Preacher Kills Wife, Rapes Daughter: No One Cares

I'm hardly the first person to be posting on this story, I know. But there's a rather odd aspect to it I just don't get. Anthony Hopkins (obviously no relation), a charismatic preacher in Jacksonville, Alabama, had a problem. He was whiling away the evening molesting his daughter (surprising in clergy, I know), when his wife walked into the room and caught him in the act. For some reason, she was upset about this state of affairs (sorry), and kicked him out of the house.

After wheedling his daughter into letting him in through a window, he killed his wife and stuffed the body in a freezer chest.

Now here's the problem: he's a preacher, and both he and his wife are well known in local parishes. For her to suddenly disappear without a trace might raise some suspicion in some circles, no? So how does he explain it away? He claims she died as a result of the birth of their most recent child and prays that no one notices that he never had a funeral for her, (or, at least, never invited any of his friends to it).

Turns out he needn't have worried. The other clergy and parishioners seem to have been singularly incurious about her fate. His pastor, after inquiring about it, was suspicious, but not enough that he notified police. Neighbors said nothing. If she had friends outside their home, they said nothing.

WHO THE HELL ARE THESE MORONS?

These are all supposed to be god-afearin', caring, old-time family and neighborhood folk. Maybury types. Watch out for one another and such. And no one lifts a finger regarding this woman's disappearance for 4 blasted years. Meanwhile, I highly doubt that the sexual molestation stopped.

Is this what Jesus would do?

Selwyn Duke Gets it Wrong on David Davis - Part II

The first thing about Duke's preposterous screed on the Gillman decision that tripped my trigger is his claim that students do not have the right to voice dissent.

I can’t think of anything more laughable than describing students as “dissenters.” Governments have dissenters; politicians have dissenters; political parties and organizations have dissenters; but schools’ charges are children, individuals over whom they have dominion while class is in session.

Bzzt. Wrong. Try again, Mr. Duke. Had you read the full decision on Gillman, and were you honest about familiar with the applicable precedent, you would be aware that in Holloman v. Harland SCOTUS found that First Amendment rights to free speech "unquestionably exist in public schools".

Next we have his argument that they shouldn't be granted First Amendment rights:

The problem with arguing for any kind of student expression based upon the First Amendment is that we don’t ascribe to children an adult set of rights. Minors may not vote, join the military, drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes, or enter into contracts, for instance. Likewise, students don’t really have free-speech rights in school (see Bethel School District v. Fraser, for instance). If I want to pepper a schoolteacher with profanity and tell him off, that is my right. But if I were 30 years younger and in his class, a trip to the principal’s office would be in the offing.

I see several problems with this statement. Firstly, the idea that because we don't extend full adult privileges, that children have no First Amendment rights. This is preposterous on its face. There is ample legal precedent extending First Amendment rights to minors: for instance, decisions upholding students' rights to freely exercise their religious views in school (albeit outside the classroom). Would Mr Duke agree that students shouldn't have a right to form prayer and bible study groups in their schools, or "meet at the flag" groups, should the local school board or the school administration deem them innapropriate? Somehow, I think not.

Secondly, his citation of the Bethel decision. Once again, Mr Duke is lying through his teeth being disingenuous. The judge in the Gillman case, Richard Smoak, specifically mentions Bethel in his decision. Bethel's controls are on speech that is "vulgar, lewd, obscene, or plainly offensive". His finding was that the speech in question is pure student expression, and so Bethel doesn't apply. The proper precedent is Tinker, which asserts students' rights. Incidentally, the Holmes County School Board actually agreed that the students actions, clothing, and speech were not offensive, vulgar, etc.

Lastly, exactly where does "pepper a schoolteacher with profanity and tell him off" come into play here? Selwyn seems to be referencing a case entirely divorced from Gillman. At no point was any schoolteacher verbally abused by a student. In fact not even the principal, who really rather asked for some verbal abuse, received any. Whose ass did he pull that out of Where did that statement come from?

These students are about to enter society at large. Stifling the few liberties they enjoy will not teach them to be responsible citizens, to protect their freedoms and participate in the political process. To quote the Tinker court (via the Gillman decision):

The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of
ideas.’ The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection'.

'Course, Duke's blather wouldn't be a true right-fringe rant without the following:

Of course, some may not like the values inherent in Principal Davis’ actions. My response to them is that they don’t have to live in places such as Ponce de Leon, Fla.

"If you don't like George Bush, whyoncha move to Eyeraq, damned libruls".

I can only say that I hope that some of the students involved in this fiasco remain in Holmes County, FL and try to insure that future generations of students aren't treated the way their generation has been.

A Political Rant

OK, let me start by stating that I am neither a conservative nor a liberal according to the modern usage of those terms. While I skew left on certain issues like the environment, I skew right on things like fiscal policy. My views would mostly fall into what today is considered libertarian territory. I don't actually vote Libertarian, because the politics of that party tend to be a bit too anarchistic for my taste: but I have to say that the party I have generally supported, the GOP, currently fills me with revulsion.

There are many reasons for this. Firstly, I am an advocate of republican government in a founding-era sense: we are a collective of 50 states joined into a union, but we should have a certain amount of autonomy, and the attendant responsibility to see to our own affairs. This is not to say that I support the view that states should be allowed to trample on peoples' rights, enumerated or no. You'll find none of the weak arguments against the 14th Amendment here. I just cringe when I see the federal government stepping in and administering what should be local processes, or strong-arming states to pass legislation against their will (thank you, Ronald Regan). This opinion conflicts with the "big government conservatism" of the neoconservative movement, and with the idea of an overbearing theocratic state that Christian Reconstructionists seek to implement.

Secondly, I am an advocate of strictly secular government: I am careful not to establish my political views solely (or even significantly) based on religious belief, and to hell with what the Pope thinks. Granted, I am a lapsed Catholic and not the most religious person to begin with, but what faith I retain I feel obligated to keep out of my political advocacy, as I would not care to impose my beliefs on others any more than I would want them imposing theirs on me. I feel we should do away with all religious expression in public institutions, aside from offering ministers to our soldiers (I should qualify this by saying that I don't have a problem with members of government informing their decisions with their faith per se: this is unavoidable. I just don't like to see doctrine enshrined in the machinery). Get "In God We Trust" off of the currency. Get religious oaths out of the courts and legislature. Eliminate government's regulation and, frankly, acknowledgment, of marriage. And rid ourselves entirely of the Pledge of Allegiance (not just the Under God part: the whole damned, vapid, brainwashing, government-worshiping thing). This puts me entirely at odds with the GOP as it has existed since the religious right/neoconservative cabal came into ascendancy in 1988. And it definitely places me at odds with malarkey like the recent House resolution "recognizing" the historical relevance of Christianity in the US (translated: revising history to justify the Christianization of government).

Third, I believe that power in our government has been thrown dangerously out of balance, with authority and responsibility that should be vested in the legislature and judiciary being transferred to the executive. This is not something new, and I don't claim that "it's all Bush's fault", as some are intent on doing. It's a problem stretching back at least to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, and perhaps much farther. I'm of the opinion that it largely springs from cowardice among the legislators: they don't want to take responsibility for the tough issues, so they wait for the courts or the president to handle them. Precedent is then set for others to handle such problems, and a little more of the legislature's authority slips away. The courts, for their part, contribute to the problem both by taking on the responsibility that Congress abdicates, and by extending protection from congressional and judicial oversight to the executive branch. Thus has our Imperial Presidency been birthed. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is the desired one for the powers that be in the GOP.

Fourth, as a civil libertarian, I am appalled at the overbearing nationalism our country is in the throes of, and the amount of erosion we are subjecting our freedoms to. USA PATRIOT, the MCA, Presidential signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, "extraordinary rendition", no-knock warrants, and the militarization of police units are just the most obvious examples of the weakening of the liberties that the Revolution was fought to win.

Oh, and I'm not too thrilled that the GOP spends so much time obsessing about butt-sex while our economy slides into ruins. If homosexuals spent a tenth as much time thinking about sodomy as Pat Robertson does, they'd never get anything done. Get yourself a hobby, Pat: collect stamps or something.

So really, I'm a man without a party (or perhaps a grackle without a nest).

What a World, What a World!

Yahoo bastards deleted my Grackle board. And the Bong and Gnome boards. And even the damned bar! Fvckin' lawyers!