That to which we aspire

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Less beautiful stuff below.

News clips on Youtube show us the real McCain  Most of it is devastating and ought to be played and replayed throughout the coming campaign.

On your mark. Get set. Grind your teeth!  McCain Campaign Agrees With CNBC Pundit: Americans Making $200,000 Are ‘Not Rich’

Look out below....

US sniper shot at Koran in Iraq  An American sniper has been sent home from Iraq for using a copy of the Koran for target practice at a shooting range near Baghdad, the US military says.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_ea...  A level of offense and stupidity that leaves me snarkless.

Scads of stupidity, and some snark, below....

Another timely, spot-on sermon from a very brave pastor way up nort' in Wisconsin's woods.

There is something to this unity, this “oneness” that Jesus so emphatically urges.  And yet, despite the urgings, we seem intent on focusing on what separates us, not that which draws us together.

Aw cripes, duh wife seen it comin' donchaknow:

More movement in a progressive direction is being detected in some evangelical circles. This time in the area of sexual matters.

Traditionally, it's been thought (and taught) by many, that Christians should believe sex is only for procreation. No fun allowed. However, there's a growing number of Christians that feel God created sex for a number of reasons. Yes, procreation is one, very important part, but the profound spiritual/physical power of sex is so much more complex and far reaching than simply that. Much less appreciated. Citing scripture, they say the Bible also encourages sex as a way to strengthen marital bonds, as a defense against indiscriminate lust, and as a means for dispensing pleasure and comfort. Far from being against adult sex education, a growing number of Christians now are actively seeking ways to improve their sex lives within the context of their faith.

All I can say is... Hallelujah!!!

Allow me be one of the first to offer my evangelical brothers and sisters good luck and Godspeed in this worthy endeavor of their's.

Christians Promote Holy, Hot Sex in Marriage
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

[editor's note, by PoliSigh]for your edumacation.


How stupid do they think we are? The bizarre spectacle of multimillionaire television journalists adopting faux working-class personae. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...

More news below.

A southwest Florida church has issued a unusal challenge for its married members...

............... HAVE SEX EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH!!!

Relevant Church head pastor Paul Wirth has issued a request that the married couples in his congregation have sex every day for 30 straight days. He says he's calling for this carnal devotion to take on the high divorce rates. Well, I suppose it might work, but I have my doubts.

Church Says: Take the 30 Day Sex Challenge!

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Volokh asks,

"If you engage in a three-way sexual encounter with [a current client] and [the client's girlfriend], is it "sex with a client," as forbidden by ethics rules?"

For the result of the actual, honest-to-G-d ethics complaint that asked this question, see here .

I have neither the time nor the energy to make this shit up.

So, in case you were wondering, as long as you don't actually touch your client, you can DP his girlfriend with him all you want! To which I say, Amen.

But in all seriousness, I usually leave "justice" to the philosophers. But today I have to say:

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?

I mean, seriously - if nothing else, we should look at the common, everyday usage of the term. Canons of statutory construction, people! I would clearly say, "Dude, I boned two girls last night." I might mutter under my breath, "So my girlfriend and I slept with this other dude last night." I might think in the dark recesses of my mind, "So I slept with this girl, and her boyfriend, last night." But in none of these cases would there be any doubt in my mind that I had sex with both the other participants.*

And one last point - wouldn't you have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the conference where the ethics board decided this case? Or be a staffer at the bar when the complaint comes in? Yeah, me too.

* - N.B.: The rhetorical flourishes implying shame in engaging in a two-man threesome are entirely the result of my early canalization; it does not in any way suggest an objective shamefulness to any sort of same-sex activity.

While I am sick of the Larry Craig story and its endless foot-tapping jokes, I am always fascinated by the intersection of how this nation tends to view "morality" and "values". Sadly, many who throw those terms around are not even clear on what the words actually mean.  

This morning when I read the local paper, the
Editor's column really caught my eye, as it discussed the journalistic take on such a story and the many tangled threads of sexuality morality and politicians.  Join me if you will...

This isn't easy for me.  This is a touchy subject at best, and one that inflames the passions without achieving anything at worst.  So I'm sitting here in my DuPont Circle hotel room with a glass of Jameson's Irish whiskey, and I'm pondering something that's been bothering me for a while.  

This post a while back started me thinking about this problem, but here it is:

What, if anything, is the difference between "consent" and "choice?"  Hence the title, but indulge me.

So here's the deal.  Obviously, at Law there is no difference between the two concepts - if you consent to something, you've chosen it, and vice versa.

But seriously, if (for one rather unpleasant example) a woman submits to sex so that her husband will stop hitting their children, certainly she's "consented," but can she be said to have made a free choice of her own volition?  Courts are starting to pick apart this question in this particular context, demanding a higher standard of proof for the defense of consent in rape cases, but what about other contexts?

For example, let's suppose that a person holds a franchise in a particular election.  Let's also suppose that one of the sides in that election has proceeded to bombard this voter with so much information that is at best misleading and at worst false about the other side that our voter is utterly confused.  Can their franchise be said to have any meaning?

If a campaign is entirely about Issue X, has the voter chosen to be governed with regard to Issue Y?  Of course, we sort of fiat the idea that yes, they have, but is that RIGHT?

Should Presidential candidates be required to offer substantive information on how they will govern in plain language on every issue?

This problem has some very wide implications.  In addition to the question of electoral legitimacy and the question of sex (did you ever think you'd see the phrases "electoral legitimacy" and "sex" conjoined?), there are, to my mind, issues of corporate governance - and not just in business, but also (and especially) in the non-profit and religious world.  If a congregation or a member body vests governance power in a particular individual for a particular reason, how can the membership protect themselves from action contrary to their interests - especially if the individual in question was vested with a vast authority when the organization was small and now that it's grown, their authority should be circumscribed?

I'm not entirely sure how to crack open this question such that the distinction I'm making has any meaning.  I'm especially unsure whether or not that question has an answer that's meaningful outside of a fact-intensive context.  I'm not sure that there are any general principles that can be articulated here.  But it's a conversation that needs to be had.

Here's a YouTube video that's been making the rounds, an Alanis Morrissette parody of the Black Eyed Peas' "My Humps."  It is truly bizarre.

For comparison, here's the original.

Here's the parody .

All I can say is...huh.  I never did get performance art.

But there is one small question for all you Prophets in possession of "lady lumps" (and I include fat men in thatjust kidding, I promise.  Don't hurt me).  Is there something to Morrissette's use of, let's be honest, fairly sleazy male dancers that is a comment not just on the original song, but also on some aspect of society itself?  

Is the original empowering to women, or degrading?  Okay, two questions.

Is there any sense to be gleaned from this at all, or is it simply Morrissette laughing at us all?  Fine, three questions.  I'm done.