f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

October 8, 2005

pithy pumpkin poetry

Filed under: Haiku or Senryu,pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 5:00 pm

pumpkin2 After a week of prolix punditry on our Home Page, haikuEsq has re-asserted himself. Below, you’ll find a crop of pumpkin haiku and senryu. We’ll be adding more by our Honored Guests, as we dig them up.


a giggling coven–
stunted pumpkins
left in the patch

………………………………… paul m.

(3rd place, Shiki Kukai, Nov. 1997)

dry leaves scattered
over roadside pumpkins
the first hard frost

……………………………….. Matt Morden pumpkin neg


pumpkin field

i look back on the face

of a summer love

…………………………. ed markowski

a frown
of concentration
pumpkin carving

carved
into a green pumpkin
queasy face

John Stevenson – “a frown” – Modern Haiku, XXX:2, 1999; “carved” – South by Southeast, 7:3, 2001

pumpkin patch — pumpkin lift

this one is big enough

for my son

 

……………………….. Yu ChangUpstate Dim Sum (2005/I)

autumn sun–
the lawyer carries home
a pumpkin

Barry George

autumn emptiness

i leave the pumpkin

just as it is

 

 

pumpkins rumble

in a passing pick-up…

october sunset

……………….. by ed markowski

………………….. see Lissa & James shop for pumpkins

pumpkin patch-

I sever half a dozen

before my boys agree

…………………………………… Jason Sandord Brown

first day of fall

pumpkin pie

from scratch

 

three-headed stranger –

on his shoulders a pumpkin

and a harvest moon

 

pumpkin

floating in the river

Hunter’s Moon


 

perched on pumpkin2

the sumo’s belly —

one large pumpkin

 

……………………. by dagosan:

“perched on” – Nisqually Delta Review (summer/fall issue 2006)


pumpkin neg potluck

Peace Protestors Banned from Pumpkin Fest Parade: This is a

little hard for me to swallow. The DeKalb, IL, Pumpkin Fest won’t

let the DeKalb Interfaith Network for Peace & Justice participate

in this year’s parade — apparently because the organizers received

a number of written and oral complaints about their past participation.

Organizers said they don’t need a reason to reject a group and that

“nothing controversial” would be allowed. The peace group offered

to “carry only signs that promoted peace, not any that referred to

any particular political issue, war or federal office holder,” but that

was rejected. (DeKalb Daily Chronicle, “Pumpkin fest bans pro-peace

marchers,” Oct. 8, 2005)

 

 

pumpkin2 pumpkin2f

 

faith, agendas and the supreme court

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 2:17 am

That sneaky Professor Bainbridge has gone and done it again — writing

something I can agree with (up to a point, of course).  See his The Faith Card 

and our immediately prior post  . . .more honest than the wink game (both

dated Oct.7, 2005).  

 

                                                                             bainbridgePix

 

Steve is correct, of course:  It is inconsistent for conservatives

to try to banish all talk of religious views in the John Roberts’

confirmation process, but now use Harriet Miers’ evangelical

faith as a reason to support her.   In discussing John Roberts’

Catholicism, however, Steve and I agreed that relgion is relevant

if a judge’s religion will trump his or her customary legal analysis

when dealing with particular issues. 

 







          on the wall
    Jesus on the cross
above her side of the bed
 


     Tom Clausen

           from Homework (2000)

 

dog black Prof B. puts it well: “First, judges are supposed to decide

cases based on the law not their religious beliefs . . As I observed

earlier in commenting on Miers’ reputation for being a “pit bull in size

6 shoes”:


If confirmed, Miers’ job therefore will require her to set aside

her “very strong views of what’s right and wrong” in favor of

those moral norms and policies that have sufficient social

support – or, in the case of constitutional and statutory

interpretation, those norms and policies reflected in the texts

and the intent of their drafters – to be legitimate grist for the

judicial mill.

Steve adds, and I concur (although surely drawing constitutional lines

a bit differently than he): “That holds true whether her ‘very strong views’

are based on secular or religious reasoning. Hence, the White House’s

strategy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role.”

 

 

tiny check  Therefore, those who claim that you can never ask about religion or  

ideology in the nomination or confirmation process go too far.  The Senate

and the public deserve to know if a justice would feel beholden to a higher

power than the Constitution and laws of the United States.  


JohnRobertsPix  Chief Justice Roberts gave the appropriate answer in his

hearing, when he said:  “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play

a role in my judging. In judging, I look to the law, I do not look to the

Bible, or other religious source.”

Rather than silencing all talk of religion by conservatives for fear of liberal 

Inquisitions” in the future, I think this is a perfect time for thoughtful

people across the political spectrum to help delineate the proper — very 

limited – role of questions concerning the impact of religion on a judge’s

judicial behavior.  As I indicated earlier tonight, when faith is important in

your overall evaluation of a judge, admitting it has the very big advantage

of being truthful.  The hypocrisy of all the winking and tactical maneuvering

and semantics is a terrible sight for children (and adults) to see.

 



tiny check  Also (and this should be obvious), members of

the public can support a nominee for whatever reasons

they like.  It’s the President and the Senate who

have to apply the proper criteria.

 

Prof. Bainbridge also notes that Rev. Patrick Mahoney believes playing

the Faith Card is inconsistent with the tack many conservatives took during

the Roberts nomination.  While I agree with Fr. Mahoney that “you can’t

have it both ways,” I’m far from certain of the bona fides of some sectors

of the “faith community” who argued that religion was totally out of bounds 

in the Roberts’ confirmation process. 

 



jogging

just past the church

I clean my glasses

 

    Tom Clausen 

        from Upstate Dim Sum (2003/I) 

 

For example, the only politically active Catholic group that I have observed  wolf dude neg

closely over the past few months is Priests for Life, whose national director

is Father Frank Pavone. (prior post)  During the Roberts confirmation process,

and now with Harriet Miers, Fr. Pavone’s tactics seem more like those of a

shrewd activist with a political agenda than a holy man preaching truth and

hoping to win converts.  Click here for my compilation of some of the materials

on the Priests for Life website, which show the political hardball behind PfL’s

religious dogma — e.g., the clear religious litmus test being forcefully applied

to Senators and candidates,while preaching that personal religious views should

not be relevant in the Supreme Court confirmation process.

 

PfL updates its website daily, spotlighting one new item.  I will end this post

with two items posted this week, relating to the Miers’ nomination and to

confirmation of judges.  I offer no commentary, but you are encouraged to draw

your own conclusions and leaves thoughtful comments (for example, on whether

shifting the ideological balance on the Courts ASAP is important to Fr. Pavone)..

 

– from the Priests for Life Daily Update Page:


 

October 6, 2005  Priests for Life Press Release (issued Oct. 3, 2005):

 


 

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the

National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning

for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a timely

manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way

as well.  

 

“Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important

process.  We trust the President’s judgment and his determination to fulfill his

promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.

 

“The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political

races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should

be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues.”

 

 

 


 


 

F-1:  We face a crucial election this year, since those who are elected

to the US Senate may have the opportunity to confirm the next justices

for the US Supreme Court, as well as many positions on other Federal

courts.  

 

For the passage of laws that favor the right to life, and for the appointment

of Justices who will protect that right, the President cannot act alone. The

Senate must vote in a pro-life direction. That will happen only if we vote in

a pro-life direction when we elect our Senators. A commitment to the right

to life is not identical to a commitment to any particular political party. No

party perfectly embodies the Gospel, nor is our loyalty to party supposed

to be stronger to our loyalty to our moral convictions

 

update (Oct. 15, 2005): At PrawfsBlawg, Paul Horwitz has a lengthy

discussion of the role of religion in the judicial selection process.  His

summary is :


“[T]he upshot is: properly speaking, there is no religious test

problem here; more broadly, events surrounding this nomination

raise questions about transparency and cynicism and make

clear that clumsy treatments of the intersection between religion

and law are not the sole province of the left, or of the non-religious;

and I am disappointed that the Becket Fund, which embraced a

broad view of the Religious Test Clause where religion is a

disqualification for judicial office, has not been equally liberal in

its views of whether religion may permissibly serve as a qualification

for judicial office.”


(Oct. 13, 2005).

 

 

– as usual, we cool down with a haiku or two:

 

 









autumn colors-

how assertive

she becomes

 

 


playing a childs game
    I learn all
     his rules

 

 


           from Homework (2000)

 












                scales rich poor neg

 

Powered by WordPress