weakly Daily Duck Report

2009-06-02T09:13:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/347/483/case.html

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 486-496.
…
(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 493-494.

The above should demonstrate to the astute reader that Brown substituted for the racist application the doctrine of “separate but equal” the racist foundation that “blacks can’t function on an equal footing with whites unless they are blessed with the presence of whites.”

There doesn’t seem to be a lot to recommend that sentiment. The subject should be revisited. Perhaps toward a policy that is less racist. (Maybe forced school busing wasn’t really the way to go.)

On the other hand:

Page 347 U. S. 490
…
In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. [Footnote 5]

[Footnote 5]
83 U. S. 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 307-308 (1880):
It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."
See also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 100 U. S. 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 344-345 (1880).

It’s plain from the above that the proper application of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to the notion of the states treating black Americans the same as white Americans. Nothing else. No applying the First Amendment (“CONGRESS shall make no law…”) to the states (as in Gitlow v. New York, etc.). No applying the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states (Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, etc.). And certainly no applying made up so-called “rights” to the states (Roe v. Wade, etc.).

Any questions?

2009-03-08T11:32:00.000-07:00

From Maureen Dowd’s opinion column for today as found in the Grey Lady:

The dour prime minister was a blithe spirit despite a mutinous British press corps that was whingeing about the president snubbing the prime minister. First, President Obama sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that Tony Blair lent to W.; then the White House downgraded the “special relationship” to a “special partnership.” The Rose Garden press conference where Mr. Brown was going to stand “podium-to-podium with the Messiah,” as one British scribe dryly put it, was demoted to a “press availability” in the Oval.

Question: How could a “special partnership” be a step down from a “special relationship”?

It just demonstrates once again: Republicans may be crazy, but Dimocrats are stupid.

2008-07-31T09:38:00.000-07:00

Here is a proposed political continuum:

Extreme Right - Anarchism
Moderate Right - Libertarianism
Center Right - Conservatism

Center Left - Socialism (non-totalitarian)
Moderate Left - National Socialism, Fascism, etc. (which collectively comprise fascism)
Extreme Left - International Socialism (totalitarian), i.e., Communism

Any questions?

2008-06-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

Question: According to the U.S. Constitution, does habeas corpus or any other rights mentioned in that document apply to non-U.S. citizens? There are reasons other than explicit constitutional protection for extending all rights which apply to citizens to those visiting here legally and from countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. Basically, we treat them as we wish our citizens to be treated in their countries. Why should this apply to citizens of "outlaw" countries or those in this country illegally? Why should it apply to aliens who may appear to be terrorists?

Does anyone wish to speculate?

2008-05-25T11:11:00.000-07:00

Maureen Dowd has really put her foot in it this time. The conclusion of her opinion piece in today's NYT:

...
Obama now has the perfect excuse not to pick Hillary as his running mate. She has been too unseemly in her desire to be on the scene if he trips, or gets hit with a devastating story. She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings.

That’s where the runners-up can be found, prettily lurking, in case it turns out the girl with the crown has some naked pictures in her past.

The reference is to the loss in 1984 of the winner's crown by Vanessa Williams - the first black Miss America in history. Really, really poor taste, Maureen. As well as poor judgement. (You may want a new fact checker. I, for one, would not be worse. Such would be barely possible.)

2008-05-04T12:27:00.000-07:00

The Gray Lady returns to this blog. From William Safire's On Language column for today:

May 4, 2008
On Language
Misspeaking Too Soon
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

As Wordwatchers Watch

“Perhaps you can explain the difference between misspeaking and lying,” e-mails Jorge Cano of Coral Gables, Fla.

...

The answer to Cano’s question rests in intent. If the imperfectly expressed thought — whether an amusing blooper or a serious gaffe — is unintentional, a mere slip of the lip, then such misspeaking is not lying. For that matter, any untruth spoken in the speaker’s belief that the words are true and without intent to deceive is not a lie. (And remember William Blake’s line: “A truth that’s told with bad intent/Beats all the lies you can invent.”)

One may recall that the ninth commandment is not "Thou shalt not lie", but "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Blake supported that concept ably in his "Auguries of Innocence".

http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/bla3.htm

2008-04-30T17:04:00.000-07:00

An engineer, a physicist, a mathematician, and a philosopher were walking through the Scottish countryside. They saw a black sheep grazing in a nearby meadow. "Look," said the engineer, "The sheep in Scotland are black."

"At least one sheep in Scotland is black," corrected the physicist.

"On at least one side," added the mathematician.

"Actually, it has yet to be established that this sheep has more than one side," clarified the philosopher.

2008-03-24T15:44:00.000-07:00

From the world of sports:

U.C.L.A. Pulls an Escape

By JOE LAPOINTE

U.C.L.A.’s 53-49 victory was the 12th straight for the Bruins, who will face Western Kentucky or San Diego next week in Phoenix.

Go Western! Give 'em Hill, Toppers!

(The WKU Hilltoppers represent this blogger's alma mater.)

2008-03-15T10:55:00.000-07:00

I saw the following in today's New York Times.

March 15, 2008
Run on Big Wall St. Bank Spurs Rescue Backed by U.S.
By Landon Thomas Jr.

Just three days ago, the head of Bear Stearns, the beleaguered investment bank, sought to assure Wall Street that his firm was safe.

This raises a question for me. Why would any company that might have anything at all to do with Wall Street allow the word "bear" to appear in its name? "Bear" on Wall Street is like "bomb" at an airport, "hijack" on an airplane, "test" in a school, "layoff" in a work environment, or "Macbeth" in live theatre. It just isn't said out loud. If "Bear" is someones name, that is no excuse. Corporate America is rife
with companies that are designated by initials. This is just beyond my
comprehension.

2008-03-14T15:42:00.000-07:00

I would like to provide my readers the opportunity to reflect upon the true significance of today, the 129th anniversary of the birth of Albert Einstein.

Remember e=m*c**2 everyone! And happy nativity Albert, wherever you are.

2008-03-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

Even those who a politically right of center can sometimes demonstrate innumeracy. Ann Coulter writes in her most recent column:

According to the wiretaps, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was delighted to be getting the prostitute "Kristen" again. At least he knew her name. It took Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend six sexual encounters to remember her name (raising his lifetime average to 8.2).

Since 6 is less than 8.2, it is not possible for even the inestimable Mr. Clinton to thereby raise his average. Six averaged with a higher number would necessarily lower the average. Oy, veh. Math is hard.

2008-03-08T13:50:00.000-08:00

Also from today's Gray Lady:

March 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
And the Good News Is ...
By GAIL COLLINS

We live in a great country. Despite all our problems, this is still a nation where parents believe that if their child works hard and plays by the rules, some day he or she may grow up to be a superdelegate.

It must be 2008 for us to have grown so cynical.

2008-03-08T13:44:00.000-08:00

From today's New York Times:

March 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Confronting the Kitchen Sink
By BOB HERBERT

...Samantha Power, one of Senator Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy advisers, had to quit Friday after she lost her cool in an interview with a Scottish newspaper and called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.”...

So much for truth in advertising.

2008-03-02T14:32:00.000-08:00

From William Safire’s “On Language” column for today (March 2, 2008):

…The stage was set in January, as Barack Obama told The Reno Gazette-Journal that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.” That put-down of former President Clinton caused his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to zing Obama in debate a week later for the Democratic political sin of, as she put it, “admiring Ronald Reagan.”

The Democratic Party must be quite a group if they can afford to consider such behavior one of their more significant sins. Either that or Hillary is somehow clueless on what constitutes a sin, or indeed, a fault.

In his riposte, Obama said, “What I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests.”…

What Reagan did (intentionally or unintentionally) was to accomplish the near impossible. He convinced the Democrats to come out against federal budget deficits. That achievement may yet save America. She otherwise would surely have already drowned in public debt. How he brought this state of affairs about was by presiding over a large increase in the deficit (after lowering tax rates and raising tax revenues) voted for by his opposition in the House of Representatives. In attempting to discredit Reagan’s tax-cutting policy, the Dims (pardon me, the Dems) overplayed their hand in condemning the budget deficit and national debt (something the GOP had screamed bloody murder concerning for decades accompanied by a deafening silence in the mainstream media). When the DEMs piped up, the MSM was no longer silent on the issue. Thus, history was made.

In a different part of the same piece one reads:

At court, splitting heirs: the “heir apparent” is the next in line by right of birth, usually the eldest child. The “heir presumptive” is the one to inherit the throne, unless its right of inheritance is defeated by the birth of a nearer relative. A sibling, for example, may be the heir to a childless king, but that presumptive prince or princess loses out if the monarch produces a child.

In Britain, I believe a female child may be preempted by the birth of a male child. For example, had George VI lived, become a widower, and fathered a son, that prince would have been crowned on his father’s death, rather than Princess Elizabeth. The same scenario would not take place in present-day Sweden, where the oldest child of either sex inherits the throne.

At the very end of the article, one learns that a true Maverick coined the word “gobbledegook”.

2008-03-01T14:09:00.000-08:00

Once again, from the New York Times:

March 1, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)
By Jack Hedin

Rushford, Minn.

If you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.

But consumers who would like to be able to buy local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’ markets, but also in the produce aisle of their supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the federal government works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.

As a small organic vegetable producer in southern Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to expand production to meet regional demand have been severely hampered by the Agriculture Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve looked into the politics behind those restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this is precisely the outcome that the program’s backers in California and Florida have in mind: they want to snuff out the local competition before it even gets started...

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The astute reader will no doubt notice a dearth of any mention of the regulation of local farmers' markets. This represents yet another reason for respecting the actual words of the Constitution, and yet another lesson in what results when we stray from that policy.

2008-02-29T10:33:00.000-08:00

From today’s Gray Lady:

February 29, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

A Great Leap Forward
By Chris Turney
Exeter, England

WHEN Frederic, the hero of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Pirates of Penzance,” learns that his Feb. 29 birthday means that he is not 21 years old but 5, he figures he’ll have to serve out his apprenticeship to the Pirate King for 60 more years, and swears to the love of his life that he will return in his 80s and marry her…

Mr. Turney has committed an important error.

The Pirate King sings:
…You are the victim of this clumsy arrangement, having been born in leap-year, on the twenty-ninth of February;
And so, by a simple arithmetical process, you'll easily discover,
That though you've lived twenty-one years, yet, if we go by birthdays, you're only five and a little bit over!…

Frederic is 21 years of age; it’s just that he has only five birthdays, and his apprenticeship doesn’t end until his twenty-first.

The devil is in the details.

2008-02-25T12:25:00.000-08:00

From William Safire’s "On Language" column in yesterday’s New York Times:

Responding to a cockamamie question a few weeks ago about whether there is a secret agreement to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a single continental nation (MexiCanUs?), Senator Hillary Clinton gently replied, “I’ve heard that story, and there’s not a lot of truth to it.”

This raises several questions for me:

1. Why is the question “cockamamie”?

2. Where in the story is the (by implication) “little bit” of truth?

3. Considering the track record of the respondent with respect to the truth, why should I (or anyone else) be reassured?

Anyone care to toss in their two cents worth?

2008-02-19T10:00:00.000-08:00

Selections cribbed from today’s Gray Lady, specifically the column authored by Christopher Buckley concerning reservations GOP conservatives express toward the party being represented in this year’s presidential race by Senator John McCain:

Yes, it is true that he voted against a few of President Bush’s tax cuts. But is that especially villainous, viewed in the context of Mr. Bush’s elephantine federal spending increases and the concomitant ruinous depreciation of the dollar?

Hello? There is a difference between lower tax rates and lower tax revenues. You need to demonstrate the effect the cuts had on actual revenue, Christopher. Until you have done so, your point remains unsupported.

True, too, on immigration, Mr. McCain has allied himself with the Archfiend, Ted Kennedy.

Worse, the policy they put forward is ruinous for American sovereignty in, uh, America.

It’s also true — odd — that Mr. McCain is popular among Hispanic voters, who are themselves paradigms of cultural conservatism and without whose support any “conservative” candidate for president may be doomed to failure.

Perhaps he is popular with them because of his stance on “immigration”. Those Hispanics who may become citizens if his and Ted’s plan succeeds will vote for more welfare, etc., and that more than counters any alleged “cultural conservatism” on their part. And by the way, cultural conservatism (or even civilization) does not exist outside of the rule of law. To possess the rule of law, a society must enforce its laws.

Is the “conservative” position on immigration that the only solution is a wall and midnight roundups by Border Patrol agents at Wal-Mart?

That would be a good beginning.

It’s also true that John McCain has knocked back vodka shots while junketing — sorry, fact-finding — with Hillary Clinton….Indeed, after knocking back a few vodka shots of his own with Stalin, Winston Churchill reportedly said, “I like that man.”

Somehow that seems like less than a ringing endorsement of the practice.

This is a statement, to be sure, to raise the eyebrows and pang the heart of conservatives and liberals alike, but the relationship did produce fruit.

As Adam and Eve could attest, not all fruit is good.

Henry Kissinger got along just fine with Mao and Chou En-lai.

Who should that surprise? And why is it behavior to be emulated?

Madeleine Albright presented the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-il, with a basketball autographed by Michael Jordan.

Who should lose the most of our respect because of this, Ms. Albright, Mr. Kim, or Mr. Jordan?

And — true, again — Mr. McCain is a bit of a girlie-man when it comes to waterboarding high-value detainees; but that’s a tricky one, even for macho, red-meat conservative chest-thumpers. You get a pass on that one if you’ve spent five-and-a-half years being bastinadoed by North Vietnamese.

I have no argument with Mr. Buckley on this subject. (Though not so much for John’s POW experience. Torture is just wrong.)

His Keating Five disgrace so offended his own sense of personal honor that he enacted an auto-auto-da-fé crusade for campaign finance reform: very unconservative.

And taken to unconstitutional lengths to boot. (One could say that it is not only unconservative, but even illiberal.) That is something that should give pause to the self-proclaimed libertarian, Mr. Christopher Buckley. That it does not appear to do so gives me pause when I consider how to evaluate Mr. Buckley's comments here.

2008-02-19T08:56:00.000-08:00

From William Kristol’s column in yesterday’s (February 18th) New York Times:

…For, Orwell explains, “The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.” Furthermore, “where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.”

If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell’s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.

Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party — with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats’ academic and media supporters — a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition — seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)

Wow. Even a leftist like Kristol can see this. You would think more of those bright people in the universities and the MSM would also. It must be disheartening to be so easily overestimated.

2008-02-12T12:39:00.000-08:00

Also from NYT:

On This Day
On Feb. 12, 1973, the first release of American prisoners of war from the Vietnam conflict took place.

And on this day in 1809? Hello, McFly, anybody home?

Happy Lincoln's Birthday, one and all. (Oh, that he might have died in infancy.)

2008-02-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

From today's Gray Lady:

February 12, 2008
At Harvard, a Proposal to Publish Free on Web
By Patricia Cohen

Publish or perish has long been the burden of every aspiring university professor. But the question the Harvard faculty will decide on Tuesday is whether to publish — on the Web, at least — free.
...
“In place of a closed, privileged and costly system, it will help open up the world of learning to everyone who wants to learn,” said Robert Darnton, director of the university library. “It will be a first step toward freeing scholarship from the stranglehold of commercial publishers by making it freely available on our own university repository.”

Under the proposal Harvard would deposit finished papers in an open-access repository run by the library that would instantly make them available on the Internet. Authors would still retain their copyright and could publish anywhere they pleased — including at a high-priced journal, if the journal would have them.
...
The publishing industry, as well as some scholarly groups, have opposed some forms of open access, contending that free distribution of scholarly articles would ultimately eat away at journals’ value and wreck the existing business model. Such a development would in turn damage the quality of research, they argue, by allowing articles that have not gone through a rigorous process of peer review to be broadcast on the Internet as easily as a video clip of Britney Spears’s latest hairdo. It would also cut into subsidies that some journals provide for educational training and professional meetings, they say.
...
Asked about the Harvard proposal, Allan Adler, vice president for legal and governmental affairs at the Association of American Publishers, said that mandates are what publishers object to, as when Congress required that any work financed by the National Institutes for Health be funneled through PubMed Central, an open-access repository maintained by the National Library of Medicine.

“As long as they leave the element of choice for authors and publishers,” he said, “there isn’t a problem.”
...
Professor Shieber also doubts that free distribution would undermine the journal industry. “We don’t know if that would happen,” he said. “There is little evidence to support that it would.” Nearly all scholarly articles on physics have been freely available on the Internet for more than a decade, he added, and physics journals continue to thrive...

Well, that is certainly interesting. (To me at least. And its my blog. So there.)

free distribution of scholarly articles would ultimately eat away at journals’ value and wreck the existing business model

And we care about journals' value and the existing business model because?

allowing articles that have not gone through a rigorous process of peer review

Oh, yes, we must have peer review. Without it, unapproved ideas may see the light of day. And we simply cannot have that.

mandates are what publishers object to

Now, that is a possible problem with the proposal that deserves consideration.

“As long as they leave the element of choice for authors and publishers,” he said, “there isn’t a problem.”

Problem solved.

I think I like this idea. Even if it originates from Harvard.

2008-02-09T12:50:00.000-08:00

I just read something that gave me pause. Robert Kennedy - who at the time of his assassination in 1968 was the favorite for the Democratic nomination - entered the race on March 16. That's March 16, 1968. Less than eight months before the general election, and about five months before the Democratic National Convention.

For the current election, I recall that candidates were considered coming late to the table if they didn't declare by sometime in September 1997. And that still would be pushing matters. What has the presidential election process devolved to, anyway? (And this is before campaign finance is even considered. That, of course, has been exacerbated by the very legislation that has been enacted in order to "control" it. What a comedy of errors!)

2008-02-07T14:28:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter on John McCain:

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Well, no one is totally evil. Even Hitler liked dogs. I agree with McCain on Guantanamo and the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Bad Ann, bad, bad girl! Be good now, girl. Be good.

2008-02-07T13:07:00.000-08:00

From today's New York Times:

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Ted Kennedy and the Gap
By GAIL COLLINS
Hillary Clinton would be winning the women’s vote this year even if she’d been a man. Although that’s a concept I’d rather not dwell on.

I wonder how Hillary's girlfriend feels about that issue.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-this-hillarys-girlfriend.html

2008-02-06T16:07:00.000-08:00

I saw something in the Gray Lady today that I want to respond to. The author of an Op-Ed piece thinks we should lower the voting age in order to "hasten the enfranchisement" of those born in 1980-1995. I have three thoughts about that. The author mentions that younger voters have been voting in decreasing numbers since 1972. The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971. It made the minimum voting age 18 throughout all of the states. Ever since then young voters have decided not to vote more and more. So, why lower the voting age again?

Secondly, U.S. citizens born in the 1980s already have the franchise. 2008 - 1990 = 18. See? So, the author must mean the enfranchisement of those born in 1990-95. That kind of error does not inspire confidence in the author's thinking processes.

Finally, why do we think that younger citizens need the vote? We decided in the 1980s that the drinking age in all of the states should be raised to 21. If I don't trust someone to drink until 21, why should I trust him to vote at 16? Hello? Anybody home? The lights are on, but that doesn't always indicate anything other than waste of electricity.

2008-02-04T12:23:00.000-08:00

Concerning my feelings toward the favored New England Patriots and yesterday's Super Bowl, I have but one word, and that a German one: Schadenfreude.

If you are curious about what I mean by that, check the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

Go Cowboys!

2008-01-31T10:26:00.000-08:00

From today’s Gray Lady:

January 31, 2008
Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill

By JAKE HOOKER and WALT BOGDANICH

BEIJING — A huge state-owned Chinese pharmaceutical company that exports to dozens of countries, including the United States, is at the center of a nationwide drug scandal after nearly 200 Chinese cancer patients were paralyzed or otherwise harmed last summer by contaminated leukemia drugs.
…
The drug maker, Shanghai Hualian, is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486. It is made at a factory different from the one that produced the tainted cancer drugs, about an hour’s drive away…

It reminds one of the question concerning the substance used in lethal injection executions. Since it needed approval from the FDA that question was: Is it both safe and effective? Answer: Can’t be both.

But think about it. An abortion pill linked to a company which produces tainted drugs. Does this suggest the abortion pill will be less safe or less effective? (And can an abortion pill be both safe and effective? If effective, it may not be so safe for the unborn.)

2008-01-30T13:27:00.000-08:00

From the editorial page of today’s New York Times:

Restoring Civil Rights
Published: January 30, 2008

In recent decades, and to much public acclaim, Congress passed a series of landmark laws designed to ensure equal rights for all Americans. Lately, and without much notice, the Supreme Court has been gutting them.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced a pair of bills designed to undo the damage done by the court’s badly reasoned decisions. Congress should pass both without delay...

Okay, what do they mean by "civil rights"? Is that like "natural rights"? If so, why not just call them that? If not, what is it the justifies them as rights? That is, what authority?

In recent decades, and to much public acclaim, Congress passed a series of landmark laws designed to ensure equal rights for all Americans. Lately, and without much notice, the Supreme Court has been gutting them.

I suppose we have outgrown our "living Constitution" now. You know, the one that changes to suit the whim of a majority of SCOTUS. Actually, as I recall, judicial review allows the Court to rule on the constitutionality of acts of Congress. It's been pretty much accepted that way since John Marshall's tenure as chief justice. So, if certainlegislation is unconstitutional, SCOTUS is supposed to rule on it in such a way that the law no longer offends the Constitution.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced a pair of bills designed to undo the damage done by the court’s badly reasoned decisions. Congress should pass both without delay.

This raises a question: Is legislation that attempts to make legitimate laws that the Court has ruled unconstitutional itself constitutional? Can it be? Are Teddy's new laws not of necessity unconstitutional? As I recall, the proper means of changing unconstitutional laws into constitutional ones is either to change the laws, or to amend the Constitution.

Let the senior senator from Massachusetts put that in his cocktail glass and chug it.

2008-01-27T13:15:00.001-08:00

I noticed this today in Sunday School. From Genesis 16:1-6 (New International Version):

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

"Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

I believe the bolded text that follows indicates typical male behavior:

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

The following bolded text is typically what may be expected for a wife to say in this circumstance:

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

In the following bolded text, Abram again demonstrates that he could be a typical contemporary male:

"Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

What is that French expression concerning change, Brian?

2008-01-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

From William Safire’s On Language column for today:

…
“It’s time for a change!” boomed Gov. Thomas E. Dewey of New York at the Republican National Convention of 1948. His rallying cry inspired the partisan crowd, but Truman supporters reminded voters of Lincoln’s admonition when running for re-election in 1864 — not to “swap horses while crossing the river” — which could not be overcome by the Republican counterslogan “Change horses or drown!”
…

We all know what river the U.S. was crossing in 1864. What river were we crossing in 1948? (And by the way, we really would have been better off with a different horse in June 1950. We are still affected by our going into Korea without declaring war. Can you say Vietnam? Or Iraq? Harry set the precedent. That buck stops with him.)

2008-01-26T14:51:00.000-08:00

Yet another gem from the Gray Lady:

Two Presidents Are Worse Than One
By GARRY WILLS

Evanston, Ill.

Senator Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.

Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience...

Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?

The answer to that question is an easy one: If their name is Clinton, absolutely not. This is decidedly a case of more being less. As a nation, we have been there, done that.

Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience.

If they do, Senator Clinton may have a problem as far as becoming president is concerned.

Amendment 22 of the U.S. Constitution:
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...

Basically, if Mrs. Clinton can be counted as having executive experience from eight years as co-president, why should she not be viewed as ineligible for the presidency in light of the strictures provided by the Constitution's 22nd Amendment? This seems to pose a dilemma for Candidate Clinton. If she doesn't have that experience, why should she be elected? If she does, is she still eligible for the office? If she is elected president, I wonder if the resulting situation can be made into a case that can be brought before a federal court of law? And how might such a court rule in that circumstance?

2008-01-24T15:49:00.000-08:00

From a book review I found on Amazon:

Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? Mathematician and bestselling author John Allen Paulos thinks not. In Irreligion he presents the case for his own worldview, organizing his book into twelve chapters that refute the twelve arguments most often put forward for believing in God’s existence...

I have no argument with the second sentence. The thing is, I prefer books by writers who do think, as opposed to those who don't.

2008-01-24T13:15:00.000-08:00

Gail Collins' column for The New York Times today is entitled "Editing Hillary's Story". It begins as follows:

Last summer, I asked Hillary Clinton if she had any reservations about using her husband in her campaign. She said no, that having Bill on the team was “a great gift. I have always believed you should get the very best people to advise you.”

Does one really need to know any more than that about Senator Clinton? That is, that she believes of her husband that he is among "the very best people" that she might find to provide her with advice. Is it really necessary to enumerate the myriad reasons why one would have doubts about placing the words "Bill Clinton" and "very best [people]" in the same sentence? I didn't think so.

2008-01-23T10:42:00.000-08:00

From today’s Gray Lady:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it…

So begins Maureen Dowd’s column. And she is correct. The Clintons are now and have always been about gaining and keeping power at any price. It's what they do and who they are. That is why they are especially unsuited to having power. We would do well to never again give them any. Ever. For any reason.

2008-01-22T08:43:00.000-08:00

Today is the 35th anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history. "On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion." So it is stated in today's online edition of The New York Times. But that statement is inaccurate. What Roe really did was limit the ability of the states (and, thereby, the people) to make their own abortion laws.
The "right to choose" indeed. Give me a break.

What many do not understand is that repealing would not necessarily mean that there would be one less abortion in the U.S. in the year following repeal. What it would mean is that we as a people would be able to decide under what circumstances abortion would be legal in our respective states. It would not be a decision dictated to us by a majority of nine individuals who wear black robes.

Repeal Roe now! Power to the people!

2008-01-20T13:21:00.000-08:00

From William Safire's column in today's New York Times Magazine:

A question always asked at the start of campaigns is “Does he have the necessary fire in the belly — that is, the willingness to hit the trail, press the flesh, make the compromises, woo the fat cats, take the media heat and endure the blog battering — to go all the way?”

Let us analyze these supposed necessary "qualifications":

1. Willingness to hit the trail

I can understand why this is important in a candidate. Why is it important in an office-holder?

2. Willingness to press the flesh

Same as number 1.

3. Willingness to make the compromises

This is a quality I most empatically do not want in an office-holder whose salary is paid my taxes, or who makes policy which
affects my life.

4. Willingness to woo the fat cats

Same as number 3.

5. Willingness to take the media heat

Now this is something I want in an office-holder. It's an important aspect of character.

6. Willingness to endure the blog battering

Same as number 5.

I conclude with the observation that seem not to look for the same things as many many (perhaps most) people do in those I support for public office.

2008-01-20T12:28:00.000-08:00

Headline from today's (1/20/2008) Times of London:

Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama

The "groups" (blacks, other minorities, women, the "differently-abled", gays, lesbians, etc.) make their deals. Everyone is supposed to be on the same page. This way things run smoothly. But occasionally someone doesn't get a memo and folks get hurt. In 1994, Tammy Bruce was on the national executive committee of NOW and president of the Los Angeles chapter. But the deal was that the groups were going to support O.J. in the case involving his alleged murder of Nicole and Ron. This was one for the blacks. Tammy didn't agree. She lost her positions with NOW, and her status with the Left. (She has since gained some status with the Right by pandering to the Neocons.)

The O.J. was for the blacks. The election this year is for the women. Oprah apparently didn't get the memo. Some people may get caught in the crossfire. We'll see how it all pans out.

2008-01-19T12:25:00.000-08:00

I just learned today that Bobby Fischer died Thursday in Iceland. It's not a great shock, but I do find that it saddens me a little. It seems he lost much of his sanity to his pursuit of chess, and chess pretty much lost him after his great victory in 1972.

That seems ironic.

There are other ironies one may associate with Bobby. His mother was Jewish, so he may have been considered Jewish, but he continually engaged in anti-Semitic rants in his later years. He joined Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, and gave it almost 25% of the money he was awarded as world chess champion, then was involved in a lawsuit with some of the church's members, when he had a falling out with the church, shortly afterward. He was world famous and won a lot of money playing chess, but he may have died poor.

All in all, his was a sad, sad story.

2008-01-13T10:38:00.000-08:00

Also from today's Gray Lady:

Last Year’s Role Model
By LORRIE MOORE
Published: January 13, 2008

Madison, Wis.

When most of us first laid eyes on Hillary Clinton, it was during “60 Minutes,” and she was sitting by her man saying she was not one of those women who would stand by him. Not long after that, she told us she didn’t make cookies. At that remark I thought I heard the cheering of nonbaking working women everywhere, but apparently I was wrong, and quickly we the people were favored with Mrs. Clinton’s own contrite cookie recipe, which I have not yet had time to try.

"Sitting by" not "standing by"

Is Hillary "Queen of the Quibble"?

From "she told us she didn’t make cookies" to "Mrs. Clinton’s own contrite cookie recipe"

Or "Princess of the Flip-Flop"?

And that's just from her first encounters with the national consciousness.

I can understand why some U.S. women may long for a female chief executive. I can even understand why some Americans of either sex and all genders may want a woman in the White House in a role other than that of First Lady. What I cannot understand is why this particular woman. She's hardly a paragon of her sex. Not ethically, not morally, not even legally. (Remember the cattle futures incident?) Not intellectually. (She's a lightweight. You would think the country who produced MarilynVos Savant could do better. Even France had a brighter woman candidate for top office running a few months ago.) Not professionally. (What has she ever accomplished on her own?) Or if she is a paragon of her sex, the sex is not ready to lead. That's something which should give her supporters pause.

In the meantime, why don't we just take the issue off the table and repeal the 19th Amendment?

2008-01-13T10:31:00.000-08:00

From William Safire’s On Language column for January13, 2008:
I could of avoided this subject because it’s not too big of a deal, but to observe these mistakes a couple times a day — and to see one as the headline of a full-page ad accepted by at least two major newspapers — makes me want to fall off of my chair.

Four mistakes, no waiting, in today’s opening sentence.

Challenge: Can you find the four mistakes? And what do they have in common?

2008-01-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

On Jan. 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote.

That's why today should be a holiday. Repeal the 14th and 19th Amendments now!

2008-01-11T11:54:00.001-08:00

Subsumed under the rubric of "Boarding a Sinking Ship", this just in:

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson

2008-01-11T08:18:00.000-08:00

On Jan. 11, 1935, aviator Amelia Earhart began a trip from Honolulu to Oakland, Calif., becoming the first woman to fly solo across the Pacific Ocean.

Honolulu to Oakland? What is that? Half of the Pacific? I hadn't realized ocean crossings had a ladies' tee.

Charles Kingsford-Smith was first to cross Pacific Ocean San Francisco-Brisbane, Southern Cross, 1928, during Round the World flight, 1928-30, with Harry Lyon.

Now, that is crossing the Pacific Ocean. Okay, it wasn't solo, but at least it was the Pacific.

2008-01-08T09:30:00.000-08:00

Adapted from today's Gray Lady:

A man goes to see the doctor because of a pulled muscle in his shoulder.

“I see you were here last October,” the doctor says.

That surprised the man. He had never been to this clinic before. He told her so. She checked the chart, and disagreed.

“No, you were here for an overdose,” she said. According to the chart, he had been transported in a stupor from across town.

Well, he had certainly lived across town the previous October. But he was not a drug user, had never overdosed, and had never been to this clinic. He said so again.

She suggested that he had been intoxicated and didn’t remember. The chart had an entry from October with his name, his birth date and an accurate Social Security number. She read them out loud to him. These were facts, but no longer the business he knew.

He asked to see the chart. He wanted to know what he was supposed to have overdosed on, and what his physical description was. Someone must have taken his identification out of his wallet. It’s crazy, especially since they didn’t take the wallet itself.

The doctor wouldn’t give him the chart. She was in the sudden surreal position of being asked to share privileged information about one patient with another patient who might or might not have been the same person. If your identity is being used by someone else, then his overdose is not your business. You have no right to his medical information. This is a violation of Hipaa, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

He didn’t care about Hipaa (many of us don’t care much for it), but the doctor had no choice. Though the situation was absurd, her license and a large fine were potentially at stake. She wrote him a prescription for extra-strength ibuprofen and strongly suggested he find a primary-care physician. He was discharged without seeing the chart.

With so many rules and regulations, so many watchdogs, medical personnel any more have to give a much lower priority to patients. Don't you just love the nanny state?

2008-01-05T10:45:00.000-08:00

What Would Hillary Rodham Do?

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: January 5, 2008

...
How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?

How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him as mortal?

But if she were around right now, Hillary Rodham the commencement speaker would probably be an Obama girl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05collins.html?th&emc=th

But in high school, Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater Girl. That suggests that that Hillary Rodham would probably today be for Huckabee, Romney, or (maybe) Paul. How could she be 18 and that not be the case? (But I wouldn't really count on her ever supporting Ron.)

2008-01-02T08:40:00.000-08:00

In Monday's Music City Bowl:

Florida State was a 9 ½-point underdog because it was playing without seven starters, who were among 23 scholarship players who did not make the trip. Many of those players were suspended for cheating on a music exam, and some were lost to injury. The university would not disclose how many or which of the 23 players were part of the academic scandal.

Did you get that? Some of the Florida State players didn't get to go to the Music City Bowl because they cheated on a test for a music class. I've heard of poetic justice. Is this an example of musical justice?

2007-12-30T13:00:00.000-08:00

The editor of the influential Israeli newspaper Haaretz told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Israel wants to be “raped” by the U.S. to achieve a Middle East peace settlement.

Editor David Landau...

...

He reportedly urged Rice to intervene, saying the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” by the U.S. and that it would be like a “wet dream” for him to see that happen, according to the New York Jewish Week.

I thought if the "victim" wanted it, it wasn't rape. I guess that just shows what I know. (Also, "rape", "wet dream"; is Mr. Landau a sexually-obsessed adolescent? Perhaps Haaretz should consider hiring an editor whose psychological development is not arrested.)

2007-12-23T15:20:00.000-08:00

From the same source as the last post:

Dream Turns Nightmare: Milwaukee Police Officer to Be Deported
By CATRIN EINHORN
The case of Oscar Ayala-Cornejo is familiar to many illegal immigrants who grew up in the U.S. thinking of themselves as Americans only to have their status catch up with them later in life.

Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/22deport.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

You know, it is such a comfort to realize just how well the police screen their personnel before hiring them and training them and putting them on the street and...

2007-12-23T15:16:00.000-08:00

From yesterday's New York Times:

"He has the gift of gab. He’s the only person I know, other than Bill Clinton, who can pick up a rock and give you a 10-minute talk on it."
STATE SENATOR JIMMY JEFFRESS OF ARKANSAS, on former Gov. Mike Huckabee.

There must be something in the water in Arkansas.

2007-12-18T14:15:00.000-08:00

I learned something new this week about an old song. I found it at the following link.

http://www.carols.org.uk/the_twelve_days_of_christmas.htm

Religious symbolism of The Twelve Days of Christmas (The 12 Days of Christmas)

1 True Love refers to God
2 Turtle Doves refers to the Old and New Testaments
3 French Hens refers to Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues
4 Calling Birds refers to the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists
5 Golden Rings refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6 Geese A-laying refers to the six days of creation
7 Swans A-swimming refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments
8 Maids A-milking refers to the eight beatitudes
9 Ladies Dancing refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10 Lords A-leaping refers to the ten commandments
11 Pipers Piping refers to the eleven faithful apostles
12 Drummers Drumming refers to the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

So, what's with the partridge in the pear tree?

2007-12-18T14:07:00.000-08:00

Found in today's New York Times:

Dr. Davies asserted in the article that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function.

Also:

Dr. Davies complains that the traditional view of transcendent laws is just 17th-century monotheism without God. “Then God got killed off and the laws just free-floated in a conceptual vacuum but retained their theological properties,” he said in his e-mail message.

These may be found at the following link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/science/18law.html?th&emc=th

It seems that science involves faith as much as belief in any other Transcendence. At the beginning of the "Enlightenment", who would have predicted that we would come to such a contretemps? As he looks up from his current residence, what must Voltaire think?

2007-12-08T12:52:00.000-08:00

I would like to provide context for that last joke:

I was raised as a Southern Baptist and am an active member of a congregation associated with that brand. My youngest brother is a fundamentalist independent Baptist (he prefers the King James Version of the Bible). My sister married a Presbyterian and they attend that variety of church. My other brother married a United Methodist and ditto. After Mom died, Dad met and married a lady who was raised in an Amish family. She became a Mennonite when she was 16. They divide their churchgoing between the Baptists and the Mennonites.

Collectively, we can vouch for the truth of several of the generalizations made in the post for November 30th.

2007-11-30T10:48:00.001-08:00

How Many Christians Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

Charismatic: Only 1 - Hands are already in the air.

Pentecostal: 10 - One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians: None - Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholic: None - Candles only. (Of guaranteed origin of course.)

Baptists: At least 15 - One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.

Episcopalians: 3 - One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks, and one to talk about how much better the old one was.

Mormons: 5 - One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, you are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists: Undetermined - Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Bring a bulb of your choice to the Sunday lighting service and a covered dish to pass.

Nazarene: 6 - One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None - Lutherans don't believe in change.

Amish: What’s a light bulb?

2007-11-15T15:13:00.000-08:00

A thought I had earlier today:

If my freedom to be an idiot is limited at all, how do I have any freedom to share with the world any genius I might possess?

2007-11-14T09:57:00.000-08:00

Today I saw some statistics on how some U.S. states stack up with other countries with respect to performance of their respective eighth graders (13-14 years old) on math and science tests. I was shocked, shocked at the results. I discovered that Alabama outperforms Italy (I don't wish to receive any comments on how southern Italy drags down the rest of the country), California bests Sweden, Russia loses to New York, and New Jersey tops The Netherlands. I demand that Congress get with the UN to finance a fact-finding task force to investigate how the U.S. can improve the world's science and math education relative to America's. We cannot stay number one if we don't help everyone else out.

2007-11-08T12:16:00.000-08:00

The Mafia's Ten Commandments were discovered recently when one of their members was arrested. I detect a certain tension between the fifth and seventh commandments:

5. Always be available for Cosa Nostra, even if your wife's about to give birth.
...
7. Wives must be treated with respect.

Maybe it's just me.

2007-10-22T11:03:00.000-07:00

Some weeks ago on a different blog I mentioned the only acceptable members of the U.S. Supreme Court as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Another commenter referred to them as the STAR justices. Last night I woke up, and for some reason I began thinking about this. I concluded that it is probably best not to use the justices names to create an acronym. Let me explain.

"Star" is probably the worst word one might use with respect to any court of law. If you don't already know this, access the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
Other possible acronyms formed from the letters include RATS (pack of), STRA(w-men), TARS (incorrect racial opinions), ARTS (possible First Amendment infringement), TSAR (major political oppression), RAST (What, mon? Sans dreadlocks?), and SART(re). And STAR is the first one everyone will think of. We just don't want to ever go there. (And, unfortunately, it's probably already too late.)

2007-10-15T11:33:00.000-07:00

1. How many different "s" sounds are there in "says"? And how does that relate to the following?

Also sprach Zarathustra, "Fido spoke also."

2. How many different "th" sounds are there in "thinketh"? And how does that relate to the following?

Ye Thorn sticketh in mine Side.

2007-09-26T06:45:00.000-07:00

This is indicative the current state of American education:

"I don’t know how I’m going to feed myself."
R. J. BOLLARD, a freshman at the University of Washington

(Full disclosure: Mr. Bollard had only $0.73 after purchasing a Halo 3 computer video game. He may actually know how to feed himself if food is placed before him.)

2007-09-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Beginning tomorrow I get to do the Shriners' circus thing again. Oh, joy. And to think that it only comes around once a year. Why do I have to wait a whole year in between visits? It's not like I would be willing to pay money to miss the circus this year. It's more like I would almost be willing to pay money to miss the circus this year.

2007-09-19T11:12:00.000-07:00

Why I believe that the second Adam (Jesus) had all four temperaments:

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. - Luke 2:52

Wisdom - Rational

Stature - Artisan

Favour with God - Idealist

Favour with man - Guardian

2007-09-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

Why I believe that Eve (and probably Adam) had all four of the temperaments:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. - Genesis 3:6

1. She saw that the tree was good for food. - Guardian (emphasis on security)

2. She saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes. - Artisan (emphasis on pleasing the senses)

3. She saw that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. - Rational (emphasis on gaining knowledge and wisdom)

4. After eating, she gave also unto her husband with her. - Idealist (emphasis on the welfare of another)

2007-09-16T14:43:00.000-07:00

Concerning the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator (part III), fourth addendum:

Guardians – Matthew

The author of Matthew uses an associational organization for his text. (“And that reminds me of the time…”) That is consistent with the author being a guardian.

Artisans – Mark

Mark is a short book of narrative of mostly action sequences, and little explication. Artisans usually like to be doing things, and are impatient with anything that is not action. (“Just do it.”)

Rationals – Luke

This author matches with what we think of as a historian. His work is logical and objective.

Idealists – John

The author writes from the standpoint of one who knew his Subject (Jesus) intimately, and wished to convey that intimacy to his readers.

2007-09-15T15:14:00.000-07:00

Part III on the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator third addendum:

Guardians - Caiaphas

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. - John 11:48-50

Artisans - Herod

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. - Luke 23:8

Rationals – Pilate

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? – John 18:37-38a

Idealists - Judas Iscariot

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. – Matthew 27:3-5

2007-09-14T05:43:00.000-07:00

Leaving aside the issue of nominating or electing Rudy Giuliani, the linked article provides some food for thought on Roe v. Wade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14johnston.html?th&emc=th

"There is an old Vulcan saying: 'Only Nixon can go to China.'" - Spock to Captain Kirk, The Undiscovered Country

2007-09-10T07:35:00.000-07:00

What I encountered in the blogosphere:

Dr No. An odd nickname and seemingly a negative one at that. But just who is Ron Paul, and why are so many people saying Yes to Dr. No. A good question and one that deserves an answer.

My answer:

Because for too many people who feel threatened by government enslavement, James Bond is an especially unfortunate name for the would-be hero.

2007-09-10T07:25:00.000-07:00

As promised yesterday, here are the explanations:

What Heidi Fleiss' employee (or customer) said under oath: Idaho

Employee: I [am] the [w]ho[re].
Customer: I'd (i.e., I had) a [w]ho[re].

Overheard often at Debtors Anonymous meetings: Iowa

I owe a...

Response to Othello when he surprised Michael Cassio and Desdemona under circumstances that were difficult to explain: Ohio

Oh, hi, O[thello].

What the sound-sensitive patient said about the cause of his recent hospitalization: Illinois

[I was] ill a[t] (i.e., because of) noise.

Yeah. I know. Especially egregious puns. But it's my blog. So there.

2007-09-09T15:46:00.000-07:00

The states in everyday language:

What Heidi Fleiss' employee (or customer) said under oath: Idaho

Overheard often at Debtors Anonymous meetings: Iowa

Response to Othello when he surprised Michael Cassio and Desdemona under circumstances that were difficult to explain: Ohio

What the sound-sensitive patient said about the cause of his recent hospitalization: Illinois

I will provide explanations tomorrow. Tune in then.

2007-09-05T06:54:00.000-07:00

Concerning science and society I would like to offer the following thoughts.

The question that is not asked often enough:

If it can be done, does it follow that it should be done?

What is often assumed, at least tacitly:

If it can be done, it should be done.

The situation that we should fear:

If it can be done, it must be done.

2007-09-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

Question of the day:

Where have all the flowers gone?

2007-09-02T13:43:00.000-07:00

Today, I wish to share some thoughts about the ninth commandment.

1. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. – Exodus 20:16

2. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. - Psalm 58:3

3. They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah. - Psalm 62:4

4. A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies. - Proverbs 14:25

5. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. - Isaiah 59:4

My first thought is that as is obvious from references 2 through 5 above, plainly God's Word does not condone lying or deceit. There is no question about that.

My second thought is that Exodus 20:16 is not primarily against lying. I believe that "false witnessing" against others is more evident in what we refer to as gossiping. That is really what the commandment is about. Most lying that we do is actually a violation of the eighth commandment found in Exodus 20:15. ("Thou shalt not steal.")

Are there any thoughts concerning this topic from those who read this blog? Go ahead, if you disagree with me, I will not ban you for life. Ten years, tops. I promise.

2007-09-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

Second addendum to Part III on the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator:

Guardians - King Saul
I see King Saul as a guardian because (1) his timidity when first chosen as king (while artisans are the most bold, guardians are the least); (2) his emphasis on tradition which led to his downfall ("to obey is better than sacrifice"); (3) his concern for his legacy as shown by his behavior toward David.

Artisans - Samson
We know Samson was an artisan because of his impulsive behavior, his weakness for the pleasure his senses provided him, and the confidence (sometimes overconfidence) in his own ability that he demonstrated when facing adversity.

Rationals - David
That David was a rational is demonstrated by the design inherent in Psalm 119 (22 stanzas of eight verses each; each verse in the first stanza begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, each in the second with the second letter, and so on for all 22 letters) and by his rather strategic handling of the problem with Uriah and his wife.

Idealists - Solomon
Solomon was an idealist because he kept looking for the perfect woman to the extent that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Also, the text of the Song of Solomon suggests the author was an idealist. (The texts of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes do nothing to contradict that idea.)

2007-09-01T11:46:00.001-07:00

Question for the day:

Why do people blog?

2007-08-27T10:59:00.000-07:00

I posted this in May, but I want to write about this some more. What follows is an idea I have for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1. The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now, I would like for everyone to understand that this is in no way intended to be an original piece of prose. Section 1 is copied verbatim from the 21st Amendment with only the word "fourteenth" substituted where "eighteenth" appears in the original. Sections 2 and 3 likewise come from the 15th Amendment. In section 2, I have substituted "rights, privileges, and immunities" for "voting rights" in the 15th. The language "privileges and immunities" is borrowed from the 14th Amendment itself.

My objective in proposing this amendment is to re-appropriate to the American people power that has been stolen from them by elite members of our society, and to give back to the states the rights and duties that the federal government has taken as its own.

The 14th Amendment is a necessary part of a number of judicial decisions that are inimical to us as a society. These include Mapp v. Ohio (excluding evidence obtained "illegally"), Schemp v. Abington Township (restricting school prayer in public schools), Miranda v. Arizona (requiring defendants to be informed of their rights), Memoir v. Massachusetts (pornography as free speech), and Roe v. Wade (abortion "rights"). If the amendment is repealed, the states (and their citizens) can decide issues that directly affect them without undue interference from the federal government.

What I am proposing is that the American people have had power stolen from them, and that now is the time for them to regain that power.

Power to the people!

2007-08-26T12:40:00.000-07:00

The following tidbit was included in an e-mail I received recently:

So, it has come to this: A 20-year-old Illinois college student is whining because she won’t be able to vacation in Costa Rica, because she got pregnant, because she couldn’t get birth control anymore, because it cost $20-a-month more at the university clinic, because its federal funding was cut, because President George Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act.

Boy, doesn’t that beat all. Bush lied to us, got us into an unnecessary war and now he got a 20-year-old pregnant and denied her the entitlement of drinking mai tais on a tropical beach.

You can’t make this up. Here’s the August 13 story, from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Last spring, 20-year-old pre-med student Elizabeth Harris had only Costa Rica on her mind. She was hoping to wine and dine there while taking a few biology courses.

...

She's twenty years old. She's in college. And she's a pre-med major. Is it too much for us to expect her to understand where babies come from? It seems that she really needed those Costa Rican biology courses.

At least she's not crying for the government to pay for her to have an abortion.

2007-08-23T13:54:00.000-07:00

Addendum to MBPI part III:

Guardians are like Dorothy in their obsession for security. "There's no place like home. There's no place..."

Artisans like to be bold, and are afraid of slowing down and holding back, especially when young. Hence, Cowardly Lion.

Rationals, when they are children, are most afraid that they are not smart. Like Scarecrow, "If I only had a brain..."

Idealists are always opening their hearts, "But do I do it enough?", they wonder. Thus, they are Tin Woodman.

2007-08-23T13:20:00.000-07:00

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. - Proverbs 26:11

You would think I would know better by now, but I refuse to learn. I found the following on Pandragon as an entry for today made by Amanda Marcotte:

The Colorado version of Media Matters uncovered a small but classic example of how the media is failing us by giving right wingers an opportunity to spout nonsense without following up with basic facts, no doubt out of fear that they’ll be accused of being the Librul Media. In this August 20th article by Karen Augé, anti-choice nut Leslie Hanks was given a platform to spout not one, not two, but three factually inaccurate claims without any follow-up correction of the facts.

...

“Let’s face it, they’re in the business to kill babies for profit,” she [Ms. Hanks] said. “First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don’t work,” Hanks said.

...

1. Planned Parenthood “kills babies”, i.e. performs abortions, for profit.
2. Birth control pills “hook” young women, i.e. create a chemical dependency, like drugs such as heroin.
3. Birth control pills don’t even “work”, i.e. birth control pills do not prevent pregnancy.

...

In the remainder of the article, Ms. Marcotte presumably debunks (or attempts to do so) the allegations made by Ms. Hanks. Now, I am not conversant with most aspects of birth control. I do know that Planned Parenthood encourages women to kill their unborn children. I know that many medications are physically and psychologically addictive. And I know that my wife has been pregnant three times, and that all three pregnancies began while she was taking birth control pills.

I really need to get out more.

2007-08-20T11:07:00.000-07:00

Concerning the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator (part III):

Familiar examples of each temperament:

Guardians - Dorothy; King Saul; Matthew; Caiaphas (high priest at the time of Jesus' death).

Artisans - Cowardly Lion; Samson; Mark; Herod (king of Galilee at the time of Jesus' death).

Rationals - Scarecrow; David; Luke; Pilate.

Idealists - Tin Woodman; Solomon; John; Judas Iscariot.

2007-08-20T10:45:00.000-07:00

The NATO phonetic alphabet is a spelling alphabet which can be useful in such circumstances as when misunderstanding can be disastrous and quality of clear communication is lacking. Below are the letters and their respective code words:

A ALPHA

B BRAVO

C CHARLIE

D DELTA

E ECHO

F FOXTROT

G GOLF

H HOTEL

I INDIA

J JULIET

K KILO

L LIMA

M MIKE

N NOVEMBER

O OSCAR

P PAPA

Q QUEBEC

R ROMEO

S SIERRA

T TANGO

U UNIFORM

V VICTOR

W WHISKEY

X X-RAY

Y YANKEE

Z ZULU

2007-08-16T10:38:00.001-07:00

I stirred a pot yesterday:

VOX DEI BAIT (Prologue)
Sorry if the title makes anyone cringe. I just couldn't resist.

I'm getting ready to kick off my exchange with Vox Day, who seems sympathetic to some sort of ID creationism.

Posted by Scott Hatfield

DuckMan said...
Scott, you should understand that intelligent design is not creationism. Many ID supporters do not believe that God created the world, although many do. (I admit I am one of the latter.) Some ID advocates are religious agnostics. It is not legitimate to attempt to claim that ID is creationism in different clothing. That is simply not the case.

Zeno said...
DuckMan is arguing the exception rather than the rule. ID was amply demonstrated during the Kitzmiller trial to be creationism in a new guise... Even if some ID advocates purport to be agnostics, ID is the lineal descendant of creationism, evolved under the natural selection pressure of multiple defeats in the effort to get the Genesis account into public school science classes.

Mrs Tilton said...
I'm sorry, DuckMan, but that is uttermost bollocks. ID has its origins in a specifically American attempt to circumvent the constitutional ban on religious instruction in state schools. Had states been permitted by the courts to continue teaching creationism, ID would never have arisen (because it would not have been needed). Similarly, if there were no such thing as religion, ID would never have arisen (because it would have no point).

Show me an "atheist IDer" and I will show you a liar (or at least, somebody who has not thought through the glaring contradictions in his thinking)...

ID is worthless as science and blasphemous as theology. It is creationism in different clothing -- a stolen lab coat.

And note, BTW, that I am not an atheist.

Anonymous said...
"Show me an "atheist IDer" and I will show you a liar"

Duckman never said that there were atheist IDers, he said agnostic.

Mrs Tilton said...
Same principle at work, anonymous. An "agnostic IDer" has, whether she admit or not, made a decision about whether there is a deity or not.

Art said...
The claim that ID is creationism as established by the Kitzmiller case is shown for what it really is in the Montana Law Review article which discussed it in depth. See "Intelligent Design will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, by DeWolf, West, and Luskin, Vol. 68, Number 1, Winter 2007.

It is not as Zeno claims, as anyone who has read Demski's book, Intelligent Design, would know.

Scott Hatfield . . . said...
This is all very interesting. Is it possible to be enamored of the ID position and yet not be a creationist? Perhaps. Vox has certainly maintained all along that while he is a believer, that his skepticism where evolution is concerned can be framed in a non-religious way.

So,the question of whether all ID is or is not some flavor of creationism is not critical to our debate. Therefore, I'll concede the point that some version of ID might not be creationism. Even so, I have to commend Mrs. Tilton and Zeno: in general, what they are saying about the origins and proponents of the ID movement in this country is true. And, even if you are an 'ID agnostic', your stance lends an air of legitimacy to those creationists who still harbor the dream of redefining not just science, but all of the culture in terms of their religious commitments.

Hong Hu Shi said...
a specifically American attempt to circumvent the constitutional ban on religious instruction in state schools

Just for the record, this is incorrect. There is no constitutional ban on religious instruction in state schools. There is what amounts to a "restraining order" preventing forced religious instruction in state schools and another, more insidious one that seeks to prevent Christian instruction in state schools. Of course, the former doesn't present forced Islamic instruction in state schools in California.

Good day.

I am especially interested in how the U.S. justice system has entered into this discussion. It has been and still is my considered opinion that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way applies the "religious establishment" clause of the First Amendment to the states. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The SCOTUS did not get around to applying "no religious establishment" until the 1940s. If the people who authored the amendment had intended it to be so interpreted, it is reasonable to believe that the interpretation would have surfaced earlier. As it is, the logic which takes the language "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and from it concludes that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" applies to the states is tortured at best. It is disingenuous for anyone to claim that there is a "constitutional ban on religious instruction in state schools". As Hong Hu Shi has pointed out above, this is not the case.

2007-08-15T13:16:00.000-07:00

I found this as a comment on another blog:

Discobolus (n) An Ancient Greek coin. When the obolus was first introduced it was square, because it was easier to make sure that they had used fixed quantity of gold. However, people didn't like square coins, since they led to holes in pockets and purses, and they could no longer play some of their favourite coin games.

However, as always, mathematicians came to the rescue and worked out how to calculate the area of the circle, and the first oboli minted in this shape are referred to as discoboli.

The blog this is from deals with made-up definitions of actual English words. But I have a small problem with one of the assertions made here. What our interlocutor neglects to mention is that drawing a circle that has the same area as a given square (or vice versa) with only the use of straight edge and compass has been one of the classic challenges of mathematics. No method has yet been discovered. Therefore, the second paragraph above is no more true than the first. Of course, the individual who composed this is probably already aware of that, but this allows me to share with my readers something they may have not already known. And you're very welcome.

Thank you for reading.

2007-08-13T10:44:00.000-07:00

What evolutionists need to do to convince me to take them seriously:

1. Find at least one beneficial (will increase survivability of the species) mutation in either nature or the laboratory;

2. Prove that the mutated characteristic is passed on to at least the next 50 generations.

To my knowledge #1 has never been accomplished, and even with non-beneficial mutations, the characteristics usually disappear within 20 generations.

Until these conditions are met, I don't believe that evolutionary theory has any real empirical support at all.

2007-08-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

Merv Griffin has died.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QVIV803&show_article=1

I wonder who he left his talk show's set to. I want to put in a bid for his chair.

2007-08-09T10:08:00.000-07:00

Concerning the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator (part II):
(It's later.)

Guardians - Place is Gateway. (They tend to be intrude on the business of others.)

Artisans - Place is Here.

Idealists - Place is Pathway. (They wish to provide others spiritual guidance.)

Rationals - Place is Intersection. [I'll get back to you on this one. I promise.]

2007-08-07T14:12:00.001-07:00

What is the evolutionary benefit of a sense of irony?

2007-08-06T13:18:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Tom Alciere:

"As Ted Kennedy said to Mary Jo, 'I'll cross that bridge when we get to it.'"

2007-08-06T11:56:00.000-07:00

From Camille Paglia:

A primary arena for the conservative-liberal wars has been the arts. While leading conservative voices defend the traditional Anglo-American literary canon, which has been under challenge and in flux for forty years, American conservatives on the whole, outside of the New Criterion magazine, have shown little interest in the arts, except to promulgate a didactic theory of art as moral improvement that was discarded with the Victorian era at the birth of modernism.

This sentiment certainly pre-dated the Victorians:

Because, if I am not mistaken, we shall have to say that about men poets and story-tellers are guilty of making the gravest misstatements when they tell us that wicked men are often happy, and the good miserable; and that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justice is a man's own loss and another's gain --these things we shall forbid them to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite. - The Republic by Plato, Book III

The idea that the arts exist for the moral improvement of a society is basically as old as society itself. Ms. Paglia is either mistaken in her belief or misleading in her assertion.

2007-08-05T12:51:00.000-07:00

Concerning the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator:

Guardians - ESTJ (Administrator); ISTJ (Inspector); ESFJ (Provider); ISFJ (Protector) - Strong at Logistics. Weak at Strategy. Aspire to be Executive. Trust in Authority. Time is Yesterday.

Artisans - ESTP (Promoter); ISTP (Crafter); ESFP (Performer); ISFP (Composer) - Strong at Tactics. Weak at Diplomacy. Aspire to be Virtuoso. Trust in own Impulses. Time is Now.

Idealists - ENFJ (Teacher); INFJ (Counselor); ENFP (Champion); INFP (Healer) - Strong at Diplomacy. Weak at Tactics. Aspire to be Sage. Trust in own Intuition. Time is Tomorrow.

Rationals - ENTJ (Field Marshall); INTJ (Mastermind); ENTP (Inventor); INTP (Architect) - Strong at Strategy. Weak at Logistics. Aspire to be Wizard. Trust in own Reason. Time is Interval.

More later.

2007-08-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has written opinions in which he has cited European laws as justification for the decision. This is a strange thing because it would be very easy for a right-wing justice to use European laws to support positions he might favor. As examples, consider the following:

1. In the United Kingdom there is an established church - the Church of England. Further, the British have an Official Secrets Act which allows the government to censor news whose dissemination it believes may threaten the nation's security.
2. Recently in France, Muslim schoolgirls were forbidden to wear headscarves in the public schools although they are required by their religion to do so.
3. In Germany, police may enter a private residence without the permission of the resident and without a warrant.
4. About two years ago, it was revealed that the Italian government had begun eavesdropping on the cellphone conversations of suspected mafiosi.

Are Justice Breyer and his allies on the Court willing for these European laws to be used in this country? If not, they should not have opened the door to that possibility.

2007-07-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

Selections from the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade:

From section IX
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

From section XI
To summarize and to repeat:
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

It is my contention that the italicized selections above contradict each other. Since they are material to one of the major findings of the decision, it is reasonable to claim that the Roe was poorly written and the issues decided therein need to be re-addressed.

2007-07-26T09:13:00.000-07:00

Question for today: Does the Constitution of the United States limit the right of the states to establish religion?

Relevant constitutional texts:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 14, Paragraph 1
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The question becomes one of "Does the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the 14th Amendment apply the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment to the states?"

It is not obvious how that could be. One would hope that with all of the majority opinion and interest that is thwarted by the current interpretations applied to these texts, that the texts would provide unambiguous support for those interpretations. Plainly, such is not the case. On the slender reed provided to this issue by the 14th Amendment, we have seen God exorcised from the public schools to the extent that valedictory addresses have been censored. We see public buildings and monuments removed or altered. A state Supreme Court judge was removed from office. Even Christmas creches have been banned from many communities during the "holiday" season.

This bit of constitutional law is in serious need of being readdressed. I pray that the current Supreme Court will undo some of the pernicious rulings promulgated by its predecessors. May God bless America.

2007-07-18T07:40:00.001-07:00

Say what you will, there is this difference between the Democrats and the Republicans:

At the broadest level, Democratic members of the House of Representatives and Senate organize themselves into the House Democratic Caucus and Senate Democratic Caucus, while their Republican counterparts are organized into the House Republican Conference and Senate Republican Conference.

For the full article, use this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus

Caucus:
a. A closed meeting of party members within a legislative body to decide on questions of policy or leadership.
b. A group within a legislative or decision-making body seeking to represent a specific interest or influence a particular area of policy: a minority caucus.

Conference:
A meeting of committees to settle differences between two legislative bodies.

Despite all of its faults, the GOP still seems less sinister than the most viable alternative.

2007-07-17T12:33:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Edwards didn't call Hillary Clinton a man

Matt Drudge is linking to my Elizabeth Edwards interview, with a banner headline: "Gender Bender: Wife Edwards Says Hillary 'Behaving Like a Man.'" Of course, that's not what Edwards said; the full context is:

...

I knew Edwards was making news when she criticized Clinton, but she was definitely not calling her a man, which is one of the GOP's favorite slurs against Hillary Clinton. This is the last, best hope of the Republicans to hold onto the White House: To brand the leading candidate, who happens to be female, as too mannish, while slurring the leading men -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- as girly. Meanwhile, President Bush is the swaggering moron who won't ask for directions even though he's 100 miles off course, and the 2008 GOP lineup is a parody of masculinity -- not to mention a Mount Rushmore of infidelity. According to an Associated Press poll released today, GOP primary voters are still longing for someone different to throw his or her hat into the race. Elizabeth Edwards' point was to question Democrats who are making a straight gender pitch for women to support Clinton -- or for African-Americans to support Obama -- which is absolutely fair game.

Here is the link for the full post:
http://salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/07/17/edwards_drudge/index.html
And here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/17/elizabeth_edwards/index2.html

Hillary must come clean with the public and the voters: What exactly is she (man, woman, straight, bi, gay, Cubs fan, Yankee fan, supporter of Iraq War, critic of Iraq War, etc.)?

And how much does John Edwards (that paragon of masculinity) spend per week on haircare?

And what's up with this Dem debate for gays only? This is taking pandering to groups a little too far. They shouldn't bend over for just anyone. (That is, of course, bend over backwards.)

2007-07-15T12:02:00.000-07:00

What happens when you assume?

ass u me

You turn both of us into Dimocrats.

(After all, the worst thing about the GOP is that too many Republicans act and think too Dimly.)

[To Whom It May Concern: Nothing has been misspelled in this post. I meant exactly what I typed.]

2007-07-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

Today I read a little about some of the superstitions concerning Friday the 13th. One is not walking under a ladder. The origin of the belief has to do with the Trinity and to walk in the space in the triangle under the ladder is to somehow tread upon the domain of the Triune God. Since that is so at odds with the doctrine of orthodox Christianity, it occurred to me that the superstition must have an earlier origin in pagan belief and practice. If I had the energy and inclination I would follow up and investigate. Oh, well.

At least I'm not cynical today.

2007-07-12T10:46:00.000-07:00

When he ran for the Senate, Barack Obama was asked if he thought gayness was choice or innate. Leaving aside the whole question of Obama's (or any other politician's) lack of expertise on this subject, I'm inclined to notice that the question involves a false dichotomy. It takes no account at all of a possible option. It seems to me that an individual may be born with a sexual preference for his or her own sex, that an individual may at some time or other choose to engage in relations with the same sex, or that a person may have had experiences early in life that gave that individual a same-sex preference.

It is obvious why major media representatives would not wish to pose a question which would allow for this last possibility: It would bring to public consciousness the thought that some homosexual practitioners are predatory in their conduct. Such thinking is grossly politically incorrect. And we simply cannot have that. Not in a truly free society.

When I am feeling less cynical I will write more.

2007-07-11T12:07:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Clerihew Day. In keeping with that I submit the following concerning my employer:

Ms. Debbie Myers
Brooks no criers
When it comes to work
You'd best be not a jerk

2007-07-08T10:37:00.000-07:00

On his blog Vox Populi, Vox Day has disambiguated the term science as follows:

1. scientage - the body of scientific knowledge;

2. scientody - the scientific method;

3. scientistry - the practice of the profession of scientist;

4. sciencistry - the worship of 1, 2, or 3.

Given these definitions, Vox claims that some who belong to 3 and possess 1 and use 2, also engage in 4. It is this last that is a problem.

And the practice of 4 is not justified no matter what may be true of 1, 2, or 3.

Exodus 20:3

2007-07-07T12:49:00.000-07:00

Unoriginal and original mathematical thoughts:

1. There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.

2. There are three kinds of mathematician - those who can count and those who can't.

3. How many slices are there in pi?

4. When we compute the area of a circle, how is it we speak of "pi are squared"? Isn't the pi singular? And shouldn't it at least be "pi are rounded"?

5. If roots can be square or cube, why can't they be circle, sphere, cylinder, or cone?

6. Should mc hammer's son be mc squared hammer or e hammer?

2007-07-02T12:06:00.001-07:00

For people who have time on their hands (and can't wash it off), you might spend a little of it at this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

I have just been informed that the above is basic to "the whole of science". Presumably, along with the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Scientific Method, and the Notion that Faith that Sense Data is Reliable.

Who said Faith and Reason were at odds?