Giving the bayonet to the "dictatorship of relativism" since 2002
Louisiana news for moviegoers: Maybe I'm behind the curve on this, but I learned just today that a remake of All the King's Men is filming, starring -- are you ready for this? -- Jude Law as Jack Burden, Kate Winslett as Anne Stanton, Anthony Hopkins as Judge Irwin, James Gandolfini as Tiny Duffy, and -- gulp! -- Sean Penn as Willie Stark (!??). Wonder who the dialogue coach(es) will be?
In what probably restores some karmic balance to the world, the attempt to transfer A Confederacy of Dunces to the big screen appears to have collapsed, according to IMDB. I suspect this is for the best. Accordingly, I pass along links to the Ignatius Reilly statue on Canal Streetand the Encyclopedia Ignatiusia.
Wonderful day, part II: I just discovered that Ralph Wood, a scholar and a gentleman, and professor of English and theology at Baylor, has posted a number of his essays on the Baylor website. So, fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, P.D. James, G.K. Chesterton, Flannery O'Connor, and/or Walker Percy, click here to meet Prof. Wood, then click on the "Topics" link at the top of the page to get into the essays.
I'm a Percy fan myself, and was delighted to read, in Wood's "Introduction to Walker Percy," the following:
William Buckley has wittily said that all future presidents should be made to take a double oath of office. They should swear not only to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America but also promise to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest Walker Percy's novel of 1971, Love in the Ruins. "It's all there in that one book," Buckley declared, "what's happening to us and why." Such extravagant praise is meant to echo the extravagance of Percy's satire.Folks who already admire Love in the Ruins will enjoy Wood's 27-page annotation of it, also online.
Wonderful day: I'm in the office this sunny morning, taking care of odds and ends after turning in my grades last week. I don't like to complain about grading, since it's really the only negative thing about my job, but I did get a laugh out of Tom Smith's list of thirty-nine "Things to do instead of read exams." (Example: "Tell spouse you are busy").
One of the books I read during the break rather than grade exams was James Twitchell's latest, Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and MuseumWorld. Highly recommended. Twitchell, an English professor at the U. of Florida, is that rare academic: one who does not hate capitalism. In fact, he's partial to it! (See his several essays for Reason, including "In Praise of Consumerism" (August/September 2000). The fact that he's not your average English professor, ideologically-speaking, combined with his snappy writing style, makes the book a pretty entertaining read. More importantly, he does a great job of describing the branding/marketing that goes on in higher ed today. If you're either an employee or customer of "College Inc.," I think you'll be impressed with Twitchell's diagnosis -- and with his refusal to bitch and moan about it (which is very un-academic!).
Pot, this is kettle . . .: James Taranto on Teddy Kennedy in yesterday's WSJ "Best of the Web":
A Bridge Too Far
From Sen. Ted Kennedy's questioning of Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales yesterday:Well, just as an attorney, as a human being, I would have thought that if there were recommendations that were so blatantly and flagrantly over the line in terms of torture, that you might have recognized them. I mean, it certainly appears to me that water boarding, with all its descriptions about drowning someone to that kind of a point, would come awfully close to getting over the border, and that you'd be able to at least say today, "There were some that were recommended or suggested on that, but I certainly wouldn't have had a part of that, as a human being."
A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday described the interrogation technique of "water boarding": "It involves strapping a detainee down, wrapping his face in a wet towel and dripping water on it to produce the sensation of drowning." Apparently it is frightening but harmless. It might be worthwhile for the Senate to call a witness who has experience with actual drowning to comment on the difference. Where's Mary Jo Kopechne when you need her?
While Kennedy is certainly right to condemn any and all forms of torture, he is not exactly the ideal spokesman in this instance (given his sordid personal history).
Who will play the fedster if the Lifetime Network ever does a movie about the blogosphere?: BTQ hazards to guess here. :)
Please Stay The Washington Prowler reports that senior DNC officials and Dem Congress leaders have approached DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe about staying on at his post for an extra several months. Apparently those honchos are not impressed with the current crop of potential successors which include former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
1. I hope McAuliffe does continues on. After all, under his watch:
2. Dubya got re-elected.
3. The Republicans not only remained in the majority in Congress (excepting the 2001-2002 interlude of Dem control of the Senate courtesy of Jim Jeffords) but they increased those majorities.
4. Plus in 2002, for the first time in 50 years or so, Republicans were a majority of the total state legislators in the country.
5. Let's not forget that Democrats still held a minority of state governorships.
Definitely a proud record.
Awwww... Somebody needs a hug.
Friday, January 07, 2005
God on the Quad: Naomi Schaefer Riley's new book on America's thriving religious colleges was reviewed by Charlotte Allen yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. You can read the book's introduction here.
For the Constitutionally-minded: Two new reviews on LPBR, of
Neal Devins & Louis Fisher, The Democratic Constitution,
and the 2003 volume of the Supreme Court Review.
Bush's re-election and the Democratic Party: Recommended reading: Joshua Muravchik's even-handed survey in this month's Commentary, and Peggy Noonan's advice column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
Extraordinary intellectual history resource: The multi-volume Dictionary of the History of Ideas, published in 1973-74, has been webbed by the Electronic Text Center at UVA. Warning: Don't visit it unless you have some time to spare!
Tomorrow would have been Elvis's 70th birthday: BBC Radio 2 has put together a two-part documentary on his career. Yesterday I listened to the first, which covers "the early years" and his rise to fame. In spite of the narration, which tends to the windy and sociological, I enjoyed and can recommend it. Interesting facts abound -- for example, that Charles Laughton introduced Elvis on his first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Sullivan was absent, recovering from an auto accident.
For more Elvis, check the official page.
"Cardinal Keeler Urges Senate to Reject Pro-Abortion Test for Judicial Nominees": I know that Verity mentioned this letter/article last night, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, and I think it would be worthwhile to post the story here at SA in its entirety (as the PR Newswire website provides no direct link):
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 /PRNewswire/
Cardinal William Keeler wrote to members of the U.S. Senate today in anticipation of their being called upon to advise on and consent to presidential nominations for the Federal bench, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the letter, Cardinal Keeler rejected the view that "nominees who oppose the purposeful taking of innocent human life" are "unfit for judicial office in the United States." "By any measure," he said, "support for the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is an impoverished standard for assessing judicial ability." Cardinal Keeler is Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"When considering nominees the Senate should not allow itself to be held captive to such an unfair and unreasonable standard," he wrote.
This is the text of his letter:
Dear Senator,
As you begin the work of the 109th Congress, the Senate will again be called upon to advise on and consent to presidential nominations for the Federal bench, perhaps even for the U.S. Supreme Court.
As you know, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is active in the courts on many matters, especially in cases on abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, discrimination and the role of religion in society. At the same time, it is not the practice of our Conference to take positions on particular presidential nominees. However, we want to respond to reports about the judicial confirmation process that have caused us and others serious concern.
We are troubled by reports that national abortion advocacy groups, and even some U.S. senators, view nominees who oppose the purposeful taking of innocent human life as somehow unfit for judicial office in the United States. It is further reported that attempts would be made to deny them a vote on confirmation by the full Senate.
Insisting that judicial nominees support abortion throughout pregnancy is wrong. By any measure, support for the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is an impoverished standard for assessing judicial ability. For over three decades, Roe has sparked more informed criticism and public resistance than any other court decision of the late 20th century. Even legal scholars who support abortion have criticized Roe for not being grounded in the U.S. Constitution. Further, in 2000, the Supreme Court relied on Roe to rule that the gruesome and inhumane practice of partial-birth abortion must be constitutionally protected. When considering nominees the Senate should not allow itself to be held captive to such an unfair and unreasonable standard.
There is no doubt that the Catholic Church stands out for its commitment to the right to life from conception until natural death. This ethic has profound consequences not only for abortion, but for many other areas of life, including the death penalty, the application of scientific research to human subjects, the right to adequate health care, and the role of the state in promoting the common good. Our civil society will be all the poorer if Senators, as a matter of practice, prevent a Senate vote on well-qualified judicial nominees whose consciences have been formed in this ethic.
I pray God will bless Congress' efforts to ensure that Federal judges are persons of integrity and good character who will respect the rights of all, born and unborn.
Sincerely,
Cardinal William H. Keeler
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Hmmmm, I wonder who the good cardinal was thinking of when he wrote this letter. :)
Conservative v. Libertarian--or--The role of the individual in society: It all started with this post by Tim Sandefur, in which he criticized Judge Robert Bork for saying that American culture has become so deviant that he "almost began to want to put the [Berlin] wall back up." Tim then emailed to inquire as to my thoughts on Bork's comments, which I posted here. In my view, Sandefur made too much of Bork's comment. I also noted that, in my opinion:
Judge Bork is right to persistently criticize the radical individualism that pervades modern-day American culture. There is a fine line between a person embracing his unique, God-given attributes, and the heart curved completely inward. The problem, as I see it, with many Libertarians--and I am not picking on Sandefur here, but speaking generally--is that they value their individual "happiness" far more than the societal good. And personally, I think that's a sorry way to live one's life.
I then summed up with the following:
That having been said, I do not believe government can transform the heart, and I am extremely leery of governmental interference with an individual's right to engage in certain private behavior (e.g., viewing pornography, gambling, homosexual relations). There is a significant difference, however, between government and society tolerating such behavior and endorsing or promoting it (e.g., repealing anti-sodomy laws v. legalizing same-sex "marriage"). And Libertarians like Sandefur should acknowledge as much, rather than conflating the two. It is wrong to compare conservatives to "our enemies in this war," simply because we believe in preserving certain societal mores (e.g., traditional marriage). Libertarians and conservatives share many of the same public policy goals, and this type of over-the-top rhetoric is not especially helpful in advancing dialogue between the two camps.
This generated two posts from Sandefur, which you can read here and here.
Well, Paul--who blogs here and at the Political Spectrum blog--then decided to enter the fray with this post and this post (in which he essentially defended my position).
Sandefur then fired back here and here. Paul then provided his next installment on the topic, which Sandefur responds to here.
Finally, Paul offered up a post entitled "Why I am not a Libertarian," which Sandefur responds to here.
All for your reading pleasure.
I wish I had time to join the debate once again, but, alas, I am in the midst of preparing for oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit next Thursday. If you really have nothing better to do today, you can read my lengthy brief on PLRA exhaustion here.
Update: Paul has two new posts on the topic, here and here.
How-to guide for illegal immigrants
The Mexican government recently published a comic book that offers tips for Mexican citizens who desire to enter the U.S. illegally. The book is being distributed as a free supplement to El Libro Vaquero, a popular cowboy comic book, in five Mexican states that send many migrants to the United States. The Mexican government plans to print 1.5 million copies.
For example, this government publication gives pointers on navigating deserts and swimming rivers safely:
"Crossing the river can be very dangerous, particularly if you are alone or do it at night," says an English translation of wording next to an illustration of three young men setting out from a river bank. "If you wear heavy clothes, they will become heavier when wet and this will make it more difficult for you to swim."
Once here, the book offers advice on how to avoid American law enforcement:
"The best formula is to not leave your routine going from work to home," one section says. "Avoid loud parties. The neighbors could get annoyed and call police. ... If you go to a bar or a nightclub and a fight starts, keep your distance."
Of course, the book contains a disclaimer that the safest way to enter the U.S. is with a visa, but it gives no instructions on how to obtain one. Pure and simple, this is the Mexican government encouraging a further invasion of the U.S. The Mexican government, with this comic, is endorsing illegal immigration. After all, last year Mexicans living in the United States sent a record $15 billion back to Mexico, providing Mexico with its second biggest source of foreign revenue after oil.
Unfortunately, our government sits and does nothing as this invasion continues. With regard to illegal immigration, the U.S. government is abandoning us. It will spend billions to conquer Iraq and establish a friendly government there, but it will not devote the resources to securing our southern border. What a sad state of affairs.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
A wonderful response to the issue of children of gay parents attending Catholic schools. The post on this topic earlier this week was somewhat sidetracked, but I found this statement today and found it both convincing and compassionate, and a great example.
Morning After Pill kills as many babies whether prescribed or provided without a prescription. A new study, discussed in this article, shows that pregnancy rates for women who obtained the morning after pill from a pharmacy is equal to the rate of pregnancy for women who were provided the pill, negating the main argument for making the morning after pill available OTC.
Conference of Catholic Bishops writes Senators concerning judicial nominees. Some highlights from the letter:
We are troubled by reports that national abortion advocacy groups, and even some U.S. senators, view nominees who oppose the purposeful taking ofinnocent human life as somehow unfit for judicial office in the United States.It is further reported that attempts would be made to deny them a vote onconfirmation by the full Senate. Insisting that judicial nominees support abortion throughout pregnancy iswrong. By any measure, support for the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wadedecision is an impoverished standard for assessing judicial ability.
Not on law, but.... Hey, small(er) spender!
From firsthand experience on the staff of the Appropriations Committee, I can say I am optimistic that new Appprops Chairman Jerry Lewis and new staff director Frank Cushing will be vast improvements over what we've had for the past six years. Taxpayers will almost surely be better off. Fiscal conservatives MAY, just may, find reason to be happy. Let's keep our fingers crossed. -- Quin
Virginia election blogging
Virginia prosecutor John Behan has started a blog called the Commonwealth Conservative that provides a fairly substantive look at Virginia politics, including this analysis of the upcoming gubernatorial election.
Hat tip to Power Line.
Also check out this Washington Post article on the upcoming Virginia legislative session. Evidently Republicans are seeking to gain a measure of revenge after the tax hikes of a year ago, though there might be a degree of infighting already in progress.
Now THAT'S multitasking: Shoot the bad guy who's threatening your wife, bag him, find out later he's a serial rapist. Well, he was a serial rapist, past tense. Now he's doing the lawn limbo.
A man who was killed while attempting to rob a store last week was the man who raped three women in Camden over the last two months of 2004, authorities said Wednesday.What's that the Blogfather says about a pack, not a herd?
Camden County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi said the state police DNA lab confirmed that Antonio Diaz Reyes, 32, was the rapist....Reyes' death was captured on a store surveillance video. Authorities said he entered the Camden City Wireless and Fishing Supply store in East Camden on Friday afternoon and held the store owner's wife at knifepoint.Store owner Ngoc Le, 28, saw what was happening, grabbed his gun, which was legally registered, and told Reyes he would let him live if he released his wife. Reyes then threatened to kill her and Le fired once, hitting Reyes in the head. Reyes died at the scene.
Then & Now: Anita Hill: Pass the vomit bag, please.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
O.k., for the record, neither of these resolutions made my New Year's list (scroll down to no. 12).
It is a funny post though. :)
Priorities: Sorry for the lacking of posting on my part today. I had a lot going on workwise, and I've been mentally preparing myself for the season premiere of Alias tonight. One must keep things in perspective, you know. :)
Gonzales' critics. Shannen Coffin at The Corner has some background on Dean Koh's various political and policy viewpoints. Dean Koh is apparently testifying against Gonzales tomorrow. An added tibit is Koh's support for the Rome Treaty and the International Criminal Court's authority over United States' citizens, as mentioned here.
Revoking citizenship of naturalized terrorists. The Eleventh Circuit ruled yesterday in United States v. Jean-Baptiste, that the government could revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen where the immigrant had engaged in illegal activities while his application for citizenship was pending. The court reasoned that the relevant statute required that the applicant maintain "good moral character" for five years and that by engaging in drug dealing during that time, the applicant had illegally procured citizenship. The court also stated that where the government presented "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence establishing that citizenship was illegally procured" the court MUST "enter a judgment of denaturalization. " This was true even though the immigrant was not indicted or convicted until after he was naturalized a U.S. Citizen.
Although this case involved a drug dealer, to the extent the courts create different standards for detaining, questioning, holding, and trying U.S. and non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, this case has huge implications.
Industrial psychologist helps determine who qualifies for training programs at Ford, as this article explains. It would be interesting to know what the previous test and qualifications standards were, as they were apparently approved by both the union and Ford.
The first Southerner since Feddie to visit the federal court house in South Bend. Let's see who can craft the best headline based on song titles for this story.
Church Property: An interesting case out in California, where a local Methodist Church broke its ties with the national denomination (over its heterodoxy) and sued to keep its property. Because of California trust laws, it succeeded. It's hard to tell what sorts of implications this has for other states.
Blue Academe and Red Pews: William Stuntz, Harvard Law prof and fellow evangelical, has a follow-up to his earlier essay on why academics and churchgoers shouldn't be so suspicious of each other. This time, he's trying to say how they might come together in practical ways. As someone who's both in academia and an evangelical, let me applaud the effort, but mark it a failure (mostly). The basic claim is that, with the right leadership, the two groups could come together in favor of a number of practical goals. Let's work through the list.
1. Abortion. Stuntz suggests that both pro-lifers and pro-aborts want fewer abortions. Maybe true on the latter side, but the problem with finding practical agreement is that for the pro-aborts, abortion rights are tied into a much broader set of ideological commitments. Abortion is crucial for feminists not because they like killing babies, but because babies get in the way of women's "success." If abortion were outlawed and women were required to bring unexpected pregnancies to term, college educations and careers would be interrupted. Some more women might choose to leave the labor force. The way the pro-aborts see it, children are a burden (and as anyone with little kids will readily admit, sometimes they sure seem that way). Pro-abort folks will never participate or even acquiesce in a "choose life" strategy.
More importantly, perhaps, Stuntz gets his sociology all wrong. He suggests that when the culture is divided on an issue, the side with the law loses ground. Nonsense. Consider the change in racial attitudes - it's hard to think that the Civil Rights laws didn't have anything to do with that. If anything, people tend to assume that what's legal shows what's moral. Support for *some* restrictions on abortion has risen over the past few years, but only because the pro-aborts are so fanatical about the need for abortion on demand. But support for abortion rights in general is quite strong - probably 2/3 of the country says they support some abortion rights. And as a side-note here, Stuntz says that in the 1960s, the number of illegal abortions was probably about 1 million a year, maybe higher. Ludicrous. The number of abortions among a smaller population when it was illegal almost everywhere was more or less the same as the number of "legal" abortions now? No way.
Gotta go do the kids' breakfast...more later.....
Prediction: Gonzales's nomination to be AG is cooked. Anne Applebaum probably isn't being quite fair to Gonzales here, the fact that his name can be linked so easily to 'torture' makes him an easy target.
Wow: USC really trounced OU. I guess those PAC-10 types really can play football, especially when the other team keeps handing them the ball.
Anyone hear ABC's Craig James call the Big-XII the "toughest conference in the nation"? Oh, right...
On a non-football note, how long must we all suffer the stupid, stupid, stupid halftime shows? Has there ever been a halftime show involving goofy people dancing around on a football field with some crooner belting out tunes that wasn't completely lame? Surely we could get some crack marching bands - maybe some of the drum and bugle corps that hold competitions around the country. Anything would be better than Ashlee Simpson...anything....
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Interesting Fact o' the Day
John Dingell, (D-MI), is now serving his 26th term in the House. He was first won his seat in December 1955 in a special election caused by the death of his father, John Dingell, Sr., who had represented that district since 1933.
Wow...Dingell has been in office longer than my father and mother have been alive.
Nitwit o' the day: Susan Jacoby.
Hail to Frist!
A hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO for this update. Frist is very much on target, on all counts, here. --Quin
Reid v. Thomas
It actually gives me some solace that even several left-leaning outlets have begun recognizing that Clarence Thomas is an intellectual force with which to reckon. Frankly, it's not just the SUBSTANCE of his opinions that I like; it's the writing style. I find him, even more than Scalia, to be the clearest, most concise, most elegant (which is different from being the most showy) writer on the court not just today, but for decades. And I think his dissent in the Lawrence case (Texas homosexual case) was brilliant in its concision, and in its citation of my favorite opinion of all time, the Potter Stewart dissent from Griswold v. Connecticut. All of which is to say that Harry Reid has no clue what he's talking about. And also that, until he proves otherwise, his comments about Thomas DO give evidence of certain racial, if not racist, assumptions, namely that a black man who doesn't take the "right" positions is therefore, ipso facto, an intellectual second-rater. That's an obnoxious assumption. And it speaks very badly of Mr. Reid. -- Quin
Well, he may not be a racist . . . but Senate Minorty Leader Harry Reid is certainly a fool.
How to start a worthwhile blog: Joe Carter over at the Evangelical Outpost--which, btw, is one of my very favorite blogs--is in the midst of producing an excellent series of posts--he is up to Part V--providing detailed advice to those who are interested in blogging. I cannot recommend them highly enough. Well done, Joe.
WITH BOTH BARRELS AND A BOWIE KNIFE
That pretty much sums up the combative attitude of the Scotch-Irish, the people chronicled in James Webb’s latest book, Born Fighting. Mr. Webb retells the history of this fiercely independent and combative people from their earliest conflicts with Rome at Hadrian’s Wall through their blood soaked settlement of America’s backcountry right up to the present day. In retelling the story of the Scotch-Irish Mr. Webb provides a unique insight into what some have called America’s warrior subculture. These are the people who fill the ranks of our military and fight our wars. They have provided this country with its finest pioneers and fighting men, men like Stonewall Jackson, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, Davy Crocket, Daniel Boon and Jim Bowie just to name a few.
Nevertheless, the Scotch-Irish have contributed more to this country than just martial prowess. As Mr. Webb points out:
This people gave our country great things, including its most definitive culture. Its bloodlines have flowed in the veins of at least a dozen presidents, and in many of our greatest soldiers. It created and still perpetuates the most distinctly American form of music. It is imbued with a unique and unforgiving code of personal honor, less ritualized but every bit as powerful as the samurai code. Its legacy is broad, in many ways defining the attitudes and values of the military, of working class America, and even of the particularly populist form of American democracy itself. And yet its story has been lost under the weight of more recent immigrations, revisionist historians, and common ignorance.
The ignorance that Mr. Webb refers to explains why the story of the Scotch-Irish has previously been overlooked. However, this ignorance is also due to one of the most pronounced traits of the Scotch-Irish, their individualism. According to Mr. Webb:
In their insistent individualism they are not likely to put an ethnic label on themselves when they debate social issues. Some of them don’t even know their ethnic label, and some who do don’t particularly care. They don’t go for group identity politics any more than they like to join a union. Two hundred years ago the mountains built a fierce and uncomplaining people. To them, joining a group and putting themselves at the mercy of someone else’s collective judgment makes about as much sense as letting the government take their guns. And no body is going to get their guns.
This individualism is particularly pronounced in the area of religion. Mr. Webb states, “Their religion was a harsh and demanding Calvinism that sowed the seeds of America’s Bible Belt, its on-your-feet independence instead of on-your-knees rituality offending English Anglicans and Irish Catholics alike.”
Aside from simply providing a well written account of the history of the Scotch-Irish, James Webb has given us a fascinating cultural analysis of a demographic that has more influence in this country’s culture and politics than is popularly recognized. In fact, in the December 27th edition of National Review Mackubin Thomas Owens stated in his review of Born Fighting that Webb “may have written the most important political book of 2004.” After reading this book I would unreservedly agree and enthusiastically recommend it to all.
So long. Fare thee well. Don't let the door hit you in the hindquarters on your way out: Ah, Ex-Senator Daschle. You will not be missed.
War Eagle. Congrats to the Auburn Tigers, who capped a perfect 13-0 season last night with their 16-13 win over Virginia Tech. As a Florida Gator fan first and an SEC fan second, I was rooting for a Tiger win (although you have to love Frank Beamer - the man can rub two sticks together and win 8 games).
Auburn has an outside shot at splitting the national title with the winner of tonight's Orange Bowl, as AP voters are not contractually bound to vote for the winner of the BCS championship game.
More on the possibility of a Brownback presidential run in 2008 (and other likely candidates): From Iowa's Times-Republican:
SAM FOR PRESIDENT
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is clearly interested in the Republican presidential nomination for 2008, running as the candidate of social conservatives.
Brownback, who came to the House as part of the 1994 Republican takeover, was elected to Robert J. Dole's Senate seat in 1996 despite Dole's opposition. He has been a leader on the stem-cell research question, as well as other social issues.
Two other sitting Republican senators - Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and George Allen of Virginia - are also possible presidential contenders.
Frist has announced he will not seek a third term in 2006.
"Bush makes right move": I missed this fine opinion piece by Sen. Jeff Sessions that appeared in yesterday's USA Today. Here's a taste:
Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, partial-birth abortion or the Boy Scouts, voters understand that democracy is diminished when un-elected judges set social policy for America. Good judges are not partisans, but fair arbiters of disputes. Bush correctly believes that judges should show restraint and not manipulate court opinions to promote political agendas.
Most important, the 20 individuals Bush intends to renominate are not divisive candidates. Bill Pryor has the support of every major political figure in Alabama, black and white, Republican and Democrat. Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen was endorsed by every major newspaper in Texas. And California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was re-elected with a higher percentage of votes than any other judicial candidate in California.
Monday, January 03, 2005
For the good of the order: O.k., seeing as it is a new year and all that jazz, I am opening the floor to any suggestions that SA's readers might have (i.e., constructive criticism) about improving this blog in any respect. I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'll hold those in reserve until y'all have spoken. I know that I've done this before, but I think it's a good idea to get feedback from y'all every so often.
Thoughts?
BTW, if any of y'all have a blog and would like a permalink from SA, please feel free to use this post as an opportunity to let me know as much.
What about Darfur?: While I do not wish to minimize in any way the tragic loss of life or dire situation in Southeast Asia as a result of the tsunami, I must say that I wholeheartedly share the following sentiments expressed by Eugene Oregon over at the Demagogue blog:
There is no doubt that this [the tsunami] is a massive tragedy and one that deserves the attention and assistance it is garnering, but I cannot understand why a natural disaster such as this gets constant media attention while the genocide in Darfur goes essentially unreported.
Why are Amazon and others not raising millions of dollars to help those being starved to death by the government of Sudan? Why is the world not mobilizing troops and hundreds of millions in donations to deal with the genocide that everyone acknowledges?
I do not mean to dismiss the severity of the current crisis, but I am simply unable to comprehend why this natural disaster is generating a massive outpouring of assistance while the year-long, man-made genocidal disaster in Darfur remains largely unreported and ignored.
What's a Catholic school to do? Having come up for some air after a crueling month at work, this story got me thinking about the "right" answer. I would posit a few absolutes and then throw it out for discussion:
1) A Catholic school should teach students the Catholic faith.
2) The ideal Catholic school would have teachers, students, and parents who understand, believe and practice their faith.
3) A Catholic school has the right to require teachers, students, and parents to agree to abide by Church teaching to teach at, attend, or enroll children in the school.
However, we do not live in an ideal world, and most Catholic schools do not limit attendance to children of practicing Catholics. Should they? That is the initial question. If so, the answer is clear. If not, then where do you draw the line? All of the children at the Catholic school I attended were Catholic, but many of them and their parents did not practice their faith. As a youngster, I understood that, and my mom did an excellent job of teaching the difference between judging the sin and loving the sinner. Of course, the school must never confuse the two or waterdown our faith to prevent hurt feelings. That is a tough one, as anyone who has ever taught CCD to children of divorced parents knows.
Seventh Circuit issues unique Ten Commandments opinion: My judge, Daniel A. Manion,* authored the opinion, which you can access here. Here's a taste of the opinion:
We need not . . . decide whether the display of the Ten Commandments in a neighborhood park violated the Establishment Clause. We will assume, however, the
district court was correct [in holding that such a display does violate the EC] in order to reach the issue that is before this court: whether the sale by the City to the Eagles of the plot of land underneath and surrounding the Monument was an independent violation of the Establishment Clause . . . .
The Court answered that question in the negative (with Judge Bauer dissenting).
Two initial thoughts. First, this decision appears to give local governments across the United States a pretty sweet blueprint of how to maintain traditional displays of the Ten Commandments (and to stick it to those ACLU killjoys). Second, methinks this bad boy just might be a candidate for en banc consideration.
[I clerked with Judge Manion for two years (2001-03). The thoughts expressed in this post are based entirely on a quick review of the decision (which was issued publicly today), and nothing more.]
Update: Here is Shannen Coffin's excellent take on the case over at The Corner. And I am glad to hear that Judge Manion is one of his "personal heroes." :)
Update II: Coffin has an excellent follow up post as well.
Justice Pryor? Ratzinger as the next pope?: First, Quin teases me with speculation that President Bush may give Judge Pryor a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, and now Time is reporting that Ratzinger is seriously being considered as PJPII's successor (LvJA). My guess is that the latter is much more of a distinct possibility than the former, but hey if either comes true I'll be on cloud nine.
<