« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

June 30, 2005

Indiana University Alumni Trustee Election II

Pat Shoulders was elected to a second term. It wasn't even close -- not that the next two runners up were at all impressive either. This speaks rather poorly of my fellow alumni (or at least the approximately 9% that bothered to return a ballot).

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:51 PM | Comments (5)

Thomas & Kelo

Apparently one of Justice Thomas's quotes from Kelo is getting around. Via Volokh:

My friend and fellow lawprof Rick Garnett, who teaches at Notre Dame, writes:

Here's an e-mail I got from a student of mine today . . .

I picked my 20 year old sister up from the airport today and she was wearing a fitted ringer t-shirt with a quotation from Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion in Kelo on the front. When I asked her where she got it, she said from "urban outfitters." I thought you . . . would appreciate knowing that Justice Thomas is officially "hip."

They are referring to a copy of this t-shirt. Pretty funny.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 10:02 PM | Comments (2)

McConnell

RealClearPolitics has highlighted an article that Judge Michael McConnell wrote in The American Enterprise back in 1995. In the article he argued that the Establishment clause was being used as a sword against religion. McConnell's thesis:

History shows clearly that the establishment clause of the First Amendment was designed to ensure that no religion is given a privileged status in American public life. It was certainly not intended to require the secularization of society. The First Amendment has been turned on its head today: from a guarantee of freedom for religion, to an excuse for official hostility to religion. It is time that the equal rights of religious citizens to speak and participate in public life be clearly recognized and protected in the law.

In the same article McConnell lays the groundwork for a "Religious Liberty Amendment." I strongly agree with Justice Rehnquist's recent statement that "our cases, Januslike, point in two directions in applying the Establishment Clause." But I don't think that the recent Ten Commandments cases changed that fact, or much of anything related to public displays. For that reason, I think McConnell's reasoning still applies. However, in my view, amending the Constitution is unnecessary--at least until Janus's gaze begins settling in one direction.

Given the Zelman line of cases--permitting public funding in the form of vouchers for religious schools, and similar uses by religious programs characterized by "private choice"--I'd say the Constitution has, in some respects, become much friendlier to religious folks. (Not for lack of dissenters though.) I tend to think that amending the Constitution is rarely necessary, but even when it isn't necessary I'd rather see an amendment than a 5-4 ruling. So while I disagree that we've reached the point of needing a religious liberties amendment, I'd probably support it.

I will be more inclined to agree with the need for an amendment if we do indeed take the slippery slope and rid the public square of religious expression a la France. It will take a while for scholars to fully debate--through scholarship--the meaning of the recent decisions. But, when they do, my best guess is that most will conclude that with regard to public displays we are pretty much where we were after Allegheny v. ACLU in 1989: A creche alone violates the Constitution, but a creche next to a plastic Santa is fine.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 09:35 PM | Comments (3)

$tupid

You have probably heard of Gerardo Flores by now, but if you have not, I'm here to fill you in. Flores was recently found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison for helping his girlfriend, Erica Basoria, "abort" her twins. Texas law states that "causing the death of an unborn fetus" is punishable by the death penalty or life in prison. According to his girlfriend "she and Flores worked together in the weeks before her miscarriage to abort the babies." Somehow they found that the most efficient method of working toward the miscarriage was to have Flores beat Basoria and then step on her stomach multiple times. However, according to one of the attorneys, it's not clear whose actions led to the deaths in that Basoria beat herself in the belly as well. Basoria, unlike Flores, is shielded from prosecution by her fundamental right to an abortion.

All of these events have led to, among other things, a "Free Gerardo" screed wherein some brilliant blogger spells America with a three Ks, instead of a C. (This strategic spelling demonstrates the blogger's genius, because he knows about the Klan and the title of the Kafka book. Amerikkka, get it? The US is a Nazi state. Brilliant.) While I share this bloggers astonishment, it seems pretty unreasonable to blame the actions of two desperate youths on a law enforcing nation that is otherwise remarkably unlike the Third Reich. Thieves are, in many cases, desperate themselves yet are subjected to the same criminal codes.

Anyway, I digress. It speaks volumes of the level of bass-ackwardness going on when Basoria has inscribed the names of the would-be children (she didn't want) on tombstones, and has escaped liability-free. (Meanwhile her boyfriend is left to pack up and fend for himself in Sing-Sing.) What's even more interesting, in my view, is the amount of haranguing going on in response to this scenario. The only thing that separates these criminal events from a partial birth abortion is the fact that boyfriends don't generally go to prison for abortions, and mothers don't generally get themselves mauled in medical facilities.

So the real trouble, for Mr. Amerikkka, is not that two teenagers caused the death of two fetuses, or that we have laws criminalizing domestic abuse. His real trouble is with domestic abuse laws which unfavorably include a woman's unborn children as part of her abusable body. I wonder what he would have said if the result of this beating had been the failure of one of Basoria's kidneys, or severe mental trauma (both defined as intentional injury to the woman's body)? That she consented?

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 05:25 PM | Comments (1)

Reply to John West on ID and Metaphysics

John West, associate director of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, has replied to my "fulminating" essay, posted to Dispatches, In the Agora and the Panda's Thumb, on ID and "divine design". You'll recall that Mr. West had claimed that he and his fellow ID advocates get "very upset" when people "confuse" intelligent design with divine design, as a Utah legislator has in a bill designed to give equal time, and I replied by offering numerous quotes from ID advocates themselves ostensibly "confusing" the two. Mr. West's reply to me, unfortunately, almost entirely misses the point of my response - by design, I suspect. He has essentially two arguments: A) that ID only has "metaphysical implications" rather than being inherently metaphysical, and B) so does evolution:

First of all, if he had read the article I referenced in my blog post about why ID is not creationism, he would have known that I never deny that ID can have metaphysical implications...I went on to explain that ID in this respect is no different than Darwinism.

But he fails to address here the real substance of my argument. I did not argue that ID merely has metaphysical implications; I argued that ID is inherently metaphysical and that many ID advocates had admitted as much. The only quotes in my initial post that dealt only with the implications of ID were the ones from Nancy Pearsey; the rest of them dealt with the nature of ID either as an explanation or as a political/legal movement. The rest of them all begin with statements like "Intelligent design is...", "Our strategy has been...", and "Our objective is...". These are statements about the nature of ID, not about the implications of ID.

More importantly, as I have argued elsewhere, the nature of ID by the Discovery Institute's own definition can only be metaphysical. Here is the definition of ID given by West's own group in their FAQ answering questions about ID:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Their own definition combines biological ID with cosmological ID, which means the designer is responsible not only for living things, but for creating the universe itself. The DI's writings on cosmological ID make clear that when they say "certain features of the universe", they mean the nature of the universe itself - the nature of nature. This pretty much closes the door on their mantra-like citation of aliens as possible "intelligent designers". If the argument is that the universe was designed with the ability to sustain life, invoking alien life as an explanation is clearly absurd - alien life would be an effect of that universal design, just as human life is, not a cause of it.

(Incidentally, let me add that I have no problem whatsoever with the claim that the universe is designed to support life. Indeed, this is something I agree with. I am a deist and I do believe that the universe was created with the attributes to allow life to begin, exist and evolve when the conditions are right. But not only does this have little to do with whether evolution is true or not, I would maintain that there is a tension between accepting cosmological ID and rejecting evolution. As my friend and colleague Howard Van Till likes to point out, the ID movement believes in a God who created the universe with the ability to sustain life, but did so poor a job of it that he had to continually intervene to make sure it happened.)

Anyway, getting back to the argument that ID is inherently metaphysical, let me provide more support for this position from ID advocates themselves. William Dembsk has agreed with my argument above that the combination of cosmological and biological ID means that the "designer" can only refer to God. In an August 1998 article published on ARN, The Act of Creation. He wrote:

The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

So here again, their own words demonstrate that ID does not merely have "metaphysical implications", but that ID is an explanation that requires a metaphysical designer - i.e. a God. To be fair, Dembski does say that angels could have had a hand in designing too:

And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy - it's not just that there's this physical material world and there's God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences - processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall.

But either way, ID is a metaphysical explanation by its nature, not merely by its implications. Does that mean that it's wrong? Of course not. But it means that it is outside the ability of science to deal with, and it means that West and his fellow ID advocates are putting on a Janus-like display of double talk, saying on the one hand that the designer could just as easily be aliens and that they don't deal in the supernatural, while simultaneously admitting that the designer could only be supernatural.

I would also note the interesting dichotomy between their position on evolution and their position on ID. It has been a staple argument of the ID crowd for over a decade now that evolution is an inherently atheistic/materialistic idea. Their rhetoric about destroying "atheism" and "materialism" has been quoted a thousand times over, so there is no need to rehash it here. And it is important to note that they do not merely claim that evolution has atheistic "implications". As Phillip Johnson says:

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "'the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

Thus we see that it is a vital part of their strategy to claim that evolution is not atheistic merely by implication, but by its inherent nature, and that their entire goal is to use ID as a wedge to introduce people to the bible and Jesus. Yet when you take those words seriously and conclude that ID is an inherently religious or metaphysical idea - as they themselves admit - they howl in outrage at the unfairness of it all. It's quite an interesting tension at play between their rhetoric about evolution and their rhetoric about ID. I maintain that this tension is simply a result of the fact that their real position and the marketing campaign with which they sell it are fundamentally at odds. As a political/legal strategy, they simply must pretend that ID is purely about science and an unnamed "designer". But as a fundraising campaign - and remember that they themselves refer to the Wedge document as a fundraising letter - they have to tell people that evolution really means atheism, ID really means Christianity, and that if you send them money, they'll stand up for God and destroy atheism.

Posted by at 10:46 AM | Comments (1)

Summer reading, pt. II

Rumor in the literary circles is he's planning a trashy romance for 2006 (feel free to offer potential titles).

Posted by Michael Drazer at 12:47 AM | Comments (2)

Today's word power

Ever wonder about the root of "secular"? In the mid-eighth century the term secular was applied to the clergy who served in the world (saeculum), whether as priests, bishops, archbishops, or popes. The term regular was applied to those who observed the monastic rule (regula).

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 AM | Comments (6)

June 29, 2005

The church, the state, and the Supreme Court

Professor Carl Esbeck--a professor of mine in law school--has written a brief article in Liberty Magazine discussing the current status of church/state relations. In his article he addresses, in a very reasonable, readable tone, some of the most pervasive red herrings that predominate today's debates.

According to Esbeck:

The effort to put prayer back into public school athletic events, as well as to prevent the removal of the Ten Commandments from government buildings, is seriously misguided. Notwithstanding loud and persistent claims to the contrary, the free exercise clause does not give citizens a right to seize the levers of government and employ the machinery of state in praying one's prayers and expounding one's scriptures. Prayer and the veneration of scripture are inherently religious activities. Such practices are within the sole province of churches and individual believers. Government activity, including teacher-led school prayer and the official veneration of religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments, is an example of Caesar acting outside his proper jurisdiction.
. . . .
There are those attempting to make of the establishment clause a constitutional right to be free from the religion of others. This is illustrated by the continued resistance to grant equal access to student religious clubs at public school facilities during noncurricular and after-school hours, as well as by restrictions placed on these clubs' use of school bulletin boards and other channels of communication enjoyed by similar secular clubs. . . . [T]he framers who drafted the [Establisment and Free Exercise] clauses laid them next to each other in the First Amendment. It makes no sense to suppose they wrote back-to-back provisions that conflict. Modesty requires that school lawyers concede the absence of any hermeneutical logic to their position. Third, the Bill of Rights was adopted because the founding generation feared an overly powerful government. Thus the establishment clause, like all other provisions of the Bill of Rights, operates only to limit the actions of government. The clause cannot work to limit the actions of private parties, such as students desiring to attend a religious club.

Professor Esbeck was the primary figure behind "Charitable Choice"--the provision in the 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Act that allows faith based social service organizations to cooperate with state and local agencies in assisting the poor and needy--and is a preeminent scholar in the field of religious liberties. He is also a leading advocate for school vouchers, and is widely considered an intellectual architect of the Bush administration's church/state policy.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 07:01 PM | Comments (2)

Youth'll be frittern away--I say your young men'll be frittern!

Adam's post below about nicknames for Evansville reminds me that my fair city already has a perfectly serviceable name, one it shares with a city made famous in a certain musical: "River City."

(I also note the following paragraph in the C&P article:

The Canadian city this month unveiled an effort dubbed "Toronto Unlimited," which will market Toronto as "a city of imagination that celebrates humanity and embraces individuality, while providing unparalleled economic opportunities ... a premier destination for global travel and business investment."

This manages to be both pompous and vague, as well as missing the important point that Toronto is cold.)

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 05:54 PM | Comments (1)

Wasn't There a Simpsons Episode About This?

In an attempt to differentiate it from the dozens of other economically-peaked, mid-sized cities competing for jobs, investment, and college graduates, Evansville is considering (registration required to view the Courier & Press online) a "branding" effort, an idea taken from a recent visit to "Music City," Nashville, TN. In doing so, Evansville tourism officials have thrown out the organic process of a city growing its own reputation and name, and would stamp a boardroom-approved brand on E-ville. The effort, of course, fails to realize that names like "Motor City," "Music City," "Steel City," and "City of Lights" come naturally, as a result of certain characteristics for which the city is widely known. Evansville has been "Stoplight City" for decades, and even if I-164 eased the traffic burden on its stoplight-clogged city highways, why stop now? Does the image of red lights as far as the eye can see not present the right kind of incentive that drives businesses to locate in Evansville?

This idea reminds me of the kid in jr. high who had a bad nickname ("pizza face," e.g.) and tried to change it by insisting to everyone that they call him "the dude" or "animal." It always made it worse.

The most notable development within the Courier & Press's article on the branding effort is that the C&P has abandoned the old comment box that used to be placed alongside many online articles and adopted a blog-style comment link. Hats off to the C&P for again being near (if not directly on) the cutting edge of journalism.

Suggestions? How about "Air Conditioner-town, USA" or "Plastics-ville?" Nah... they don't have quite the same ring as "Stoplight City."

Posted by Adam Packer at 05:51 PM | Comments (11)

Recall Senator Jefferson Smith!

There's no question but that were Jefferson Smith, hero (or at least protagonist) of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, actually to find himself in the Senate, it would be a travesty and a tragedy for the country and the nation all at once. (On the other hand, were his secretary, Jean Arthur, to become Senator, she'd be a good pick to be President.)

What frustrates me about this film though--and I'm only halfway through with it--is that it's almost exactly like every Capra film I've ever seen: A paean to the least realistic image of America, and of Americans (and one type of American in particular), that ever gripped a sentimental storyteller. The sophisticates are all phonies, the rich are all craven, the powerful are all malefactors, and only the yeoman from the small-town is a repository of the earnest virtues and decency that made America great. The metropolis, by contrast, is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

The arrogance and the simplism of this vision, the ignorance and the naivete, are all of a piece in the Capra oeuvre. For Capra, we're not to measure a society by the accomplishments or the successes of a system, but by the moral purity of the actors in that system--and to calibrate our moral measurements, we're supposed to use the silliest Sunday School ideas ever put about. We're supposed to believe in the outlandish premise of the incorruptible, naive, and only just barely better than incompetent man (always practically virginal and innocent in other ways, too) besting the people who can actually run things, build things, and manage a society. Sophistication isn't sinful, despite what Capra's puerile propaganda claims.

Huey P. Long, asked once if Fascism would ever come to America (and this at a time when the U.K. and the Irish Free State already had Fascist movements, and when people still drew distinctions between Nazism and Fascism), said "Sure--but when it comes it'll be called Anti-Fascism." Had Anti-Fascism ever arrived, under the aegis, probably, of the Kingfish himself, then Frank Capra would have been its Leni Riefenstahl. It would have been an easy match: Capra's films score highly on the Umberto Eco "Eternal Fascism" index (I'd say at least a nine or ten out of fourteen).

So sign me up for the sophisticates--the intellectuals, the sophisticates, the magnates, and even the artists, the labor leaders and the party bosses. Others can vote for Senator Smith. I'm casting my ballot for Willie Stark.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 05:25 PM | Comments (6)

Ft. Bragg speech reaction and follow-up

Personally, I thought President Bush made the best out of a challenging situation last night by explaining the progress that has been made in Iraq in the face of resistance from insurgents and terrorists, the importance of staying until the job is finished, and the reason why setting a fixed deadline for withdrawing troops would be a mistake.

It is clear that this is a President who feels at home with members of the military. And the feeling appears to be mutual. In this article, there is nearly unanimous agreement from military personnel with the message the President is putting forth. An example:

Cpl. James Anderson, 22, applauded Bush's refusal to set a timetable.

"Like any Marine, you do the job until it's done. You don't just do it halfway and leave," said Anderson, a Houston native who said he is scheduled to leave for Iraq soon.

Another article which quotes several Iraqis garnered a more mixed response, although at least one respondent noted that the armed resistance is targeting Iraqis now as much as Americans.

Here is the website mentioned by the President, which has many links to organizations helping members of the military and their families. Please join me in making a contribution today. Also, for those interested in helping meet the spiritual needs of our men and women abroad, consider sponsoring Rapid Deployment Kits--packets containing a New Testament, devotional guide, and other materials.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:01 PM | Comments (34)

Fun Read in the C&P

Read Richard Clements' response to my earlier unification piece in the Evansville Courier & Press.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:24 AM | Comments (1)

China, Kelo, and slippery slopes

Meanwhile, in China:

A BLOODY clash this month between peasants and hundreds of armed thugs sent by developers to seize their land has thrown a harsh light on one of the most controversial questions posed by China's economic development. Who owns the farmland, and what rights do peasants have if it is requisitioned?

. . . .

While land disputes are common in any fast-developing economy, they are aggravated in China by the lack of clarity over property rights. In theory, rural land is "collectively owned". But it is uncertain whether this means by the villagers themselves or whether township governments, which each control several villages, exercise these collective rights on behalf of the peasants . . . . In the village of Maxinzhuang in Shunyi, one of Beijing's rural districts, hundreds of peasants have been protesting for the past month over compensation for the requisition of their land to build a water-sports complex for the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.

Thank goodness that the framers of the US Constitution had the foresight to place the burden of due process and just compensation on our government.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 09:16 AM | Comments (6)

June 28, 2005

Firefox

Radley Balko has highlighted one of the most useful Firefox extensions yet. To quote:

The BugMeNot Firefox extension. Download it, install it, then right click on the password field of any major newspaper site that asks for registration. Choose the "BugMeNot" option. It automatically searches the BugMeNot site, finds a workable username and PW, and fills them in for you! Very cool.

So far I've had success with the Kansas City Star, the Evansville Courier & Press, and The New Republic online.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 07:52 PM | Comments (1)

Non-China Sickening Item of the Day

I usually don't give in to the temptations of pop news, but the news coverage that Dennis Rader, the so-called "BTK Killer," has been receiving is despicable and worth commenting on. Allowing him to describe his killings on live TV must be giving him a thrill that he hasn't had since his last killing, in 1991. The judge and the media are sending this cold-blooded sicko on one last joyride before he gets locked up, and it disappoints me greatly that he's allowed to say anything but "yes, sir" in response to the judge's questions. What can the public possibly gain from hearing about how he was nice to the children of one of his victims and took them to a playroom when they wouldn't quiet down? These are not issues relevant to sentencing; because of the number and brutality of the killings, there will be no problem putting Rader in jail for 250 years. Truly morbid curiosity is the only interest being served, and this stuff being on TV for children to see is worse than anything Janet Jackson or South Park could flash onto a screen.

Here's a link to the transcript of his day in the sun. I would submit it as Exhibit A that capitol punishment is the only earthly justice for some people, because their mere presence on Earth makes us all have to share air with tangible, pure evil.

Posted by Adam Packer at 04:48 PM | Comments (4)

That other SCOTUS decision

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of large media companies and producers that brought a copyright suit against two peer-to-peer (P2p) file sharing companies. Most media reports have trumpeted MGM Studios v. Grokster as a big victory for the entertainment industry, but these reports often miss the narrow holding. Grokster does not necessarily mean the end of P2P file-sharing software.

Grokster was primarily based on the Court's conclusion that the defendants, Grokster and StreamCast, were actively promoting the P2P software for copyright infringement purposes. But this doesn't really address P2P networks on the whole; only those with the intent to infringe copyrights. In sum, Grokster still leaves open several important questions, particularly, is P2P software inherently unlawful?

The primary precedent for this case was the Court's famous 1984 decsion ruling that Sony's Betamax VCRs did not facilitate copyright infringement because the products were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Grokster and StreamCast successfully persuaded lower federal courts that an analogy existed for P2P software, but the Supreme Court didn't buy it.

Again, the essential element in the Grokster decision is that there was enough evidence that Grokster and StreamCast were actively "promoting" their software to be used for infringement purposes in marketing campaigns. In Justice Souter's words, "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

This "inducement" theory reasoning leaves open the door for other P2P networks to successfully argue that, like VCRs, they are capable of "substantial noninfringing uses" and, unlike Grokster and StreamCast, are not promoting illegal use. In concurring opinions Justices Breyer, Stevens and O'Connor seem to suggest that such use would be acceptable. But in a counterveiling concurrence Justices Ginsburg, Rehnquist, and Kennedy suggested that the noninfringing uses must be "commercially significant."

So the Supreme Court remains divided and unclear over what constitutes a "substantial noninfringing use." Writing in Salon, Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that with over 100 million working copies of P2P interface software, Grokster will do nothing to stop it, but it can still chill innovation:

This is why courts and legislatures should be very careful when regulating technological innovation and copyright: Broad rules and legal uncertainty can put a chill on, or even wipe out, really useful and important developments.

As Jim instructed Huckleberry Finn when Huck claimed Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived: "De 'spute warn't 'bout a half a chile, de 'spute was 'bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a 'spute 'bout a whole chile wid a half a chile doan' know enough to come in out'n de rain."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:18 PM | Comments (3)

Give the Man an Award

In the most ingenious response to Kelo vs. City of New London yet, developer Logan Darrow Clements is seeking to condemn Justice Souter's home so that Clements can begin constructing "The Lost Liberty Hotel" which will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements rightly notes that his hotel will generate more tax revenue and other economic benefits than its current use. "This is not a prank" he said, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:08 PM | Comments (12)

Like DARE, with bullets

Reason notes how the Chinese celebrated a UN anti-drug holiday: by executing 24 drug traffickers.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 03:04 PM | Comments (0)

Are the Ten Commandments Cases Overblown?

In his first post on the SCOTUSblog's Ten Commandments mini-blog, Marty Lederman suggests that the Ten Commandments cases are of dubious importance and perhaps even damage the cause of separation. I think the arguments are plausible. First, quoting Ann Althouse:

"I think it's very bizarre of us to regard the Ten Commandments case as the big case...[I]t really just isn't that important whether there's a monument amid other monuments somewhere on the state capitol grounds or a framed text amid other framed texts on a courthouse wall...There are ideologues who want to purge religion from the public eye who care [how the Court decides this particular case] and religionists who want to intrude a lot more of it who care. If either of these groups were getting very far, I would care about the outcome in the cases that would arise. But the displays at issue in this case are inconsequential. Still, they are too much for the extreme secularists and just the beginning of what extremists on the other side would like to see. The Court needs to draw a good line that fends off both extremes.

My only quibble with that is that she commits the same fallacy that Scalia does in his dissent in caricaturing the staunch separation argument. Even the most staunch advocates of strict separation do not seek to "purge religion from the public eye" and it is absurd to suggest that they do. Individual citizens and even political leaders express their faith in public a million times a day and no one attempts to stop them from doing so. What the staunch separationists seek to do is eliminate all forms of official government endorsement of religion. And yes, occassionally they even go too far in that regard (the lawsuit threatened over the tiny cross on the LA County seal was beyond silly). But to pretend that they actually have tried to remove all expressions of religion from the public square, even when they do not suggest government endorsement, is simply beating up a straw man.

But having said that, I think she's probably right about the rest of it. These cases fascinate me because of the disparate types of reasoning. They're interesting as academic exercises. But does anyone really think that such displays, whether they are allowed or banned, will change anything in either direction? I have little sympathy for those who claim to be offended by a Ten Commandments monument, for the same reason that I have little sympathy for those who are offended by allowing Wiccans in the military - there is no constitutional right not to be offended. I'm offended by all sorts of public displays of undignified or stupid behavior; I don't think those things should therefore be banned to quell my discomfort. Regardless of the outcome of the case, does anyone on either side really think it changes anything that has a big impact on them? It's a highly emotional symbolic issue, but it's mostly sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Others have even suggested that by fighting out such issues, we may actually hurt the cause of true separation in the long term. By going after pointless symbolic displays, we may well provoke a backlash that leads to dangerous legislative activism like proposals to limit the jurisdiction of the courts. As Burt Neuborne, the former national legal director of the ACLU, put it:

One final staple of the progressive judicial agenda may not be worth defending at all. David Hume warned that cutting religion off from the state risked spawning an energized institution that could survive economically only by charismatic appeals to the populace. He urged feeding religion just enough to keep it from getting too hungry. He may have been right. The religious symbolism cases may do nothing but enrage voters who might be natural economic allies.

I have mixed feelings on this question and can see arguments on both sides. I do think, for example, that things like Michael Newdow's crusade to get "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and ban prayers from inaugurations (especially the latter, which is just off the scale silly) probably pushes otherwise reasonable moderates toward the other end of the scale and gives ammunition to the religious right. His case may well have had an impact on the 2002 midterm elections in terms of pushing moderate voters toward the Republican party, but there's no way to prove that for sure. Certainly cases like the tiny cross on the LA county seal, or the cross in the Mojave desert do little but alienate otherwise reasonable people and feed their suspicions that separationists really do just hate anything religious. A little more discernment in terms of which cases are worth taking is probably a good idea on the part of the ACLU and others.

By the way, Neuborne has posted his analysis of the decisions to the SCOTUSblog's group blog on this matter and it's rather amusing. He writes:

Years ago, I proposed the "two plastic animals" rule to govern public displays of religious symbols. The rule posits that any religious symbol may be publicly displayed as long as it is flanked by two or more plastic animals of sufficiently bad taste. The Court has now refined the law of faith-based exterior decorating to allow a religious display if it's matured sufficiently (I suppose the Pieta is per se OK), and if it is surrounded by a sufficient number of secular monuments of sufficiently bad taste.

On a more serious note, he concludes:

Once again, though, I'll ask why do we care? I'm sympathetic to the notion that being forced to look at the government's display of someone else's religious symbol can be disconcerting and can send a message of exclusion. That's why I've signed all of those briefs. But, tell me that Muslims in this country need a display of the 10 Commandments to let them know they are outsiders. Or, that atheists need government displays of religious symbols to tell them they are on the margin of American public life. To my mind, worrying about the symbols confuses cause and effect. As long as we insist on an equality principle - a Koranic verse at the Texas capitol, I don't see the value in offending many millions of Americans for whom the displays provide solace and meaning. That's particularly so when the cases enrage millions of persons who then forget about their economic best interests when they vote. I would hold my fire for the many settings when religious zealots use government to force people to behave a certain way. Move over Justice Breyer. I'm climbing in.

In a battle between principle and pragmatism, it may well be true that pragmatism should win out in this case. I'm not sure that's true, but I think it's plausible.

Posted by at 10:03 AM | Comments (3)

Scalia's Slippery Jurisprudence

While reading Jack Balkin's excellent analysis of Scalia's dissent in McCreary, I noticed something about Scalia's reasoning that I find disturbing. Take the following passage from his dissenting opinion, for example:

Today's opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, or where the free exercise of religion is at issue, but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgement of the Creator. If religion in the public square had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists...

Balkin picks up on the first part, wherein Scalia argues that nonpreferentialism is a valid principle in cases involving government money, but not in situations involving government endorsement, and he rightly points out the obvious:

Why can't government support flow only to monotheistic religions? Because that would discriminate among religions, or between religion and non religion? Why then can government engage in such discrimination in its public symbolism? Is it because money is more important than symbols, or because symbols are more important than money?

Quite right. If the principle of non-preferentialism is a valid principle because it avoids discrimination among religions and avoids government entanglement with religion, why does that principle suddenly become invalid when dealing with questions of government endorsement? But I'd like to pick up on something else in Scalia's reasoning that is, I think, even more important - his casual and slippery statement of the facts in this case. It's the third and fourth sentences quoted above that draw my attention:

If religion in the public square had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs.

Here Scalia commits the same fallacy committed so often in religious right rhetoric, where they automatically shift from discussing official declarations of belief to discussing "religion in the public square". But there is a big difference between expressions of religion in the public square and official declarations or official endorsements of religious belief. City parks are often considered public forums, as are public sidewalks, university "quads", public parks and the like. Religious groups and individuals generally have access to such forums in which to hold meetings, put up displays, hand out literature, and so forth. The primary caveat, of course, is that all religious groups must have equal access to such facilities.

Such public forums are virtually filled with religious speech. Politicians give speeches full of their confessions of faith on public grounds all around the country and no one seeks to stop them. Religious groups hold rallies and prayer sessions around flagpoles at schools and in parks all around the country, and no one seeks to stop them. Churches use public parks for baptism rituals, put up nativity displays, and so forth, all over the country (and again, as long as all religious groups have equal access, they can do so). But there is a major difference between these examples of "religion in the public square" and a display of religious belief that is part of an official governmental policy, as it was in the McCreary case.

Scalia is engaged in a slippery bit of rhetoric here, but his central argument is simply wrong. The notion that preventing the government from ordering displays honoring or endorsing a particular religious viewpoint would mean that "there could be no religion in the public forum at all" is absurd on the face of it. The issue is not what "one" may express, as he put it, in the public square, it is what government may officially declare in the public square. Individuals, including political leaders, are and will remain free to acknowledge God and their religious faith in the public square, as they do literally thousands of times every day around this country. This has precisely nothing to do with the issue in the McCreary case, and Scalia's pretense that it does is just so much overblown rhetoric.

Furthermore, it's a dishonest representation of the facts of the case and that's something that is inexcusable in a Supreme Court justice. If there is a bedrock principle of judicial ethics, at the very least it must demand that you accurately state the facts of the case and not engage in building straw men in the process of ruling.

Posted by at 09:42 AM | Comments (2)

Support Our Sponsors

• Learn more about how Washington works through hands-on books for practitioners, written by subject matter experts in law, media relations, and government affairs. TheCapitol.Net Publications offers a Congressional Deskbook, Congressional Directory, Congressional Operations Poster, Media Relations Handbook, Common Sense Rules of Advocacy for Lawyers, and more. Get your copies today.

• Do you know what your kids did today? "Did Today's" customers do! Plan, track, and record your homeschooling activities online. Get help from their community of experts. Discount "Charter" subscriptions are available now at DidToday.com.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2005

Wal-Mart Update

Continuing our themes of discussing Wal-Mart and praising South Park, I offer this bit from "Something Wall*Mart This Way Comes":

Stan: Dad, how come Wall*Mart is able to sell everything so cheap?
Randy: It's simple economics, son. I don't understand it at all, but, God I love it.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 07:25 PM | Comments (1)

Ten Commandments

Personally, I don't understand how it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution to have a plaque of the Ten Commandments in a court house, but not a violation of the same clause in the US Constitution to have a giant marble slab of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol. I understand the jurisprudential significance of nuanced distinctions and the relevant tests, there's no need to repeat them. It's the truly idiosyncratic treatment given to the vague terms "establishment of religion" that I find harder to justify. I tend to agree more with Justice Jackson's opinions than Justice Black's, but these words from Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Education reflect my sentiment:

The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81, commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words of the First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity. Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the Nation moved toward it that the expression 'law respecting an establishment of religion,' probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be written into our Bill of Rights.

Soon enough the Constitution will be a document large enough to protect you from being offended, but apparently not large enough to protect you from having your property seized and given to another private person.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 04:34 PM | Comments (9)

Elton's Irony?

What better way to draw attention to African poverty than hosting a glamorous, expensive party where guests drink champagne and cocktails and are surrounded by real zebras and men in gorilla suits. Shouldn't this be a plot for South Park?

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:17 PM | Comments (0)

Economist Non-Hackery Watch

162 years of nonhackery continues, as the Economist criticizes Bush again.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 02:36 PM | Comments (14)

Split Decision on Ten Commandments

I haven't seen the actual rulings yet, but it appears that my prediction has come true - the Supreme Court has split on the two Ten Commandments cases, ruling against the Kentucky display in the McCreary case and upholding the Texas display in the Van Orden case. According to Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUSBlog, the McCreary case was a fairly predictable 5-4 decision with the court's 4 more liberal justices joined by O'Connor to make up the majority and it was decided primarily on the purpose prong of the Lemon test:

Splitting 5-4 in the first of two rulings on government displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal court order against a display of the religious document on the wall of a courthouses in two Kentucky counties.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter, said the ruling does not mean that a sacred text can never be integrated into a governmental display on law and history. It found, however, that the displays in Kentucky were motivated by a religious purpose, which did not change as the display was modified twice during court challenges.

Without having read the actual decision, that is likely a relief to those of us who feared that the court may do away with the Lemon test completely, which would have had an enormous effect on pending court cases involving anti-evolution legislation. The Texas case is apparently quite a collection of disparate opinions:

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the second decision on a religious display, finding no constitutional violation in the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building in Austin, Texas. That decision was widely splintered. Announcing the votes of the various Justices, Rehnquist quipped -- to widespread laughter -- that he did not know there were so many Justices on the Court.

That one will certainly be interesting to read and analyze. Stay tuned for more details.

Update: The McCreary opinions are now available. Click here for Souter's majority opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg. Click here for Scalia's dissenting opinion, joined by Thomas, Rehnquist and (in part) Kennedy. And click here for O'Connor's concurring opinion.

Update #2: Here are the Van Orden opinions. Click here for the controlling opinion by Rehnquist, joined by Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy. Click here for Souter's dissent, joined by Stevens and Ginsburg. Click here for O'Connor's dissent. Click here for Stevens' dissent, joined by Ginsburg. Click here for Breyer's concurrence. Click here for Thomas' concurrence. Click here for Scalia's concurrence.

Posted by at 11:29 AM | Comments (9)

Brilliant!

Back in my stand up comedy days I did a bit about a politically correct dry cleaners in Hollywood used by celebrities. It didn't really clean the tuxedo, it just raised its self-esteem and put the proper colored ribbon on the lapel for the next big event. Now comes this:

Bravissimo! (Hat tip to Jason Kuznicki)

Posted by at 09:49 AM | Comments (1)

Kelo effects

(Via Volokh) It didn't take long for developers to catch the legal significance of Kelo.

With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina. . . . The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.

Nice.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)

Marital History

With marriage - its meaning, its ideal, its history - an ongoing subject of debate, I think it's worth revisiting its context in the Medieval Age. A perfect speciman to observe is Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a student and teacher at Notre Dame in Paris, among other places. He was one of the first, and certainly the most notable, to bridge the gap in an intellectual dispute at the time between nominalism and realism. He championed a view that held universals conceived by man are not intangible realities, as realists believed, nor are they mere names, as the nominalists claimed; he believed they are clues to reality.

Although history may record this philosophy as Abelard's greatest contribution, I will always remember him for his relationship to one of his students, Heloise. After instructing her, he later recalled, there were soon more kisses than syllogisms and he was singing to her the songs of the troubadours. When she told him she was pregnant he took her to his sister's home, where they were together until the birth of their son.

Abelard then proposed that they marry, but she demurred, and her objections reveal much about the state of marriage in that point in history. First she told him to continue in a churchly career that would call for celibacy. He could have taught as a layman, but the fees would not support a family, forcing him to take extra employment. She was not willing to ruin his career in Church and school. But more interestingly, if they were to continue hteir relationship she wanted to remain unwed. Why? Marriage had been demeaned over the centuries to be about interests in property. Marriage was a tool by landowners to consolidate property and by royalty to enlarge kingdoms. "I desire," she said, "not yours, but you." The two eventually married but ended their lives in monastic communities, she an abbess, he as a monk of Cluny.

The larger point to this love story is that marriage has not always been the pinnacle of an ideal Godly relationship, as many advocates sometimes claim. Property married property and it was not uncommon for children to be betrothed in infancy. There was no personal feeling. Romantic love was a rebellion against loveless marriages so commonplace for centuries.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:12 AM | Comments (4)

Thomas

Justice Thomas's critics, at least those I've encountered, like to paint him as a bumbling idiot who rarely says much during argument or in writing. It is true that Thomas has, in the past, authored a large number of very short opinions wherein he summarily disagrees with the majority and, for example, expresses his view that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should not apply to states. However, he's also one of the most prolific writers on the Court. SCOTUSblog has released their annual summary of statistics for this term.

According to the SCOTUSblog calculations, Thomas wrote the most opinions total (32), the most unanimous majority opinions (3), the most concurring opinions (11), and the most dissenting opinions (14). His dissents in Raich and Kelo have proven that they are far from the handiwork of a bumbling idiot. I've heard that Thomas is the most generally likeable person currently serving on the SCOTUS, and this would lead to the conclusion that reaching compromise or consensus is relatively easy with Thomas. So, if there are indeed several retirements in the near future, I would not be surprised if Thomas became the conservative intellectual leader of the Court.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 08:53 AM | Comments (4)

PC Language

Indiana has revised some of its statutes to reflect a more "politically correct" vocabulary. "Poor relief" will become "township assistance"; "blighted areas" will be "areas needing redevelopment" or "redevelopment project areas"; "mobile home parks" will be "mobile home communities"; and "visitation" in custody statutes will now be called "parenting time." It's good to see that Indiana legislators are looking out for our sensitivities.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:47 AM | Comments (1)

Darfur

One of the most frustrating aspects of living in the US is the serious lack of attention received by events like the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Perhaps it's not so much the lack of attention given to genocide that is frustrating, as much as the obsession with runaway brides and celebrity trials.

In any event, in March the State Department estimated that the death toll in Sudan was around 150,000, after subtracting deaths attributable to base mortality. Members of Britain's Parliament believe the death toll could be closer to 300,000. More than two million people--out of a population of six million--have fled their homes. Updated information and links can be found at The Coalition for Darfur, a blog started by a Southern conservative and a Northern liberal to raise awareness about the genocide.

The Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of churches, humanitarian, and human rights organizations, recently organized a "National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur." The event is scheduled for July 15th, 16th, and 17th. The Coalition is "calling on faith communities across America to join together in a weekend of prayer and reflection for the people of Darfur." Please visit the link, check out the information, and share it with your friends and religious leaders.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 12:08 AM | Comments (1)

June 26, 2005

Age quiz

I thought this quiz was pretty interesting. Fill in questionnaire and it will tell you what your "real age" is. I'm pretty sure it's non-scientific. I completed it once, and then went back and changed my responses to indicate that I have very high cholesterol, a bad heart rate, fifty more pounds of weight, minus two hours of sleep each night The difference between my first age estimate and the second was only three years. Hmmmm.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 06:04 PM | Comments (0)

Senate 2006

The National Journal thinks the Democrats can make a comeback in the Senate this time around. I find it statistically improbable that they'll gain more than a couple of seats--if any at all--but here is their analysis.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)

CAFTA

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is on the fast track, and should receive a vote in the Senate relatively soon. However, Democrats are united in opposition to the agreement, at a time when they should support it most. There are a number of reasons to oppose CAFTA, and the most popular reason appears to be that of protecting American labor. But the main reasons Democrats should rethink their position is China. As Clinton Commerce Secretary William Daley states in today's Chicago Tribune, "[t]he reason CAFTA should be enacted is not economic benefits, it is national security."

It is no secret that China is becoming an economic juggernaut, and that this has made the rest of the democratic world somewhat nervous. News coverage of China's bid for Unocal--which involved Chevron being outbid--is a small piece of evidence. China is interested in much more than oil though. The communist state is already a strong force in the textile industry thanks to sub-human work conditions, an intentionally worthless Yuan, and unrivaled productivity. In fact, as of 2004, China was the worlds largest apparel exporter, having locked up almost 20% of the total textile exports in the world.

The six CAFTA countries--Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic--are unlikely to immediately begin competing with China in terms of their ability to import textiles into the US at the same rate. The immediate economic benefit of CAFTA is unlikely to be felt by the US. However, it will place these countries on better footing to compete in a global economy, and thereby help CAFTA countries dig themselves out of poverty.

China is not the only totalitarian regime in the world. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is dabbling with populist authoritarianism (however that works), and China has promised to dump billions of dollars into Venezuela and Argentina in exchange for friendlier trade relations. (Think: China needs oil, Venezuela has lots of it.) In Panama, where I spent a good deal of my life, Panama Law #5 created lease agreements with the discretely named "Hutchison Port Holdings" whereby China controls the Panama Canal's ports at Balboa and Cristobal--major ports at either ends of the Canal. As Latin-American countries fall deeper into poverty, the appeal of Sino-Latin relations is likely to grow even stronger, along with the appeal of authoritarian rule.

The greatest reason for supporting CAFTA is that it would send a clear signal to Latin-American news media, US news media, Chinese news media, and the rest of the world, that the US would rather cut tariffs with countries in this hemisphere than allow jobs and textile profit to concentrate in China. (China, by the way, is still oppresive and communist.) The six, small, countries that have signed on to CAFTA will be watching very closely as America responds, and these countries represent the small number of countries that remain seriously committed to the principles of democracy.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 03:58 PM | Comments (3)

It's not News, It's Lark.

It's been brought to my attention recently that it's been a while since ITA did any faith-blogging. Seems awfully apt that with the recent political discouragements, we should find refuge in other-wordly comforts. And humor. So I present to our readers LarkNews.com. It's kind of like a Christian version of The Onion. The humor is kind of edgy (see their T-shirts), which is appropriate for satire. As Mark Twain said, "The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven." So let's laugh while we can.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:54 PM | Comments (1)

Indiana University Alumni Trustee Election

The end of voting is coming up on June 30th. No doubt, many have already filled out their ballots, but I'd like to give my personal endorsement.

The current Board of Trustees for Indiana University is a reflection of the overall mediocrity into which Indiana has fallen in recent years. I don't want to suggest that this is all the fault of the Democratic administrations, but six of the nine trustees are appointed by the governor. It is up to the alumni to choose the remaining three wisely.

And we should choose wisely, before IU slides further in prestige and when we have the possibility of dynamic appointments by the new governor. It is with great regret that I'm forced to conclude that the new President of IU, Adam Herbert, has nothing to show for his nearly two years in office (on second thought, he did can Sharon Brehm). He has not shown the leadership, vision, or energy required to revitalize IU, and we can no longer look to him for reform. His reaction to the Indiana Government Efficiency Commission report on higher education was particularly disappointing, and I wrote at the Hoosier Review last year, "I don't think the necessary changes will come from university administrators. It will have to come from the Boards of Trustees and, ultimately, State government." Further commentary on the report here, here, and here.

So who is in the field for new leadership? Nine candidates, including current Trustee Pat Shoulders, whose appointment is expiring. There are also two candidates enjoying the new rule that does not require Indiana residency to be a trustee, Dave Neumann and Robert B. Cummins. Also notable is the importance of the Internet in this election, with four candidates including their email addresses (Joseph M. Cameron, Robert B. Cummins, Michael G. Fowler, and Steven L. Kellam), four websites (Robert B. Cummins, Dave Neumann, Patrick A. Shoulders, and Stephen R. Springer), and even one blog (Steven L. Kellam).

Then to narrow the field down. Patrick Shoulders is right out; he may have opposed the athletic fee, but he's far too leftist and establishment to merit another term on the Board. I have to wonder why Joseph M. Cameron, a staff assistant to the governor, would pursue an elected position when it seems his boss could more easily appoint him (seriously, just wondering, nothing against the guy). Stephen Springer lost my vote when he was 1) unfamiliar with the Indiana Government Efficiency Commission (GEC) report on higher education and 2) summarily dismissive of it. Steve Kellam earns major points for being the only candidate to mention Herman B Wells in either his campaign literature or correspondence with me (and for starting a blog). He also agreed with the GEC report and opposes the athletic fee -- everyone I questioned did not support it, though I doubt anyone would be enthusiastic for it.

Ultimately, I was most impressed by Dave Neumann, whose website includes the mailing he independently sent to alumni. It doesn't particularly bother me that he lives in out of State; it somehow seems fitting for a State experiencing a brain drain. I was most struck by his response to my correspondence, reprinted below with his permission.

Indiana Government Efficiency Commission
I have a copy of the November, 2004 higher education report and have reviewed it briefly. I agree with the conclusions that IU-Bloomington needs to raise its admissions standards. IU seems to have been on a growth curve driven by quantity rather than quality. The issue of regional campuses also needs clarity. Should IU compete within itself or with other higher education institutions within the state? The primary change agent will be shortage of funds, and therefore allocation of resources between Universities and within IU.

We need a clearer sense of direction from our President and Board of Trustees. What is the role of our regional campuses in comparison to IUB and IUPUI? What is our position with the growing presence of Ivy Tech? How are we integrating the community college experience within Indiana with IU? We need renewed leadership and accountability. My business skills, ability to challenge the status quo and capacity to motivate others will assist me in making Indiana University more competitive in the future to attract quality students, faculty, and funding.

. . .

Athletic Program Fee
I do not support the current Athletic Program surcharge because it shields the athletic program from its own mismanagement. We need to install better leadership to reclaim the financial stability of athletics and our national competitiveness. The Board of Trustees and President needs to set clear standards of expectations and hold people accountable. We lacked the guts to make changes before the program went into the red. Now....the balance of the student body has to bail out the athletic program...in essence taking dollars away from academics. Very risky business. This surcharge is a short term solution to a long term problem. We must exercise better leadership in the management and execution of our athletic programs.

As a Trustee, I would insist on a clearer set of expectations, measurement of performance and the introduction of good business practices. We also need to get serious about reengaging alumni in this process so they will feel good about investing their time and resources back in athletics and...Indiana University. We forgot about the alumni's role in supporting athletics until their funding dried up and the University was caught off guard. Ridiculous....IU was simply not listening to its alumni. This must and will change.

I recommend voting for this candidate, but more generally, I endorse change. We should not reward the current trustees for their failure to govern IU properly, and Pat Shoulders must go. Dave Neumann is the best candidate to replace him.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:33 PM | Comments (1)

Discussing Kelo on the Radio

It appears that I will be a guest on the Jim Babka show again tonight. He has asked me to come on along with Herb Titus again, this time to discuss the Supreme Court's Kelo decision the other day. I'll be curious to hear what position Titus takes. On the one hand, I know that he is a staunch defender of property rights. On the other hand, he did say the last time we appeared together that the 14th amendment only incorporated the first 3 amendments against the states, and Kelo involved state and local laws, not a Federal law. We will only be on for part of the show this time, not the whole thing, and I don't know exactly what time that will be.

As usual, the show will begin at 5 pm eastern time on Sunday. To listen online, click here. High quality streaming is available with a subscription, and lower grade streaming is available for free on channels 1 and 2. I will make the mp3 of the show available for download on my personal blog in the next couple days.

Posted by at 12:02 PM | Comments (1)

June 25, 2005

Iran elections

Iranians now have a new leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose victory has surprised outside pundits. Thus far, the Western media appears cautious about Ahmadinejad, who was not an active player in international affairs, and whose campaign, according to BBC, was focused on "poverty, social justice, and the distribution of wealth inside Iran".

Regardless, Ahmadinejad is considered a hardliner by the West, most notably regarding nuclear proliferation (see BBC article here, NY Times article here).

Hossein Derakhshan offers an Iranian perspective over at "Editor:Myself":

"If he [Ahmadinejad] comes to power, which seems to be very likely due to wide-spread middle-class apathy, he would bring back the partisan intelligence officials to the ministry of information, the same people who stopped from leaving Iran last week.

Then the friendly and knowledgeable officer who interviewed me in Tehran and asked me to write something, explaining my 'controversial' positions and posts, could easily be replaced by a violent, ignorant guy without any knowledge about blogs and Internet.

Then instead of a four hour of relaxed and reasonable conversation, he would detain me, beat me and keep me in an undisclosed location for at least a week, and would make me write hundreds of pages of forced confessions against my friends, family and myself."

Doesn't sound all that encouraging.

Posted by Michael Drazer at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2005

Kelo, Bush, and the Boston Tea Party

It doesn't take much time spent in the blogosphere to realize that Kelo has caused an overwhelmingly negative reaction. Public opinion is not unanimous--when is it?--but rarely has there been a Supreme Court decision that unites public opinion against the idea of governmental meddling like Kelo has. Whether they be self-described liberals, conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans, folks of all stripes have been fundamentally disturbed by the idea that government can, with the permission of the US Constitution, take their property and give it to another private person.

The fundamental distrust of government embodied by the 5th Amendment has been expressed in many words in the last few days. However, the harshest--and greatest amount--of criticism has come from traditionally conservative sources. Those who typically rally behind the plans of the Democratic Party, which declares itself to be the champion of individual rights have, for the most part, been uncharacteristically supportive, or silent, in reaction to a decision that clearly usurps individual rights.

My hunch is that the reason we've not have not heard much (criticism) from left of center, or Democratic, commentators is precisely because the concepts of individual property rights and limited government butt heads with the elements of egalitarianism and social democracy that chracterize our modern Democratic Party. Individual property rights are an organic element of classical liberalism, which are often necessarily subverted for the equality of outcome demanded by these egalitarian/socially democratic ideals. The Kelo decision was, at its core, a serious blow to classical liberalism, and a serious boon to the philosophical underpinnings of social democracy.

It is right here, at the intersection of individual property rights and national sponsorship of "better outcomes," that modern Democrats have the most trouble with liberalism. The fact that "liberal" lay-persons--more precisely, individuals who claim to be Democrats--are outraged by Kelo simply demonstrates that there is a public perception that taking and redistributing property is very unpopular. It also demonstrates that there is some public perception that taking and redistributing real property (i.e. land) is somehow different from taking and redistributing personal property (i.e. taxes). Liberalism enshrines the value of the individual, but on the other severely cramps the egalitarian principles that lead to outcome equality. There is no more perfect illustration of this concept than a case involving regular people being forced to give up their land--arguably the most tangible manifestation of liberty--so that the government can sponsor a better outcome for the community. Imagine the political gift that such an ideological ruling could have given the Republican Party.

Beginning in the 1930s, and again in the 1960s, the Democratic Party has been implementing the tools of social democracy without regard to the danger of slowly taking the road to serfdom. Were it not for three giant obstacles the Republican Party could have used Kelo as an extremely effective campaign tool to rhetorically undermine the modern Democratic Party, and gained a-lot of ground. The three obstacles are: (1) The recent Raich case--wherein the Bush administration supported the federal government's ability to trump state laws regarding medicinal marijuana; (2) The Federal Marriage Amendment--wherein the Bush administration supports the federal government's ability to regulate marriage; and (3) The No Child Left Behind Act--which serves as a primary embodiment of the Bush administration's massive expenditures. (This is not to say that I necessarily oppose any of these, just that they undermine the GOP's ability to use "limited government" as a rhetorical tool.)

Karl Rove--during the same speech that animated Democrats to plead for his resignation--boldly asserted that Conservatives "believe in curbing the size of government." It's good that he said Conservatives rather than Republicans. Had he said Republicans, my reaction would have been, "Sure, I believe that, much in the same way that I believe the Democratic Party wants to make abortion non-existent." Or, "I believe that in the same way that I believe Saturday Night Live is funny--it used to be hilarious, so it must have some remaining humor." Right? A-lot of Americans who genuinely want less government in their lives are unlikely to believe it either.

It would be naive to argue that the Republican Party has always been a libertarian oasis. It is true that the Republican Party has, for a very long time, tempered its support of classical liberalism with a dose of virtue--which is why it could advocate tough law enforcement, regulation of abortion, and support for prayer in schools. However, the three obstacles I've identified have proven to the American public that the line that characterizes "virtue" is blurring. "Virtue" is becoming almost synonymous with "preferred outcome," thereby making the distinction between the Elephant and the Donkey even less clear.

Kelo should have been an early Christmas gift, in the form of a rhetorical arsenal, which Republicans could have used to appeal to the exact same distrust of government that led Americans to dump a bunch of tea in the Boston Harbor. Instead of arguing over whether government intervention itself is preferable, the argument has shifted to what kind of governmental intervention is preferable. Now, voters who are otherwise persuadable can simply point to the Bush administration and say "See, Republicans don't believe it either." So nobody gets to dump any tea this time.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 05:22 PM | Comments (10)

The Discovery Institute's Misplaced Outrage

John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, the most prominent ID think tank in the world, is mad as hell and he's not gonna take it anymore. It seems that a state legislator in Utah has submitted a bill in that state to give equal time in state science classrooms to teaching "divine design" along with evolution - and that just will not do. West is quite verklempt about the whole thing:

While it's frustrating when critics of intelligent design mischaracterize what ID is about, it's even worse when people billing themselves as friends of ID do the same thing. As the term "intelligent design" has increasingly entered the public discourse, the number of people misusing the term to advance their own agendas by calling it "design" has increased. Take the recent proposal by a Utah legislator for something he calls "divine design," by which he clearly seems to mean creationism...

I'd like to give a clear message to those who are trying to hijaack the term design in order to promote something else: Stop!

And he quotes himself being quoted in a Salt Lake Tribune article on this bill:

"We get very upset when supposed friends are claiming far more than what the scholars are saying," says John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle...

"We wish [Buttars] would get the name right and not propose something he doesn't understand," West says.

Let me join West in expressing my outrage at Buttars' presumptuous "hijacking" of the term "intelligent design". I mean, where on earth could Buttars have ever gotten the idea that ID had something to do with "divine design" or anything to do with notions of God and divinity at all? He clearly hasn't been listening to the Discovery Institute's scholars, but only to us evilutionists who are bent on distorting their true intent. Shame on him!

On the other hand...maybe he got that idea from prominent ID scholar William Dembski who famously said:

The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Or perhaps he got it from prominent ID scholar Nancy Pearsey, who says:

By providing evidence of God's work in nature, it (intelligent design) restores Christianity to the status of a genuine knowledge claim, giving us the means to reclaim a place at the table of public debate. Christians will then be in a position to challenge the fact/value dichotomy that has marginalized religion and morality by reducing them to irrational, subjective experience.

Or perhaps directly from Phillip Johnson, the man most responsible for putting ID on the intellectual map and the primary architect of the Wedge strategy itself:

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.

And...

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "'the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

And...

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

Or perhaps Buttars simply looked to the Wedge document itself, which describes in vivid detail the aims of the very organization that West represents and on whose behalf he is writing:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

See, the problem here for West is not that no one is listening to the ID scholars; the problem is that we are listening to them and their own words are in direct contradiction to the tactical marketing campaign that the DI is trying so desperately to run. It's the same catch-22 they've always been in. For legal purposes, they absolutely must separate ID from religion and they must pretend that ID is purely a scientific matter that deals with inferences of design, but the designer has nothing to do with God, it might just be an alien or something. But for fundraising purposes, they have to convince their followers that they are striking a blow against atheism and standing up for God - that's how you get the money flowing in.

So the fact is that they have had to keep up this silly charade for years now, where they pretend that ID has nothing to do with God and hope no one notices the enormous trail of writings and speeches and fundraising letters they've left behind that conclusively disprove that notion. And when someone does notice it, they accuse them of bias and ignorance, but they never bother addressing the evidence itself. So you'll pardon me for not taking West's feigned outrage seriously. Buttars is saying nothing different than what ID scholars have said a thousand times. The fact that it contradicts your current rhetorical and marketing strategy does not establish their ignorance, it establishes your duplicity.

Posted by at 12:26 PM | Comments (20)

Green Counter-revolution

Now that development interests officially trump property rights, I think it's natural to wonder, "What trumps development interests?" Surveying the firestorm sweeping the blogosphere over Kelo, I had yet another of those Alice-through-the-looking-glass sensations when I realized who the enemy of my enemy is: environmental regulations.

If you would like to protect your home from encroaching development, try getting eco-friendly. Commenter "Leslie" at Wren's Nest suggests using conservation easements to protect your property. Existing structures would probably be limited in their ability to qualify as environmentally important lands, but future residential developments could well take this into account. Perhaps the entire art of (sub)urban planning could be influenced by Kelo; subdivisions shielded by constructed wetlands, for example. Or if high quality ecosystems aren't your thing, one Canadian libertarian has this suggestion, "My advice? Move next to a Superfund site. You may get cancer but no one will ever take your house." Another artificial option, we may even see more instances of homeowners bringing endangered species onto their property to stop development. Once an onerous discovery, endangered species may herald the preservation of basic ownership with limited rights in the face of losing everything.

We shouldn't be surprised if a perverse ruling has perverse consequences.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:17 AM | Comments (11)

Aruba girl

GOP Vixen, via Instapundit, with this take on cable news coverage of Natalee Holloway's disappearance:

Okay FOX, you win. It worked. I won't kidnap any young, blonde, blue-eyed, upper class, teenage, all-American girls. Your round the clock mega-hyped coverage of this tragic but nonetheless non-story is working. It's a brilliant deterrent. Who in their right mind would think suffering through incessant, overblown, 24/7, E! True Suburb Tragedy was worth it? You are making America safe for white rich girls. Pat yourselves on the back.

No doubt! Our highest court just loosened the reins on local governments' power to take property from individuals and the news got a 10 minute blurb. Meanwhile, anyone who has been paying attention to cable news can recite the Holloway family tree, followed by the family trees of those guys who may have taken her. I think it would be more profitable for cable news channels to ignore world events, and show reality-TV programming 24/7. (Did they beat me to that idea?)

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 10:04 AM | Comments (10)

2008

When it comes to avoiding the horseraces in American politics, I'm the weakest of all here at ITA. So you can understand why I must note that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would "overwhelmingly defeat" Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in a theoretical 2008 presidential match-up -- 54% to 35% -- according to a new Zogby America poll.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:26 AM | Comments (11)

June 23, 2005

Now That the Other Shoe's Dropped . . .

In light of the double whammy of Raich and Kelo, those favouring limited government and private property rights may wonder where we are to go from here to salvage what is left of our grand experiment. Very few options come to mind.

1. Popular checks on power. Perhaps we can mitigate the effects of this Judicial insanity by electing officials who refuse to abuse our rights. This is, of course, what the Constitution was supposed to protect us against in the first place, but now our vigilance must be higher. It will require voters demanding that officials respect traditional definitions of interstate commerce and property rights -- hardly salient, however critical, issues.

Update II: Will Collier sees how petty local politics can be, "And that doesn't even touch on the prospects of developers making campaign donations--or outright kickbacks--to local politicians. This ruling is a license for corruption and abuse." Meanwhile, Eric Claeys sees some relief, " . . . courts defer to state and local proffers . . . unless the owner can prove that the purpose/benefit was pretextual and that the government actor that ordered the condemnation was in the developer's back pocket." (emphasis added) Still sounds hard to prove.

2. Rely on State laws and constitutions to protect property rights. Nine States, Utah being the most recent, already have statutes protecting property owners from the kind of theft authorized by the Supreme Court. Surely more can follow suit. Hopefully, the trend can be accelerated by voting with our feet.

Update: Instapundit suspects that State officials are in the back pocket of real estate developers, and so this kind of protection may be unlikely (and by extension #1). A reader also speculates on the reaction of the real estate market to the ruling. Will States with less capricious governments have an edge?

Update II: Zombyboy calls for this remedy, but Rick Brady shows that, "Fiscalization of land use is one likely unintended consequence of the decision." Or as Bryan Costin simply asks, "Have you ever met a government that didn't want more money?"

Update III: Rumblings in Texas for just such an amendment. Good for them; it sounds like they need it in Dallas.

3. Attrition. Undoing the damage from this Court's liberal justices will require not only replacing them with more conservatives, but ones that hold as little regard for stare decisis as Thomas . . . and ones that will be emboldened by his dissents. The backlash from the current cases must be great enough to overcome the vociferous opposition such nominations would encounter.

Update: Jonathan Adler says that the White House is compromised in its ability to make hay out of Kelo. It obviously can't use Raich.

4. Amendments. This seems really silly. We could correct the very specific wrongs done to eminent domain and the interstate commerce clause, but the general principles will remain. What are we to do? Pass those sections of the Constitution again with the coda, ". . . and this time, we mean it!"?

Update: A suggestion for an amendment (which sounds an awful lot like the 5th), from someone who has his (or her) priorities in order.

Update III: Stephen Littau has proposed an amendment to correct Kelo. I still think the first one was worded just fine.

5. Impeachment. This is the most extreme and far-fetched option, and would only work as a prelude to #3. Besides, what would the charge be?

Ultimately, we are forced to conclude that the remedy to these travesties will not be swift, easy, or certain.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:21 PM | Comments (4)

Compare and Contrast

Hack:

As first glance, you may think that giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing. And it very well might be in many cases. However, if the Court had ruled differently and NOT allowed local governments to do this, it would have been a disaster for local governments to build for the community (including when the purpose is to help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.). It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types.

Non-hack:

It's hard to argue against John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, but their ruling in Kelo v. New London is horrible. Regarding a dispute between residents of a working-class neighborhood and city developers who want to put up some luxury condos and an office park in order to raise the city's tax revenues, Justice Stevens wrote:

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue,"

Now, eminent domain is an important principle and in limited application can serve an important public good. But this ruling is unduly wide. As I understand it, from this day forward, municipalities can drive poor people their homes so a developer can put up fancy complexes and high-end shopping malls -- all, of course, in the name of "benefiting a community" through "new jobs" and "tax revenue." As reader M.L. said, "it's only a matter of time before some mayor in the pocket of a developer wipes out a neighborhood."

Loose interpretations of a government's right of eminent domain is the sort of thing we expect in Harare -- not New London.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 06:32 PM | Comments (3)

The End of Constitutional Limitations?

The notion of limited government took another enormous body blow today with the Supreme Court's astonishingly wrongheaded decision in the Kelo case (see the text of the decision here). It was 5-4, with the 4 most conservative justices - Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor and Thomas - dissenting. There is grand irony here. Despite the common perception that liberals are for the "little guy" and conservatives are for "big business", the liberal judges on the court just upheld the government's power to take away someone's property and give it to private development companies solely because the private developers will use it in ways that will boost the tax base, while the conservatives on the court offered a blistering and absolutely accurate dissent. What this means, essentially, is that you don't really own your home and property. You only own it until someone else can convince the government that they can put it to better use, at which point they can take it from you and give it to someone else. It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of our founding principles than that.

Is it overstating it to say that the entire experiment in limited government that we began 216 years ago with the passage of the Constitution may well have come to an end in the last few weeks with the double whammy of the Raich and Kelo decisions? If "interstate commerce" can be abstracted to give the government authority over activities that are neither interstate nor commerce, and if "public use" can be abstracted to cover private use, I dare say we have passed through Alice's mirror into a Wonderland where words can mean whatever the Queen wants them to mean at any given time.

Other reactions to the decision are coming in. Radley Balko says:

The five most liberal justices on the court made up the majority, once again proving that today's left is utterly devoid of any principle other than ensuring massive, all-encompassing, ever-growing government power. In this case, they'll gladly side with huge corporations who collude with state and local government to screw powerless people out of the homes and property they've owned for generations. The corporations get cheap land below market value, and the local city council members get more tax money to throw around to win votes.

Julian Sanchez writes:

As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is "interstate commerce," Kelo informs us that taking people's homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a "public use."

You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?

And here is Justice O'Connor's dissent, summing up perfectly what has happened here:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded-i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public-in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

More as they come in.

Update: Michael Meckler's reaction. Dale Frank's reaction. Most importantly, Timothy Sandefur's reaction. Sandefur spends his professional life fighting these kinds of eminent domain cases and was instrumental in getting the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn the infamous Poletown decision.

Posted by at 01:11 PM | Comments (12)

Kelo: The [quick] road to serfdom

The US Supreme Court has ruled that local governments can seize private property, against the owner's will, in cases that involve a "carefully planned development." Justice Stevens wrote for the Court, with Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joining. Kennedy concurred, providing the fifth vote. Justice O'Connor dissented, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Thomas dissented as well, making his long dissents a regular occurrence.

O'Connor's assessment of the majority opinion:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded-i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public-in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

I agree. So much for the value of individual property rights.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 11:10 AM | Comments (14)

Local consolidation

Here's a piece of mine in today's Evansville Courier & Press regarding city-county consolidation (registration required).

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:16 AM | Comments (2)

June 22, 2005

Swearing on the Quran

This week North Carolina judges will consider if courtroom witnesses can be sworn in on the Quran instead of the Bible. Judges in Guilford County, N.C. recently rejected the Greensboro Islamic Center's offer to donate copies of the Quran for courtroom use. The judges concluded that "an oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law." Unfortuantely I don't have access to the opinion in order to read the analysis that led to that determination. But judging from news reports, North Carolina is similar to other jurisdictions in that one need not swear on the Bible; he/she may instead raise their hand and give an affirmation to tell the truth. Both are treated the same by law, according to reports.

Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, offered what seems to be more solid reasoning: "Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one's own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person's testimony." On the other hand there is the familiar problem that arises anytime government recognizes religion - where do you draw the line? Must each holy text of the hundreds of worldwide religions be permissible? I doubt this is the last we've heard of this issue.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:13 PM | Comments (15)

Quote of the month II

I've always thought Liam [not Noel] Gallagher of Oasis was somewhat of a prima donna, and that his less drama queenish brother was way more talented. But one benefit of Liam's personality is that fans you can always count on him to make really audacious statements. Now it's Noel raising eyebrows. I saw this today and thought it was hysterical. Gallagher giving his opinion of Live8:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are they hoping that one of these guys from the G8 is on a quick 15 minute break at Gleneagles (in Scotland) and sees ANNIE LENNOX singing SWEET DREAMS and thinks, 'F**k me, she might have a point there, you know?'

KEANE doing SOMEWHERE ONLY WE KNOW and some Japanese businessman going, 'Aw, look at him... we should really f**king drop that debt, you know.'

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)

Bernstein

Does anyone else think that this picture of Carl Bernstein makes him look like Chris Griffin from Family Guy? View side by side comparison.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 07:49 PM | Comments (2)

Rehnquist

According to this website, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has resigned.

According to a source very close to the Bush administration, US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has submitted his resignation to President Bush. Apparently they are waiting until the Supreme Court's term ends this week to make this announcement.

Hugh Hewitt has been announcing the same thing. We'll see.

H/T Confirm Them.

Posted by Jonathan Bunch at 06:33 PM | Comments (4)

Wal-Mart & Diversity

Black Enterprise Magazine has ranked Wal-Mart among the 30 best companies for diversity. According to Yahoo News:

The companies that made the list outperformed other corporations in their peer group in four key areas: percentage of total procurement dollars spent with companies owned by African Americans and members of other ethnic minority groups; the percentage of African Americans and members of other ethnic minority groups represented on their corporate boards; the percentage of senior management positions held by African Americans and members of other ethnic minority groups; and the percentage of African Americans and members of other ethnic minority groups represented in the total workforce.

According to the same article, Wal-Mart has also been named amon