Texas Judge Rules: Pull The Plug

The mother died back in November, remember?
She’d made clear her wishes (as all of us ought)
But, sadly, this happened in Texas, the nexus
Of Christian intrusion in government thought
Her will was denied, for a baby that maybe
Would live for an hour, with help from machines;
The state says “we’ve got to complete us a fetus”—
To rescue the baby, whatever the means.

The judge, as the calm voice of reason, who sees, in
This case there are people, not robots instead,
With that, saw some facts had eluded–concluded
Essentially, mother and fetus are dead.
The statute, though not found unlawful, is awful;
A woman’s autonomy, Texas denies
The one thing that no one’s denying is… crying.
That’s kinda what happens when somebody dies

Without ruling on the constitutionality of the law (I am of two minds here–I wish it had been slapped down [can’t imagine it would be upheld], but this family has been through too much already, and I suspect this is a quicker and quieter end), a Texas Judge has found that Marlise Munoz is dead, and that her fetus is not viable, and has ordered that she be removed from the machines that turned her body into the state’s incubator. Which is what Ms. Munoz had expressed, what her husband and extended family had wanted, but which Texas law, as interpreted by the hospital, had seemingly denied.

My sympathies go out to the family. I know this is not an end, because these things never actually end… but at least it is the close of a particularly horrible chapter. And much as I would want to see the law overturned, holding your family hostage over that is every bit as bad as what the state just did, so that will have to wait.

After all this time… only now will the family be able to begin actual funeral plans. Texas should be ashamed, but I think the politicians there are immune.

Edited to add… perhaps the saddest thing I have read in years, the testimony of the husband, as reported by the NY Times:

“When I bend down to kiss her forehead, her usual scent is gone, replaced instead with what I can only describe as the smell of death. As a paramedic, I am very familiar with this smell, and I now recognize it when I kiss my wife. In addition, Marlise’s hands no longer naturally grip mine for an embrace. Her limbs have become so stiff and rigid due to her deteriorating condition that now, when I move her hands, her bones crack, and her legs are nothing more than dead weight.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I am a very smell-oriented person. I know exactly what he is saying, and it breaks my hearts.

Satanist, Atheist; Tomayto, Tomahto

The folks at Fox News have been hatin’ on Satan;
The thought of him sickens their good Christian hearts
A statue? in public? And Gretchen was retchin’,
While all of her guests played their usual parts:
“That statue’s offensive! It’s hateful! A state full
Of Christians would never have voted it in!
Majority rules—you don’t like it? Then hike it
To some other state that might tolerate sin!”

Conservative pundits are trying, by lying,
To claim the majority writes all the laws
Their cry “it’s Commandments we follow!” rings hollow:
They always forget the establishment clause
Not wanting to, yet, let them all in, they’re stallin’—
They’ll wait, while this case makes its way through the courts
In the meantime, the Decalogue only, so lonely,
Cries out to be joined by some goat-headed sorts.

Yeah, well, ok, I’m not really happy with this verse, so I’ll post it quick before I just throw it away. It started out as a comment on Gretchen Carlson’s innocent gaffe, then took a detour into the shouting match her guests launched (have you ever noticed how few guests actually answer the questions they’ve been asked? They answer completely different questions instead, loudly and independently of whether anyone else is talking), then into a vague commentary on the whole satanic statue thing. So it needs a good editing… which would kill the meter and rhyme. What ya gonna do?

There is much fodder for hair-pulling at that link, though. Misrepresentation of the Satanists who are proposing to donate the monument (satanists, rather, are the stuff of pulp novels, B movies, and Chick Tracts), “majority rules” being demanded by the Jewish talking-head (who asks “what did goats ever do? I don’t know why they are having to suffer.”… forgetting that his own religion gave us the “scapegoat”), a member of a smaller minority than atheists; Gretchen’s “the rabbi has a good point” after the rabbi’s alleged point disappeared in a haze of shouting…

Another One To Bookmark

It matters not how you re-word it; they’ve heard it,
Your argument stinks—that’s a matter of fact.
The judge gave to you, in this ruling, a schooling
A thorough rebuking, though written with tact.
You claimed it amounts to miscarriage of marriage
To change what such unions have meant all along;
The judge found your “think of the children!” bewilderin’
Considered your logic, pronounced it dead wrong.

What you label “logic” is tortured—the sort you’d
Expect from a kid, whom you’d then want to scold!
In your view, to give churches freedom, you need ‘em
To keep other churches more tightly controlled!
You say that gay men have the same rights you claim, rights
To marry a woman—whichever they choose!
The judge, as you’ll quickly intuit, saw through it;
Your argument’s specious, and guess what? You lose!

Majorities see what they’ve wanted confronted
When sometimes their wishes are not what they ought
The judge, in his wisdom, saw through you, and knew you
Were moved by religion and prejudiced thought
“Gay marriage” is “separate but equal: the sequel”
It’s one institution, for straight or for gay
Just “Marriage” will do—it’s a beaut! Ah, but Utah,
I love what you’ve done in this ruling today!

It’s one to bookmark. No, not this verse, the Utah Same-Sex Marriage ruling:

The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution.

Few questions are as politically charged in the current climate. This observation is especially true where, as here, the state electorate has taken democratic action to participate in a popular referendum on this issue. It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action. But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself, and on the interpretation of that document contained in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.

It’s a great read–the stories of the plaintiffs make it clear that this is no abstract fight, but a genuine problem for real and relatable people. The judge, Robert Shelby (as is his duty) considers all the state’s reasons for denying marriage to same sex couples, and not only finds them lacking, but occasionally points out that the real effects are likely to be the polar opposite of what the state claims!

I was very interested to see what the state’s arguments actually were; I’ve argued this topic for years, and have yet to find a decent argument against same-sex marriage that was not either inane, fundamentally religious (and thus moot by virtue of the first amendment) or both. Here, though, we don’t have just morons on the internet arguing, but the lawyers for the state of Utah…. and the arguments are the same as you see made by idiots on the internet. Seriously, the state argued that (for instance) gay men have the same right to marry the woman they love as any straight man does. Therefore allowing them to marry the man they love would be giving them additional rights. They really argued that.

The arguments based on the state’s responsibility to promote “responsible procreation within marriage”?

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts….If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.

(page 44, if you are looking)

Seriously, bookmark this ruling; when the idiots on the internet make stupid arguments, and you want the perfect rejoinder (including precedents), you’ll be glad you did.

“We Want To Patriotically Ignore The Will Of The Voters. Patriotically!”

The last time constituents voted, they noted
That one of the issues was health care reform
One candidate promised, “don’t heal it—repeal it”
And promised to take on the nation by storm
The nation, by whom they elected, rejected
The notion that healthcare was nothing but trash
The losing Republicans, routed, just pouted,
And bought local races with shitloads of cash

The courts said the law, despite bluster, passed muster,
So now, on the books, it’s the law of the land
Too late for opponents, so screaming and scheming
Is all they have left, which they simply can’t stand.
Within their own party, the fractions of factions
Are zealously fighting their way to the right—
Where once there were moderate voices, no choice is
Allowed to seem soft, or unwilling to fight

The ideologically driven are riven
By forces that split them and make them unwise
They’ll claim they’re just heading where freedom will lead ‘em
And death’s on the table, before compromise
But the thing is, they lost! There’s no mystery—history
Shows that such losses have happened before!
With the pathway the voters selected rejected,
Democracy fails… the alternative’s war.

Oddly enough, the Tea Party Republicans put me in mind of this verse… I wonder why. Man, for people who loves them some constitution, they sure are quick to abandon it when the process leads to someone else winning.

Predictable Reaction To “Atheist Monument”

A Decalogue carved out of granite began it;
Jehovah’s commandments on six tons of stone
An atheist group then complained; they maintained
The establishment clause says it can’t sit alone
The lawyers advised “don’t take chances; your stance is
‘If one is allowed, well then, so are the rest’.”
So, while maybe it wasn’t their druthers, now others
Can join them, with multiple viewpoints expressed.

The atheists’ bench is the first one, the cursed one,
Reminding the county that godless exist—
That Florida’s not monolithically mythic;
That Christians don’t make up the whole of the list.
I’m hoping the Hindus will bring ‘em a lingam,
A huge granite phallus to add to the mix
So when councilmen pass, they will find a reminder
That some think the council are acting like dicks.

I read about the monument a couple of days ago, but of course the monument itself isn’t anything exciting to write about. It’s the reaction to the monument that gets fun. Mano predicted this yesterday, as reactions started to trickle in. Today, my aggregator is full of various Christian reactions to the bench.

“Good for them. I think it’s a perfect monument for atheists. It says it all. Atheism – it’s where asses go.“

(don’t skip the comments there. You will know they are Christians by their love. Oh! One of the comments makes the point that “Every public square without a Christmas Crib at Christmas is a monument to atheism.” which reminded me of this one from a while ago.)

“It’s absolutely ridiculous to have opposing viewpoints like this,” [Mat Staver of Liberty Council] says. “Certainly, Thomas Jefferson and Madelyn Murray O’Hair need not be opposing the 10 Commandments. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would be appalled that his writings would be used to oppose the 10 Commandments, which are the very basis of the rule of law.”

Which is why the first 4 commandments are explicitly overruled by the first amendment.

And while Fox News’s Tucker Carlson predicts (or urges) vandalism:

“I have a feeling that bench will be a magnet for graffiti,” Carlson said on this past weekend’s “Fox & Friends,” when discussing the planned atheist memorial.
“Just a guess,” Carlson added.

…at the same site, at least some see what “public free-speech forum” actually means:

Ken Weaver, a member of the Starke, Fla.-based group Community Men’s Fellowship, which originally erected the Ten Commandments monument at Bradford County Courthouse, previously told CP that he believes the American Atheists “has the same freedoms of expression as those of any other citizen or group.”

Of course, as of this writing, the only comment at that particular site is a simple “I concur Tucker”.

At the risk of repeating myself, you will know they are Christians by their love.

Moneyball, Politics, And Nate Silver’s Bet

The process of crunching each district’s statistics
Makes some people happy, but some people sad
The numbers the polls are reporting, supporting
Obama’s election, make Romney’s team mad
The “quants” find the stats’ inferential potential
A powerful weapon—the greatest one yet—
They’d back its conclusions ‘gainst bunches of hunches,
And unlike the hunchers, they’re willing to bet.

When faced with the Five-Thirty-Eighters, the haters
Will trust in the wisdom of “somebody said”
The confidence placed in some minion’s opinions
Stems largely from favoring blue state or red.
Belief is perception—our bias can pry us
To left, right, or center, in so many ways
But numbers are numbers—they show it; we’ll know it,
And all of it done… in a couple of days

Just search for “Nate Silver’s Bet”, and you’ll find all the context you need. I’ll link to The Atlantic’s take, cos it stands out a bit–Nate Silver is willing to put his money where his mouth is, and maybe political punditry would be better served if more writers had to back up their lip service with cold hard cash.

Binders Full Of Wrong

Let’s say you’re in charge of the hiring and firing—
You’re after a woman who’ll answer to you.
Assuming you’re needing a binder to find ‘er
You’re likely admitting you don’t have a clue
Despite your executive power, you cower,
Cos all of your partners, for years, have been men
You’re frightened to look past the he-males, at females—
Accustomed to capons, you don’t want a hen.

Your yes-men will tell you, debating’s creating
An alternate viewpoint; an alternate world.
Available polls seem to notice the POTUS
Is there at the top, with his banner unfurled.
The strategy thus far you’re trying (that’s “lying”)
May work in the short term, but not in the long;
The truth, though (the stuff you’re not saying)’s dismaying
Your lies do all right, but your truth is all wrong
[Read more…]

Debating The Debate (VP Edition)

This evening the veeps are debating, creating
A whirlwind of chaos—a media blitz
With donkeys and elephants doing the viewing
(and quite a few others who don’t give two shits)
We closely examine each faction’s reactions—
The reasons they’re likely to call it a “win”
The truth is, it only produces excuses
As partisans scramble, applying their spin.

The groups who would call it a horse-race, of course, face
The task of promoting their narrative views
For others, whose take is more subtle, rebuttal
Will never be seen on the six o’clock news
The debate may have vast, influential potential
Or maybe it’s little or nothing of note
I see, in a mix of conclusions, confusion…
It does, and it doesn’t, affect how you’ll vote.

Debate One

The question of who is the greater debater
Is not as important as sometimes it seems
We follow, to see who seems fitter, on Twitter;
Opinions are written, in digital reams
The candidates spar, and their minions’ opinions
Will saturate all the political shows
We’ll credit the better at spinning with winning—
It’s Rorschach on steroids, as everyone knows

Pretending it’s really a battle, they prattle,
Releasing the zingers they’ve practiced so long;
Attack—not the point, but the bearer—Jim Lehrer,
Make Lehrer look weak, cos it makes you look strong.
For those who believe that this drivel’s uncivil
For those who are watching as part of the crowd
For those who think all sides are trying? They’re lying.
The truth? This fiasco is what you allowed.

Could a moderator do a better job? Yes. Could one do worse? Probably. Would a moderator that actually holds candidates feet to the fire be tolerated? Right now? I don’t know, I’m a goddamn cephalopod, not an expert on this stuff. But damn. As always, a “debate” is actually anything but, and so many questions that could have been asked were not. This will always be the case. Well. This will be the case as long as we allow it.

Inertia is a bear and a half.

Could it change? Will it?

*sigh*

Guess God Was Only Ceremonial, After All

When grinding the “God” off your money, it’s funny,
It really brings home how the whole thing’s absurd
It’s patently clear—as I’m grinding, I’m finding
They think “God” is special; it’s only a word.
The metal where I am engraving’s behaving
Exactly the same as the rest of it does—
No magical force to make God’s word the odd word
As strong or as weak as the rest of it was.

Some see what I’ve done to a dollar, and holler
“Defacing our currency’s wrong, don’t you know?”
I’d call minting wrong in the first place the worst case
“God” didn’t belong, and so “God” had to go.
True, Congress won’t give God’s removal approval
But this is a cure that the law does allow
So these are the coins I’m intending on spending…
I like them much better the way they are now.

Pile of de-godded dollar coins

If the last post was “Before“, I suppose this one is “During”. “After” comes when these puppies are in circulation, which might be a bit harder to get pics of–or at least, more awkward. Again, greater context here.

This was trivially easy to do–on brand-new coins, it’s actually difficult to see that anything has been done at all; the coins are shiny enough that the freshly-exposed metal doesn’t stand out. On the older Sacajawea dollars (you can see one in the middle of the pile), the de-godification is a little easier to see, at least until the metal oxidizes again and it will look like regular wear.