« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
September 30, 2005
Normalized Polygamy in the Netherlands
Behold, the slippery slope in action. (Hat tip to The Brussels Journal.)
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
Yes, I understand that "slippery slope" arguments can be ... slippery. It's easy to make them, but harder to prove that they're happening. Well, this story is that proof. First same-sex marriage, then civil unions, and from civil unions you can go literally anywhere. Quoth the groom:
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Next stop, normalized polygamy. That's not some dire prediction. That's what is happening and will happen if we don't hold the line somewhere. I've heard those who suggest that they're for same-sex marriage but not anything further. But this story proves that, having opened the door a crack to let in just one person, a whole multitude stands ready to take advantage of the breach. You can call those who wanted the door to stay closed all sorts of names--prudish, intolerant, homophobic, narrow-minded--but regardless of how accurate or inaccurate those names are, when it comes down to what was predicted would happen, you can also call them "correct".
Will that change the minds of those pushing for civil unions here? For most, I have my doubts, although I have no doubt that they'll be shocked--SHOCKED--when the first trio get married here. "I had no idea" will be no excuse.
Posted by Doug at 08:22 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice
Judge John Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The final vote count was 78-22 with all Republicans, independent Jim Jeffords, and half the Democratic senators voting to confirm.
Now the more difficult task begins: the nomination and confirmation of another conservative justice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But the real challenge is for Democrats who must decide how much to oppose the President's nominee. They may find that there's not much they can do to stop the President's nominee from being confirmed. Especially if it's another judge with superior qualifications like Judge Roberts.
Posted by Tom at 01:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Media Collapse
Via RedState.org's RedHot comes a pointer to a Hugh Hewitt blog post. Hugh first notes the LA Times article on the awful coverage filled with rumor and unsubstantiated report (which we at SCO have covered here and here). Then comes the knockout punch:
Given this failure to capture the true story in New Orleans even with all of the combined resources of all the MSM working around the clock, why would anyone believe that American media is accurately reporting on the events in Iraq from the Green Zone, in the course of a bloody insurgency fought in a language they don't understand? If the combined forces of old media couldn't get one accurate story out of the convention center, why for a moment believe it can get a story out of Mosul or Najaf?
Good question.
Posted by Doug at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
Big Promise from Adult Stem Cells
Remember the ad showing a walking Christopher Reeve? Remember John Edwards saying that someday folks in wheelchairs would be able to get up and walk? Both were extolling the virtues of embryonic stem cell research. Turns out that adult stem cell research, which doesn't require the destruction of embryos and has none of the ethical issues, is on its way to fulfilling that promise.
In an apparent major breakthrough, scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient.The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cythotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident.
After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded:
"The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation."
Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells," in contrast to embryonic stem cells, which have raised ethical concerns because a human embryo must be destroyed in order to harvest them.
The report said motor activity was noticed on day 7, and the woman was able to maintain an upright position on day 13. Fifteen days after surgery, she began to elevate both lower legs about one centimeter.
The study's abstract says not only did the patient regain feeling, but 41 days after stem cell transplantation, testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it.
The scientists conclude the transplantation "could be a good treatment method" for paraplegic patients.
The article notes that this is still very preliminary ("one patient does not a treatment make" cautions a bioethicist), but this is very exciting.
Well, to me it is, at least. A search for just the journal name on Google New today returns only this article and the article it refers to. If this had been done with embryonic stem cells, the media would be all over this, with quotes from John Edwards and Ron Reagan for starters (the latter of which just needs to open his mouth on the subject to get major coverage). Let's hope they come around, but hold not thy breath.
Posted by Doug at 12:56 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Derb on Dylan
John Derbyshire has a great piece on the new Martin Scorsese documentary about Bob Dylan.
Posted by Matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Act Now
Note: This is no way intending to sound preachy; just some thoughts I've had.
I'm learning how to handle this delicate balance, to believe passionately in something and yet to accep that others believe in a different manner, though I may be vehemently convinced that they are wrong. Completely, objectively wrong. As a Christian, I believe in sovereignty but surely that doesn't mean that I don't care and believe that truth - objective truth - has a place in history, economics and the arts. And yet all around I see those with their heads in the clouds - blinders on the sides of their faces - pretending that nothing in this world is wrong. I can't accept that. I won't accept that.
I had a friend once who sang for a punk band. He was an agnostic to the best of my knowledge, though he may be an atheist. (Nick, do you know?) The band always played this one particular song about my friend's uneasy relationship with some Christian believers in his own life and before each time, he would say the song was about people "whose eyes are on the heavens while the world around them is burning like a hell." I thought then, as I do now, that such an analysis was unfair in a general sense, but all too often it was accurate in many specific cases. I, however, won't apologize for looking to Heaven. For when I see Heaven, I see the Cross. And though I see, ultimately, the most significant portrayal of love imaginable in the Cross of Christ, I believe, like Bonhoffer, that the call to believe in this Love is a call to follow, a call to die. This love is not merely sappy or sentimental. The call to come and die is a call to sacrifice and sometimes even, as Bonhoffer sorrowfully demonstrated, a call to fight.
I can't be silent about moral decay in my culture. I don't mean MTV. I don't mean Desperate Housewives or Sex and the City. I mean the state of moral apathy that crassly suggests that this nothing worth dying for, that there is nothing worth sacrifice, that every system of values - whether religious, cultural, social or economic - is valid, equal and good. That doesn't mean we should ever hate or disdain others. But it does mean that even in my desire as a believer to be humble and merciful, I should not feel guilty for believing in a sense of truth and justice, knowing that standards do in fact exist, and the defense of objective truth is a worthy pursuit.
As an example, and I say this as one who loves living in a college town, I suppose I am simply tired of seeing college students (even believers) live as though nothing matters outside their own world. There is suffering in this world. There is injustice in this world. Slavery still exists. There are ways in which we can demonstrate mercy to all kinds of people (first and foremost) and yes, in some cases, other living things. Religious freedom is endangered around the world. There is ample injustice in America, as well, though I would caution that trying to fix any economic problems in America or around the world, in, say, I don't know...Africa?, by tax and spend programs is like trying to fill a round hole with a square peg.
Posted by Matt at 10:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Superdome Reporting: Fair, Balanced, and False
Many journalists put themselves in potentially dangerous situations and worked beyond their physical limits to provide round-the-clock coverage of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But now it is becoming clear that courage, tousled hair, breathlessness, and good work ethic are no substitutes for journalistic standards. It is also clear that rumor posing as fact resulted in egregious charges and vastly sensationalized reports throughout the media.
As Doug reported below, The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the serious and most alarming reports from the Superdome and the Convention Center—of bodies piled high, mass rapes, children with slit throats—were simply not true. They were rumors that initially broadcast media, and then without further investigation, print media reported as fact.
As further evidence that Mayor Nagin and other Louisiana officials are criminally incompetent, one media excuse is that the mayor and others were making public statements about the horrendous—-but evidently fictional—-abuses. The public officials may have picked up some of their information from media reports; some media outlets took courage in reporting on the conditions because of what officials said.
The Associated Press said today:
The ugliest reports — children with slit throats, women dragged off and raped, corpses piling up in the basement — soon became a searing image of post-Katrina New Orleans.The stories were told by residents trapped inside the Superdome and convention center and were repeated by public officials. Many news organizations, including The Associated Press, carried the witness accounts and official pronouncements, and in some cases later repeated the claims as fact, without attribution.
But now, a month after the chaos subsided, police are re-examining the reports and finding that many of them have little or no basis in fact.
They have no official reports of rape and no eyewitnesses to sexual assault. The state Department of Health and Hospitals counted 10 dead at the Superdome and four at the convention center. Only two of those are believed to have been murdered.
So there is mutual culpability. However, it is the responsibility of journalists to ferret out the truth; those who failed to do so bear primary responsibility in the reporting of terrible atrocities that did not occur; reporting that damaged the international image of the United States, that prompted FEMA’s refusal to send its volunteers with aid into what was being reported as a war zone, and that began the slanders against the President.
It is a great example of the importance in modern society of accurate and independent reporting. I teach college journalism classes and I have a wonderful example for tonight’s classes of why we drill the importance of fundamentals in reporting—multiple sources, constant attribution of unsubstantiated statements, remaining personally uninvolved in the stories. These and many other principles were ignored by overly tired, alarmed, and emotionally distraught reporters who were fed bad information and broadcast it to the world.
Posted by Jim at 07:44 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 27, 2005
Oh, Atlanta!
The Atlanta Braves just won their fourteenth straight division title.
Fourteen.
Here's a great piece about the best manager in baseball, Bobby Cox.
Go Braves!
Posted by Matt at 10:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
SCO Must Reads
Over at the BHT, Michael Spencer is speaking the plain truth about FEMA.
He also refers to this post by Tim Challies concerning the Ashley Smith/Brian Nichols/Purpose-Driven Life saga.
In the days after the Smith story broke, I was listening to a sports talk show that is very popular in the Deep South. Lots of callers were talking about their experience with the book. I heard a lot about purpose. I didn't hear much at all about the Gospel.
Just saying.
Posted by Matt at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Have the Hurricanes Helped Guliani's Presidential Hopes?
Lorie Byrd contends in her column today over at Townhall that Hurricane Katrina (and the government's failures in response) have helped Rudy Guliani's presidential hopes:
Thanks to the blame-Bush media, it seems the public now believes that the first and ultimate responder to any kind of disaster, whether natural or man-made, should be the federal government, or more specifically, the President. Giuliani is the only potential 2008 candidate that has shown himself capable of handling a challenge of such historic proportions. Because issues of national security and war and peace in the Middle East will outlive the Bush presidency, the nation will be looking for a leader able to perform in a crisis.Even more than his proven ability to perform under pressure, however, one thing that Giuliani may be able to do, that some other Republicans might not, is unite the country. If Bush, as amiable as he is, and with a reputation as a uniter as governor of Texas, could be painted as an extremist divider, it is reasonable to believe the same will be attempted with the next Republican candidate. Giuliani achieved giant stature in my eyes, and those of most other Americans, with his actions following 9/11. Because he is already known as a uniter and a strong leader, he will be resistant to attempts to portray him otherwise. He can also claim to have received a large number of votes from Democrats in past elections. Not many, if any, of the other potential Republican presidential candidates can say that.
One of the key questions that any presidential candidate must face is how he or she would respond in a crisis. Most candidates are untested on this question until after they are elected. Guliani is in a unique position in that the public has already seen the kind of leader he is when things are tough. Although social conservatives (myself included) would have a hard time reconciling themselves with Guliani's position on issues such as abortion it's difficult to argue against him if national security and/or crisis management is one of the key issues in 2008.
By the way, Patrick Ruffini has his latest straw poll of Republican candidates posted so you can stop by and vote for your favorite. It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Hurricane Katrina will have on the poll results.
Posted by Tom at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Playing the Rumor Game
Ever play the Rumor game, where you whisper one thing to someone, and by the time it gets around the room it's quite different? Well, looks like politicians and news organizations have been playing it in New Orleans.
Maj. Ed Bush recalled how he stood in the bed of a pickup truck in the days after Hurricane Katrina, struggling to help the crowd outside the Louisiana Superdome separate fact from fiction. Armed only with a megaphone and scant information, he might have been shouting into, well, a hurricane.The National Guard spokesman's accounts about rescue efforts, water supplies and first aid all but disappeared amid the roar of a 24-hour rumor mill at New Orleans' main evacuation shelter. Then a frenzied media recycled and amplified many of the unverified reports.
"It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Bush said Monday of the Superdome.
It started in New Orleans proper, and then, via the magic of modern communications, went worldwide.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."Indeed, Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a national television audience on "Oprah" three weeks ago of people "in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."
The article mentions Fox and the NY & LA Times in the US, then the Ottawa Sun in Canada and the Evening Standard in England. These are but examples of a news cycle that continued to feed on itself. Some believe race may have played a factor.
Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part."If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering."
While the media shares in the blame, it certainly didn't help that politicians were feeding the machine.
Some of the hesitation that journalists might have had about using the more sordid reports from the evacuation centers probably fell away when New Orleans' top officials seemed to confirm the accounts.Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass appeared on "Oprah" a few days after trouble at the Superdome had peaked.
Compass told of "the little babies getting raped" at the Superdome. And Nagin made his claim about hooligans raping and killing.
All of these folks--politician and reporter alike--are supposed to be a bit more sober and careful about this. In this day of the 24-hour news cycle, getting this hour's scoop is making the media sound more and more like the National Enquirer as they try to outdo each other. But what are the politicians' excuses? Are they bucking for more money, or just looking for sympathy? It may sound like you care when you complain about how children are mistreated, but when you're just passing around unsubstantiated rumors, that's not compassionate; it's irresponsible. The actual facts were less sensational.
State officials this week said their counts of the dead at the city's two largest evacuation points fell far short of early rumors and news reports. Ten bodies were recovered from the Superdome and four from the Convention Center, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.(National Guard officials put the body count at the Superdome at six, saying the other four bodies came from the area around the stadium.)
Of the 841 recorded hurricane-related deaths in Louisiana, four are identified as gunshot victims, Johannessen said. One victim was found in the Superdome but was believed to have been brought there, and one was found at the Convention Center, he added.
And frankly, there's plenty of actual suffering resulting from Katrina that doesn't require embellishing, while also unreported was much of the good news and good work going on.
Relief workers said that while the media hyped criminal activity, plenty of real suffering did occur at the Katrina relief centers."The hurricane had just passed, you had massive trauma to the city," said Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard.
"No air conditioning, no sewage … it was not a nice place to be. All those people just in there, they were frustrated, they were hot. Out of all that chaos, all of these rumors start flying."
Louisiana National Guard Col. Thomas Beron, who headed security at the Superdome, said that for every complaint, "49 other people said, 'Thank you, God bless you.' "
All this hype and frenzy took its toll on the rescue effort as well. Irresponsible words have consequences.
Bush, of the National Guard, said that reports of corpses at the Superdome filtered back to the facility via AM radio, undermining his struggle to keep morale up and maintain order."We had to convince people this was still the best place to be," Bush said. "What I saw in the Superdome was just tremendous amounts of people helping people."
But, Bush said, those stories received scant attention in newspapers or on television.
I understand that news is, by one definition, that which is unusual, not the ordinary day-to-day events. However, in a disaster area, everything is unusual and extraordinary. This goes for the good news as well as the bad. Does the good news draw viewers as much as the bad? Perhaps not. However, a balance needs to be struck that was missing from the Katrina coverage. And if indeed more people will listen to bad news than good, then it's as much our collective problem as it is that of the media and the politicians specifically.
Posted by Doug at 12:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Foursquare Kingdom Building
One of the interesting characters in American church history of the last century was Aimee Semple McPherson, founder of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the first prominent Pentecostal denomination.
McPherson was reportedly the first woman in America to be granted a radio license by the FCC. The station she began in 1924, operated by the church ever since, was sold earlier this year for a whopping $200 million. Foursquare has used these funds primarily as the corpus of a grant-making foundation. The most interesting aspect of the foundation’s policies, which I reported on in Christianity Today, is that at least 10 percent of the annual grants will be given to causes outside of the denomination.
That’s Kingdom thinking that is not commonly found in denominational decision-making. A hat tip to the spiritual heirs of McPherson.
Posted by Jim at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Snow Daze
President Bush singled out Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue for praise yesterday because the chief executive of our state called on all of the public schools in the state to use two of its snow days, Monday and Tuesday, in order to conserve diesel fuel.
This decision was communicated to the schools at 3:45 p.m. on Friday, so the kids came home for the weekend with a slip of paper announcing their great news and an unexpected two-day vacation.
There weren’t many people in Georgia singing Perdue’s praises, however, except the school children. Although the governor was no doubt trying to exert leadership and preempt shortages, when Rita failed to destroy as it was expected to, the snow days looked silly. And for parents who had to miss work because there wasn’t time to make other arrangements, the decision was maddening.
The irony is even greater when you know that Georgia’s public schools are routinely ranked #49 or #50 in the country (sometimes the state can brag: We beat Alabama!) What does it say about education priorities when sending the kids home is the first line of conservation.
Perdue gained some political capital earlier in the month when he lifted the state gasoline tax, to bring post-Katrina gasoline price back below $3 a gallon. He’s mismanaged that good will away.
This is all an exercise in controlling perceptions and panics. Two days off school or the Governor carpooling to the State House are not going to make a significant difference. The President suggested a number of similar “band-aid” measures yesterday.
We need more leadership to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, on all fossil fuels, and on one region of the country for refining oil. We need more refineries. And we need to fast track the moribund nuclear power industry.
In the meantime, just calm down. And let the kids go back to school.
Posted by Jim at 08:37 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Contrasting Views
Here's an editorial in last week's Crimson White, the student newspaper at the University of Alabama, my alma mater and current school. The piece was written by a Christian.
Here's a response in today's paper written by someone who is not a believer.
Discuss among yourselves.
Posted by Matt at 05:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 24, 2005
Hillary's well-played hand
A well-played hand must be noted.
Hillary Clinton has been working hard to win over the NYC First Responders ever since the Cops and Firefighters of 9/11 booed her at Madison Square Garden. Say what you will about her, she is patient, and she will do what it takes - over time - to achieve her goals.
With this pronouncement, she has made a significant and lasting inroad with them.
The only politician who can say he is now chummier with the First Responders, not just in NYC, but in the nation, is Rudy Giuliani.
Very smart move. Coming right on the heels of her meeting with Mother Sheehan and declaring no on John Roberts, to appease the whackadoo base, she comes back and goes "centrist" where it can't hurt her (the whackadoos don't much care about the IFC), and scoops up the Responders on the way.
I will never vote for her myself. Not ever. I voted for a Clinton once and that will be the first and last time. But...that was well-played.
Posted by Thecla at 12:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Market: Why Worship It?
(Jim, this isn't directed at you - just a related rant.)
There are so many non-"Oh my! Gas is $4/gallon!" reasons to demand alternative energy sources.
If we know that our petroleum consumption is not sustainable, causes environmental damage, and supports terrorist nations, then our government should take steps to push the market to supply alternatives.
"Market" theory, when dealing with anything other than rivalrous/excludable goods, often fails, or only works itself out in the "long run." Well, in the long run: a) we're all dead; or b) irreversible long-term damage is done before the market kicks in.
Like lemmings, we design our regions so that the car is for most people the only feasible mode of travel. We fill tank after tank of petrol but know that we contribute marginally to the cumulative problem, so the free rider effect wins and we keep sucking the petrol.
Poisonous air, polluted runoff, acid rain, terrorist attacks - all products of our reliance on oil - are examples of externalities not adequately considered by our idol, the market.
My idea of a good Republican is one who understands economics well enough to know that markets are rarely perfect, and the only time they work well is when dealing with a certain type of good (pure private goods). A good Republican realizes that government can prime markets or push them to move in certain directions through taxation, regulation, and prohibition. A good Republican believes that government can be a good compliment to the market, not an enemy. A good Republican would have supported higher gas taxes to fund R&D of alternative fuels a long time ago. If this Republican isn't considered a "conservative" for her worldview, so be it.
Unfortunately, most Republicans I know continue to worship their idol, the market, ignorant of its theoretical and practical limitations. Markets aren't perfect. The government isn't perfect. Why worship either?
The river of truth flows through the valley of two extremes. Market economics is not the answer. Socialism is not the answer. But moderate government intervention of markets can be a very good thing.
Posted by Rick at 01:27 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack
September 23, 2005
Vegetable Power: An Alternative to Gasoline Guzzling
With reports that the price of gasoline will hit $4.00 a gallon if the Texas refineries are closed very long because of Rita, I found this article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quite interesting.
With very little modification, a local Gwinnett County fellow has converted his VW Jetta diesel to run on vegetable oil. Nothing fancy, just vegetable oil that is being discarded by an area Thai restaurant.
We certainly need to be heading this way, to far greater use of renewable fuels to run our engines.
The article is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the story is real. And it really does make one hopeful that there are alternatives to our dependence on fossil fuels.
Posted by Jim at 09:46 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Game Theory
Game theory meant something else when I was an undergrad.
Posted by Rick at 05:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The New New Deal
Conservative, small-government types are getting run over by the latest spending spree by the Republican-controlled Congress. This Cox & Forkum cartoon on the subject points to this OpinionJournal article by Stephen Moore called "The GOP's New New Deal". He opines:
Conspicuously missing from the post-Katrina spending debate is a question for some brave soul in Congress to ask, What is the appropriate and constitutional role here for the federal government? Before the New Deal taught us that the federal government is the solution to every malady, most congresses and presidents would have concluded that the federal government's role was minimal. One of our greatest presidents, Democrat Grover Cleveland, vetoed an appropriation for drought victims because there was no constitutional authority to spend for such purposes. Today he would be ridiculed by Ted Kennedy as "incompassionate."We all want to see New Orleans rebuilt, but it does not follow that this requires more than $100 billion in federal aid. Chicago was burned to the ground in 1871; San Francisco was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; and in 1900 Galveston, Texas, was razed by a hurricane even more ferocious than Katrina. In each instance, these proud cities were rebuilt rapidly and to even greater glory--with hardly any federal money.
That's so hard to do in today's world because, as Moore points out, the culture has already been conditioned, by the New Deal and its reinforcements since then, to expect this from the federal government. Here's a paragraph from Grover Cleveland's biography at whitehouse.gov:
Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . "
Indeed, President Cleveland was right; we now live in the age of that expectation. And the sturdiness of character that rebuilt 3 cities on its own within 35 years seems to have been dealt a serious, self-inflicted blow, first by Cleveland's own Democratic party, but now we see that too many Republicans have had a hand in it. Much of this can be laid at the feet of those who think that the Constitution is a thing of rubber to be twisted into whatever shape is desired at the moment rather than a firm foundation. As government has seeped out of the bounds created for it, and voters have elected more and more people willing to encourage such seepage, the money taken in increased, and with the money came power, and with that power came arrogance. And the descent along this slippery slope continues because each time we slid farther, "it seemed like a good/compassionate idea at the time".
Now it's city mayors and state governors looking first to Washington to bail them out of a crisis, rather than teaming up with local businesses and charities. We are a much, much wealthier nation than we were in 1871, but in the current culture, self-sufficiency and community effort seem to be things of the past.
Yet almost as soon as the embers had cooled, Chicago business leaders deployed to New York to persuade investors that this was the time to put more of their money into Chicago, not less. Peter Alter, curator of the Chicago Historical Society, recounts the story of William D. Kerfoot, a real-estate speculator whose offices had burned. The day after the fire was extinguished, Mr. Kerfoot erected a crudely made painted sign: "All Gone But Wife, Children and Energy."
That article goes on to describe the response to three other cities that fell to disaster, and shows, in spite of some cases of man's tendency to take advantage of a situation, people and organizations did have the energy to deal with the situation, rather than immediately look to Washington, DC. Do we still have that personal energy, or are we content to not even try? Private individuals, private charities and private organizations were able to rebuild in times past; why do we automatically think that could never happen now?
Well, not all of us think that.
Posted by Doug at 10:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
DC Bound
Sunday I fly to DC for 9 days of FEMA training. Following training, I will be deployed immediately to the field for at least 3 months - location to be determined. It looks like I will be supporting FEMA with damage assessment, debris removal, site preparation, site planning, and reconstruction. That covers just about everything, so it doesn't tell me much. Whatever. I just want to serve.
Pray for my wife and kids that they will be strong while I'm gone.
Posted by Rick at 03:22 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
A Better Lie Detector
I remember seeing a short movie on something like this when I was in high school. The idea was fanciful then, but it's becoming more of a reality.
BRAIN-SCANNING techniques that test whether people are telling the truth could soon be sufficiently reliable to be used to interrogate criminals.Neuroscientists developing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as a tool for detecting lies believe the technology is nearly ready for use beyond the laboratory.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed a way of reading fMRI scans that is claimed to be capable of telling lies from the truth with 99 per cent accuracy.
The question in the movie was, would this run afoul of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination? It's possible. The main question is; what was the purpose of a such a protection? As such, would a device like this protect us from the abuses that the 5th Amendment does? It's a very interesting idea, being able to get the truth for sure, but could it be abused and manipulated, giving bad information the credentials of good information because "the machine said so"?
Tough questions.
Posted by Doug at 03:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More on Worldviews
There's been a lot of said over the last few years about the Christian worldview, its positives and its excesses. Let me offer this piece as a means of detailing where I agree and where I disagree with the prevailing worldview and its implications. The catalyst for this was this piece by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. I'm not in total opposition to Spencer's viewpoint, but I want to offer my own slant on the topic.
To begin, let me offer this much: A great deal of the worldview thinking has gone overboard. I think the Worldview Weekend is lame. It goes to ridiculous lengths to endorse the GOP as God's Party. I'm not on board with that. I think Nancy Pearcey takes some absurd leaps when she tries to suggest that rock music is inappropriate for the Christian believer. While I respect Francis Schaeffer's work, I also think he drew some unnecessary philosophical lines that labeled lots of things as "dangerous" when they needn't be, i.e. anything influenced by Kirkegaard or Barth. I didn't say we had to agree with it, mind you, I'm just saying that those ideas aren't immediately dangerous in the way that Sartre or Camus are.
Having said that, and I hope to revisit my criticism of Pearcey soon enough, let me detail where I am on board with the notion that Biblical orthodoxy can lead to certain social, economic and political beliefs. It's true enough that there is no Scripture arguing for the creation of a capitalist state, but I can look at the Bible and see a basic endorsement of personal freedom, the right to private property, and the freedom to ply one's craft without any sort of major interference from an oppressive government. Scripture suggests that we should maintain communal bonds, caring for one another and those who cannot care for themselves. The New Testament doesn't go a long way in suggesting that we care for others by taxing ourselves and then practicing a generic redistribution of wealth. My point here is to suggest that some degree of free-market economics can easily be justified by Scripture. Can free market economics be abused? Absolutely, and I reject any idea that says the market rules above all. Christians in business and government must be fair and euitable in all their dealings.
Now as it relates to specific government proposals, of course the Bible doesn't offer an opinion on health care. But I can look at the problem of socialized health care and see that it leads to ridiculously high taxes, a lack of choice for the individial and, typically, a decrease in the quality of health care. That may not be explicitly Biblical, but it sure is common sense. We might call it natural law, no? And like Aquinas, I believe that natural law was instituted by God, and any government program that consistenly tries to kick against natural law and first principles just isn't going to work. And yes, we're fallen humans, so nothing is going to flourish forever, but there's a significant difference between an idea that has problems and an idea that is an unmitigated disaster.
So what then does the Christian think about tax policy and welfare? Specifically, I don't know that a believer could argue for the Reagan tax policy as opposed to the Bush policy. But given the intentions of the government, I do think one could make a case that the Reagan policy was better than the LBJ policy or that Margaret Thatcher's ideas were better than Tony Blair's. Why? Well, not to sound too pragmatic, but they worked. And I don't mean that God's on the side of the winner, but I mean that Thatcher and Reagan worked (while LBJ and Blair haven't) because they've adhered to first principles of natural law when developing their economic policies, believing that individuals and communities know best, that government should stay out of the way and that private charity is most effective. Is that the Christian position? I don't know. I don't want a sermon on it this Sunday, but at the same time, I don't want us to pretend that God hasn't laid down certain natural precepts that will lead to a smoother (not necessarily perfect - totally depravity and all that) flow in the economy. To suggest that a Christian can be for any old party is to suggest that those parties don't take a stance on these matters and that perhaps God doesn't either. That's just plain false.
If what I've endorsed sounds an awful lot like conservatism, well, so be it. The simple truth is that the major American conservatives of the last fifty years have, on the whole, been both orthodox Christians and Jews (with a few agnostic exceptions), meaning that they held to certains understandings of natural law that are easily extrapolated from Scripture. Likewise, a brief perusal of the Conservative Reader shows a fair number of Christians, Lewis, Eliot and Muggeridge included, within its ranks. If that makes some people uncomfortable, then so be it. I don't want the church to wave the banner for the Republican party, but on this aspect of politics, I'm generally persuaded that the traditionally conservative position is the more defensible one for the Christian tradition.
Consider this part one of a series. I will return, hopefully tonight or tomorrow, with my thoughts on where the Christian worldview is perhaps off on matters of art and where, despite some terrible Evangelical public relations, is still pretty much right on matters of family and marriage.
Posted by Matt at 12:42 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Democrats Dazed and Confused on Roberts
The transparent duplicity of the Senate's Democratic leadership emasculates whatever strategy they had in mind regarding their verdict on Chief Justice nominee John Roberts.
Do they expect anyone to believe that the liberal warhorse Patrick Leahy measured John Roberts and found him worthy, while Harry Reid, the anti-abortion Democratic Leader from a conservative-leaning state, found the judge wanting?
Strange indeed.
I understand the eagerness of the Democrats to look reasonable regarding Roberts, now that their opposition is doomed. If they can look thoughtful now, perhaps Americans will remember their thoughtfulness when they become rapid in their attacks on the next nominee.
But is Reid, and by proxy the Democratic Party itself, so weak and beholden to the liberal interests groups of the left that have marched through his office that he had to become the designated symbol of opposition to the impressive but conservative jurist.
And with the first signals from these two leading Democratic senators, with others making far less news as they lined up for or against Roberts, the Democrats botched their message.
Reid looks pathetic, and the Democrats look dazed and confused.
Wait, that’s not news, is it?
Posted by Jim at 07:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
Smart Growth: Let the Market Decide
I just finished reading a 2001 interview of New Urbanist Andres Duany for my urban design class.
Q: Where do you think the Bush administration will go with smart growth?He's so right...A: Smart growth, thanks to Al Gore's backing, has been positioned as a movement of he left, and so the right is reflexively attacking it. But smart growth could be repositioned: It shouldn't be imposed, but is should be legal everywhere.
Right now, when you want to build a compact, diverse, walkable, and transit-friendly community, it's illegal. You need variance after variance after variance. Let's suggest instead that every single jurisdiction should have a smart growth code so that the market can decide - because right now the market has only sprawl as a choice. This idea can be presented to the Republicans as choice.
Take a moment to view Peter Calthorpe's photo simulations and project portfolio. Like Duany's, Calthorpe's master planning and urban design business is booming as developers realize that there is a great deal of profit to be made from transforming extremely dull, inefficient, and often decaying suburban nowhereplaces into vibrant, walkable, and mixed-use communities.
Unfortunately, like a square peg in a round hole, most of their projects are forced to comply with sprawl perpetuating development standards. The product is too often a Disneyland version of the original vision.
The market wants to supply new urbanist communities - government regulation is holding the market back. And new urbanism is paradoxically championed by the left and frustrated by the right. Odd, don't you think?
Posted by Rick at 10:04 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
LSU - Overrated?
With all due respect to Josh Britton, let me offer a suggestion:
LSU is, currently, the most overrated team in college football. Why? It's got a little something to do with the asinine preseason rankings. The poll voters have a tendency to keep preseason rankings in place until a top team loses. For example, the number one and two teams, USC and Texas, respectively, have not lost. Therefore they remain in their position. LSU had a preseason ranking of number three, thus they remain in that position.
There's just one problem. They've played one game. One. Yes, I know there was a hurricane, but they've only missed one game. Florida, Georgia, Florida State and Virginia Tech all have records of 3-0 with wins against quality opponents, but they won't move up the ranks until LSU loses. All this because of a lame preseason polling system.
Weak.
Posted by Matt at 12:30 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
September 20, 2005
Red-Staters for Increased Spending?
OK, I read the article at Redstate.org called "I, Heretic" as well as a number of the (very numerous) comments.
And now my brain hurts.
I'll admit my knowledge of economics isn't what I'd like it to be; most of my opinion comes from how certain policies have worked in the far or recent past. However, "Nick Danger" posts about why, to get the smaller government conservatives would like, we need to spend more money now. The Katrina recovery, he says, is the perfect opportunity to show how an enterprise solution to this socio-economic problem works better than an entitlement-based one.
It's a well-thought-out analysis. I guess. >grin<
If the choice is more federal government spending by Republicans vs. giving the money to the 3rd most indicted city government in the country, well... Rock, meet Hard Place. Hard Place, this is Rock.
Feel free to educate me in the comments, especially as related to the ideas in the article. Some of what Nick writes, especially about the benefits of China holding our bonds, and explored more in the article's comments, run counter to some of the thoughts previously expressed by commenters on our site. What I find interesting is that Nick sees this as a way to ultimately decrease the size of government, by getting the public to see how well it could work and actually want it.
Pigs flyings? Upside-down logic? Perhaps, but Nick can be persuasive. Give it a read and tell me what you think.
Posted by Doug at 09:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Pat Robertson
Interesting stuff from Mere Comments.
I say let's give him the boot and be done with it.
Posted by Matt at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Consumer Confidence and Katrina?
As another large hurricane grows in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening American oil production once again, perhaps it's a good a time as any to talk about how Katrina has affected the American economy - or more so, how some people think Katrina has affected it.
Last week there was talk that consumer sentiment is slumping because of Hurricane Katrina and now the Fed raises interest rates. But what does this talk about consumer sentiment really mean and is it even valid? Reading about why the Fed is raising rates, it's good to know there isn't much talk about "consume sentiment" which is good, cause I think it's bunk. I'll grant that the economy is in shock, just like many people are in shock. I'll even grant that less people have been shopping in the last few weeks - or rather, that they are spending less money on those trips. But, is the reason for these tighter purse strings necessarily worry over the economy?
Could it be that they are saving money to donate it to the relief work?
Could people have been home watching the 24/7 news coverage instead of shopping?
Could they be spending their time volunteering instead of shopping?
Or...I wonder if this economic analysis of the economy takes into account the fact that one of the major cities in the US is no longer spending any money. But ok, I'll assume they considered that.
The result was similar to trends in other consumer surveys as well as a string of major polls showing waning support for the Bush administration's economic policies."I think there's probably also a degree of loss of confidence in the government," said David Sloan, economist at 4CAST Ltd. in New York.
Loss of confidence in government? I don't know, I appreciate the Mr. Sloan is crediting the average American shopper with such complex thought processes. As Jim chronicled yesterday, some American shoppers are just tired of thinking about Katrina, so it's not stopping them from hanging out at the mall or anything.
For me personally, I know I've been spending less money in the stores, both because I am unemployed (which I was before Katrina) and because I wanted to be able to contribute to organizations like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. I also look at a lot of things differently now. For example, the way I treat water is different. I'm not so quick to dump out fresh water just because it sat on the counter for a while. It's true that I'm being more efficient about my driving since the gas prices went so high. But they've dropped over 50 cents in my area and I'm still being efficient...because really, I should have been all along right? So often in times of crisis we are awoken to things about our behavior that should have been changed long ago. Perhaps those of us whose actions are changing because of Katrina are only benefiting from better focus and awareness - not because we are so worried about the economy or because we trust the government any more or less than we did before - or more or less than we should have in the first place.
Posted by Abigail at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sitting It Out
Rick's going to love this one.
I'm pretty sick of the spending and all this cronyism on the part of W is eight kinds of lame. So in next fall's national elections, I'm thinking very seriously of sitting out. Alabama has a Senator up for reelection; Jeff Sessions is a good man, but he may have to win without my vote. I've got a Democrat Congressman; I won't be voting for him, but I may not be voting for the GOP candidate, either.
If I sit one out, I'll be back on the team in 2008, but this nonsense has to end.
See Rod Dreher and the Michelle Malkin link that Rick referenced earlier.
Posted by Matt at 06:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Bravo Michelle!
Michelle Malkin exposes another Bush crony appointee. Conservatives shouldn't be afraid to confront the President when he deserves it. Bravo Michelle!
Posted by Rick at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Pope Speaks Out on Homosexual Priests
When I first started blogging, the topic I posted mostly on was the Catholic church's pedophile priest problem, and how the media completely ignored the fact that >90% of the instances were between priests and boys, thus making this as much a homosexual priest problem. Well, today the Pope has reaffirmed the church's stance on the issue.
Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document that bans men with homosexual tendencies from being ordained as priests, reports Catholic World News.The policy statement is a direct result of the pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church – especially in the U.S.
The new document, prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education in response to a request made by the late Pope John Paul II in 1994, will be published soon. It will take the form of an "Instruction," signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation: Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski and Archbishop Michael Miller, according to the report.
This is not a change in policy. It's meant most likely for the North American churches that have been ignoring it.
The "Instruction" does not represent a change in church teaching or policy, according to the Vatican.Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America.
Posted by Doug at 01:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Revelation Upon Us?
Tens of thousands dead from an earthquake in Iran. Tens of thousands more dead from a heat wave in Europe. Hundreds of thousands dead from a tsunami in Asia. 90,000 square miles ravaged by a hurricane. What do they have in common? All very recent natural disasters of "Biblical proportion."
Now come doomsday predictions from the World Health Organization of a potential plague or pestilence of Biblical proportion - the Avian Bird Flu (ABF).
Keep your eye on FluWiki for details on National ABF Awareness Week sometime in October.
A non-Christian dentist friend of mine told me not to worry about global pandemics. With a heavy dose of snark, he exhorted me to "Trust in the Lord." Well, duh... But just as I trust in the Lord for the safety of my family, I still lock the door.
I have to wonder...Is Revelation upon us?
Posted by Rick at 12:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Worldview Pros and Cons
A few nights ago at Matt Crash!, I linked to a post by Dr. Al Mohler on the topic of adults choosing to delay children. In a post today at the Boars Head Tavern, Michael Spencer took issue with the piece, saying:
"Finally, The topics that relate to the Christian worldview never cease to amaze me. I mean, I get it, but where we are going here? If you don't get married and have babies quick...what? God is offended? The culture goes to the dogs? I'm just unclear."
I'll have more to say about Spencer's most recent critique of the current issues at work within the dogmatic framework of the "Christian worldview," but I'm at a loss to see why he has a problem here. Let me begin by saying I share his concern that Mohler's blogging and online commentary is often too political. Frankly, there are many more commentators doing a much better job at dealing with cultural issues. On top of that, Mohler's "blog" is often little more than a collection of links or summaries of other articles. Likewise I share the feeling with other bloggers that Mohler does lots of scolding with little understanding. So my point here is not in defending Mohler, though like Spencer, I have a lot of respect for his work at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and within the theological community.
I've taken issue with Mohler before, most notably concerning the topic of delayed marriage. Yet I was not stating disagreement with Mohler's concern in this post and this one. I was then and am now bothered by his inability to understand the circumstances faced by my generation. To date, he has not yet shown a proper understanding. This might have something to do with always speaking at seminaries and Christian colleges, instead of talking to students at, for lack of a better term, secular institutions.
Having said that, I think Mohler is basically right about the dangers in delaying both marriage and childbirth. Yes, I know there are plenty of good Christian twentysomethings delaying both of these things for purposes of ministry. There are also lots of good Christian twentysomethings having fun being single and living like a nineteen year old. I know plenty of them; up until about a year ago, I was really looking forward to being one of them. I guess my question for folks like Spencer is this: even if "early" marriage isn't a biblical position (like, say, tithing) it is certainly a practice that nearly every society in human history has decided to undertake. If we decide that it's a point that we can adhere to at our own whim, we are conceding to drastic cultural change. Mohler would likely suggest, as I do, that Christians should be slow to accept such change. This change is the result of technological and industrial advances; should the Church give up this ground?
A secondary point I would emphasize is that Mohler's position on this matter is by no means limited to evangelical Christians. Conservative Catholics often hold this position in places like National Review and First Things. Nonevangelicals take up the argument in the Weekly Standard and Touchstone. Orthodox believers like John Mark Reynolds and Frederica Matthewes-Green do, as well. Stanley Kurtz has been making an essentially secular argument that says delaying marriage and children will ultimately be detrimental to our social order. So while folks like Al Mohler and James Dobson make an evangelical push - and again, I'm not entirely comfortable with their premises - there are many, many others who come to the same conclusions with slightly different arguments. These arguments are often more persuasive, in my opinion, but I worry that Spencer and others like him are ignoring important cultural matters because of an understandable problem with the way many evangelicals present the issue.
Posted by Matt at 12:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Simon Wiesenthal, 1908-2005
From Fox News:
Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust survivor who helped track down Nazi war criminals following World War II, then spent the later decades of his life fighting anti-Semitism and prejudice against all people, died Tuesday. He was 96.Wiesenthal, who helped find one-time SS leader Adolf Eichmann and the policeman who arrested Anne Frank, died in his sleep at his home in Vienna, said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.
"I think he'll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust. In a way he became the permanent representative of the victims of the Holocaust, determined to bring the perpetrators of the greatest crime to justice," Hier told The Associated Press.
A survivor of five Nazi death camps, Wiesenthal changed his life's mission after the war, dedicating himself to tracking down Nazi war criminals and to being a voice for the 6 million Jews who died during the onslaught. He himself lost 89 relatives in the Holocaust.
Wiesenthal spent more than 50 years hunting Nazi war criminals, speaking out against neo-Nazism and racism, and remembering the Jewish experience as a lesson for humanity. Through his work, he said, some 1,100 Nazi war criminals were brought to justice.
Posted by Tom at 09:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Punish Executive Crooks Without Punishing Ourselves
In what is becoming common treatment of senior executives who abuse the public trust, the ex-Tyco leaders were given long prison sentences of 8-25 years. What is different about these convictions is that they are state cases, not federal, and because of the length of the sentences, prison time is likely to be served at the terrible Attica prison in western New York.
There is a tendency to relish the harsh punishment of arrogant leaders who have hurt many people financially; who thought they were above the law, and who had no regard for the damage they were causing others.
But as I have explained before, prisons should be used to punish violent and dangerous offenders, not people we dislike. There is a range of severe and appropriate punishments that do not use expensive prison space, and do not mix non-violent lawbreakers with murderers and other thugs.
Community-based punishments would be appropriate for the Tyco rascals. Sending them to a maximum-security prison is cruel and unusual punishment.
There a biblical sense of justice, however, that points to the need to be merciful, as God has been merciful to us, with an ironic twist not unlike a reverse reading of Matthew 18:21-32:
In perhaps the most dramatic moment of the hearing, [the prosecutor] read aloud from a letter [Tyco executive] Kozlowski had written in 1995 to a Houston judge overseeing the sentencing of a Tyco employee who had been convicted of stealing from the company; Mr. Kozlowski urged that a maximum sentence be imposed.(Source)[The prosecutor] said of Mr. Kozlowski, "What the defendant said on that occasion applies on this occasion."
Posted by Jim at 07:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gays in the Military
Ed Brayton of ITA links to a piece in Positive Liberty highlighting the contradiction in the military's policy on gay service.
On the one hand, they adamantly claim that allowing gays to serve in the military undermines morale and unit cohesion (the same exact arguments they made 60 years ago against allowing blacks to serve in "white" units, incidentally), but on the other hand when wartime comes around they suddenly stop discharging those who admit to being gay.I'm sure that the military's policy, if accurately described here, is an attempt to limit use of the "gay card" to avoid deployment in a war zone, but that makes me wonder why the military would want to deploy cowards in the first place. That point aside, the contradiction is glaring given that the miliary's rationale for their policy is that allowing gays to serve openly would harm morale and unit cohesion in battle.
Ed ended his post by taking a stand against discrimination: "Gay soldiers can serve their country just as bravely as straight ones."
Josh Clayborn questioned Ed and others who agree with him in comments: "Should women also be permitted to serve in all capacities of the military?"
Ed responded: "If an individual is qualified to perform a given duty, I do not think that traits unrelated to the performance of that duty should prevent them from being allowed to do so. That would include their skin color, gender, sexual orientation and perhaps other factors; I would also include the potential reaction of other soldiers to those unrelated traits as an unrelated trait in and of itself."
My two cents: In high school, I studied the case of a woman who served in Panama as an MP during the invasion in 1989. While on patrol, her unit came under fire. Although she had the same training as the men in her unit, the men instinctively surrounded her and would not let her engage the enemy. Due to "traits unrelated to her performance" she became a liability on that mission, although on paper she was supposed to be an asset. Her story provoked a very heated discussion for an 11th grade history class, but the I have always remembered the exercise.
Sure the MP case at was 16 years ago, but I think the point has some contemporary relevance.
The question about gays in the military is not one of the capability of the gay man or woman. It is about the tolerance of the men and women with whom they would serve. The military should not be a social experiment, although I agree that is the same terrible argument used against integration with blacks decades ago.
The issue is tough to approach from a policy standpoint and perhaps best resolved through incrementalism. President Clinton's "Dont' Ask, Don' Tell" policy was a good incremental step. The current policy limiting discharging of gays during war time is another incremental step. The more exposure the brass and grunts get to the gays within their ranks, the more tolerant they will become and the lower the threat they will pose to morale and unit cohesion.
Posted by Rick at 01:42 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
Katrina and Global Warming
My friend Jeff from Shermblog debunks the Global-Warming-and-President-Bush's-failure-to-push-the-Kyoto-Treaty-caused-Hurricane-Katrina argument. There's charts and statistics and everything that a geek like Rick would want to see.
Posted by Mark at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Highlights from the SCO Blogroll
- Captain's Quarters - Angela Merkel may not be the only casualty of the latest round of German elections. German journalists and pollsters who proclaimed the inevitability of her win at the expense of Gerhard Schroeder now wonder how they missed the story so badly.
- Dynamist - In short, think tanks are well into their decadent phase. They're giving their donors what they want--simple sound bites--but they aren't producing many new ideas.
- the evangelical outpost - A few weeks ago I argued that parents who oppose the teaching of neo-Darwinism in public schools were following the wrong tactic. Instead of “Teaching the Controversy” I claimed that they should simply teach students how to think critically and logically and then have them read the claims made by “evolutionists” (people who have an almost religious faith in the ability of the theory to provide "scientific" explanations). At the top of such a reading list would be the complete works of Richard Dawkins.
- In the Agora - I had lunch on Saturday with my friend Dan Ray, a con law teacher, and we had an interesting discussion about John Roberts and the issue of the level of abstraction at which you view a given claim when it comes before the court. This was an issue during his confirmation hearings, though I'm sure a lot of people missed the significance of it.
- Mark D. Roberts - In my last post in this series I suggested, somewhat irreverently, that the Jesus Seminar was like a circle dance in the way it dealt with evidence. Even before the Seminar examined the purported sayings of Jesus, it had already assumed much of what it would eventually conclude. That's called arguing in a circle. But if it's done as artfully as the Jesus Seminar did it, it deserves to be called circle dancing.
- Power Line - In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries. Yesterday another barrier fell, and once again, we entered uncharted waters: former President Bill Clinton launched a vicious attack on President Bush on ABC's "This Week" program.
- Mere Comments - Are Pat Robertson’s days numbered? Of course they are, just like the rest of us. But I mean, is he about to get the “left hand of fellowship” from a number of Christians who are increasingly embarrassed by his public comments?
Posted by Doug at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Trailer Park King
In comments, Fran (bless her heart) wrote that I should give thought and prayer to entering the political arena. Ha! If only I could speak!
Radioblogger dubbed me "King of the Trailer Park" following a call into the Hugh Hewitt show about the fed plans to construct mini-trailer park cities to house evacuees until their communities are rebuilt (See transcript). I can't bring myself to link to the soundbite because it's as unnerving as nails on a chalk board. I'm a bumbling idiot. Sure I was trying to navigate an interstate interchange during the call, but c'mon!
I'll leave politics to the former car salesmen like Tom Campbell. Bumbling idiots don't sell many good cars and a good politician has to sell many lemons.
A note of clarification: The plans I wrote for FEMA involved the construction of 50,000 mobile home units for approximately 150,000 evacuees. In the interview I said, erroneously, that the plans involved 150,000 mobile home units. But, the beauty of the plans (IMHO) is that they are scalable. If the mission is 300,000 units, then all you have to do is replicate my plans 6 times. Also, FEMA told us not to consider the cost because our plans were a first cut at solving the problem. Cost would certainly factor into deciding between alternatives. But FEMA needed alternatives to consider and giving them one was my assignment. Hugh is against the plans and has a few good ideas. Perhaps if I find time I can point out where Hugh is blowing it and where he has it right.
Posted by Rick at 08:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Great Speech Moment
While we’ve debated in this space the merits of President Bush’s recovery proposals, and how they should be funded, I can’t let the time pass without noting a great moment of speechmaking.
The closing of the President’s speech in New Orleans last week was brilliant, and it illuminated the crisis with imagery well known to the New Orleans community, and to many of us who are familiar only with the caricatures of the city and its culture:
In this place, there is a custom for the funerals of jazz musicians. The funeral procession parades slowly through the streets, followed by a band playing a mournful dirge as it moves to the cemetery. Once the casket has been laid in place, the band breaks into a joyful "second line" -- symbolizing the triumph of the spirit over death. Tonight the Gulf Coast is still coming through the dirge, yet we will live to see the second line.
Perfect.
Posted by Jim at 07:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Reality Check
I spend a few hours a week sitting at a table in the student union at Kennesaw State University, preparing for two news writing courses I teach at the Atlanta-area school. Overhearing conversations around the table gives me raw exposure to the thoughts and passions of the next generation, as frightening as that may be.
Last week I picked up from the gaggle of students next to me the following sentiment: “I am sooooo tired of hearing about this hurrican