Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.
Christopher Morley
Political Correctness Run Amuck: Nativity Scene at New York Ferry Terminal
The reason I mention this incident is because it reminds me of almost exactly the same type incident happening in one of the University of Texas graduate student dorms where I lived several years back; it seemed that there was lavish decorations promoting Hanukkah (Jews account for 3 to 4% of the US population), but whatever meager Christmas decorations had been alternately put up had been scrubbed clean of any traditional religious significance (the usual generic "holiday greetings" nonsense). My protest with the dorm staff went nowhere, of course.
I have distanced myself from many evangelical conservatives and in fact did not even mention the recent infamous crucified Jesus being eaten by ants video exhibit at the Smithsonian. [Could you imagine any artist showing a work even fractionally as offensive about the Prophet Mohammad?] I have a definite opinion regarding religious speech in the public sector; I think religious speech which is limited and general in nature (e.g., across Christian denominations), consistent with our nation's tradition of religious diversity, and not proselytistic is acceptable; an example is a brief prayer at Presidential inauguration or other special events (graduations). Religious speech is certainly not less equal than other speech. I find it utterly ludicrous and inconsistent that the President of the United States can call his political opponents "hostage takers", but there is something intrinsically offensive about the expression 'Merry Christmas' or a Nativity scene that even one anti-Christian activist can veto, that people must be protected from the mere words 'Christ' or 'Christmas' as if a vampire in the vicinity of a cross. (No doubt the name 'Christ' constitutes an undue burden on anyone from a different faith; everyone knows it must be a magic spell that instantly converts an infidel by its very sound...) To any self-important prohibitionist who thinks he possesses a moral, unconstitutional authority to veto religious speech: GET A LIFE.
Personnel at the St. George Ferry Terminal on Staten Island, NY removed an "unauthorized" Nativity scene, leaving untouched a Christmas tree and a Menorah. The rationale was that a Menorah doesn't have religious significance but a Nativity scene does. This is government bureaucratic double speak. Other public venues have a more consistent, balanced perspective: "At Borough Hall, for example, a Nativity scene, a menorah, a Christmas tree and a display for Kwanzaa share space next to each other in the lobby."
Personally, I don't go to public places to see Nativity scenes, Menorahs, postings of the Ten Commandments, etc. One can do the same in homes, churches or meeting places I am not against them, in the sense I think it reinforces the significance of religious tolerance in our nation's history and certain core ethical beliefs. What I don't like is the uncivil behavior and presumptuous, patronizing, disrespectful tone of atheists and others--and the double standards.
Joe Miller Loses First Alaska Court Battle on Murkowski Senate Reelection Victory
Joe Miller's unconstitutional attempt to strip thousands of Alaskans of their votes for Lisa Murkowski in last month's election was denied as Alaska Superior Court Judge William Carey correctly decided that Miller's allegations of voter fraud had been inadequately substantiated and the state had applied reasonable standards in counting minor misspellings as indicating of voter intent:
If exact spellings were intended by the legislature, even with respect to the most difficult names, the legislature could have and would have said so...There are many reasons why [misspellings] might happen, whether they involve a village elder who had grown up speaking his or her Native dialect, a recently naturalized citizen, a person with any one of a number of disabilities, or someone who just mistakenly left off a letter in his or her chosen candidate’s nameActually, I disagree with how the judge made his point, because it implies that the state legislature could demand exact spellings of difficult surnames, which seems to be on a collision course with the common sense exceptions stated later in the excerpt. As I have expressed in past posts (and psychologist Donald Norman has expressed in other contexts), human systems should be designed with error in mind.
Consider the following example I copied from a console2 session using Aspell (I intentionally misspelled "proselytize"):
C:\Program Files (x86)\Aspell\bin>echo prouclitise | aspell -a
@(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 (but really Aspell 0.50.3)
& prouclitise 18 0: proclivities, precocities, prodigalities, polities, precludes, frugalities, probities, proclaims, productize, prolixities, proselytize, proctors, puerilities, poultice, peculates, proximities, practice, proselytes
In a computerized system, it would be fairly easy to devise something to provide a picklist from official write-in candidates. But suppose we are stuck with pencil-and-paper ballot system: how could we deal with this?
One way is to limit the voter effort. For example, suppose Alaska had made it possible for a voter to attach a ballot-compatible self-sticking label with Lisa Murkowski's name on it. Or maybe a declared write-in candidate is assigned a 3-digit code (say, '206') based on any applicable petition thresholds on a FIFO basis by the election board.
Going back to my earlier statements: a ballot is not supposed to be a spelling test. I consider each citizen's vote a fundamental right in this republic. Even a state legislature does not have the right to establish a standard that artificially favors one candidate (e.g., 'John Smith') over another ('Lisa Murkowski').
Joe Miller's point is that there are unenumerated elements of subjectivity in the vote counting process, but that is intrinsic to the current write-in policy. The fact of the matter is that write-in votes typically amount to the lower single digits of percentages; preelection polls showed Senator Lisa Murkowski competitive with Joe Miller. It's simply ludicrous to believe that some unknown write-in candidate pulled in a significant number of votes. Miller is simply trying to strike Murkowski votes for any reason, no matter how trivial or dubious.
Since Lisa's election must be certified by January 5 to keep an important committee assignment, this legal process will likely be expedited. The federal court issued an injunction against Alaska's certifying Murkowski's victory until the state court process had reached its final disposition. Miller will likely appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, but the burden of proof will be on Miller to show reversible judicial error. The Alaska Supreme Court is expected to uphold Judge Carey's decision, and then the fight returns to federal court. I don't expect the federal court to overrule the state courts in this matter.
Political Humor
"In a recent interview, actress Salma Hayek revealed that she came to the United States illegally. How many guys are rethinking their stance on illegal immigration now?" - Jay Leno
[Well, Salma decided that marrying me to get her citizenship was an unbearable alternative. She has her standards, after all.]
An original:
- California public high school math teacher Tom Farbor is selling ads from dentists, hair salons, and others to subsidize the uncovered printing costs of his quizzes and exams. What a concept...imagine what I, during my days as a professor, could have made selling ads for the local tavern, Prozac, or IT recruiters...
Bing Crosby & Carol Richards, "Silver Bells"
