Posted 5:42 PM by Floyd

Is The Passion of Christ anti-Semitic? My initial reaction is that these charges are specious. Christianity is a universal religion; it proselytizes to all, regardless of race/ethnicity. Yet the birth of God as man, and his murder and resurrection, had to occur at one specific place and time. I don't believe that it is essential to Christian theology that the son of God was named "Jesus" and was crucified by Jews and Romans in the year 33 A.D. He could have been named "Joseph", and been executed by Seleucid Greeks in the year 200 B.C. The Jewish leaders who agitated for Jesus' execution did so not as Jews, but as evil politicians. (And anyway, practically everybody in power in the first century anywhere in the world was pretty damned unsavory.)

On the other hand, the Gospels appear to take pains to excuse Romans and indict powerful Jews. This is true in the account of the crucifixion -- Pontius was willing to free Jesus, but the Jewish crowd liked Barabbas better. Pontius was not sure whether he should condemn Jesus, and sent him back to the Hebrew prelates. Also note the treatment of Romans vs. Jews elsewhere in the Gospels: Jesus overthrows the moneychangers' tables in the Temple, but when it comes to the Romans and their desire for money, well, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I don't think that the Gospel writers were anti-Semitic. But they did have to blame someone for Jesus' death, and in the late first century A.D. it was a lot safer to anger Jews than Romans.

And if Gibson goes beyond the Gospels in blaming Jews and exculpating Romans, as some have charged, then maybe "anti-Semitic" is a just characterization. (Especially since Gibson has little to fear from Emperor Trajan.)

But even if you grant that The Passion depicts Jews unfairly, let us maintain a sense of proportion. Gibson's treatment of Jews could not come close to the repulsiveness of this:

WASHINGTON (AP) Rep. Anthony Weiner, a frequent critic of United States policy toward Saudi Arabia, said Thursday that the Middle East country's new visa policy outlined on a tourist Web site should be quickly condemned by American officials.

The Web site, promoting a new Saudi program to offer tourist visas to encourage more foreign visitors, lists four groups not entitled to tourist visas, including "Jewish People."

The Saudi government has traditionally only issued travel visas for employment, Hajj pilgrimages, and other visits with official sanction.

In addition to Jews, the Web site by the Supreme Commission for Tourism also says it will refuse visas to anyone with an Israeli passport or a passport that has an Israeli stamp.

The Mercury News prominently featured a review of The Passion on its website this week. Here is the teaser that you see on the Merc web page:

Film critic Glenn Lovell says "Twisted" is a predictable, completely unsuspenseful time-killer that benefits only from its San Francisco locations while Mel Gibson's excruciating "The Passion of the Christ" is guilty of anti-Semitism.

The Saudi story appears nowhere on the Merc's website.

Posted 1:27 PM by Floyd

State censorship of television and radio is real, and it affects more than just whether Howard Stern can talk dirty to strippers. James Donald explains why in this post from Usenet:

The existence of the CEO's job depends on continuing approval
by state bureaucrats.

As I have pointed out before, compare made-for-TV cartoon
Zorro, who is a sort of deputy of the governor, with made for
movies Zorro who is an armed revolutionary against the state
and the governor.

Compare made for TV batman, again a sort of police deputy, with
made-for-movies batman, who is a vigilante the police are
trying to arrest.

Compare illegal recreational drugs in the movies, with illegal
recreational drugs on television. The hand of the state is
painfully visible.

Compare made for movies heroes like Braveheart --
revolutionaries, with made for TV heroes -- state
functionaries.

More Donald, on the subject of Howard Stern:

James A. Donald>
> > There are no genuinely private stations. Private stations
> > send their signal over government owned air waves subject to
> > licenses that can be pulled for any reason or no reason,

Guilherme C Roschke
> is that what the law on this says?

I do not know if it uses those exact words, but that is the effect
of goverment ownership.

It says that the punishments are administrative, and not judicial,
which in practice silences dissent. For example though Howard
Stern was theoretically fined for obscenity, his response was to
stop talking politics, which means that he, like me, interpreted
it as a fine against his political position.

Posted 9:25 PM by Floyd

So Howard Stern has been dumped from six ClearChannel stations in advance of Congressional investigations into "indecency" on television. Jeff Jarvis was outraged:

: The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny.
Let's hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech.
Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds.
Let's hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech.

Jarvis' words prompted over 200 comments, most of them extremely critical. Here are the most common counter-arguments:

• It's not a problem because Clear Channel is a private company:
  
  

  
  Private companies making their own decisions on what they will tolerate from their employees--the horror!
  

  
  
  Sorry, this is not an action taken by a private company for its own reasons. It is an action taken by a private company to appease the government. Clear Channel was just fined $755,000 for the antics of another of its shock jocks. Various Congresscritters have been howling for blood ever since Janet Jackson's breast was (somewhat) exposed at the Super Bowl.
  
  Would I have a right to complain if I were mugged? So the guy did tell me "Gimme that money or else," but hey, giving someone your wallet is a private transaction!
  
  
• The public airwaves are America's Sacred Trust and must not be exposed to boobies:
  
  

  
  I think you've lost sight of the fact that radio and TV broadcasters (as opposed to cable/satellite producers) operate on a public monopoly and have always had a mission to provide a public service. Janet Jackson's breast flopped out on 200 or so channels that no one else can broadcast on because CBS holds those local frequencies as government-granted monopolies. Since they are government monopolies, and since there's no other way to allocate frequencies except to one broadcaster at a time, it presents no conflict to me that those private businesses cashing in on government monopolies be required to do so in a manner that serves the vast majority in their broadcast area. In that regard, these private businesses are actually allowed a tremendous amount of leeway; the only restrictions are those of "decency" and not of political message, and even at that only during certain hours of the day.
  

  
  
  "Racism" means "whatever some liberal doesn't like." I am beginning to believe that "monopoly" means "whatever some economic illiterate doesn't like." I can receive 500 channels if I buy a satellite dish, but CBS has a "monopoly" because they use Channel 5? Well, I have a "monopoly" on "floyd.best.vwh.net." I'd better call Bill Gates and ask if I can borrow some of his lawyers.
  
  The assertion that radio frequencies are somehow special, and require state monitoring and censorship, is one of the shabbiest excuses for the modern regulatory state. What would a radio station do if someone broadcast on the same frequency? Probably the same thing I would do if someone built another house on my lot. I get along just fine without a "Federal Land Title Commission," and as a bonus my activities on my property do not have to meet "community standards."
  
  
• Freedom of speech applies to politics, not artistic expression:
  
  

  
  You are comparing bananas to peanuts. Do you really want to equate political/religious speech with "sexually explicit language and graphic[] discuss[ion of] a pornographic videotape"?
  

  
  
  What about South Park? It's a foul-mouthed, nasty show, but it also makes some very cogent points about contemporary politics and culture. To say that entertainment is not protected by freedom of speech is to say that people cannot use controversial entertainment to make a political point.
  
  
• Howard Stern's speech is put to trivial use, so why protect it? Here is what James Lileks posted in today's Bleat:
  
  

  
  I think it's a shame he was reprimanded. I don't think people understand what's at stake here. We need to coarsen public discourse as much as possible as quickly as possible, because a free and open society depends on the right of Pink to flash her labia at the next Superbowl. I'm serious: if we don't see a clitoris on the Jumbocam, this nation is OVER.
  

  
  
  What's at stake is that Stern is a citizen, with the same rights as me or Lileks. If we ask courts to make decisions that vary depending on whether defendants are serious-minded or silly, where would it stop?
  
  
• People have a right not to be offended by broadcasts:
  
  

  
  I don't have to be subjected to Janet Jackson's bra being ripped off in front of my 10-year old daughter and her friends on the public airwaves. I agree with most of the other posters and don't feel I have to summarize their excellent arguments regarding Howard Stern: you are way off base here.
  

  
  
  And, more succinctly though perhaps less felicitously,
  
  

  
  Your right to watch naked titties ends at everyone else's cornea. And when it comes to network TV, in daylight hours, that's a lot of corneas that you can offend.
  

  
  
  I think that this is the only argument that holds water. I also think it's pretty much what everyone who disagreed with Jeff thinks, even if they didn't say so. And I sympathize: I often find Stern rank and crude. I don't like a lot of the sex and violence on television.
  
  But: America is a huge, free, rich, diverse country. It has diverse cultures, politics, and richness of media. How can one person possibly expect that turning on the television or the radio will not occasionally offend him? Why do people think that of the hundreds of shows on television, each and every one of them is suitable for their children? It's as if you were to go into town and invite the first person you saw to your house for dinner. If he was ill-mannered, or smelly, or drank too much, would you really have grounds for complaint?
  
  Furthermore: What I think is appropriate for me, or for children, is a completely different issue than whether it is moral for a government agency to levy huge fines on foul-mouthed people.
  

Posted 2:35 PM by Floyd

Attention All Homosexuals:

We, the heterosexual community of America, have decided that marriage must be defended. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. We heterosexuals who happen to be president of the United States also believe that defending marriage will cause many religious conservatives to vote for us. The details can be found in a spreadsheet on Karl Rove's computer.

Marriage is about a deep lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. That is why it is possible for any man and woman to go to a county courthouse and get married on the spur of the moment. Obviously an institution that demands the sacrifice of fifty dollars and one hour cannot be opened to people who have been in a relationship for just a few years. Or decades.

Marriage is so sacred, and such a serious matter, that in the city of Las Vegas it is possible to be married in a drive-through chapel. It is also possible to be married by an Elvis impersonator. How can we open this serious institution to a bunch of frivolous gay and lesbian people? What have they done to show that they are serious about being wed, other than to stand out in the rain all night in the chilly clime of San Francisco?

Marriage is possessed of a solemn dignity. For example: A television show purports to chronicle the marriage of a beautiful woman and a clumsy, fat man. The woman, and her family, are humiliated in front of millions of people. The woman chooses to marry the fat man for very noble reasons, which consist of half a million dollars and the desire to be seen on national television. This dignity, this mien, cannot possibly be understood by gays and lesbians.

We heterosexuals who defend marriage so ardently against encroachment by homosexuals do not also complain about drive-through chapels, or reality shows that pay people to become married. This is not because we hate fags. It is merely a coincidence.

Posted 6:07 PM by Floyd

One of the games you can play with Google is to create a "singleton" search: A search that yields exactly one result. I get a lot of hits from Google searches, but today was my first singleton:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22a+football+team+with+a+university%22&btnG=Google+Search

I was really the first one on the Web to think of the phrase "Football team with a university attached to it?" It's not the kind of fame I thought I would achieve when I was growing up, but I'll take it.

Posted 11:59 AM by Floyd

A major American corporation closely regulates its employees' bathroom usage. Restrooms are locked, and workers are given "bathroom passes" -- just 15 per month.

This obviously poses health risks for the workers, as it's not healthy to restrict one's fluid intake or urination:

"Common sense tells you the policy doesn't make any sense," said Dr. Christopher S. Cooper, an associate professor of urology at the University of Iowa who specializes in pediatric urology. "When [people] need to go, they should be allowed to go. It isn't good to hold it in or drink less fluids. It could have long-term effects on a [person]'s health."

So who is this horrible company that won't let its employees use the bathroom? Well, I lied. It's not a corporation. I described a New Jersey middle school.

I found this story on Joanne Jacobs' blog. Now this restroom policy would get a business sued in no seconds flat, but no matter; there's always someone willing to defend the educational subsection of America's penal system:

The problem is that middle school and high school students tend to do naughty things in bathrooms, ranging from graffiti, destruction of the facilities (expensive!), to smoking, to assault of other students (rape and murder in two recent local cases I'm aware of). Schools don't have the staff to monitor bathrooms constantly (and you wonder why education is so expensive per child). Of course the kids have to pee during the day (so do I, but I have to time it carefully for lunch and my plan period -- when I have one -- since I can't leave the classroom when I have students in it). There would be no problem if kids actually went to the bathroom to pee, but in too many cases, that's not the intent. The intent of the schools is not to torture kids, but keep them safe. What's *your* solution to the problem?

"Stop behaving like a concentration camp administrator" is not polite, but it is a solution.

There was also someone to remind us that whatever problems people might face, it's the suffering teachers who have it worst:

I know the topic is about kids and bathrooms, but we teachers have to hold it all the time. According to this California Teachers Association link, bladder infections are particularly common to teachers. So are foot and voice problems.

Well yes, those jackboots can lead to heel problems.

Why was this policy instituted? Because school administrators have a mortal terror of disciplining any individual child; the only way they can deal with problems is to make all children miserable:

It is the latest in a series of disciplinary measures implemented by school administrators in response to behavioral problems that have included bomb threats scrawled on a bathroom wall.

School officials defend the policy as a way to ensure safety, security and order.

Of course these measures just feed the problem they allegedly try to solve. If you had to spend six hours a day in a place that didn't let you go to the bathroom, wouldn't you feel like writing something nasty on the wall?

I went to a high school that had no locks on its lockers. The bathrooms were open, and so was the campus; when lunchtime came around you were free to go home, or to Jim's Deli for a sandwich. (I'm not describing some idyllic rural past; I went to high school twenty years ago, in a small town in upstate New York that had the greatest number of bars per capita in the state.) Our school had no real disciplinary problems, and our teachers did not feel compelled to behave like prison guards.

Now this was a private (though by no means expensive) Catholic school that could accept and expel students at will. And of course that made all the difference. Also the principal was not some mealymouthed bureaucrat who hid behind stupid rules. He was a short, muscular man in his fifties who grew up in Hell's Kitchen and had been a monk, a stereotypical tough urban Irishman. If there was a problem, he fixed it. (The stereotype of the milquetoast high school principal is not something that I readily understand. Our principal scared the hell out of us.)

Today's schools are so restrictive that I really can't believe what I hear: Closed campuses where students cannot leave for lunch; 15-minute lunch breaks; students who are suspended -- and arrested -- for sharing asthma medication; boys who are given Ritalin because they display youthful energy. Isn't it time for Americans to step back to a neutral point of view and take a critical look at what goes on in America's public schools?