Suck

"a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun" for 24 June 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.
	Hit & Run CLXXXIV God's post-Columbine media bounce has opened the door for enterprising believers. Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) sponsored a stealth rider to a "juvenile justice bill," allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools. The measure was heartily supported by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. We figured the organization's legal counsel, John Eidsmoe, would make a fine subject for one of our "funny" interviews. But God is not mocked. In the same way that the Ten Commandments bill blew through the God forsaken competition (passing by 248 to 180), our interviewer was easily outfoxed by the wily lawgiver: One of the arguments in favor of this bill was that if the Ten Commandments had been hanging at Columbine High, the shootings never would have happened. Was the problem that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were worshipping idols? I don't know that I want to be quoted on that. [Off-the-record references to various public-record reports.] I can't confirm any of that or speak with any authority on that. Do you think this would have prevented the tragedy? All I can say is that it might have made a difference. And Congressman Aderholt himself has said that this is not a panacea, but at least teaching people that there are absolute standards of right and wrong — and respect for human life is one of the most basic of those — is a step in the right direction. We used to make these "hand turkeys" at Thanksgiving, where you'd trace your hand and make a turkey out of the tracing. Technically, that's a violation of the commandment that says you can't make an image of anything that is in the Heaven above or the earth below. Would that be illegal under the Ten Commandments? There are a number of ways to interpret that commandment. One is that it prohibits you from making a graven image of God himself. The other is that you're prohibited from worshipping it. So if the class continues to make images, and one kid sees that the Commandments are being violated, and his anger waxes hot, and he breaks the tablets, should he be suspended? I would say so, yes. Any kind of vandalism is a basis for disciplinary action. I'm not going to tell the school what kind of action it should take, but one of the things we have to learn, living in a diverse society, is that we have to have some respect for things we may not approve of. I see things all the time in school that I don't approve of, but that doesn't give me the right to go in and break them. Even if Moses did? Well, Moses had a special dispensation from God that I don't think I've been given. If I walk into the science lab and see an exhibit — let's say, a plaster model of transitional fossils that show an evolutionary projection from apes to man — I would personally disagree with them, but if I went in and broke them up, I think I should be charged criminally. What do you think is a more serious problem in schools — drugs or the coveting of maidservants? Well, I think there can be a relation between them. Anytime you're coveting something that you're not supposed to have, that can lead to trouble. Now on drugs, you're probably going to make the point that drugs are not specifically prohibited in scripture, but I think the commandments against drunkenness are broad enough to include any kind of mind-altering substance. That's not one of the Ten, though. No, it's not one of the Ten, but it is covered in other parts of scripture. Speaking of the other parts of scripture, right after the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 21 and 22, there are some laws, like the one that says you're not allowed to suffer a witch to live, which if I were one of those "Wiccan" kids, I'd be pretty concerned about. Well, there's a question about whether they are witches. Most of the neo-pagans would say the classic definition of a witch doesn't fit them. Now again, with a witch it depends on what kinds of things they're doing. If they're engaging in some kinds of Satanic activities that are harmful to others, that would be the basis for some action to be taken. Otherwise, no. I've got time for one or two more questions. OK, if one kid's ox pushes another kid's maidservant or manservant, then the ox would have to be stoned. Would the kids need a permit for that? I'd have to look at that one and think how to apply that. Part of the idea there was that the ox was what they considered forfeited property. Today, if you're arrested for drugs in your car, your car is forfeited to the government on the same basis. And the early English law was based on those passages. Then why don't the police have to destroy your car? The way it works now, they seize your car and then resell it for a tidy profit. Personally, I don't like the idea of civil forfeiture. To me, it mixes the civil purposes of the law with the criminal purposes. You are punishing the person without giving the person the protection that criminal law provides. For our legal system, I wouldn't even apply the civil forfeiture element. Many of my students strongly disagree with me on that. The courts also disagree with me, or at least say that it doesn't violate the Constitution. And I have to admit reluctantly that they're probably right: That wasn't what the Eighth Amendment was designed to prohibit. In supporting the Ten Commandments bill, you've said that these rules are as relevant to us as they were to Moses' Hebrew "republic." Did they have a direct vote in that republic? Or was it an electoral college? There's an interesting book that would probably give you an answer on that. It's called Commentaries on the Law of the Ancient Hebrews by E. C. Wines. He divides the book into two sections: the republic and the monarchy. At the time Moses brought down the commandments, Hebrew society was a republic. It was a confederation of 12 tribes, and the scripture said there was "no king of Israel but God Himself." And the tribes had a decentralized system within each tribe, under judges who probably had more authority than we think of judges having now. The kings came later, about 1050 BC, but the judges ruled with some form of consent of the governed. It might be a case where David was running for king and could get the rural vote because he was a shepherd, and maybe they liked his foreign policy. We just don't know. How should Sikhs keep the Sabbath holy? I'm not sure when the Sabbath day is for Sikhs. I have books on the Sikhs that I read about 15 years ago, but I don't remember too much about them actually.... I think God is more concerned that we do worship Him and how we worship Him than when. Nothing will temper your paranoia about media concentration faster than a glimpse at the Masters of the Universe in action. Over the past few weeks, news that Suck's corporate tops were offering a Suck-brand browser might have made it seem that we had finally traded our editorial independence for some Disneyesque synergy of content, promotion, and tie-in products. The browser is part of NeoPlanet's customizable portal thingy, which boasts a variety of removable skins, allowing you to brand your Web-browsing experience. With more than 9,800 downloads so far, the Suck browser has proved to be one of the more popular of these skins, edging out the browsers of our partners in the Lycos Network and beating the crap out of both Santa Claus and St. Patrick. But if you think Suck got maximum leverage out of the cross-branding, guess again. As it happens, we learned about the Suck browser the same way we get all our news — we read about it in Salon. In fact, it appears the nearly 10,000 people who liked the browser were people who don't actually read Suck but just like the pictures (admittedly, a demographic that includes most of Suck's actual readers). Since we also found the Suck Skin doesn't include a link back to us, the upshot is that Suck got exactly bupkes out of the deal. But there's still time for you to show your colors. Hop right over to NeoPlanet, download your browser, and make Suck something you will carry with you throughout your life. We should have our recipe for the Suck Happy Meal completed any day now. Starbucks' latest effort to become a magazine distributor — previous outings have included point-of-purchase arrangements with the paper version of Slate and maybe a cross-sales agreement with Playguy, we're not sure — is Joe, a general interest quarterly featuring tried-and-true names like Luc Sante, Douglas Coupland, and strenuous funnyman Mark Leyner (whom several Suck readers incorrectly named as the author of our Tuesday issue). It would be pleasant to poke fun at this coffee-zine business plan, but we see some real promise in it. The once-great Esquire, after all, started out as a specialty rag sold exclusively in haberdasheries, and Big Green's 1,800 stores would seem a more logical place for magazine sales than, say, a bookstore. A first glance (we didn't actually read it) indicates that Joe is a fairly readable birdcage liner, despite instances of preciousness ("I call my Catholic friend Tom to tell him that for the first time in my life I'm finding myself talking to God"), an Absolut-style, one-page story that felt like a gyp because it wasn't advertising anything, and an immodest echo of the book of Genesis in Managing Editor Scott Mowbray's editor's note ("... if you have ever made something complicated ... and stood back at the end to eye the whole aspect of the thing and then thought that it was a good thing ..."). But since we know that reading Suck's discussions of other media is about as appealing to the average reader as a nice case of heatstroke, we'd like your help in filling out our reader-reaction survey card. If you know how we should answer the question, "What would you like to see in future issues?" of the official magazine of Starbucks, please let us know. The best response will become our official opinion of Joe. Analyst's alert: We have changed our recommendation on Salon.com (SALN) to a "strong buy." Despite a lackluster opening day and strong evidence that the stock's US$10 price is being supported by underwriter Hambrecht, we have set a target price of $10,000 a share, based on continued blue chip interest, hopes for a Net stock recovery, unlimited upside potential, and a firm belief that lightning always strikes twice. Suck's lead time being what it is, we had to make some tough decisions in the last few days, killing not only our incisive, two-part Lamar Alexander profile but also our extensive Summer Solstice coverage: the streaming video from Salisbury Plain, the live remotes from the Lapland Special Olympics, the works. Why? Because we needed to make room for service journalism — news you can use — in the form of an official set of NBA finals predictions. We needed to bring the authority, care, and expertise we've always put into our media reporting to a series of piercingly perceptive predictions that would make Jimmy the Greek proud and our high-rolling readers rich. It was a noble goal and all the motivation we required. Well, that and a well-timed visit from our favorite beeper-toting delivery dude, who dropped off a little Ziplocked bundle of joy and a Zippo. The result: "Game 5: The air is thick with history tonight as the Knicks and Spurs, two mortal combatants locked in [illegible], return to San Antonio's famed Astrodome, the very site where some 450 years ago, Colonel Sam Houston made Texas' last stand against the invading Iroquois Nation. Will the Spurs live up to the Colonel's legacy? Only if they can stop great-great-great- grandson Allan Houston, now a rising lonestar for the Knicks. [Illegible.] It's a matchup that recalls Knickerbocker greats Bill Bradley, Wendell Wilkie, and Chester A. Arthur. And with San Antonio's beloved baritone David Robeson in the penalty box, New York's Marcus Welby, aka 'The Doctor J,' leads the Knicks in a third period power play. Yes, the ironies at Game 5 just keep piling up, like so many cars in a multi-car pile up. It's all on the line tonight. Final: Spurs 190, Knicks 142." But then our know-it-all "fact-checker" found a couple of "problems" that our publisher thought might damage our "credibility," and so it was back to the drawing bong. Er, board. The drawing board. Tune in for our live team coverage of Game 5 tomorrow — after these important messages. courtesy of the Sucksters

"a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun" for 24 June 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.

"a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun"
for 24 June 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.