope in Spintown, just as there is balm in Gilead and respite in Nepenthe. A bipartisan fervor of goodwill is swelling beneath the epidermis of Washington, waiting to burst forth like a blemish on the pristinely rancored complexion of a town known for pointless donnybrooks over judicial appointments. We will see the hyperbole flowing, uncorked, into the champagne flutes of conservatives and liberals alike as they celebrate the coronation of Alito! Maybe not.
As a student at Princeton, young Alito came out against government regulation in the boudoir, stating that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.” This was some thirty years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sexual conduct, thereby inserting a constitutional right to such behavior into our jurisprudence. Alito could thus be looked upon as an intrepid trailblazer in legal philosophy by liberal groups, but it is doubtful that this will happen.
The motto of today's liberals is clear: What have you done for us lately? Samuel Alito, alas, has done little. He has set the bar high in discrimination cases, finding that the use of prosecutorial strikes against black jurors in 13 of 14 instances indicated the very reasonable possibility that such strikes were racially motivated. Fourteen out of fourteen would have cemented his certainty in that instance, but a paltry thirteen merely piqued his interest at the possibility.
He also supported the idea that women should be legally required to notify their spouses when seeking an abortion, but fortunately for the liberal cliques, he was a simple dissenter on the issue. The audacity of his legal reasoning is clear even today: why, men could be taken to be equal partners in conception with an equal say if Alito's views were allowed to prevail! It shows how far we have come as a society: equal partnership in conception used to be considered a prerequisite for the act, perhaps even a positive thing, but nowadays it is a mere albatross around the neck of oppressed wives who simply want to be able divorce their husbands from the decision to terminate a pregnancy they jointly entered into with said husbands without having to formally divorce them in a court of law. The gall, I say!
Lest you think it was easy for Justice Alito to arrive at such a gutsy dissenting viewpoint, consider what he is quoted as telling Senator Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Senate minority and the fifty-seventh ranking Senator overall: "He told me that “he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge.”" One can see Judge Alito in that crucible of a moment where, sweating blood and cracking under the strain, he crossed his personal Rubicon, never to look back on those glorious days of youth spent discouraging government interference in private acts between adults lest he be turned into a pillar of salt.
Yes, Samuel Alito is a rare breed of jurist. He agonizes, pains even, over his decisions. The law is an occasion to emote, dear citizens, for such a man as Alito. I feel a groundswell, a massive surge of support arising for Samuel Alito from that bastion of legal emoting and hand wringing known as the Democratic Party. He is their kindred spirit, a man who realizes that the law has a human side that sits opposite the ink and pulp if you will flip the pages over often enough in an effort to discover it.
There is hope in Spintown, just as there is balm in Gilead and respite in Nepenthe. A bipartisan fervor of goodwill is swelling beneath the epidermis of Washington, waiting to burst forth like a blemish on the pristinely rancored complexion of a town known for pointless donnybrooks over judicial appointments. We will see the hyperbole flowing, uncorked, into the champagne flutes of conservatives and liberals alike as they celebrate the coronation of Alito! Maybe not.
Michael Vick, Esq.
The ubiquitous Michael Vick finds himself on the down side this season. He is in the throes of a career-ending season, and he is reeling both from preseason revelations of herpes and a passer rating of just 63. His yards per passing attempt yields the meager sum of just 5.7 yards, while his yards per rushing attempt comes in at a lofty 6.2 yards. This proves what many of us have known for years: Michael Vick is a special teams player and possible wide receiver. His backup, a former Virginia Cavalier by the name of Matt Schaub, is a quarterback. Matt comes in with 6.9 yards per attempt and a whopping 9.8 yards per rush.
There is an upside for Michael Vick. He is obviously quite marketable, and the potential for an endorsement deal with Valtrex is intriguing. Bob Dole endorsed Viagra, and no one can argue that his career was only enhanced by his admission that his erectile dysfunction was pharmacologically reversible. Harry Reid endorsed Enzyte, but he still finds himself stuck in the minority leader's position. Okay, so I made that last part up.
On a serious note, the Falcons should bench Vick, who has had repeated problems putting his coach's offensive scheme into practice on the field. Quarterbacks who run the ball better than they pass it inevitably run into the same problem that running backs in the NFL encounter: durability is often exceeded by the painful reality of a defensive player's hitting prowess (Note: see Randall Cunningham). Michael Vick is exciting to watch more oft than not, but he is creating a liability for his franchise with his continued miscues at the quarterback position.
Franchises play to win, not to see one individual's potential for excitement realized. Atlanta needs to realize that it has a better shot at future success with someone besides Vick standing under center. When Atlanta played the lowly Jets, Vick was picked off three times. With the season barely half-finished, Vick has been sacked twelve times. In 2004, Vick was sacked forty-six times. Why has Vick been sacked so often? The most obvious answer has to be that a quarterback who runs the ball believes that he doesn't have to let go of it in order to avoid a loss of yardage. In his entire career, Vick has a high passer rating of just 81.6. He has forty-one touchdown passes, but he also carries the distinction of thirty-two interceptions. That does not qualify as a good ratio.
Michael Vick has dynamic personality and playmaking charisma on the field, but this does not translate into a winning team. Atlanta should utilize Vick's talents (and they are considerable) but not in a way that detracts from their ultimate goal of winning a championship. It is time for Atlanta to move on to a new quarterback, and to move Vick to a wideout/kick returner role. The only way for Atlanta to attain their ultimate goal is for sound reasoning to prevail in personnel roles.
There is an upside for Michael Vick. He is obviously quite marketable, and the potential for an endorsement deal with Valtrex is intriguing. Bob Dole endorsed Viagra, and no one can argue that his career was only enhanced by his admission that his erectile dysfunction was pharmacologically reversible. Harry Reid endorsed Enzyte, but he still finds himself stuck in the minority leader's position. Okay, so I made that last part up.
On a serious note, the Falcons should bench Vick, who has had repeated problems putting his coach's offensive scheme into practice on the field. Quarterbacks who run the ball better than they pass it inevitably run into the same problem that running backs in the NFL encounter: durability is often exceeded by the painful reality of a defensive player's hitting prowess (Note: see Randall Cunningham). Michael Vick is exciting to watch more oft than not, but he is creating a liability for his franchise with his continued miscues at the quarterback position.
Franchises play to win, not to see one individual's potential for excitement realized. Atlanta needs to realize that it has a better shot at future success with someone besides Vick standing under center. When Atlanta played the lowly Jets, Vick was picked off three times. With the season barely half-finished, Vick has been sacked twelve times. In 2004, Vick was sacked forty-six times. Why has Vick been sacked so often? The most obvious answer has to be that a quarterback who runs the ball believes that he doesn't have to let go of it in order to avoid a loss of yardage. In his entire career, Vick has a high passer rating of just 81.6. He has forty-one touchdown passes, but he also carries the distinction of thirty-two interceptions. That does not qualify as a good ratio.
Michael Vick has dynamic personality and playmaking charisma on the field, but this does not translate into a winning team. Atlanta should utilize Vick's talents (and they are considerable) but not in a way that detracts from their ultimate goal of winning a championship. It is time for Atlanta to move on to a new quarterback, and to move Vick to a wideout/kick returner role. The only way for Atlanta to attain their ultimate goal is for sound reasoning to prevail in personnel roles.
Utah Refuses To Part Ways with Past: Polygamous Judge in Utah
In 1890, Utah abolished and outlawed polygamy as a condition of their statehood. However, an estimated 30, 000 practicing polygamists live in southern Utah. One of these polygamists, Walter Steed, is a judge in the town of Hildale, Utah. Although he is entrusted with the duty of enforcing the laws of the state of Utah, he lives in open violation of those laws and refuses to step down or recognize the obvious hypocrisy of his position. Judges are given one principal task: to uphold the law, and the most obvious way that they can do so is by observing the letter of the law in their own lives.
Judge Steed has adopted a piecemeal approach to this task. He observes the law as he sees fit. We have a name for such people in our society and in our law: criminals. Even though His Honor clearly acknowledges that Utah law forbids the practice of polygamy amongst its citizens, he has three wives. His justification for committing and continuing his criminal activity is quite simple: it isn't as bad as other crimes, and it does not prevent him from performing his job as a judge. Judge Steed and his lawyers believe that drug abuse would be reason for removal from the office he holds, but that other classes of criminal activity may not rise to such a level.
In other words, the law is negotiable. We may, as citizens and as law enforcement officers, pick and choose which laws are to be observed and which are to be disobeyed based on our personal whims. There really are no absolutes in the law per se. A sitting judge may decide that while one law is applicable to his life, another is not applicable, and he may proceed to flout that law openly.
Unfortunately, the Utah state supreme court and the attorney general of Utah agree by failing to disagree. The Chief Justice of Utah's Supreme Court, Christine Durham, decided not to remove a lawbreaker from a position that at its core involves seeing that lawbreakers are duly punished for their transgressions. The state attorney general also declined to come against Judge Steed. The Washington County prosecutor also failed to take prosecutorial action. The state of Utah as a whole has failed for many years to stamp out the lawlessness of polygamy within its borders.
The law banning polygamy in theory prohibits the practice of plural marriage, but in actual application (or lack thereof) it allows the practice to proceed and flourish even amongst its own jurists. As a result, it is a meaningless statute that reveals just how resolutely Utah refuses to break with its past in order to forge a future where laws are observed and lawbreakers are punished. Utah should take action against Justice Steed, but in a society where sexually libertine ideals have made great strides under the auspices of individual liberties, it is doubtful that Utah will take action.
Judge Steed has adopted a piecemeal approach to this task. He observes the law as he sees fit. We have a name for such people in our society and in our law: criminals. Even though His Honor clearly acknowledges that Utah law forbids the practice of polygamy amongst its citizens, he has three wives. His justification for committing and continuing his criminal activity is quite simple: it isn't as bad as other crimes, and it does not prevent him from performing his job as a judge. Judge Steed and his lawyers believe that drug abuse would be reason for removal from the office he holds, but that other classes of criminal activity may not rise to such a level.
In other words, the law is negotiable. We may, as citizens and as law enforcement officers, pick and choose which laws are to be observed and which are to be disobeyed based on our personal whims. There really are no absolutes in the law per se. A sitting judge may decide that while one law is applicable to his life, another is not applicable, and he may proceed to flout that law openly.
Unfortunately, the Utah state supreme court and the attorney general of Utah agree by failing to disagree. The Chief Justice of Utah's Supreme Court, Christine Durham, decided not to remove a lawbreaker from a position that at its core involves seeing that lawbreakers are duly punished for their transgressions. The state attorney general also declined to come against Judge Steed. The Washington County prosecutor also failed to take prosecutorial action. The state of Utah as a whole has failed for many years to stamp out the lawlessness of polygamy within its borders.
The law banning polygamy in theory prohibits the practice of plural marriage, but in actual application (or lack thereof) it allows the practice to proceed and flourish even amongst its own jurists. As a result, it is a meaningless statute that reveals just how resolutely Utah refuses to break with its past in order to forge a future where laws are observed and lawbreakers are punished. Utah should take action against Justice Steed, but in a society where sexually libertine ideals have made great strides under the auspices of individual liberties, it is doubtful that Utah will take action.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
