The Week That Was

What has been exciting the nattering classes on Twitter and the net in general this week?

The "comedian" set to replace Jon Stewart on The Daily Show had a set of Tweets from his Twitter feed emblazoned around the net, Tweets which indicate that either a) he is sexist; b) he is anti-Semitic; c) he is both and/or immature; or d) those by whom he was chosen to pick up JS's crown were seriously bad judges.

Most of today's comedians (and script writers) aren't witty enough or clever enough to be funny without being mean, cruel or outright gross, so Mr Noah's attitudes ought not to be surprising. What does puzzle me is why replacements for a couple of shows (The Daily Show and the Late Late Show on CBS vacated by Scot, Craig Ferguson) could not have been found among American comedians or presenters. Why go to English (James Corden) and South African (Trevor Noah) individuals?

The net was also excited by a legal matter - what I'm thinking of as "Son of Hobby Lobby" - for reminders about the parent see archived posts here, here and here.

This week's bout of chattering and nattering included Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

From link above:

If you’ve been following the controversy over Indiana’s new religious freedom law, you might be confused about what it really says and what it will actually do.

Some people describe the law as a “sword” that would allow discrimination against same-sex couples. Others say it’s a “shield” that would give people more freedom to follow the dictates of their faith.

Some say the law would give businesses more leeway to pick and choose which customers to serve. Others say it won’t make much difference -- that even with the law in place, virtually all businesses will end up behaving just as they would have before.

Some say the statute represents a significant change in the legal landscape, enacted at the behest of the Republican Party’s most conservative supporters. Others say it is strikingly similar to existing laws, including one that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and that a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, happily signed more than two decades ago.
Which one of these statements is correct? All of them.

Here we go again then, on a slightly different track from Hobby Lobby, but heading in the same direction...trying to get rid of that pesky (to some) separation of church and state.

The most popular example of what Indiana's (and some other states') laws might bring about has been related to wedding arrangements for a same-sex marriage. For example, a business refusing to provide flower arrangements or wedding cake, etc. to a same sex couple on religious grounds would not be liable to legal proceedings brought on the basis of discrimination.

Never having been in the market for either wedding flowers or wedding cake, in spite of having been married twice (fluffy weddings are not my thing, marriage I can just about tackle), I can still see how insulting and hurtful it would be, at such a happy time in life, to be refused service on such grounds as sexual orientation. There'd be a rather odd, counter-productive business practice going on, on the part of the other party too! While same sex marriage pairs are free to vote with their feet and purses to go elsewhere with their business and obtain their wedding fineries from more enlightened retailers, a scar from that refusal will remain, and it'd be one that surely ought to be unthinkable to have been caused by any business person claiming to follow the paths laid out by Jesus Christ.

A comment under another Huffington Post piece struck me as worthwhile saving - it was by one Fran Moore:

These laws are clearly a promotion of religion. They provide those who profess a particular religious belief the privilege of being exempt from the law...a privilege not granted to those citizens who don't have that particular belief.

That would give ALL those found guilty of illegal discrimination either an appeal based on claiming a sincere religious belief or even the basis for claiming the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws violates their XIV amendment protections of equal protection!

It was interesting that in the Hobby Lobby case five members of the court that is supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law ignored the constitution and cited congressional legislation instead.

What is even more remarkable about that is the law they cited was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power.

So why did those justices decide that their "interpretation" of that law and not the Constitution had jurisdiction in that case?

They not only avoided applying the Constitution to the Hobby Lobby case, they did so by ignoring the serious constitutional problems of the law they used to justify their ruling.

As Ginsberg implied...what now see what the obvious motivation behind using the RFRA was...the five conservative Justices wanted to grant states the precedent for establishing their own RFRAs...
These ideological justices feel they have now addressed the previous ruling against the federal RFRA in 1997 without addressing the underlying constitutionality of providing exemptions to constitutional law.

RFRAs clearly violate of the establishment clause and the XIV amendment...so all the SCOTUS did in the Hobby Lobby case was to delay the inevitable ruling on the constitutionality of the federal RFRA and subsequent state enacted religious "freedom" laws.

If that comment was a bit too sober and serious, and you have a spare few minutes still, do go take a look at what blogger Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station had to say about this topic in his post headed Dear Christians: A Modest Proposal.

And FINALLY...some good news!

Though the deal will not be sealed until later this year, a framework agreement, relating to Iran's nuclear program, was announced in Switzerland on Thursday. Agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 (five permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the USA, plus Germany). It could be indication of better days ahead unless, of course, opponents manage to derail the agreement. Nothing is ever certain, but there is now at least room for hope. See HERE.

1) Gays' Hurrays.....2) Zodiac Types in Fiction

#1....Good news arrived for the LGBT front this week:

In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there................(SEE HERE)

Lots of articles and commentary have flooded the net on this topic already, so I'm limiting my own contribution to links to previous postings touching on the Gay rights issue (most have some comments attached):

From March this year:
GAY MARRIAGE

from June 2011:
Homosexuality, Astrology, Prejudice

From June 2009:

Stonewall, Prejudice, Astrology.

#2..ZODIAC TYPES in FICTION (Gone With the Wind, Little Women, Ally McBeal.)

I wonder how often authors of novels, or screen writers for film and television consider astrology, or more likely, simplified Sun Sign astrology, when describing characteristics of the individuals who bring to life their books and dramas? I've thought about this several times in the past - there are posts on this very topic relating to Gone With the Wind (HERE) and Little Women (HERE) with suggestions in the posts and in several comments beneath them as to astrological matches to characters in the novels.

Another instance of what I'll call ZIF (Zodiac in Fiction) came up for me recently. We're years late catching up with what used to be a hugely popular TV series in the USA from 1997 to 2002: Ally McBeal.

My husband, out on some errand by himself spotted a garage sale in the neighbourhood and came home clutching a big white box, still cellophane wrapped. It was the entire 5-season series of Ally McBeal on DVD, and he paid only $3 for it plus another, single DVD (can't even recall the film). Such sets cost a lot more than $3 on the net. We suspect this set might have been produced for the Chinese market, a clue: choice of subtitles = Cantonese, Korean, Mandarin - and English. We're almost to the end of Season 2 now, and greatly enjoying the series.

Ally McBeal was created and mostly written by David E. Kelley whose series are always A-grade (LA Law, Boston Legal, The Practice, Picket Fences, Harry's Law to name the best known).
More on Kelley, and his natal chart in an archived post HERE.

The Ally McBeal series had a super cast, good musical interludes with vocalist Vonda Shepard, well-written characters, humour, romance, whimsy, fantasy and frequently interesting courtroom dramas.

Ally McBeal, played by Calista Flockhart, and one of the senior partners of the law firm for which she works, John Cage, played by Peter MacNicol, share a birthday we were told in the course of Season 2. This revelation immediately had me surmising on a Sun sign for them. It had already become obvious the two had similar characteristics: a definite quirkiness, romantic awkwardness, mild eccentricity and frequent dips into whimsy, while both remained talented in their professional life as courtroom lawyers. A quick Google search sent me to a site where commenters were betting on Scorpio as Ally's likely Sun sign - mainly because it's Calista Flockhart's, who plays Ally. That could not possibly be correct, here's why.

Each season devotes an episode to Thanksgiving and an episode to Christmas, presumably to be screened during November and December. Characters are always muffled in scarves, gloves and hats for outdoor scenes, it's often snowing in Boston,where the series was set, in these episodes. In season 2, in an episode following fairly quickly after the Christmas one, there was a combined birthday celebration for Ally and John - so it could not possibly have taken place in Scorpio time. More likely, and I had already suspected, Ally and John, and their shared whimsy, fantasy, and eccentricities alongside otherwise very astute legal minds, must surely have Neptune/Pisces and/or Aquarius/Neptune/Pisces prominent, with likely some Capricorn in there too, strong link to the law.

It's all just fiction, of course. I doubt that David E. Kelley gives two hoots about astrology, though perhaps one of his assistants might have offered hints.

If any passing reader has an instance of ZIF, a pet fictional character or situation, from well-known novels, TV or films, with likely matching Sun Sign - do let me know !

Gay Marriage

The topic of gay marriage is in the news yet again with the Supreme Court's deliberations on the issue proceeding this week. Personally, I cannot see what people can find to complain about if two gay people wish to marry. It affects nobody but the two parties involved. Laws against smoking in public places, sale and use of alcohol and drugs, especially when driving, or texting when driving are different - those activities affect others detrimentally - sometimes fatally. Gay marriage doesn't affect others. So......?

I also agree though, from a slightly different perspective, with what Norman Pollack wrote yesterday at Counterpunch in a piece headed Gay Marriage: A Contrarian's View :

SNIP~~~

..........But let’s put the issue of gay marriage into context, i.e., prioritizing national goals. At this time, the issue is a diversion and trivialization, in the face of large-scale poverty, the vast gulf in wealth-and-power differentials, militarism run amuck, the nation in steep decline with respect to its social safety net, etc. Frankly, compared with the civil rights struggle, which NYT raises as analogous, and in which in the 1950s-60s I was active, I find proponents and affected parties of gay marriage self-indulgent and flaunting their preferences as though that form of discrimination raises to the plane of deprivation experienced by others in America’s long history of oppression and repression.........

There are far more urgent issues facing the country, and the planet - those mentioned above, and the old elephant in the room: climate change - but not many out there seem at all interested in seriously addressing them.