They Want To Be Presidents

The idea was I would write two blatantly non-topical columns over the holidays. Then, commencing with Epiphany, I would resume writing upon the immediate news of the day. Well -- mice, men, plans, awry.

Let's see, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated almost two weeks ago. The big news in Pakistan today: Musharraf told 60 Minutes that her being murdered was her own fault. Maybe they should hang her for the crime of suicide. Oh, rats, she cheated the hangman, she's already dead. The big news in the United States: "Bena-what Who-toe?" I mentioned the assassination to several fellow Americans that Thursday and at least one of them knew that Pakistan is a nuclear power, and so might be important. It's really hard to make light of an assassination anyway. Having to explain it as you go along takes ALL the fun out of it.

When stuck, I consult my Muse Cindy, Muse of Other, Muse of Few Words, whose name is not really Cindy, that's just the name on her Muse's badge when she works at the corner of Me and Myself. I said to her, "The immediate news is no good for a column. What should I do?"

[Right: Cindy often goes in for the Classic Greek look.]

Cindy changed from brunette to blond and back again and tried on a handful of figures while she thought about it. I could tell her answer was going to be longer than usual. She said, "Then don't use immediate news. Use old news."

Here's an old news item from St. Petersburg, Florida, November 28, 2007, that got a lot of attention at the time, so I won't have to explain every little detail of it. Joseph Dearing of Dallas TX asked this question of the presidential candidates in the CNN-YouTube debates: "I'm Joseph, I'm from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of THIS book? And I mean specifically THIS book that I'm holding in my hand. Do you believe THIS book?"

The good people at CNN probably had to cut this yahoo short. He probably went on to say, "I'm talking about THIS book in my left hand, I'm not talking about the book in my right hand! Don't look at my hands, look at the book! The one in my LEFT hand! My left, not your left! Stupid politicians! Look at the BOOK! What book do you see?" and so forth.

Joseph Dearing was right. The answers did tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about the Republican candidates for President of the United States.

Because not one of them told Joseph his question was inappropriate, it told us that not one of them recognizes an opportunity to uphold the First Amendment, or Article VI, Sec. 3, when he sees it, or that if presidential candidates let pass what amount to religious job interview questions, it undermines Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the laws they should enforce should they be elected.

Title VII specifically applies to the federal government as well as most employers with 15 or more employees. Churches are exempt, but the aforementioned First Amendment says the federal government isn't allowed to be a church.

It would have been nice if just one of the candidates had the presence of mind and the sense of responsibility to say, "I defend your right to ask your question. However, the US Constitution says there shall be no religious test for the presidency or any other US public office. Also, no citizen should be asked to affirm any religious belief for non-church related employment. Therefore, to show you that I care about the founding principles of the United States, and to support and affirm the established rights of our citizens, I will not be answering your highly inappropriate question."

Otherwise the next time you apply for work, the question will be, "The president believes in THIS book. How about you?"

Can You Say, “Conservapedia”?

Saturday, the P-I made my day by telling me about Conservapedia, the Right-Wing Christian answer to the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. I’ll make fun of Conservapedia momentarily, but first a few words on why it’s important to know things.

I have never contributed to Wikipedia because I don’t know anything more than, say, Socrates. Like Socrates, I know that Socrates knew nothing except that he knew nothing, and that Plato was his bitch. That would make a heck of a Wikipedia entry wouldn’t it?: “Socrates, circa 470-399 BC, self-acknowledged ignoramus. Everything Plato knew, he learned from Socrates.”

But don’t do as I do, do as I say: Know things.

Some say all you have to do is read the Bible, and then you’ll know everything you need to know. Since I’ve read it, that would make me cool, but I can shoot this notion down with just two words: April, fifteenth. Not in the Bible! But you need to know it! Joseph and Mary knew that taxes were due the same time she was. They wouldn’t have if they’d only gone by what was in the Bible in their day.

A woman I met was incensed when told to appear at a later hearing after pleading innocent to a minor charge. She said, “That’s not fair, I said I was innocent, why didn’t they believe me? Why are they making me do more stuff?” I guess it wasn’t enough that other people all around her have had this happen to them, throughout all of her life. It had to happen to her before it could get her attention. Don’t be that way. Pay attention to how others are being rooked, you’re in the same line.

One of the redeeming features of Conservapedia is its creators clearly agree on the point that I’ve been making, that it’s important to know stuff that isn’t in the Bible. That’s why they don’t only quote the Bible in their articles. Another redeeming feature is that it is still an open wiki, like Wikipedia. So anyone can edit it.

I am sorely tempted. Whenever I see a new encyclopedia I always check its math entries. So I looked up “Algebra” on Conservapedia to see algebra defined as arithmetic with letters used to stand for numbers. That’s like defining brain surgery as the rearrangement of brains with knives, as opposed to sledgehammers. There were no footnotes or references to direct the reader to more information. All that hard work, all those centuries, reduced to “algebra uses letters that stand for numbers.”

I’m also tempted to delete thousands of excess uses of the word “great.” Plutarch “wrote Plutarch’s Lives and many great essays.” “Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, a great satirical novel.” The United States “is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth.” It recalls the old Chris Farley Show on SNL. Farley to Paul McCartney: “…you remember when you were with The Beatles?” McCartney: “Yeah, sure.” Farley: “That was awesome!”

Anitra found this bit concerning George Washington: “Washington is perhaps the only person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power... “ That should be amended to “Washington is perhaps the only slave owner who ever declined other enormous worldly power.”

My favorite article on Conservapedia is the “Greek empire” entry under “Ancient Terms G.” Except for the initial definition (the Greek empire was the land controlled by Ancient Greece) the entire article consists of answers from contributors to the question “For what would you thank the Ancient Greek Civilization?”

Answers include such gems as “the insightful literature of Plato and Aristotle, especially The Republic, which I have read several times,” “I would like to thank the classical Greek civilization for the catapult,” and, best of all, “I would like to thank classical Greek civilization for the invention of man-boy love affairs.”

That’s some damn fine stupid writing!