« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 31, 2005
New Orleans: "A Logistical Nightmare"
Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as officials scramble to evacuate the remaining survivors:
NEW ORLEANS — There was simply no time to count the dead as engineers scrambled to plug two broken New Orleans levees and rescuers searched for survivors clinging to rooftops as the Gulf Coast continued to grapple with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.The flooding in New Orleans grew worse by the minute Wednesday, prompting Gov. Kathleen Blanco to say that everyone still in the city, now huddled in the Superdome and other rescue centers, needs to leave. She said she wanted the Superdome evacuated within two days as the broken levees continued to allow water to gush into the Big Easy, but it was still unclear where the people would go.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune News Blog which has been on top of the story from the beginning reports that buses and other vehicles are being sent into the area to aid with the evacuation. Four Navy vessels are being sent to the area to carry emergency supplies and the Army Corp of Engineers is scrambling to try to plug the two breached levees.
Governor Blanco held a press conference this morning with area religious leaders to encourage people to pray for the besieged city.
Relief efforts are being mobilized by a number of charities. Glenn Reynolds has a list of charities heading up the relief efforts with links for donations.
Bloggers are asked to join the Blog Relief Day for Katrina Relief tomorrow. Truth Laid Bear has a topic page of Katrina blog stories. You can also click here to register your blog for Blog Relief Day.
We'll continue to blog developments here and will have more soon on our participation in Blog Relief Day.
Our prayers are with the hurricane victims, their families, and everyone who has been touched by the overwhelming devastation of this storm.
Posted by Tom at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Katrina Update
My area of Alabama made it through Katrina with lots of power outages and debris but nothing too severe. I wish I could say the same for Mobile and the coastal regions of Mississippi and Louisiana. What a disaster. Whatever you can contribute, do so. Start here.
I'll say more later, after I've managed to process the images of the city of my birth, New Orleans, completely submerged in watery filth.
Posted by Matt at 03:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Waters Continue to Rise in New Orleans
The waters are rising in New Orleans and the Mayor estimates that 80% of the city is under water.
Continued flooding of New Orleans is FEMA's worse-case scenario natural disaster scenario. The waters will not recede, as many news stations keep saying. The water levels may reach equilibrium, but there is literally no place for the water to go. It must be pumped out, an effort that will take weeks, if not months. Mobile AL and other cities along the gulf coast are also devastated. How many hundreds of thousands will be homeless? For how long?
Keep praying for the affected communities, emergency response personnel, and the long-term reconstruction efforts. Hugh Hewitt is looking for someone to organize a coordinated blogothon for relief efforts.
Josh Britton has all the relevant links.
Posted by Rick at 11:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Perspectives on the War on Terror
Two columns today are well worth reading as they both provide perspectives on the War on Terror that need to be heard. First, Lorie Byrd contends that it's time to set the record straight about the war and deals directly with some of the common criticisms about the war:
What is rarely, if ever, addressed by the opponents of President Bush and the current war is whether or not the decision he made was a correct one if everything we thought about the status of Saddam’s WMD capability had been correct. Dick Cheney made the argument for the decision in at least one speech around the time of the release of the Kay report. In that speech he argued that knowing what we knew then, and looking at it in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks, it would have been irresponsible NOT to have invaded Iraq. Republicans who fail to make that case, and instead weaken their stance on the war in reaction to declining public opinion polls, risk losing the advantage they have long held over Democrats on issues of national security and defense. Even many of those voters who have not supported the Iraq war and view President Bush as a trigger happy cowboy are likely to prefer a candidate that supports the war – even if there are some reservations about the way the war was executed – to one who originally supported it only to back down when the going got tough.
Even more striking is Dennis Prager's column today in which he asks opponents of the war to answer one simple question:
All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one: Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq?That is how supporters of the war regard the Baathists and the Islamic suicide terrorists, the people we are fighting in Iraq.
Because if you cannot answer it, or avoid answering it, or answer "no," we know enough about your moral compass to know that further dialogue is unnecessary. In fact, dialogue is impossible. Our understanding of good and evil is so different from yours, there is simply nothing to discuss. Someone who was asked a hundred years ago "Do you believe that whites who lynch blacks are evil?" and refused to answer in the affirmative was not someone one could dialogue with.
This war is not about a particular religion. It's not a war against a nation or group of nations. It is a war against evil. We cannot afford to back down or withdraw. We must fight this war until the end.
Posted by Tom at 10:43 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
God, When They Need Him
The Air Force issued new directives yesterday that limit the expression of faith by its officers, while seeking to maintain the spiritual life of its academy and forces. However, the guidelines are rife with contradictions, and are unlikely to be unworkable in the highly charged military environment.
The military pays for chaplains from more than 100 denominations and faith groups. The evangelicals have made it a priority to provide chaplains to the military, and as a result their numbers have grown. However, the number of mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy has sagged, because of the declines of available clergy in those groups. There are smaller numbers of non-Christian clergy available to troops.
The new orders are a response largely to vocal 1977 Air Force Academy graduate Mikey Weinsten, and a desire for political correctness that is seeping into the military from the larger culture. This has resulted in a push for vapid generic faith that contradicts decades of military tradition and is unsatisfying in the life and death realities of war and preparations for war.
Military chaplains have a long history:
The tradition of chaplains in the U.S. military goes back to George Washington, who first sought a minister for his Virginia regiment in 1756. In the early days of the republic, commanders simply chose a chaplain who shared their beliefs. But with the expansion of the military in World War II, the armed services set quotas for chaplains of various faiths, attempting to match the proportion of each denomination in the general population.
There’s great irony in the new set of guidelines:
The guidelines discourage public prayers at official Air Force events or meetings other than worship services, one of the most contentious issues for many commanders. But they allow for "a brief nonsectarian prayer" at special ceremonies like those honoring promotions, or in "extraordinary circumstances" like "mass casualties, preparation for imminent combat and natural disasters."
Inherent in this directive is recognition that in extraordinary circumstances, and there are many when our armed forces are in harm's way, there is a desire to turn to God for help or solace. The tidy boxes that officials can put God in for military ceremonies and friendly events are naturally ripped open when soldiers are bleeding, dying, afraid, or grieving.
Regardless of the limitations military brass may put on their forces, there have never been and never will be atheists in foxholes, and our men and women in uniform will continue to be politically incorrect in their search for vibrant faith as they fight our battles and risks their lives.
As one soldier preparing to go to Iraq, Spec. Scott Higgins, 20, said in an interview:
"God will definitely help out, especially if he's deployed to a battle zone. It'll help me cope with what I'll see on a daily basis."
Posted by Jim at 07:35 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
Another Response to Cindy Sheehan
Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush and The Faith of the American Solider as well as many other fine books recently posted the following letter to Cindy Sheehan. It is well worth taking the time to read carefully the thoughtful response to Ms. Sheehan's ongoing protests.
Dear Mrs. Sheehan,
You are in a firestorm of grief and what must be a disorienting swirl of world attention. For that reason, I will be as brief in my remarks as I hope to be compassionate.
I will not insult you by presuming to know your sorrow. The loss of a son in armed conflict abroad must be among the most soul-wrenching experiences possible. You are surely right to rage against the horrors of war, right to demand answers and right to reach for those of like mind.
I fear, though, that what began as a mourning mother’s righteous cry for meaning is becoming something that threatens to dishonor Casey’s heroism. Though I mean no disrespect, it is clear you are becoming swept up in a cynical drama that is far a field from the meaning of the war and your son’s sacrifice. From your blogging on Michael Moore’s web site to the pronouncements you feel obligated to make on the cause of Palestine, you have abandoned the moral high ground of a grieving mother and are in danger of becoming just another fleeting voice on the American pop culture landscape.
The central issue here is not whether George W. Bush meets with you again or whether your self-styled “peaceful occupation” of Crawford, Texas, ever wins you the explanation for “why our sons are dead” you say you want. The central issue is that when your son volunteered for military service, he placed himself upon an altar of sacrifice. Sadly, the ultimate sacrifice was indeed required. Yet he gave himself willingly, as all our soldiers do in this generation, and his death is therefore the noble death of a hero and not the needlessly tragic death of one accidentally or foolishly taken
What we must understand is that a pledge to military service is a surrender of rights, a surrender of comforts and, potentially, a surrender of life if the nation calls. What leaves us so stunned at the death of a soldier, beyond our grief for a life snuffed out and our personal loss, is often our failure to understand the noble calling of the profession of arms and the warrior code that gives this calling meaning. When your son, and the thousands like him serving today, pledged himself to military service, he did not just “join the army.” He offered himself to his God and his nation in an act of devotion that has been repeated for centuries. He entered the fellowship of those who offer their lives willingly in service to others. His death, though a horror, was a horror with meaning, willingly engaged.
I cannot know your sorrow. I can urge you, though, not to allow your son’s offering on what Lincoln called “the altar of freedom” to be tainted by the passing parade of trendy causes. I can also urge you to live now in the knowledge that your son’s passing ennobles our nation, just as I trust it will now ennoble you.
With deepest sympathies for your loss,
Stephen Mansfield
Posted by Tom at 05:37 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Katrina - God's Judgment?
The folks at Boar's Head Tavern are having that very discussion.
Posted by Rick at 01:01 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
Katrina II
Hugh Hewitt questioned early media reports about the potential loss of life associated with Katrina. I agree with Josh Britton, 10,000 deaths is not out of the question if the storm surges clear the levies in New Orleans and sink much of the city. 10,000 deaths from a natural disaster in the United States is beyond the imagination for me, but God willing, residents heeded early calls to evacuate. Almost equally unimaginable is the report that as much as 1,000,000 people could be left homeless.
As mentioned in this post, I helped draft plans for "temporary" housing for up to 150,000 displaced persons following a catastrophic event. The plan didn't call for a refugee camp, but instead for housing, schools, shopping, employment, etc. constructed from modular units to be airlifted, trucked, shipped, and trained in from arround the world. The land would be identified (no easy task), cleared, graded, and the community constructed within 60-90 days. Residents would occupy the temporary community for six months to two years depending on the degree of flooding at ground zero. Many on our team questioned whether accomplishing a 60-90 day mission is possible. I can't begin to convey to all of you the logistical complexity of pulling off such an operation.
That's for 150,000 displaced persons and the AP's talking about potentially 1,000,000 people.
The story may be hype. It may be realistic. But, the bottom line is that constructing temporary housing for 150,000 people while New Orleans rebuilds would be a massive undertaking.
While I expect the people of Louisiana will have access to whatever federal resources necessary, I predict that Americans will once again rise to the challenge before us and demonstrate the resilience and compassion that made us a great nation.
Posted by Rick at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Katrina
Last year, FEMA contracted with ~7 planning and engineering teams to develop contingency plans for a catastrophic event anywhere in the United States. With the plans partially developed, they "war gamed" a Cat V hurricane direct hit on New Orleans - FEMA's "worst-case scenario." They picked New Orleans because much of the City is well below sea-level and large enough storm surges could sink the town, making much of it inhabitable for long enough that long-term disaster housing would be required. In support of the project, I prepared development standards and site plan schematics for temporary housing and related facilities and services for up to 150,000 displaced persons that could be constructed and occupied within 60-90 days. It looks like FEMA's worst-case scenario may be realized with Katrina. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the plans are ready for "off the shelf" implementation.
Josh Britton attends LSU and is a native of Louisiana. Josh writes:
I’m considering riding out the storm with my parents in Denham Springs in northern Livingston Parish (the southern half of which is under a mandatory evacuation). I’m trying to find out if help is needed at any of the shelters in Baton Rouge. I know, for example, that my church has been opened to about 400 college students from New Orleans, and that there is a special needs shelter open at LSU.I thank God for Josh's servant heart during these trying times. I urge you brothers and sisters to pray without ceasing and when the call for help comes, put feet to your faith and serve.
Posted by Rick at 06:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
Conservative Christianity
The idea of "conservative Christianity" has been aroudn for a while. It's always taken on the notion of Christians who happen to be conservative. For a long time there was never a strong correlation between evangelical Christianity and traditional conservatism; the basic media template suggested that Christians were conservative only on matters of "values" like abortion and gay rights. Nowadays you hear a lot of talk about a Judeo-Christian worldview, but I've always thought that sounded a lot like tradition conservative thought. Well, lo and behold, while reading the back cover to Russell Kirk's seminal The Conservative Mind, I noted this blurb from the syndicated columnist William Rusher:
"[In] this enormously influential book [Kirk] almost single-handedly rooted American conservatism in the right loam of the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, and thereby gave it the philosophical heft of a worldview. He also gave it its name... [This] country owes a huge amount of gratitude to Russell Kirk."
Interesting, no? I'd be curious to hear what left-leaning Christians like Jim Wallis have to say about the intellectual suggestion that traditional conservatism in, in fact, a de facto Christian ethic.
Posted by Matt at 02:22 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Relevant Church
Sitting in class yesterday, I noticed an open copy of the campus newspaper. There was an ad on the page promoting the "Contemporary Worship" service at an old church downtown. When I say old, I mean that the congregation has been there for well over a hundred years. It's an established church in an old South town, and that brings certain baggage - both good and bad - with it. At any rate, the church began a contemporary service a while back. The service, incidentally, takes place during the same time as "regular" worship, but it's completely separate. The church runs commercials on local television and as I just mentioned, there's advertisements in the campus newspaper and around the town.
My question in all of this is "why?" The advertisements might be fine for new students in town or even new families looking for a more contemporary setting within this denomination. But what about nonChristians? What about them? I'm not talking about nominal Christians raised in church who've wandered off the farm. I'm talking about those people - college students, young adults, even families - who don't attend church, don't put a lot of stock in Christian beliefs and just don't care. Their unbelief might stretch beyond apathy and into the area of antagonism. So why in the world would they care about Christianity masked in upbeat acoustic music? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. I've never met an atheist over the age of fifteen whose opinion of Christ hinged upon the instruments used in church. Maybe this is a matter of straining at a gnat. I just think that this idea that non-Christians are going to accept Christ on the basis of a worship service's outward appearance is flawed. People will come to Christ based upon relationship, not cultural relevance.
Posted by Matt at 02:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Avoiding Ethical Complications in Stem Cell Research
A thanks to Erik Larson for pointing out this latest breakthrough in stem cell research.
A Harvard University advance in generating embryonic stem cells may have the unintended consequence of hindering congressional efforts to lift research restrictions imposed by President Bush four years ago, leaders on both sides of the issue said yesterday as details of the discovery traveled through the scientific and political communities.The news that Harvard scientists have successfully converted human skin cells into embryonic stem cells -- without using a human egg or new embryo -- is likely to muddle the already complex debate over federal stem cell research policy.
Muddle? How in the world could finding a way to avoid all the ethical complications of embryonic stem cell research be considered muddling? On the contrary, this could help clear up the whole debate once and for all; researches get their embryonic stem cells without killing unborn life. Everybody wins, if this turns out to be a viable option. This is called "muddling"?
This research is still just getting going, but if we concentrated on this rather than something with ethical pitfalls galore, we'd come sooner to the place where all points of view would be satisfied. Isn't that the best solution?
Posted by Doug at 12:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Dumbest Poll Question Ever
We often deal with polls and the science behind them here at Stones Cry Out. But John Podhoretz has found what has to be the dumbest poll question ever (hat tip: Polipundit):
In the category of dumbest poll question ever, you'll be delighted to know we have a winner. It's ABC News, which has taken the coveted prize because it actually paid polling firm cash dollars to ask 1,002 Americans whether they were "dissatisfied with the price of gas."Guess what? Ninety-four percent said they were! Americans are actually upset that a gallon of gas now costs nearly three times what it cost three years ago. Be still, my heart! What a shocker!
But many of them are not merely "upset." The pollsters say that 44 percent of Americans are actually angry about paying an average of $2.50 per gallon.
Silly me. I figured they'd be happy about it, but I guess ABC has set me straight. This is idiot empiricism at its finest. Maybe this weekend, ABC will ask Americans if they eat food, or if the ground gets wet when it rains.
I'm not sure which is more surprising: that ABC actually paid a polling firm to ask this question or that 6% of the respondents didn't understand the question.
Posted by Tom at 11:44 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
Kelo’s Consequences
A co-worker e-mailed to say that my State Senator, Christine Kehoe (I campaigned for her opponent in November’s election, btw), amended SB 1026 today, making it an “urgency measure.”
SB 1026, written in reaction to the Kelo v. City of New London SCOTUS decision, includes a two year moratorium on the use of eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home for private uses. The urgency amendment will require 2/3 support of the legislature, which means that Kehoe appears to have solidified bipartisan support of the bill and intends to move it quickly out of the Assembly, Senate, and to the Governor’s desk.
Kelo was a terrible decision. However, it did little to change things in my state. Redevelopment agencies had been condemning private residential and commercial land for private gain for a long time in California. It’s interesting to see how the outrage at Kelo has prompted a very liberal State Senator from my home district to give homeowners more protection under CA law than had been previously afforded.
This article provides a good overview of SB 1026.
Posted by Rick at 04:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blogospheric Triumphs
I lack the words to describe Michael Yon’s latest dispatch from Mosul, Iraq. Pray for these boys and girls and honor them. Keep civilian reporters away from the guns as well (even the good one’s like Michael Yon).
Roger Piekle Sr., the climatologist who recently resigned from the CCSP Committee, charges that the New York Times blatantly misrepresented his views on climate change and reasons for resigning. He posts an Open Comment to Andy Revkin on his blog, Climate Science. Piekle, commented:
“I was very disappointed that the New York Times so badly mischaracterized my perspective, but fortunately we now have blogs so that errors can be corrected, and I've posted my response there..."
Posted by Rick at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Politics of Moving Goal Posts
Whilst commenting on Redstate.org in a thread dealing with the reporting on the pending Iraqi constitution, "streiff" responds to a poster who says that the new Iraqi government doesn't look like it will be better than the previous one, by the poster's definition of "better".
This is just another instance of the dynamic moving of goalposts.First, we couldn't handle the heat of an Iraqi summer.
Then, Baghdad was Stalingrad on the Euphrates.
Then, civil war was imminent.
Then, no one would participate in the January election.
Then, no constitution would ever be drafted.
Now, the constitution isn't good enough.
Coming soon, no one will vote in the October electin [sic]; no one will vote in the December elections.
Eventually they'll move the goalposts far enough that they can declare we've been defeated and hopefully go home and leave the rest of us alone.
Good point. Virtually every prediction by the Left on the war in Iraq has been proven wrong, and as each one topples they've quickly built another one further downfield.
The topic that generated this thread noted that the NY Times praised the Afghan constitution but has deplored an almost identical one coming out of Iraq, so the "objectivity" of the Times comes into question here as well. Given virtually identical situations, they praise one and condemn the other. Why? Pure politics. "Good" is only good if we wanted it that way. They didn't object to the Afghanistan war, so the outcome is good. They did oppose the Iraq war, so the identical outcome is bad.
Politics appears to be the sole informer of their opinions. If they didn't agree politically with the conditions that brought it about, then they say the outcome is bad. How childish! Then they couch that opinion in language to suggest that the outcome itself is inherently bad, so as to cover up their real motivation. And they're betting on the short attention span of liberals.
Unfortunately, there are those with a little longer memories. Welcome to the Age of Blogs.
If you still had any shred of respect for the NY Times editorial page, I do hope you'll seriously reconsider.
Posted by Doug at 01:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Back in the Saddle
I've been busy, but I'll be back in action soon. Here's a quick update, and I'll be blathering away over here shortly.
Posted by Matt at 12:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An Embarrassing Retraction by Robertson
“Do you realize,” syndicated radio host Neal Boortz said to evangelicals in his audience yesterday with some. Emphasis. “Do you realize how much damage Pat Robertson has done to evangelical influence in this country?”
He was speaking, of course, about Robertson’s call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Boortz also remarked that MSM headline interest in Robertson’s bluster was a purposeful attempt to diminish the influence of evangelical Christians.
I’ve made my views clear on Robertson unconscionable comments, and I called for him to apologize and then “go silent.” Yesterday, he sputtered in his attempt to extract himself from the morass, when he first said: “I was misinterpreted by the AP. But that happens all the time.”
But then when clip of Robertson’s clear endorsement of assassination circulated, he issued a still-nuanced apology. Two reports: here and here.
Since I’m involved professionally in public relations work for Christian clients, including a fair amount of crisis communications, I cringed not only at his careless and, in my view, unChristian call for murder, but at his fumbling of the damage control. An immediate apology and clarification were the only appropriate and wise responses. What a mess.
I find it additionally distressing to read of Robertson’s attempt to wrap himself in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s cloak. Bonhoeffer’s Christian conscience resulted in his returning to the dangers of Germany, his decision to conspire in the [obviously unsuccessful] assassination of Adolf Hitler, and in his eventual execution in a German prison.
Unless your beliefs result in complete pacifism, it is clear the Christians often must support killing as a part of war. That is quite a bit different than calling for the assassination of a foreign leader who is ideologically at odds with America.
It’s lousy theological logic and amazingly stupid politics by the former presidential candidate.
But back to Boortz’s comments that Robertson has done terrible damage to evangelicals, and that the MSM love it.
He’s probably right about both, although more and more people are realizing that the blowhards of evangelicalism don’t represent the rank and file, and that evangelicalism is diverse and not represented by one or few leaders. Unfortunately, there are too many who do not make those distinctions; enough that comments such as Robertson’s can indeed diminish evangelical influence in the public square.
That’s why it is important for evangelicals to condemn of this sort of recklessly, something they did not do this week, as far as I can tell
Ted Haggard of NAE is trying to arrange a meeting with Chavez, which seems like a tremendous move. Other evangelical leaders have remained mostly silent:
“evangelical leaders and conservative groups declined to comment on Robertson's remarks, including Focus on the Family; evangelist Franklin Graham; the National Association of Religious Broadcasters; and the Family Research Council.” (source)
And again, it’s time for Robertson to hang up his spurs.
Posted by Jim at 07:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
New Voters and the 2008 Election
JR at RightFaith makes a great point in a post about Hillary Clinton's potential presidential candidacy and voters who will be going to the polls for the fist time in 2008:
In 2008, 45 million potential voters will head to the ballot box having no memory of the Clinton Presidency. Those born roughly from 1979-1990 never voted in an election where Mr. Clinton was on the ballot but will be eligible when Mrs. Clinton's name appears. 18-29 year-old, 2008 voters were more focused on Seinfeld, the Simpsons, and watching the new Disney movie, Aladdin (feel old yet?) than on the 1992 political scene.While Mr. Clinton's promiscuous legacy births some vague memories ('wasn't he impeached?'), Mrs. Clinton's brings to mind...well, nothing. At most, she was the victim of her husband's infidelity, 'poor woman'. The political figure that she has become has no attachment to her or her husband's past in the mind of these new voters.
He is absolutely correct that for many of these voters their image of Ms. Clinton will be defined by what they hear from her campaign instead of what history has to say about her. Republicans will need to do a better job of making their case to these voters if they expect to retain the White House in 2008.
Posted by Tom at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
San Diego's "Parallel Election"
Diebold’s machines scanned and tallied every ballot cast in my home town of San Diego in a recent election to replace resigned Mayor Dick Murphy. Controversy surrounding electronic vote tabulation machines, Diebold’s machines in particular, prompted the group Citizens Audit Parallel Election to hold a “parallel election” in an attempt to verify the official vote count.
The Citizens Audit Parallel Election found a 4 percent “red shift” from the official vote count, away from progressive candidate Donna Frye. Carl Luna, a professor of Political Science at San Diego Mesa College and lecturer at the University of San Diego, wrote a remarkable editorial on the findings last week. Luna wrote:
Math is non-partisanUnless you’ve had your head under a rock since November, you’ve heard similar probability based proclamations, as if sampling error is the only source of survey error.A team of statisticians from California State University- Northridge - have analyzed the data from CAPE, concluding that the probability of luck or chance as the cause of the observed four percent deviation is less than one in 1,300 - or .000678.
The Citizens Audit Parallel Election paid for a hand count in full view of its representatives of a select number of precincts. That recount of the hand marked ballots matched the Diebold count, almost exactly.
A partial recount yesterday to test the accuracy of scanners that read ballots and tallied votes in the San Diego mayor's race July 26 revealed results that were nearly identical to those of the machines.For example, a discrepancy of perhaps one vote occurred in a few precincts.
I agree with Jerry Ewig of Democracy for America.
The recount "does not prove the system is accurate and correct," said Ewig, who lives in Temecula. "We're still in need of a system that is verifiable and transparent to the people." (emphasis added)
But what about that parallel election (aka EXIT POLL) that called into question the election result? I am reminded Plissner and Mitofsky’s 1982 Public Opinion aritcle, “Voting Twice on Election Day”. Coming only two years after the first network projection based on exit poll results, the authors acknowledged potential problems with their “parallel elections.”
Voter polls and the more traditional sources of election predictions (precinct sampling) are subject to a mathematically definable sampling error. On top of that, voter polling presents a number of additional challenges. Things can – and have, at least in our experience – gone wrong. For example, there is no guarantee that voters who respond to the poll are like those who refuse to answer (pg. 15).Something clearly went wrong with San Diego’s “parallel election.” In line with every presidential election exit poll since 1988, the poll was clearly biased toward the Democratic candidate. But why? That’s a question the polling industry should make every effort to answer, and rectify.
Free, fair, and falsifiable elections should be goal of every American, regardless of partisanship. But we know that we are a long way from this goal if we have to rely on exit polls as a verification tool.
If you are interested in election reform issues, the Election Audit Institute is a fine new venue for discussion.
Posted by Rick at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Response to Cindy Sheehan
Normally Scott Ott is delivering hilarious parody at Scrappleface. But today he has a response to Cindy Sheehan's ongoing war protest that is right on the mark.
Posted by Tom at 09:28 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 23, 2005
Mixing God & Science
A very good NY Times article on how scientists can and do deal with a belief in God. A greate quote:
One panelist, Dr. Noah Efron of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said scientists, like other people, were guided by their own human purposes, meaning and values. The idea that fact can be separated from values and meaning "jibes poorly with what we know of the history of science," Dr. Efron said.Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said.
But he acknowledged that as head of the American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, he had a leading role in work that many say definitively demonstrates the strength of evolutionary theory to explain the complexity and abundance of life.
As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice."
Posted by Doug at 01:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Statistical Significance v. Validity
Hugh Hewitt mentioned “statistically significant” twice in as many posts about Patrick Ruffini’s August Straw poll.
The words of Inigo Montoya immediately came to mind: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.”
I know Patrick Ruffini knows a thing or two about stats, so I had to check it out. Sure enough, there it was…er…was it? Here’s the line: “If this poll is as big as the last one (@13,000 responses), we'll have a statistically valid sample of online activists not just nationally, but in most of the fifty states.”
Notice that Patrick used the word “valid” and not “significant.” Is there a difference between statistically significant and statistically valid? Well, yes. There is a big difference.
Statistical significance is a function of sample size and degree of confidence. 13,000 responses to a simple random sample of population over 100,000 would yield a margin of error of either 0.8% or 1.1% depending on whether one wants to be 95% or 99% confident in the significance of the results. (Click here for a neat sample size/confidence interval calculator.)
Determining the validity of a survey is another thing. Statistical validity can be defined as “the degree to which an observed result, such as a difference between 2 measurements, can be relied upon and not attributed to random error in sampling and measurement.”
Robert Groves’ Total Survey Error framework describes four components to survey error: 1) sampling; 2) nonresponse; 3) coverage; and 4) measurement. Statistical significance addresses only sampling error. Statistical validity incorporates all four of Groves’ TSE components.
First off, Patrick’s survey is not a random sample of likely voters in the 2008 primary and therefore thinking in terms of statistical “significance” is misleading; however, the potential coverage error presents the greatest threat to the poll’s “validity.”
Coverage error is the error introduced to a survey when a segment of the population that the survey intends to represent is not included in the sampling frame. That is, what portion of Republican primary voters are not internet users, or more specifically, readers of the various internet sites that might advertise Ruffini’s straw poll? It doesn’t matter how large the sample size is if the population being sampled isn’t representative of the population the survey is intended to represent. The results may be interesting, but claiming statistical validity is not possible based on sample size alone.
For the record, I participated in the straw poll and selected Mass. Governor Mitt Romney, who isn't doing particularly well at the moment. Don't let my post stop you from playing along. As I said, the results, although perhaps not statistically significant or valid, are interesting; especially if you contend that internet consumers of conservative political news set the agenda for non-internet savvy conservatives.
Reference:
Groves, R. M. 1989. “Survey errors and survey costs.” New York: John Wiley.
Posted by Rick at 01:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Don't you just love to vote?
Especially when you don't have to drive anywhere or walk past people trying to hand you nail files and magnets with local candidates names on them? :)
Anyway, Patrick Ruffini is running a political straw poll and trying to use it to get a statistically valid* sample. You can view the results (even without voting)by state, region or blog, by red or blue. It could have quite the value, as Hugh Hewitt said:
If the blogs can generate reliable results through professionals like Ruffini, the end-run around MSM and its biased poll taking is complete.
And really, who doesn't want to complete an end-run around the MSM?
Speaking of football - or really...speaking of not speaking of it, Hugh also had this to say:
There's an alarming amount of Eagles blogging going on at Galley Slaves. Don't they realize that the Tribe is now tied for the wild card spot in the American League, rendering all football blogging premature?
That's right. The Tribe! Oh....yeah... :)
And the article Hugh links to there has the following headings:
Five homers plenty as Tribe moves into virtual tie for wild-card berth
:)
UPDATE: In deference to Rick Brady's vastly superior knowledge and experience in the field of statistics and polling, I changed "significant" to "valid" in my writing above.
Thanks again Rick :)
Posted by Abigail at 01:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What’s that you say, Mr. Robertson?
Please Mr. Robertson, I beg of you. Please stop talking. Smile at the camera. Hug people. Say a silent prayer. Direct your empire. Bounce your grandchildren on your knee. But stop moving your lips when a microphone is in the same zip code.
Pat, what where you thinking as you flippantly called for the assassination of a foreign leader whose policies are distinctly un-American? On what Scripture, what teaching of the church, what Christian principle did you base your call for the elimination of a political leader?
In case you missed it, Robertson said on The 700 Club:
``We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said yesterday on the television program. “ [Robertson said] Killing Chavez, who is visiting Cuba, would be cheaper than starting a war.The U.S. can't allow Venezuela to become a ``launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism,'' Robertson said, according to AP.
This is probably the first pronouncement of this sort by a Christian leader since some Pope in the middle ages, and it is a total embarrassment to the American evangelical community.
I agree with The Conservative Voice that Robertson is free to say what he wants in a free country. I just pray that he won’t, and I’m disappointed by the Voice’s weak response to this outrage.
Redstate.org’s opinion is closer to mine, wondering if Robertson is insane.
The last public pronouncement by Robertson should be a series of apologies. One to the fellow Christians, whose witness he has serverely diminished. And to the President. The State Department. Oh, Mr. Chavez, too.
Then, go silent. Please.
Posted by Jim at 12:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Iraq's Sunnis Aim to Defeat Constitution in Vote
A very encouraging headline from Reuters. It’s not American democracy, but the political process is certainly familiar and appears to be gaining legitimacy.
Posted by Rick at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Casey Sheehan
No matter what you think about his mom, you need to read about Casey Sheehan, a true hero. Blackfive has the post. Hugh Hewitt comments: "When you are tempted to blast his mom, remind yourself of this man's sacrifice and heroism and assume as I do that he loved his mom deeply and would defend her like the fine son he must have been even if he disagreed with her politics." Agreed.
Posted by Rick at 08:52 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
Box 44: Pro Bono (2)
ProBono, seems like a simple thing, but I would rather call it:
For Sale: White House
It's my last Adopt a box assignment. I enjoyed this whole process though, but I must say if anyone else reads through these boxes and finds sometimes I missed, please email me or leave a comment. I would really appreciate it.
This last box has both interesting cases and nice perspectives on John Roberts. However, this mostly all took place in 1984, and with reelection looming, I'm guessing it influenced the docket though. But it didn't influence John Roberts. He presents the best legal argument in each case. Even in a case that may be politically helpful for the President, Roberts seems to agree only after the legal concerns are addressed. He's also concerned not just for technicalities of law but about things that may appear illegal even if they are not. And sometimes, he agrees that the best thing to do is not say anything - especially when someone threatens to put a lien against the sale of the White House.
But if you are interested in some more detail, then just keep reading...
1. New York County Lawyers Association
Memo from Roberts to Fred Fielding - 1/25/84 (p.3)
Roberts simply described a letter to the President regarding a report from the Assoc. on HR 4043. Apparently the bill was proposed to be amended by the House Committee on Science & Technology and the Association wanted to recommend additional proposals for the bill.
The bill was the Administration's "proposal to encourage joint research by reducing risk of anti-trust liability and eliminating the threat of treble damages for such ventures."
The Association agreed with the bill and was now reiterating its agreement in a report, to help promote risky and expensive research in areas vital to the national interest. Roberts wants to send a letter thanking the association for its report and advised to have it sent to justice and commerce.
There are some more memos and letters sending the same thanks and information back and forth.
Then there is the Association's letter to the President (p.8) with the attached report (pp 9- 17). But, what exactly is a risky, expensive kind of venture? The report says that with competitive research and under existing law research on such things as a better ball point pen or plastic coffee cup would proceed quite well, but that encouragement - through anti-trust and other means - is needed for such research as "space industrialization," "desalting of seawater" and "non-polluting power sources."
Ethanol anyone?
The report then goes on to recommend various specifics to the bill. Basically they want the President to define such ventures that would benefit from joint research so that the R&D community would know that they may proceed with said research. The dear was apparently that if the research firms felt that there was a chance that existing legislation would shut down their work they wouldn't even look into it or start spending the money. This recommendations therefore, were in the name of more and more research, with specific federal backing. However, I do appreciate the fact that they expect the President to consult with the technology industry, the scientific community and relevant government agencies before deciding which research goals would fall under the new guidelines.
It goes on and on and on, cause really - it wasn't written by one lawyer, but rather an entire association of them. They do quote Winston Churchill though (p.11), with which one can rarely go wrong.
They also nicely summarized (and underlined) their conclusions on p.17. I won't restate them here because...I've stated them already.
2. Farmland Industries
Memo from Roberts to Fred Fielding - 2/6/84
Someone wants their opinions on a draft letter from President Reagan to Farmland Industries ("FI"). Apparently the president of FI wrote Reagan, urging him to support "expansion of the Commodity Credit Corporation credit guarantee program" on behalf of " '500,000 farm families' ".
Wow. Could this relate to ethanol and corn in Iowa in some way too? It is 1984 after all.
Roberts closes his memo having no objection to the letter and since it is written to the president and not the company itself, there is no endorsement of FI to be considered. However, as cited in a memo dated 2/1/84 - they all had good reason to believe that this letter from the President would be printed in the FI newsletter and sent to all 500,000 letters.
Like I said. Election year, 1984. But who can blame them for talking about it amongst themselves.
The draft (pp.23-25) is written in true Ronald Reagan style, which means it is nice to read - even with all the agriculture talk. :)
Pages 26-27 display FI's original letter and the resolution agreed upon by its members.
3. Go America, Inc. (pp.28-32)
Group of documents concerning an offer from the president of this private company wanted to allow the President to use the Go America symbol throughout government and industry. Roberts memo to Fred Fielding on 2/6/84 (p.28) says accepting such an offer would be inappropriate since Go America is not a 501(c)(3) [non-profit] organization. Therefore, the President's use of the symbol would be his endorsement of the marketing of a private company.
Fielding agrees and passes that along to the Special Assistant to the President (p.29) and then we can read the Go America letter itself (pp.31-32).
Roberts was right about this one and the Democrats certainly can't accuse him of asking the President to help a "greedy corporation."
4. A Lien against the White House? (pp.33-47)
This is really bizarre and I don't even know that I understand it, but apparently Earl C. Berger believed that the administration had failed to pay some damages due because of some litigation and on August 22, 1983 Berger wrote the following to Craig Fuller
I am preparing litigation looking forward to executing and selling the White House of our President, because the Order for Remand has not been properly honored or carried out.
But I am not averse to compromise, and payments due to the teachers and to myself, as their attorney.
He's "looking forward" to selling the White House? Is he serious with this?
Apparently he was because the next letter was to Fred Fielding saying:
Letters to Mr. Fuller go unacknowledged or acted on. He ought to advise Mr. Reagan that his forthcoming campagin (sic) by functionaires, but can be avoided simply
Lastly, an unsigned letter to Mr. Futrell, president of the NEA, that contains many random spelling errors as well as the history of this grievance (p.47). Be prepared though, the scanning is particularly sketchy here.
So what happened? I don't have much of a clue except that some teachers paid some fees and then lost them and then, you know, decided that the best thing to do was to sell the White House. Good plan, that.
The catch for someone looking for one in all this insanity: The 1974 case "spawned litigation involving substantial attorneys fees in which I had some involvement at Hogan and Hartson. I suggest, therefore, that this matter be reassigned to someone else on the staff" (p.35).
However that Hogan & Hartson attorney here is not Roberts but rather one David Waller. This was years before Roberts would be with H&H. So could someone make a connection there? Maybe, if they wanted it.
But I'm still wondering, did anyone manage to sell the White House?
That's it. End of Box.
Posted by Abigail at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Box 35: Piracy on the High Seas
..aka...Box 35:Pardons
:)
I continue my Judge John Roberts Adopt a Box O'Docs assignment.
Again, nothing in this box to hurt Roberts. There's barely anything here written by Roberts himself - and what is there shows him to be cordial, helpful and adherent to protocol.
So, why write so much about this box? I was sucked in by all the talk of the "High Seas" ...
First subject in question of the Pardon: Ramiro De La Fe (who should really be known as Ramiro De La Fe et. al because there is a large group of defendants involved in the indictment, but apparently the pardon is only for De La Fe).
His warrant for arrest, dated July 26, 1967, is from Miami, Florida and requires Mr. De La Fe to "answer to an indictment charging him in conspiracy to commit piracy on the high seas; assault with a dangerous weapon; destruction of navigation appliances; unlawful boarding of a vessel on the high seas; in violation of Title 18, United States Code...."
Okay, first - piracy??
Second, "High Seas"? Is this some sort of technical nautical term?
Third, "Navigation appliances?" Appliances? So, something more than like a compass I guess?
Fourth, "High Seas"
And...fifth ...Piracy? Seriously?
We really need to get another name for that offense.
The indictment describes the conspirators plan to "commandeer a vessel" and take it to Cuba. Yes. Cuba. In 1967. Which makes it seem like a bigger offense. They planned to dismantle the radio (aka navigational appliance). In fact, they did indeed take the vessel using "dangerous weapons, that is, guns, with intent to do bodily harm" (p.15).
Finally, on that same page, "high seas" are defined here to mean "The Atlantic Ocean."
The Indictment doesn't indicate that De La Fe et. al. made it to Cuba, but they did get the vessel, using guns, take it to Florida and then take it away to the ocean again, at which points, one assumes, they were caught.
Now, that was 1967. All letters and memos included in this box are dated throughout 1983/1984.
Why 1983? Well, as a memo from David Stephenson, Acting Pardon Attorney to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President explains -
On May 5, 1983 President Reagan approved a revision of the rules governing petitions for pardon and other forms of Executive clemency, the first revision since 1962.
So, new rules, that's why.
The memo explains the benefits of the new rules and then attaches the rules themselves, an obvious official description from the DOJ.
Anyway, most of the memos about this case written by Roberts himself that would have been in this box were restricted for reason "B6: Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Next case: fast forward to Nov.15, 1984 - A Roberts Letter on White House Stationary to "Mr. Goldsmith." (p.20)
Roberts says Goldsmith's letter was referred to him by Chief of Staff, James Baker. Apparently, Goldsmith was mad because he helped the US Attorney's Office and wasn't set free from custody afterward. He also said he had a pending pardon request. Roberts asks that Goldsmith understand the protocol matters here, saying that "it would be inappropriate for the White House to interfere in any way with the decision of the Parole Commission, or to interfere with the processing of your application before the Acting Pardon Attorney."
I think it was quite kind of Roberts to let Goldsmith know what was going on, not only that, but Roberts goes on to say that he referred Goldsmith's letter to the DOJ.
Next Memo from Roberts to Roger Clegg - Assoc. Deputy Attorney General. (p.21)
Roberts forwarded letters from an inmate as well as his own reply to Clegg.
However, those other documents are not in the box. Just the memo.
Then there's a White House tracking sheet re: Goldsmith and then another restriction form with reason B6 cited again.
Finally, a letter dated 10/1/84 on Congress of the United States letterhead to the Parole Commission on behalf of Goldsmith from Peter W. Rodino. (p. 24-25)
Rodino (D-NJ) admits to not knowing Goldsmith personally, but here again is the mention of Goldsmith's cooperation, specifically with the DEA. For this, he should be freed apparently. Rodino's logic "One must conclude that Mr. Goldsmith's experience was at least equivalent to and far more severe than any incarceration could have been."
Huh?
Personally, I think Congress should have followed Roberts' lead and stayed out of it. Roberts was correct to cite such protocol in matters of pardons. They are sensitive subjects and are best handled in the most careful way, without concern for congressional politics. And what was Goldsmith doing writing to a New Jersey Congressman? Did he send letters to all of Congress? Talk about a fishing expedition.
Last two papers in the box are restriction documents on parole hearings and testimonies citing both B6 and "B7: Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes" and also "C: Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift."
So as I said, nothing here to hurt Roberts. But could we hear about the "High Seas" one more time, please?? :)
Posted by Abigail at 07:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Kelo Chutzpah
The story behind USAToday's hardly noticed editorial last Tuesday is simply shocking.
The city of New London, Conn., deserves a chutzpah award. In 2000, it condemned 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. Susette Kelo and her neighbors spent years in a legal battle that culminated in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against them.Kelo is one of the most widely criticized rulings in recent history. You would think that the New London Community Development Commission's latest chutzpah would have been worth more attention than a buried editorial. This news doesn't need much comment, it needs circulation.That was painful enough. But while the homeowners were battling in court, New London was calculating how much "rent" they owe for living in the houses they were fighting to save. (The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)
The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. [...] In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Posted by Rick at 09:53 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Intelligent Design in the Crosshairs of the Mainstream
After listening last night with a great deal of fascination to my Bible study leader advancing the merits of the Gap Theory relating to the Genesis creation account, I was interested to read in the NY Times today that proponents of Intelligent Design recognize the gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and agree that the earth is billions of years old.
A long, skeptical article on the emergence of the intelligence design scientists reads:
“Unlike creationists, design proponents accept many of the conclusions of modern science. They agree with cosmologists that the age of the universe is 13.6 billion years, not fewer than 10,000 years, as a literal reading of the Bible would suggest. They accept that mutation and natural selection, the central mechanisms of evolution, have acted on the natural world in small ways, for example, leading to the decay of eyes in certain salamanders that live underground.”
This article and yesterday's are worth reading. The mainstream scientific community is trying their best to diminish the efforts of scientists who start with the supposition of a master designer. Those opposing intelligent design are facing still opposition from well-funded groups such as The Discovery Institute.
With the proper support and willingness to avoid wild rhetoric and short-term gains that will hurt the long-term effort, we may see tremendous progress in the teaching of ID alongside the theory of evolution in the nation's public schools.
Posted by Jim at 07:59 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
August 20, 2005
The Iran Emergency in Box 29
I volunteered to Adopt a Box O Docs - Documents released by the Reagan Library concerning John Roberts' years in the White House Counsel's office. The program is organized by Hugh Hewitt & Generalissimo Duane.
My Assignment: Box 29 - Iran Emergency
Bottom Line: There's really nothing here that can hurt Roberts. He penned a few memos that basically passed along White House Counsel's legal OK on a report to Congress and an accompanying notice. If the Left accuses Roberts of not caring about commas, underlining, or basic math, then we can counter with these memos, otherwise there's not much to say.
The documents as a whole are interesting nonetheless, and so here is my full report:
The main document in this box is titled "National Emergency With Respect to Iran" or also "The Semi-Annual Report to Congress on Iran Emergency."
The report is included 3 different times, first on what looks like internal White House stationary (p.7-11), second in two-column format with the header "Administration of Ronald Reagan 1985/Apr 22" (p.12-14) and third on paper with the headline "THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary" (p.21-24).
Preceding the report is a notice, extending the state of emergency with Iran.
There are two memos to the President from Secretary of the Treasury James Baker. The first (p.6) advises the President that he must make this report to congress. The second (p.18) advises him that he must publish the notice in the Federal Register in order to be sure that the Nov 14, 1979 "declaration of national emergency with respect to Iran" not be allowed to expire on Nov 14, 1985. Sec Baker warns:
If the Iran emergency were allowed to lapse, the Government would be limited to existing measures regarding Iran. This could prevent you from taking steps necessary to implement the January 1981 agreements with Iran, from effectuating new settlements with Iran, or from protecting the interests of U.S. nationals with claims against Iran. It could also impair the Government's position in litigation involving Iran.
Who knew that seemingly insignificant small pieces of paper like a "notice" could be so important in the Government's foreign policy. I guess I just wonder whether James Baker was really concerned about the lapse or whether his memo was a matter of protocol.
The report itself discusses the trials going on at the tribunal and the various ways claims were decided one way or another. There were claims by individuals and organizations and various Government departments were also involved including Justice, Treasury and State concerning the Algiers Accords.
Either way, the report came from the White House and was given the Ok by Roberts and the Counsel's office, not the other way around.
Roberts himself wrote three memos for Staff Secretary David Chew.
1. November 12, 1985 (p.2) Roberts relays information from Treasury and State about stats in the report concerning the number of claimants and confirms a proposed change in language - moving from the date the Congress passed a bill (July 31) to the date the President signed it (Aug 16). These corrections were made by the final version of the report in this box on pages 21-24.
2. November 6, 1985 (p.3) This memo was obviously written first. It confirms Counsel's review of the report and request some changes. One involved a total number of small claimants. This change was not reflected in any version of the report. The other was the above stated change regarding the dates on the bill. Roberts states that the "legally significant date is the date the President signed the bill into law."
3. October 30, 1985 (p.15) This earliest memo concerns the notice of extending the Iran Emergency. Roberts stated that Counsel found "no objection from a legal perspective" but proposes some changes to punctuation "[s]oley in the interests of stylistic conformity with last year's notice." It's all about the commas and the underlining.
The final version of the report was released on November 13, 1985.
Posted by Abigail at 02:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
A Cool $10K on Global Warming
This story reinforces my belief that although the earth is certainly warming, the cause of the warming is not certain, nor is the conclusion that some global pact can stop it. I find it interesting that a leading global climate change expert would not give a skeptic 50:1 odds that the earth would cool. If he is so certain about global warming, why not? At least there is now real money on the line between scientists with competing theories.
Posted by Rick at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Friday Blog Review: The NCC, Porous Borders, Condotels, and more
A quick look around the blogosphere:
The Church of the Latter-Day Leftists: Jacob Laksin at OrthodoxyToday.com writes about the leftist agenda of the National Council Churches. (h/t: Father John)
A sample:
This should not be taken to mean that the NCC has been wholly silent on the issue of human rights. The organization continues to issue press releases decrying abhorrent human rights conditions around the world. However, the countries that the NCC chooses to single out for opprobrium show the extent to which the organization's religious mission has been corrupted by its radical leftist politics. One study, conducted by the Institute of Religion and Democracy in September 2004, found that "of the seven human rights criticisms it issued from 2000-2003, Israel received four, the United States two, and Sudan one." Moreover, the study noted, "Fully 80 percent of the NCC resolutions targeting foreign nations for human rights abuses were aimed at Israel."
An Entryway for Terrorists: LaShawn Barber is discouraged by the Bush Administration’s inability or unwillingness to deal decisively with illegal immigration and the vulnerability it creates against the very threat we’re fighting in Iraq. She writes:
Even more mysterious is Bush’s “fair” immigration policy that allows terrorists, the very people we’re fighting in Iraq, to walk right across the southern border. Every time an American is killed for “freedom” in that stinking desert, I wonder how better served our country would be if he’d been here at home guarding his borders.
Broken Masterpieces is also writing on the porous borders invites terrorists theme, citing Chuck Colson and introducing a further Christian perspective.
Mark Steyn on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Hugh has the text of his interview with British blogger Mark Steyn today.
They touched on the NY Times story on CBS’ ideas for revamping its evening newscast:
HH: Last story. CBS moving to find a new look for news is the headline in the New York Times today, Mark Steyn. It's a lengthy kind of inside baseball of what's ABC going to do, and what CBS is going to do. I compared it to Edsel versus Studebaker, and was upbraided by Studebaker club members for insulting Studebaker. Does it really matter? Does this stuff have any impact at all? MS: No. I think the days when you had one distinguished man in late middle age, who pontificated for half and hour, and basically told you what you should think about what had happened in the world that day, I think those days are over. And it doesn't really matter whether you hire another distinguished man in late middle age, or a couple of sock puppets to do it. Those days are over. And Americans are more diverse sources of news, and they're also more engaged in finding out for themselves. That's the great thing about a lot of what's happened on the internet. You can actually read the Pakistani papers before you go to bed each night. That's the new world.
The New Wave of Condotels: Interesting post at The American Scene on the popularity of “condotels.” Quoting from the Wall Street Journal:
The hotel industry has gotten into the act, bringing about the rise of the "condotel," a hybrid of a hotel and condo where people buy what are effectively hotel rooms. Smith Travel Research, a hotel-research firm based in Hendersonville, Tenn., last week released a new database tracking the nascent segment. Their research shows a boom with 227 projects under way nationwide representing 93,425 units. A little more than 24,000 of those are hotel rooms.Condotels tend to be in prime second-home destinations, though many are popping up in other urban areas in part because condo owners are attracted to the hotel services they can access, such as room service.
Posted by Jim at 07:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Christian View of the City
Noting that I am both a Christian and a City Planner, professor Philip Bess of the Notre Dame School of Architecture pointed me to an article he wrote a couple years ago for the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty entitled, "Civic Art and the City of God: Traditional Urban Design and Christian Evangelism." His thesis?
...good cities are an essential component of the good life for human beings and that urbanism is therefore not surprisingly a privileged symbol of the historic Christian imagination. Post-World War II suburban sprawl is the antithesis of good urbanism; and, to the extent that Christian churches simply accept the premises of suburban culture, we compromise both the substance and the effectiveness of our evangelical efforts. Christian churches can better contribute both to the good of the City of Man and our witness to the City of God by more conscientiously seeking within our means to promote the physical forms of good traditional urbanism.I haven't yet formed a complete opinion on the article, other than it is definitely worth a read as it's not a typical Christian pespective. I hope to develop that thought a bit more some time. Check out the Congress for the New Urbanism for more on the concept and if you are really interested in my thoughts on the subject, check out Calthorpe and Fulton's "The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl."
[...]
No one should ever underestimate the power of active, disciplined love, which is (of course) of God. We make all of our cities to achieve the good life, but our greatest cities are products of love: artifacts made in imitation not only of nature (as Aristotle would have it) but even more fundamentally in imitation of the divine. In that imitative process we create a shared world, a common world that is—quite precisely—lovely; and this should be a common vocation of all of us who call ourselves Christians.
Posted by Rick at 02:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
How Much Steam Does the Fair Tax Train Have?
Enough to run over some politicians, says Matt Towery at Town Hall.
(There’s a new blog coalition forming for the fair tax called Fair Tax Fans. You can sign up here.)
Towery writes of the impact of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder:
Republicans and just about everybody else in the Washington establishment have been scared to touch this proposal in the past. The reason is simply that most of them are afraid of radical change of any sort.After all, there are plenty of big government bureaucracies as well as law and accounting firms that potentially could be wiped out by a fundamental simplification of the revenue system.
Another impediment will be those who view a fair tax as some sort of right-wing attack on the nation's middle class and the poor.
But the book and its concept have arrived at a perfect time. The Republican-led Congress is viewed right now as having few, if any, new ideas. The president is taking a five-week vacation while Iraq simmers closer to a boiling point.
I've witnessed and even been a modest player in some of those rare moments when a set of key political players seized on the nation's sense of frustration and turned it into a gain.
The effort I participated in was led by a man named Newt Gingrich, and it was called the "Contract with America." Much of what Gingrich and his pals passed in the spring of 1995 had at one time been viewed as radical, too.
Already critics of the FairTax are using sleight-of-hand tactics to shoot it down before it takes off. To confuse the public, they are using artificially low rates under the current tax system and comparing them favorably to the FairTax.
Doomsday scenarios to frighten those with lower incomes are another anti-FairTax move, even though the FairTax would provide rebates to families with modest incomes.
We've yet to fully poll this issue because first it needs to get some much-deserved attention. But let me assure both Republicans and Democrats that once these red herrings are put aside and the public understands the FairTax, the train will be pulling out of the station. Our elected leaders can either be on it or get run over by it.
Posted by Jim at 07:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What will be Enough for the Palestinians?
It is so difficult to generate genuine optimism about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because hope has always been dashed in some way. And perhaps that is the way it will always be. I believe the establishment of an independent Palestinian is right and just, and this move toward autonomy for Gaza a worthwhile move. However, the Palestinians have not failed to disappoint in the past, and I will be surprised if the Israeli action is treated as anything but an insignificant gesture.
Peter Glover has a thoughtful piece on Gaza, the West Bank, and ultimately, Jerusalem. He writes:
Now I am well aware that many take differing views on this process and these critical issues. Some views are coloured by particular theological interpretations, others are along historic lines, others are based on purely pragmatic considerations to achieve peace.
”Whatever our theological views however, God also calls each one of us to pursue justice for all peoples. That is why I, like Premier Sharon, perceive settling the Palestinian in a re-enfranchised state may be just. However, like many Christians, I have watched the Palestinian leaders squander opportun