« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

August 31, 2005

Greens go nuts

A number of environmentalists have blamed the recent Hurricane tragedy on growing greenhouse gasses and global warming. It comes as an ironic surprise, then, that the U.S. government said Wednesday it would ease environmental standards of gasoline and diesel nationwide for two weeks in an effort to avert a crunch and ease skyrocketing prices.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:24 PM | Comments (5)

Breaking News

Google, Inc. has announced a plan to destroy all information that it cannot index. The new project, dubbed Google Purge, will first target all copyrighted materials that cannot be searched by Google.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:00 PM | Comments (4)

Religion, Politics, and Evolution

Since faith and politics are two of our favorite topics here at ITA, I thought this recently released poll by The Pew Research Center on religion and politics in America would be of interest. The poll questioned 2000 adults from July 7-17. Some of the most interesting findings:

• The Republican Party is seen as most concerned with protecting religious values. (51% to 28%)
• The Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices. (52%-30%)
• 29% see the Democrats as friendly toward religion, down from 40% last August.
• 55% continue to view the Republicans as friendly toward religion.
• 54% of independent voters think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party.
• 43% of independents think secular liberals have too much influence over the Democratic Party.

Additionally, the poll asked about the history of life on earth. 42% replied that they believed life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. 18% believed in evolution "guided by a supreme being," and 26% believed in evolution through natural selection. And certain to cause continued consternation among critics of creationism and/or Intelligent Design, 64% of respondents said they were open to teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:49 AM | Comments (18)

August 30, 2005

Ever Dance with the Devil in the Pale Moonlight?

It's difficult to consider any other news with the hurricane aftermath down South, but I ran across a nugget this morning: Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, arch-nemesis of Pat Robertson, "has been signing deals to supply cut-rate oil throughout Latin America and the Caribbean," according to USA Today. USA Today calls the move an attempt to spread influence. This is a common picture of Chavez. He's a power-hungry despot. He's building dangerous networks to take down Columbia, Bolivia, and any other country in his way. But he seems to be popular in Venezuela, and he probably wouldn't characterize himself as a bad dude.

The story reminds me of the part of Batman where The Joker publicly calls Batman out and offers to drop a bunch of money on Gotham, prompting a massive turnout for his popularity parade. He then unleashes poison gas on the citizens, killing scores. Is Chavez playing The Joker, or is he just a misunderstood and kind-hearted socialist? Is it too easy to dismiss him as crazy, a Castro-phile who is only trying to buy goodwill and influence for his next evil act?

As if on cue, Chavez now has an opportunity to show if he's really interested in giving generously of Venezuela's bounty or if he's just collecting political currency. Let's see Chavez cut oil prices to help restore normalcy to the USA after the devastation to our Gulf Coast. Then I might believe he isn't getting ready to gather up his henchmen, strap on a gas mask, pop in an old Prince tape, and declare that the Americas "need an enema."

Posted by Adam Packer at 10:27 PM | Comments (9)

Huh?

One of the EPA's recommended ways to "Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home":

Make sure children eat healthy, low-fat foods.

Who knew eating healthy foods can help keep lead out of your home?

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:26 PM | Comments (2)

PMDC

The future of PaulMusgrave.com is hanging in the balance.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:25 PM | Comments (1)

80% of New Orleans under water; Thousands stranded by flooding

The news from Hurricane Katrina's aftermath is virtually apocalyptic. For those who want to help out, Samaritan's Purse (Franklin Graham's international relief organization) is taking donations to support its mobile Disaster Relief Units, and the American Red Cross is taking donations for its National Disaster Relief Fund.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:34 AM | Comments (1)

August 29, 2005

Why Teacher's Unions are Hurting Education

Over the last few years, a bizarre situation has been going on here in Michigan. In 2003, a philanthropist named Robert Thompson offered to spend $200 million to build 15 charter schools in the city of Detroit, each serving 500 students, with a guarantee that each one would graduate at least 90% of its students. That plan required approval of the state legislature and in late 2003 they had reached a deal to pass a bill that allowed this to happen, but the Detroit teacher's union called a one-day strike and marched on the state capitol to protest this plan. As a result, the Detroit mayor and Governor Granholm both pulled their support of the bill and it collapsed.

Detroit public schools are among the worst imaginable. Jack McHugh of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy gives some of the shocking facts, quoting the Standard and Poor's School Evaluation Service report on Detroit schools:

"Detroit Public Schools generates well below-average student results with well above-average spending per student. Statewide, only 2.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a smaller proportion of MEAP test scores that meet or exceed state standards. Statewide, only 3.4 percent of Michigan’s school districts graduate a smaller proportion of students. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a greater dropout rate. Statewide, only 9 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student on administration. When costs are adjusted for student circumstances ... only 5.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts have less favorable ... average amount[s] of money spent per unit of measured achievement."

One would think that a school district with this poor a record would welcome a $200 million gift that would dramatically affect the educational opportunities for thousands of Detroit schoolchildren, but there's one problem with that: it would compete with the public schools and if successful at reaching its goal of graduating 90% of its students, it would show that it's possible to do much better than the public schools are currently doing. And that would put egg on the face of the educational establishment.

Now the Thompson Foundation has put its offer back on the table, along with the Skillman Foundation. And Grand Valley State University is offering to sponsor the schools (state law allows universities in the state to sponsor a certain number of charter schools). The Skillman Foundation has already donated millions to Detroit public schools that show success, including giving $1.5 million to keep the Communication & Media Arts High School, a quasi-magnet school in the city that has had great success with its educational model, open for the next 3 years.

This is not the first time the Thompson Foundation has given huge sums of money to give opportunities to students in Detroit. Their mission is to help lower income people rise out of poverty and to that end they have funded 1000 private school scholarships for Detroit city students, 500 junior college scholarships and 70 undergraduate and graduate scholarships at Michigan Tech and Michigan State. In a city with a dropout rate near 50%, you would think that they would be thrilled that someone is offering to do so much for at-risk students in that city.

But the Detroit Federation of Teachers doesn't want the competition from charter schools. Successful charter schools, you see, would make their schools look very, very bad. And apparently covering up their lack of success is more important than providing opportunities for poor students to achieve academically. Now that Thompson's offer is back on the table, the teacher's union must be pressured to end their protests and stop trying to prevent the very thing they should be cheering for.

Posted by at 10:17 AM | Comments (35)

August 28, 2005

Univ. of California Sued by Christian Schools

A federal lawsuit has been filed by an association of Christian schools against the University of California system accusing them of discrimination because they won't recognize the validity of some courses at Christian secondary schools that use creationist textbooks:

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

If the name Wendell Bird sounds familiar, it may be because he was the author of the Arkansas creation science bill that was struck down in McLean v. Arkansas, a 1981 Federal court case. I strongly suspect he's going to go down in flames in this suit too. Mike Dunford has some details on some of the nonsense taught in the Bob Jones textbook on biology. As he points out, this is an alleged science textbook that states:

The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second...If...at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize.

Gosh, I can't imagine why the UC system won't accept this as a science course. Here's another example of the blatantly non-scientific nature of the textbook:

The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a "scientific" explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on "supposed science." If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.

Let's just say I want to be in court when they attempt to defend these passages in court. This should be fun to watch.

Posted by at 02:45 PM | Comments (47)

August 27, 2005

Good Fences Keep the Coyotes In

I love stories like these:

Knightstown -- Supporters helped an Amish man pay a $181 court fee after he was convicted of shooting a coyote on someone else's property and of trespassing.

About 45 people attended a Knightstown Town Court session Thursday to support Amos Esh at his trial.

In June, Esh's wife, Emma, spotted a coyote near their flock of about 140 sheep. By the time Esh got his rifle and fired, the coyote was on the property of a neighbor, who called police.

After Judge Hayden Butler found Esh guilty and announced the fine, a swarm of people took cash from their pockets to pay it.

A more detailed account of the case can be found here, which includes this gem about Esh's jerk of a neighbor, "Heyob said he is not opposed to people killing coyotes. He just doesn't want people trespassing to do it. 'High-powered rifle at 500 feet is dangerous,' he said. Some people in the crowd laughed at that comment."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

The Truth Hurts??

The Times of London reports that the British Journal of Psychology soon will publish a study by two UK psychologists that shows that men have a higher average IQ than women. The study allegedly shows that there is also a higher concentration of men in each of the upper strata of the IQ spectrum. Co-author Paul Irwing is "uncomfortable" with the findings, perhaps because he foresaw the flood of criticism his study now faces, from those offering everything from apologies to excuses.

Standardized tests have faced this kind of criticism before, especially when categories of people who have been successful also score highly on them. The tests generally are dismissed as being biased; some people don't take kindly to the suggestion that there may be an innate reason some do better than others.

Lighten up. Women have done pretty well for themselves lately (over half of US college students, and well over half of US mortuary students, e.g.). Men should be the ones fired up about the study anyway, because it underscores how sad it is that male enrollment and achievement have declined. The study may help explain why more chess champions and astronauts have been men, but it doesn't explain the brutish sex's more recent decline into Playstation-fueled sloth.

Posted by Adam Packer at 10:04 AM | Comments (3)

August 26, 2005

Drunken Republicans

Radley Balko hammers the GOP in his Fox News column, "Drunk With Power, Spending Like Drunken Sailors." He offers that he doesn't write the headlines to these things, and notes, "I do think it's funny that most of the email I'm getting is about drunken sailors, not arrogant Republicans." How sad that sailors are complaining about being compared to Republicans. (Someone has since changed the headline, by the way.)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:02 AM | Comments (1)

Popular Conservatism

The tease from A&LDaily:

Original thinking can flourish under conditions of intellectual marginality. Conservative thought was once marginal. Now it's mainstream, and increasingly dumbed down...

At the margin 50 years ago, William F. Buckley started the National Review at age 28; last year, he handed over control of the magazine to five trustees, one of whom is a young lawyer named Austin Bramwell, who at the age of 27 provides us with a survey of how modern American conservatism has lost its intellectual steam -- and does so as the cover story for The American Conservative.

The survey is comprehensive, perhaps too much so, since Bramwell lists among the Immortals of Conservatism Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek, who rejected that label. Likewise, his digressions into libertarianism also are inapt for his subject. He suffers most fundamentally from a muddled conception of conservatism, writing that the 20th-Century thinkers, "left behind a set of doctrines assumed to constitute the essence of American conservatism -- limited government, anti-utopianism, free-market economics, patriotism, traditional morality and religion, federalism, anticommunism, and belief in 'absolutes.'"

Compare this list with another drawn up by one of the seminal conservative thinkers Bramwell acknowledges, Russell Kirk:

1. belief in a transcendent moral order, based on divine intent or natural law
2. social continuity, with value given to the gradualness of change
3. prescription, faith in tradition and a consciousness of the limits of reason
4. prudence, a recognition of the complexity and fragility of society and the disastrous consequences of seeking to construct society anew
5. variety, a respect and appreciation for the differences in men and societies and a deep distrust of the uniformity of equality
6. imperfectability, the acceptance that the imperfect nature of man necessarily leads to an imperfect society and so the impossibility of utopia on earth

Bramwell's list represents a subtle shift from temperament to ideology and follows from what Daniel Larison identifies as Bramwell's conflation of American Conservatism and the American Right. Larison goes on to quote Chilton Williamson:

The primary distinction within the conservative tradition, almost by definition, is the most hoary one as well. It amounts to the difference between a conservatism founded uncompromisingly on eternal principles and the conservatism that appeals to historical context and the status quo, prudence, and pragmatism. The term “Rightist” commonly designates conservatives of the first division, while "conservative" denotes those belonging to the second.

As Williamson notes, this is an old distinction, so it is unclear why Bramwell would make such an elementary mistake. Except that for the purpose of this piece, conservatism might be broadly defined in order to account for its popular (mis)conception. He argues that popular dissemination is partly responsible for waning conservative thought; after all, we've won, conservatism is mainstream, and Leftism has been sufficiently debunked in the mind of the Right. There is no more heavy lifting to be done -- by anyone marginally aligned with with the American Right.

As a remedy, Bramwell looks to the esoteric corners of conservatism for regenerative deep thought: the libertarians at Critical Review, "evolutionary conservatives," and techno-skeptics. Bramwell notes, "the three schools are all either forthrightly or implicitly elitist. Like conservatives of the '40s and '50s, they do not expect that their ideas will be popular." And here we have the original thinking flourishing at the margins.

It seems self-evident that high-brow cannot also be popular (or populist), but I don't think it is true that all that is popular must also be low-brow. That is, conservatism is not doomed to be dumbed down. Middle-brow conservatives like me may be greatly turned-off by the Coulters, Limbaughs, and Hannities, but Bramwell may be trying to give us hope that there is more to edify us than the dusty tomes of the conservative canon or the insipidity of National Review.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:42 AM | Comments (3)

Prayers For a Friend of ITA

Lee Anne Millinger's blog, such small hands, has been on ITA's blogroll since our inception last year, and was on Josh's personal blogroll before that. So I was sorry to discover yesterday that she has been suffering from kidney failure. Lee Anne got the news in January that a transplanted kidney she received 24 years ago was failing. In July, she was admitted to the hospital, and now she is going through hemodialysis three times a week and waiting for another kidney transplant.

As if this weren't enough, her daughter's boyfriend died in February after an accident. Yet through it all, as evidenced in the pages of her blog, her faith has remained strong and given her strength. Please pray for Lee Anne and her family.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:54 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2005

Protesting at the Hospital

I debated whether to post this, but since it's a slow blogging day...

CNSnews.com--a division of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center--is reporting that a group of anti-war protesters have been holding weekly demonstrations at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (which, ironically, was today voted to be closed by a federal commission). Discuss amongst yourselves.

(found via Crosswalk.com)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:56 PM | Comments (33)

August 24, 2005

And out of THIS side of his mouth...

10 hours ago, Pat Robertson claimed that his call for assassinating Hugo Chavez was taken out of context and misinterpreted:

Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.

Now it appears that Robertson himself misinterpreted that misinterpretation and, by golly, he did say that Chavez should be assassinated. Oh, and he's really sorry:

In my frustration that the U.S. and the world community are ignoring this threat, I said the following:

"Thanks, Dale. If you look back just a few years, there was a popular coup that overthrew him; and what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing; and as a result, within about 48 hours, that coup was broken, Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it...

Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.

You've heard of the 5 stages of grief? This is the 5 stages of covering one's butt when one says something breathtakingly stupid:

1. Yeah, I said it. And I meant it too.

2. I didn't say that, and it's an outrage how the media always distorts everything I say to make me look bad.

3. Uh, okay I said it. But I didn't meant it, and you should believe me despite the fact that I lied earlier to cover it up.

We haven't seen the 4th and 5th steps yet, but if history is any guide, he'll flip back to his original position soon. As I reported here, this is something of a pattern with ol' Pat. In 1985 he declared on the 700 Club that only Christians and Jews are qualified to have government positions. His co-host, Ben Kinchlow, even tried to save him from it, saying, "Obviously you're not saying that there are no other people qualified to be in government or whatever if they aren't Christians or Jews." Robertson replied, "Yeah, I'm saying that. I just said it....No one is fit to govern other people unless first of all something governs him. Adn there is only one governor I know of that is suitable to be judge of all the universe, that's God Almighty. Yes, I did say that. You can quote me. I believe it." Now that might be absurd enough, but it doesn't stop there. In September of 1987, Time magazine asked him about his statement. His response: "I never said that in my life. I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that." When someone sent the reporters at Time a copy of the tape, Robertson had to eat his words.

But wait, it gets even better. In his later book, The New World Order, he went back to his original position, saying:

You don't dare say America or Christianity is a better way of living. When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring those atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

He said it, he didn't say it, then he says he did say it. He really does seem to believe that reality is whatever he declares it to be at any given moment. And the scary part? Most of his followers will lap it all up without question. Yes, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Posted by at 11:55 PM | Comments (13)

Irony Alert

If you want to attend Bill Clinton's conference on solving global poverty, you'll need to fork over $15,000.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:03 PM | Comments (2)

In case you missed it

One of the main criticisms of President Bush made by the Kerry campaign last fall was that Bush was expected to be the first President to see a net job loss during his term in office. Did that prediction prove true? Depends on how you read the data.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2001 through 2004, there was a net loss of 35,000 jobs. However, Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. If you count from February 2001 through January 2005, there was a net gain of 119,000 jobs.

The job growth at the end of Bush's first term is continuing through the beginning of his second, with 1.3 million jobs added in 2005 through July (including preliminary data for June and July). Needless to say, caveats about the growth of the labor pool over the past 4.5 years and the nature of the jobs created may apply.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:44 AM | Comments (25)

August 23, 2005

Faith Among Scientists

The New York Times has an interesting feature today on scientists who believe in God (and some who don't). It's a good read if you're interested in the issues at the intersection of faith and science. Here's an excerpt:

Dr. Collins [director, National Human Genome Research Institute] said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.

But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

The Times also has a typical "he said/she said" article about intelligent design and Darwinism, if you haven't read enough of those already.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:52 PM | Comments (5)

Vioxx Verdict II

Jane Galt notes just how deeply disturbing the $259 million judgment against Merck is. Quoting from the WSJ:

Merck argued that Vioxx couldn't have caused Mr. Ernst's death because, according to his death certificate, he died of an arrhythmia or irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack. While scientific evidence suggests Vioxx can promote blood clots leading to a heart attack, no data have linked the drug with arrhythmias.

Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed right over their heads. "Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah," said juror John Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown's teacher makes in the television cartoon. "We didn't know what the heck they were talking about."

Jane continues, "jurors were swayed by things that simply shouldn't have been a factor--an irrational belief that the CEO should attend the case (Merck is sued hundreds of times a year; should the CEO stop running the company so the jurors can feel special?), and even more disturbingly, a desire to get on Oprah. You only get on Oprah if you find for the plaintiff." (Yet more proof that Oprah is a blight on American culture.)

It may be hard for the public to grasp just how a quarter-billion dollar verdict hurts them, but it does, both generally by curbing the productivity of industry and particularly by providing a disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to market drugs that make life better. What's more, Radley Balko notes that litigation can cause companies to settle prematurely, before science has caught up to the allegations in a rush of suits.

But the larger issue is that juries simply aren't capable of providing justice in cases where the details require expertise and high intelligence. So long as such questions are put before incompetent juries (and I don't mean to sound nasty), we will have perverse judgments like the one on Vioxx.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:15 AM | Comments (21)

Pictures, II

Since we're in the picture linking mood here at ITA with Zach's state fair pictures, I'd like to offer up much more uninteresting pictures of me and the Bryan Boys in Atlanta, Ga.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:00 AM | Comments (1)

August 22, 2005

A Legacy

For the umpteenth year in a row Indiana Univeristy was placed in the Princeton Review's list of "Top 10 party schools." Coming in at number one in this year's highly unscientific internet poll was the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:43 PM | Comments (5)

Indiana State Fair 2005

I'm a huge fan of the State Fair, and I managed to make it twice this year. No, I didn't see the wedding, watch the marching bands, or try this summer's novelty food item (deep fried peanut butter cups). But I did take lots of pictures. You can see my photo album, prepared especially for In The Agora, here.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:42 PM | Comments (3)

The Popularity of Snake Oil

A Reuters article published yesterday sums it up in the first paragraph:

He went to prison for fraud and was ordered by the U.S. government to stop touting health products on infomercials, but Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" is a bestseller.

Trudeau's book has been at the top of the Publishers Weekly nonfiction bestseller list for three weeks (although there's good reason to dispute the "nonfiction" classification). It really galls me that there is so much antipathy toward the pharmaceutical industry, yet the public--certain segments of it anyway--adoringly throw money at quacks like Trudeau. Look for a more comprehensive future post from me about the "herbal supplement" industry.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:56 AM | Comments (4)

Learning from Mistakes

In retrospect, it might not have been a good idea for the Philadelphia Phillies to schedule the group outing for Repent America, a fundamentalist Christian group, on "Gay Day" when hundreds of homosexuals would also be attending.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:52 AM | Comments (35)

August 21, 2005

Discussion Advice

Anytime you're discussing issues of the day or politics please never let yourself say, "He/she has the right to say that." Duh? That's very rarely the issue. Instead, the issue is the merits of what they're saying. Jonah Goldberg says it well:

All this can get a little confusing because there are a few other exceptions to the whole say-whatever-you-want free-speech rule. If you're confused, though, here's a nifty little hint for how to figure out if your speech is permitted under our Constitution: If nobody says "it's against the law for you to say that!" it's probably not against the law for you to say that!

Look: It's deep August and Washington is about as hot and moist as the air pocket underneath one of those dudes you occasionally see on the evening news being pried from his bed with the jaws of life. So maybe I'm just being cranky. But, if you want to defend somebody's controversial statements, saying "so-and-so has the right to his opinion" doesn't get you out of the gate. It just sucks up air and fills space. Intellectually, it's got the nutritional value of Styrofoam. You might as well say "Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang" instead and then move on to your next point. It's not interesting, not smart, not insightful. Saying Cindy Sheehan has a right to criticize the president is like saying she's a carbon-based life form: True, but utterly beside the point.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:17 PM | Comments (14)

The Vacation President

The Daily Pick notes President Bush broke Ronald Reagan's all-time record for most presidential vacation days. "The old record was 335 days, though Reagan took his sweet time of eight years to accomplish this feat. President Bush did it in nearly half the time. And with another two weeks of vaction on tap, he's obviously not content with simply breaking the record, he's going to smoke that record right out of the hole."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:29 PM | Comments (8)

August 20, 2005

Darby Conley Rules

Anyone who's been around cats long enough will appreicate yesterday's Get Fuzzy strip. (And it helps if you're enough of a geek to know what the Coriolis Effect is!)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2005

Vioxx Verdict

Everything is big in Texas, as they say. And a Texas jury just awarded a quarter-billion-dollar verdict to a widow who claimed her husband died from taking Vioxx. The amount of the award will undoubtedly be lowered by a couple orders of magnitude on appeal.

Derek Lowe has reaction from an industry insider. James Copland reacts from a legal perspective on PointOfLaw.com. Also on Point of Law, Ted Frank raised some issues last month that are sure to come up in Merck's appeal.

(Disclaimer: Merck & Co., Inc. is my employer.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)

100 Senators

Survey USA released approval ratings for all 100 U.S. Senators. Here are the top five:

Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Barak Obama (D-IL)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
John McCain (R-AZ)

Interestingly Indiana's Evan Bayh beats the Hoosier state's senior senator Richard Lugar by four points.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:34 PM | Comments (10)

The Scandal of Grace

Amongst the horrible and revolting facts of the BTK serial murder trial, there was something in the sentencing hearing yesterday that made me think of the astounding nature of the grace of God. Understandably, the families of Dennis Rader's victims had little mercy for the man. Beverly Plapp, the sister of Nancy Fox (one of Rader's victims), proclaimed: "On the day he dies, Nancy and all of his victims will be waiting with God and watching him as he burns in hell."

However, although Rader's earthly fate is rightly sealed with the maximum penalty available under the law, his eternal fate may not yet have been decided. In his own words at his sentencing, Rader said:

And I think honesty, people will say I'm not a Christian, but I believe I am. So anyway, I faced up to the man himself now, my boss. I think that all points to accountability and full responsibility now....

Christian Bible verse I found and I think helping me, will help me, leading me. This is John 8:12. "I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness but have light of life." Now that I've confessed, put myself out to let everybody know what's going on, I expect to be healed and have life, and hopefully someday God will accept me.

This reminded me of the provocative song "Jeffrey Dahmer Went to Heaven" by the Christian band Room Full of Walters. Jailhouse conversions are nothing new and are not always sincere, but the Bible teaches that no matter what kind of evil a man has done, God's grace through Christ's death on the cross is sufficient to forgive him if he repents (as rocker Bono has commented on recently). Author Selwyn Hughes referred to this as the "the scandal of grace," and it's one of the most distinctive aspects of Christian theology.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:52 AM | Comments (27)

August 18, 2005

Sheehan Stops

Cindy Sheehan is leaving Crawford to tend to her mother, who has just had a stroke.

Posted by Michael Drazer at 06:01 PM | Comments (1)

Hot Times in Bloomington

Newsweek has named Indiana University one of the twelve "hottest colleges" in America (it was named the "Hottest Big State School").

Along with Indiana, the following institutions were named:

Harvard ("Hottest for Rejecting You")
University of California, San Diego ("Hottest for Science")
Macalester ("Hottest for Liberal Arts")
William & Mary ("Hottest Small State School")
The Citadel ("Hottest Military School")
Savannah College of Art & Design ("Hottest for Studying Art")
Xavier of Louisiana ("Hottest for Pre-Meds")
Wheaton College ("Hottest Christian College")
Middlebury ("Hottest for International Studies")
UPenn ("Hottest for Happy-to-be-There")
Paul Smith's College ("Hottest for Resort Living")

You can read the article here, and IU's reaction is here.

Posted by Michael Drazer at 04:22 PM | Comments (5)

Judge in Wiccan Divorce Case Overturned

I reported a few months ago about Judge Cale Bradford, of the Marion Superior Court in Indiana, placing a restriction in a divorce decree that said that neither parent could expose a child to their Wiccan beliefs. Both parents were Wiccan, but they send their son to a private Catholic school. The judge decided that because there are potential conflicts between what the parents teach him at home about Wicca and what he is learning in school about Catholicism, the parents should be prevented from speaking to the child about their beliefs. At the time, I called this one of the most disturbing and blatant violations of the free exercise clause I'd ever seen. The Indiana Appeals Court, it seems, has agreed with me and overturned the decision, saying that the judge overstepped his authority. Bravo to the appeals court.

Posted by at 10:38 AM | Comments (3)

August 17, 2005

End the Publicity Stunt: W, Meet With Cindy

There's not a whole lot I can say about Cindy Sheehan that hasn't been screamed by either her supporters or detractors, ad nauseum, for the last two weeks. In case you just came back from a desert island, Sheehan is the latest poster person of the anti-war movement. She lost a son--US Army Specialist Casey Sheehan--in Iraq on April 4, 2004. Like Michael Berg, the father of American civilian Nick Berg who was beheaded in Iraq, Sheehan was anti-war before her son died, but her loss has given her a national platform for expressing her views. She has been holding a vigil since August 6, requesting a second face-to-face meeting with President Bush (she previously met with the President on June 18, 2004).

There are obvious reasons for Bush not to meet again with Sheehan. He has met with dozens (if not hundreds) of family members of fallen soldiers, some of whom have urged him to stay the course, so that their loved ones deaths will not have been in vain. Yet, there are dozens more family members who have not had this opportunity--so why should Sheehan get a second? The President simply does not have time to meet one-on-one with every family which has lost a loved one in our nation's armed conflicts, nor has any previous President done so.

From a political standpoint, there is great pressure on Bush not to give in to a publicity stunt being fueled by activist groups such as MoveOn.org. And this is consistent with Bush's "no retreat" political philosophy. To meet with Sheehan would indeed be to hand the activists a symbolic victory, but to continue to refuse to meet with her is to allow the activists' momentum in the press to snowball even further. The media has been on the "growing discontent over Iraq" angle all summer, and Sheehan's actions provide a perfect human example to feed into the story.

Bush should give Sheehan her 15 minutes. Let her say her piece...argue, yell, cry, or just lay out her case. Tell her why her son's death was not meaningless, but it could become so if we let Iraq disintegrate into a terrorist haven. Then let the activists camped out in Crawford either go home, or try to come up with a different reason for maintaining their publicity stunt.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:17 PM | Comments (27)

Answering a Creationist Comment

A commenter named Wagner posted a reply to my comments on an older thread, which I just noticed. The reply deals with evolution and creationism and I didn't want it to get lost, so I'm moving it up here and responding. I also think it's a good idea to give this comment its own space because it's an excellent example of the types of arguments typical of creationists. It contains lots of conclusionary rhetoric and what little substance it contains - actual discussion of the evidence - is highly inaccurate. But first, the conclusionary rhetoric:

To quote one of your own, evolutionsts have deluded themselves into thinking that they are scoring points against opponents who are simply playing a different game.

Completely meaningless and gratuitious and without any information content at all.

The difference is not in the science. It's in the context within which you interpret the science. Whether its proponents like to admit it or not, evolution rests on presuppositions and conclusions that are fundamentally flawed.

The first part makes little sense. Science is interpretation. Perhaps he means "evidence" or "data" rather than "science". The second part is, again, conclusionary rhetoric without any detail or support. The one example he gives of an evolutionary "presupposition" that is flawed is, as we shall see momentarily, quite inaccurate.

Teaching either intelligent design or evolution as the backstory for science is poor policy because, even though intelligent design at least recognizes that the presence of order and design implies the existence of an orderer or a designer, neither side can establish that its thesis is correct. [And, no, this isn't simply an example of "Brayton's relativism" (identified as such to avoid confusion with real relativism).]

As a result, scientific, intellectual and philosophical honesty and integrity demand that you present not only the facts and results that support your thesis but also those that differ from your thesis so that the exploration of the world we live in and the search for meaning don't get muddied by erroneous presuppositions. In other words, if you're going to teach anything, you have to teach both.

The first paragraph doesn't appear to express any coherent thought at all. I have no idea what teaching ID or evolution as "the backstory of science" means. Evolution is a scientific theory, a result of the application of science, not a "backstory" for science. And I have no idea what he means by "Brayton's relativism", or "real relativism" for that matter, but his argument is a good example of a common creationist misconception about the nature of proof and certainty. His argument is that since neither side can be "proven", you must teach both sides. But this wraps up several logical fallacies into a single statement. First, it's a false dichotomy - there are in fact hundreds of possible explanations for any given phenomenon, and using this simplistic "if it's not proven, you must teach them all" standard, we'd have to teach every single one of them.

Second, and most importantly, it presumes that we are dealing with deductive rather than inductive reasoning. If you're dealing with deductive reasoning, you can deal with proof and a simple either/or certainty - if the premises of the syllogism are true, the conclusion will be true. But most scientific work is inductive, not deductive, and the notion that there are only two categories - "proven true" and "as plausible as any other explanation" is simply nonsense. Certainty is not a simple ladder leading from "unproven" to "proven", especially if one is going to claim that all ideas that are in the "unproven" category are equally valid or plausible. Certainty is a continuum. The longer a scientific theory resists disproof and continues to explain data well, the more certain we are that it is true. When it explains a wide range of data from a dozen distinct fields of inquiry well, the certainty moves even higher.

Under Wagner's reasoning, if an idea is not proven then all alternative explanations, no matter how fanciful, have to be taught along with it. But let's look at a few other examples of how this would apply and see where it gets us. No one today doubts the theory of gravity, but in fact our scientific understanding of gravity is quite lacking. Sure, we can make accurate predictions with it, but we don't even know what gravity is - a force? A wave function? Quantum theories of gravity and relativistic theories of gravity, I am told by my physicist friends, are still quite controversial among specialists. Must we, then, also teach that the planets might stay in their orbits because angels push them around that way?

Likewise, heliocentricity, while accepted by all but a tiny minority of astronomers and cosmologists, still has its detractors. The geocentrists have their own institute, just like the IDers, and they make many of the same arguments against heliocentricity - that it was motivated by a desire to do away with God, that it has resulted in more support for "materialism" and taken man out of his rightful place at the center of God's creation, and so forth. And they have scientists with genuine credentials too. Must we then teach that as well? By Wagner's reasoning, we must. After all, we can't "prove" that the Earth is not the center of the universe because the geocentrists have come up with explanations for all the apparent evidence we think we see.

One could go on and on. Must we teach alternatives to the germ theory of disease? After all, it's trivially simple to find lots and lots of places where modern medicine has failed to explain or treat someone's illness. Why, those godless heathens in the medical profession are so stuck in their materialistic presuppositions that they rule out all supernatural explanations a priori. What if disease is really sent by God as punishment, or to test our faith? Or what if it's sent by Satan to destroy our faith? Or a combination of both, like Job? Must we teach supernatural alternatives to meteorology and seismology as well? I know these examples sound absurd, and that is exactly my point. The logic behind them is the same as the argument above, and they are absurd, but that is where the consistent application of Wagner's argument takes us.

Just in case somebody missed it, I am a creationist - I think it presents the best, most logical, most internally consistent, and most coherent explanation for the existence of life. I think we're going to be somewhat surprised at how old the earth really is, on both sides, although I do not believe the data is consistent with an age of "billions and billions" of years old.

But as we shall see, Wagner's understanding of the data on the age of the earth is seriously lacking.

For example, so many people have accepted the basic conclusion that the earth is 4.3 billion years old, even though scientists agree that they have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because the Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. (from the U.S. Geologic Service)

Further, the basis for the calculation is old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. (also from the U.S. Geologic Service)

Okay, now we're getting into the actual evidence. Unfortunately, almost everything he says here is false. First, the age of the earth has long been settled at ~4.55 billion years old, not 4.3 billion. Second, plate tectonics has very little effect on the ability of geologists to test basement rock samples and use them for radiometric dating. Volcanism can have a large effect on the dating of any particular sample, of course, because when a rock melts it will release the gasses trapped in the rock matrix and therefore restart the atomic clock. But if there has been a melting after it initially formed, that would make a given rock sample older than it tests so it only hurts Wagner's argument. And even in cases where volcanism has taken place, there are often older chunks of unmelted rock, called xenolithic inclusions, that can be identified within a lava flow and dated accurately. Geologists do this quite regularly. And it should be pointed out that one of the reasons why geologists like to use meteorites to test the age of the earth is that they are not geologically active - no tectonics or volcanism at work - and therefore the samples are undisturbed. Since meteorites would have formed in the same time frame that the planets formed in our solar system, and from the same forces at work, they are an ideal way to test the age of the earth.

Wagner then seems to imply that our calculation for the age of the earth is based upon a single meteorite, the Canyon Diablo meteorite. That was true in 1956; it was not true for much longer. Patterson used radiometric dating, specifically U-Pb dating, to determine the age of the Canyon Diablo meteorite to in the early 1950s and that date was 4.55 billion years old. That has been the accepted age ever since, not because of this single test but because since that time we have used a wide variety of radiometric techniques to test a wide variety of terrestrial and non-terrestrial objects (meteorites) and they have all come up with essentially the same date. And we're talking about hundreds of such tests, not just one. Chris Stassen has an excellent FAQ on the age of the earth at the TalkOrigins archive and he lists all of the various samples that have been tested, what technique was used, and what the results were. And if you plot all of the data out, you get a perfect isochron, which is a crucial test of the validity of this method. When you have hundreds of concordant dates from hundreds of different objects, all agreeing within a very small percentage of error, and they plot out a perfect line on a graph, there's simply no way to explain that away.

However, all of those assumptions are based on theories postulated between the years of 1785 and 1800 by James Hutton and William Smith. As far as I am aware, no one has gone back to those theories and assumptions with the new technology available to determine whether those assumptions are, in fact, valid.

I have no idea what this means. Perhaps Wagner could tell us what those "assumptions" are and what the connection is between Hutton and Smith and modern radiometric dating. Both Hutton and Smith were famous geologists, but they were both dead a century before radioactivity was discovered, so I'm rather baffled by the suggestion that radiometric dating is based upon any "theories" that they came up with. Perhaps here he is just referring to uniformitarianism, a concept that is commonly distorted by creationists, or to relative dating using index fossils (Hutton was a key figure on the first, Smith on the second), but those things have nothing to do with radiometric dating.

Until such time as the initial theories on which evolution is based are reviewed and tested and reexamined (as evolutionists demand be done with every scrap of data produced by "intelligent design theorists"), the assumptions should not be taught as fact.

But so far, these untested assumptions appear to be mostly mythical. Indeed, relative and absolute dating techniques act as wonderful checks on one another. Relative dating is the idea that older strata were obviously deposited first and therefore are at the bottom and the strata get newer as you go up in a given outcrop. This is true 99% of the time, and is only untrue when tectonic activity has disturbed the strata through fault thrusting and overthrusting, both of which are easily identifiable by the vast amounts of evidence left behind (enormous slabs of rock do not get thrust up through the surface of the earth without leaving lots of evidence behind). An excellent example is the Lewis overthrust at Glacier National Park. Absolute dating, through radiometric techniques, provides an excellent check on this technique because relative dating was postulated centuries before radioactivity was even discovered. So now we can take an entire column of undisturbed strata and use radiometric dating to date the specific strata all the way up (technically, we test the age of igneous intrusions within and between strata, not the strata themselves) and the results are a perfect match. If that were not the case, all of our "assumptions" about relative and absolute dating would proven wrong. The fact that they do coincide perfectly is powerful evidence that these "assumptions" are in fact accurate descriptions of nature.

Posted by at 11:24 AM | Comments (18)

August 16, 2005

IU Basketball Has Up-and-Down Week

News that skilled high school graduate Brandon Rush is considering becoming a late addition to the 2005-06 Indiana roster was followed this week by news that Darrell Arthur, a big man from Dallas, TX, is considering the Hoosiers. Nice for fans of the cream & crimson, but the most significant news might have been buried at the bottom of the Arthur story. University of Utah senior Richard Chaney has told his coach that he intends to transfer to Indiana. No big deal, right? People transfer all the time. What they don't do is transfer before being released from their scholarships at their current schools. Long ago, the NCAA reined in the possibility of free-for-all player poaching by banning recruitment contact with players still under scholarship at a member institution (update: see NCAA Constitution, Art. 13.1). It's called tampering, and it should get a school in big trouble, as it repudiates everything the NCAA is supposedly about. The usual (and proper) order is 1) unhappy player asks coach to leave; 2) coach grants request; 3) schools recruit player; 3) player announces new school. Chaney and IU have this process all mixed up, and I smell a rat.

There is no smoking gun yet, but consider the circumstances. Chaney has not been released from his Utah scholarship, so Indiana can't recruit him. Without the ability to recruit him, Indiana can't tell Chaney "if you leave Utah, we'll give you a scholarship." Without a scholarship waiting, a solid player like Chaney won't want to go to IU. Here's the kicker, as printed in black and white by the Indianapolis Star: "Chaney played for IU assistant coach Kerry Rupp when Rupp coached Utah." Stay tuned. I bet Utah coach Ray Giacoletti will.

Posted by Adam Packer at 07:25 PM | Comments (2)

The Stunning Arrogance of Power

Via Sandefur, I found this absolutely incredible display of chutzpah on the part of the city government that won in the Kelo case. Would you believe they are charging those who fought their takover rent for staying in their own homes while they fought in court to prevent the city from taking them?

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000...

In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial...

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

This has gone far beyond the point of absurdity and into outright barbarism.

Posted by at 06:14 PM | Comments (9)

Album Review

Thanks to the heads up from a friend, I bought Nickel Creek's latest album, Why Should the Fire Die? This album is the group's first without producer Allison Kraus and it shows. Their previous album, This Side, already showed signs of a slow lurch away from bluegrass and this newest has completed the step. Aside from the instruments themselves, the music will be appreciated by fans of The Shins and Jack Johnson as much as any bluegrass lovers.

The move may have been a risky one, but Nickel Creek pulled it off beautifully well by retaining their poetic lyrics, angelic voices, and a touch of bluegrass roots. If there's one downfall it's that fiddler Sara Watkins, sister to guitarist Sean Watkins, only has one solo; the album could've included more. Sara's remake of Bob Dylan's "Tomorrow is a Long Time" is remarkable, and my favorite track on the album.

I can't say that the album is better or worse than the previous two because that would be comparing apples and oranges. But I can say that it deserves as much acclaim, if not more, as the highly regarded Coldplay release. Nickel Creek has scored a winner in Why Should the Fire Die?

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (1)

August 15, 2005

Cupertino Lawsuit Withdrawn

Steven Williams' fraudulent lawsuit against the Cupertino public schools has been withdrawn and is over. I wrote time and time again that this case, brought on behalf of Williams by the Alliance Defense Fund, was completely ridiculous. The ADF had been incredibly dishonest in their representation of the facts. Now they have apparently come to their senses and dropped the false accusations. You can see the official settlement here. The "settlement" is actually an admission that the suit was false, since it recognizes that the current district policy allows teachers to use supplemental material of a religious nature as long as it is "objective, age appropriate and in compliance with the curriculum prescribed by the district" and that the administration has the final say on what materials meet that standard.

The amusing thing is that the ADF is actually spinning this as a victory! Their press release on the settlement says:

"We are pleased that this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot. "The school district is to be commended for agreeing that their policy allows teachers, no matter what their religious beliefs, to use handouts of historical significance that have religious content, like the Declaration of Independence."

But a mere paragraph later the same press release admits that this was already the policy of the school district:

The settlement agreement puts in writing district policy that "allows teachers, no matter what their religious beliefs, to use appropriate educational material (including supplemental handouts of historical significance) during instructional time that has religious content" and also allows teachers "to teach students during instructional time about matters involving religion" so long as the content is compliant with district-prescribed curriculum and is not used to influence a student's religious beliefs.

This was the school's policy before this happened and it's the school's policy now. But the settlement also agrees that the administration has the final say in deciding when this standard is met, which means Williams won absolutely nothing in this case. The materials he used, which were literally filled with false claims and distortions, still are disallowed because they fail to meet the above standard. The ADF began this process by lying about the school's policy with their first press release declaring that the Declaration of Independence had been "banned from (the) classroom" and they're lying with their press release now. The only thing this settlement did for Williams was prevent him from being countersued for bring a lawsuit that was clearly frivolous.

Posted by at 09:07 PM | Comments (11)

Richardson Redux

Following up on my post on Gov. Bill Richardson's political ambitions, Matt Drudge draws my attention to this article about Gov. Richardson declaring a state of emergency along New Mexico's 180-mile border with Mexico. The Hispanic governor pledged $1.75 million to beef up law enforcement and tackle increasing crime. He also plans on meeting with the Minutemen and describes his political ideology as "not center, not left, not right, but basically forward."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:11 AM | Comments (3)

Oil

I'm baffled and saddened that energy is not addressed more often by our public officials. In my opinion energy is the single most important issue facing America, and indeed the West, and the public discourse does not seem to reflect that.

Oil prices are now pushing $67 a barrel. In spite of these skyrocketing prices, the economy has continued to lurch forward. Brad Setser, however, notes some distinctions:

The US -- obviously - is spending a lot more to import oil. The US oil import bill in the first half of 2005 was about $29 billion more than the US oil import bill in the first half of 2004. All told, I expect the US to spend about $57 b more on imported oil in 2005 than in 2004.

The story is a bit different if you look at the amount of oil the US imports, not how much the US pays for it. Oil import volumes grew by 7.3% in 2003, and 5.7% in 2004. The pace of increase so far this year. Only 2.3%. Higher prices are having an impact.

It's worth noting that $70 a barrel has been the benchmark at which some renewable energy sources, such sa biofuel, become competitive.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (47)

August 14, 2005

In memoriam

August 14, 2004

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:13 PM | Comments (1)

Early Horserace

The Los Angeles Times runs a good profile of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) and his political ambitions.

"Richardson has long been the proverbial man in a hurry, starting with his first audacious run for office 25 years ago, when, transplanted from Washington, the Democrat nearly unseated the state's veteran GOP congressman. (Richardson won his own House seat in 1982.) Lately, Richardson's exertions have been aimed at resuscitating New Mexico, the sick man of the Southwest. His ultimate design, apparently, is a White House bid in 2008."

Richardson is, in my opinion, the most competitive candidate among the Democrats. He's smart, ideologicaly sound (for the Dems), well-spoken, and has relatively substantial accomplishments to stand on.

Meanwhile Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) leads among likely Republican 2008 presidential primary voters in New Hampshire, according to an American Research Group poll. More striking, however, is another poll that shows McCain trouncing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) in his home state primary.

Update: In what may be the best political move in quite some time, Gov. Richardson has declared a state of emergency along New Mexico's 180-mile border with Mexico.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:59 AM | Comments (9)

August 12, 2005

Not All Baptists Boycotted Disney

The Screedblog took a swing at the "Presbyterian Church" the other day for its anti-Zionist divestment movement.

And listening to public radio yesterday, the host was moderating a discussion on whether the "Lutheran Church" should bless same-sex marriages.

What these two items have in common is that neither Lileks nor the radio program identified which organizations they were talking about--but it was easy to guess that they were the Presbyterian Church USA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, those being the largest and most liberal organizations within their respective denominations. Those items demonstrate a common phenomenon in public discourse about religion: the lumping of all adherents of a denomination under one label when some of them do something newsworthy, almost always something controversial.

We tend to associate Baptists, for instance, with boycotting Disney, perhaps the most visible thing Baptists have done in recent memory. But I've encountered many Baptists who are quick to offer the disclaimer that their church does not belong to the Southern Convention, the organization that initiated the boycott. One might conclude that these Baptists don't want to be perceived as bigots, but one should also bear in mind that one of the hallmarks of that denomination is the autonomy of the local church. Some simply might not like being considered a part of a larger organization.

Likewise, I'm sure many Presbyterians and Lutherans would be ruffled by the casual identification of the PCUSA and the ELCA given above. There's nothing to suggest that the Presbyterian Church in America or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church also agree that they should divest themselves of stocks in companies that do business with Israel. So far as I know, blessing same-sex marriages isn't a salient issue in the Wisconsin or Missouri Synods. Lumping is inaccurate and possibly offensive.

It is unfortunate that the largest organizations within denominations are used as the representatives of the whole. As a conservative, it is apparent to me that these organizations, e.g., the PCUSA, the ELCA, or the Episcopal Church in the United State of America, are rather liberal and have characteristic interests in social issues. The controversies into which they get themselves create negative impressions with conservative Christians, who are flocking to non-denominational (or subdenominational) megachurches. Christians who would otherwise be edified by the richness of theology within the universal Church are instead turned-off. This can't all be laid at the feet of the media, but lumping certainly doesn't help.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:07 PM | Comments (16)

Suggested Reading on Hot Topics

In a column that appeared on Tech Central Station last week, Michael Fumento makes a scientific argument against increasing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, pointing out that actual uses for those types of cells lag far behind adult stem cells.

Elsewhere, Star Parker remarks on the fact that opposition to gay marriage is consistently stronger among blacks in America than the national average. Referring to a recent conference of black pastors in Texas which included support for the Federal Marriage Amendment in a 10-point resolution aimed at "reconstituting the black family unit," Parker says:

The germane point that these black pastors understand is that the black community is the most exposed to and most likely to be injured by the problems of the nation as a whole. When America gets a cold, the black community gets pneumonia.... The support of the black community for the federal marriage amendment reduces to one word. Survival.

A bold claim, to be sure. At the least, it is remarkable that some black leaders view the controversy over gay marriage in this way.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:08 PM | Comments (13)

August 11, 2005

Closing the 11th

I wish Republicans had a happier holiday to celebrate, but we shall close Breaking the 11th in a grim mood. Republicans in government and other positions of influence are enjoying a great deal of power at the beginning of the 21st-Century, much to the detriment of the principles, even broadly defined, that we hold. But we should remember who gave them this power, and who has the ability to take it away.

I will not call for a great purge of the Party, nor for retribution at the polls. We should not allow our party to implode over internal squabbles. The core principle Republicans need to return to the most is honoring non-governmental action within society. The government is a leviathan because too many of its citizens have become dependent and comfortable with the extent to which it has intruded into our lives. As I wrote in February:

While politicians found appealing rhetoric based upon small government and budgetary discipline, there's no underlying cultural fortitude. People (myself included) still can't bring themselves to say to Uncle Sam, "No sir, I want to do this myself," for a large number or programs.

This is as true for fiscal matters as social ones. Entitlements will not end until the citizenry accept the responsibilities of taking care of themselves and the unfortunate among us. Pork will not cease until we stop rewarding our Congressmen for bringing home the bacon. The Nanny State will not die until we approach our errant neighbors in love and humility. We have failed on all counts, and now, ironically, expect politicians to save us.

Above all others, perhaps the Republicans we should reproach are ourselves.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:59 PM | Comments (18)

Breaking the 11th

Most holidays are occasions for celebration, but ITA announces a new holiday with a grave message. We declare today "Breaking the 11th," in honor of Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Of course, Reagan himself often broke this rule, with good reason, and so shall we.

With Republican control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, perhaps now more than ever in recent history, it is important for rank-and-file Republicans to loudly proclaim our dissatisfaction with the way our leadership have become heady with unchecked power. Too often these days, we are asked to support the Party as an end rather than a means. And also too often, the policies, positions, and rhetoric of our elected Republicans run contrary to the principles that lead us to identify with the Grand Old Party. And, unfortunately, too often Republicans are complacent or silent in the face of such betrayal.

"Breaking the 11th" is a day for us to rise up and hold Republicans accountable for not upholding the principles we claim to value. The ITA staff, as well as other weblogs, will be taking part in this event; check back throughout the day for updates.

In the meantime, ITA offers the following suggestions as "Breaking the 11th" activities:

1. Call or write to your Republican officials to express dissatisfaction with some un-Republican policy.
2. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
3. Write down a list of reasons of why you became a Republican. Compare this list to Republican candidates every time you vote.
4. Promise yourself to become informed about and to vote in the next primary election.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:58 PM | Comments (16)

Others Breaking the 11th

Joining us today noting our new holiday:

• Mark Byron, "We Need a Kosher President."
• Joe Carter, "Breaking the 11th: Speaking Ill of Republicans"
• Jason Kuznicki
• RiShawn Biddle
• Dan Savage
• Three Legged Stool
• Dr. Rusty Shackleford
• John Cole
• The Moderate Voice
• Psuedo-Polymath
• Louisiana Libertarian

N.B.: Trackbacks are as unreliable as ever, so drop a comment or send an email if you're onboard.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:57 PM | Comments (8)

Readers Breaking the 11th

ITA invites our Republican readers to speak ill of fellow Republicans. Open thread.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:56 PM | Comments (6)

The Conservative Media

One of the reasons I signed up with the conservatives was that being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry for being an elitist. Of course, I signed up long before contemporary partisan conservatism became indistinguishable, and not only at the grassroots level, from the populist movements that America has to live with every generation or so. And although I have an ample supply of reasons--partisan and philosophical--why I am glad that this has happened, I admit that I miss my elitist media.

Both partisan liberals and conservatives rely heavily on authorities, but only conservatives are proud to admit it. While the liberal gets her clothes from a boutique and her opinions from The New Yorker, the conservative buys his clothes at Sears and his opinions from The O'Reilly Factor. I have no problem with the sartorial choices of either hypothetical ideologue, but I do have to wonder if the liberal does not have simply better taste in media. True, National Public Radio doesn't have the vim of conservative talk--but neither is NPR (or its major competitor, PRI) in the same business as conservative talk radio. The former is educational. The latter is entertainment.

I have written elsewhere my approval of the new diversity in media, mass and narrow, that the past thirty years of technological and economic innovation have delivered to the average consumer. Yet I am also aware that most people have neither the time nor the inclination (nor, often, the patience) to seek out and assiduously read and weigh the arguments of those whose paradigms and interests are different from their own. I also do not think it lightly that this tendency will change over time. And since the bulk of the conservative media substitutes invective for analysis and talking points for thought, and because a good many people are satisfied with this conclusion, I draw back from most outlets that proclaim themselves to be my ideological colleagues-in-arms and read more thoughtful (and less popular) writers instead.

The liberal media, I am sure, has experienced something similar. But the Left has always contended with the scribblings of a million frustrated sociology dropouts, usually printed in alternative weeklies or journals that last for five or six issues, while the Right has usually been too busy running the country to indulge in media. No longer. What we have produced, as a movement, would embarrass even the most puerile sloganeer for a banana republic.

Not for me. I will instead repair to my sanctuary, where the radio receives only All Things Considered. There, I have periodicals in abundance (Left and Right, established and upstart), but I have even more old books, because the other prerogative of a conservative is to prefer without shame the old to the new.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 09:50 PM | Comments (2)

Intelligent Design and science

The ability to distinguish science from non-science is one of the most difficult tasks facing a budding researcher. Computer programming, calculus, reading comprehension: these are tools that any diligent person, after sinking in a rather large amount of time, can master. The scientific method, however, is deeply counterintuitive; though the progress of theory-hypothesis-refutation might appear simple at first glance, in practice it can be extremely difficult to separate the theories that help us understand and predict the universe from the ones that say nothing meaningful. One simple rubric to remember is, following Popper, that empirical sciences must be falsifiable. Actually following this policy, however, and being willing to strangle a hypothesis that one has loved and nurtured for literally years is painful, with the result that one often finds oneself introducing a convoluted series of auxiliary hypotheses when confronted with alarming data. If you are sufficiently clever you can explain away almost any evidence that contradicts your favorite theory. And if it is so difficult for practicing scientists to follow the principle of refutation, it must be even more difficult for the average layperson, whose reputation does not turn on her success or failure at distinguishing between falsifiable and non-falsifiable systems.

Luckily, there is a much simpler algorithm that everyone can use to determine, at least roughly, whether or not a particular idea is to be accepted within empirical science: search the literature. One of the reasons that Western science as a whole has been so successful is that the system is much less vulnerable to the weaknesses of the individual people which comprise it; anyone not willing or able to direct scathing criticism at their own ideas will find a group of reviewers who are more than happy to do so. The surest path to fame and fortune for scientists is to overturn commonly held assumptions, but any revolutionary paper must withstand the strongest attacks of fellow scientists. This curious balance between conservatism and the avant-garde has led to the most successful system ever devised for investigating the natural world. Thus, if you are curious whether "intelligent design" has thus far proved to be a useful concept within biological science, all you have to do is type the phrase into PubMed and see what you find. I'll spare you the suspense: the answer is no. I was not able to find a single paper that used the concept of Intelligent Design to explain and predict data; a few papers derisively attacked the data, and the phrase popped up in a few completely unrelated contexts.

Intelligent Design, despite utilizing graphs and the occasional technical-sounding word such as "complexity", is not science. It does not work within the scientific system, it has never been accepted within the scientific community, and I would put very very good odds on it never being thus accepted. It is not falsifiable, it does not help us make predictions about the natural world, and it has not led to a fruitful program of research. It is a metaphysical hypothesis. If it is to enter the classroom it can join Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, agnosticism, atheism, and a host of other belief systems in some sort of religion survey class, which would certainly be a welcome addition to the junior-high and high-school curriculum.

President Bush, arguing at a press conference that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in science classes, said that part of education is to "expose people to different schools of thought." That is true. However, another part of education is to show children the difference between divergent schools of thought and methods of investigation. Intelligent Design is religion; evolution is science. American children's ability to understand science is slipping, and the United State's dominance of the fields of science and engineering is in danger. For the sake of the US's future prosperity we must not follow President Bush's suggestion and further weaken our children's science education. Science will, undoubtedly, progress, regardless of whether or not our country leads the way; it is too useful a system to ever be left behind, and thus other nations will almost certainly take up the battle for understanding if we prove too weak to carry on. Nevertheless, I for one would love to see America retain its position as world leader in the struggle to understand the universe, already the greatest legacy of our country.

Posted by Adam Tierney at 09:41 PM | Comments (22)

A Case Study in Complacency

In the seminal post for today's event, I picked Rush Limbaugh as the poster-boy Republican apologist. He will occasionally break the 11th Commandment, but usually only to lambast a RINO, operationally defined as any Republican interfering with the GOP agenda. (He also was harshly critical of John McCain during the 2000 primaries.) His brand of populism is representative of the kind of low-brow 'conservatism' principled Republicans should disavow.

We need not all turn to Edmund Burke or William F. Buckley for only the most erudite of rightist discourses; Indy (not indie) talk radio host Greg Garrison regularly breaks the 11th Commandment, and I would consider him to be a more honest fellow-traveller. But lauding demagogues like Ann Coulter is the kind of lazy complacency that has allowed the GOP to become the mess it is today.

Who among us can be this lazy? Let's take a look at one sample:

Right Wing News emailed more than 215 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their "Favorite People On The Right." Representatives from the following 52 blogs responded . . .

All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-12 unranked selections and were allowed to choose anybody on the right or generally perceived to be on the right that they liked . . . personally . . . &/or respect the most . . .

These bloggers were also allowed to pick the people on the right they liked the least. Results below the fold.

Liked the Most		Liked the Least
1	Michelle Malkin (24)	1	Pat Buchanan (28)
2	George W. Bush (23)	2	John McCain (21)
3	Condoleeza Rice (20)	3	Ann Coulter (20)
3	Mark Steyn (20)	4	Pat Robertson (19.5)
5	Thomas Sowell (18)	5	Michael Savage (17)
6	Jonah Goldberg (17)	6	Bill O'Reilly (16)
7	Ann Coulter (16)	7	Jerry Falwell (15.5)
7	Dick Cheney (16)	8	Arlen Specter (10)
9	Rush Limbaugh (14)	9	Rick Santorum (8)
10	Hugh Hewitt (13)	9	Sean Hannity (8)
11	Donald Rumsfeld (12)	11	Bob Novak (7)
12	Charles Krauthammer (10)	11	Tucker Carlson (7)
12	William F. Buckley (10)	13	Andrew Sullivan (6)
12	Victor Davis Hanson (10)	14	Chuck Hagel (5)
15	Walter Williams (8)	14	George Voinovich (5)
16	Brit Hume (7)	14	Rush Limbaugh (5)
16	Dennis Prager (7)	14	Tom DeLay (5)
18	Charles Johnson (6)	18	Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
18	Karl Rove (6)	18	George Pataki (4)
18	Mona Charen (6)	18	James Dobson (4)
18	Rudy Giuliani (6)	18	Lincoln Chafee (4)
18	Sean Hannity (6)	18	Newt Gingrich (4)
		18	Ralph Reed (4)
		18	Tom Tancredo (4)

Kind of a schizophrenic bunch, no? Despite the presence of W and Rove on the first list, it's nice to note that the second list has some really mealy-mouthed creeps like Michael Savage and a number of religious 'right' members -- and the Sun Congressman! On the whole, though, the second list isn't as comforting as the first list is disturbing.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:51 PM | Comments (1)

Specter

His name is homophonic with part of the word expectorate, and I often feel like spitting when I mention it. When I knew I was moving to Pennsylvania, I told my Republican friends that I was looking forward to casting my vote for Rick Santorum in 2000, and against Arlen Specter in the 2004 primary.

I will heed Adam's advice, and not label Specter a "RINO." I've never liked that term much anyway, and indeed it's not wholly fair to apply it to Specter, who does often support the party's agenda (moreso when a re-election campaign is coming up). But there's certainly plenty to criticize about "Snarlin' Arlen." As Ed noted yesterday, he sent a letter to SCOTUS nominee John Roberts which bitterly complained about "judicial activism." But the laws he wished SCOTUS had not struck down were un-federalist and arguably un-Republican. One law made it a federal crime to carry a gun near a school, and the other sought federal jurisdiction for gender-based crimes. (The latter is reminiscent of the fact that Specter has joined Ted Kennedy in consistently sponsoring federal hate crimes legislation.)

Perhaps the most blatantly un-Republican thing Specter has done recently was when he thanked President Bush for his primary election support (without which he probably would have lost to Pat Toomey) and congratulated him on winning a second term by issuing a warning the day after the election against choosing nominees who were too conservative or critical of Roe v. Wade. There's gratitude for you. Specter even went so far as to compare Roe to Brown v. Board of Education. If the Democrats wanted my vote for one of Pennsylvania's Senate seats, they should have run staunch pro-lifer Bob Casey, Jr. against Specter last year, instead of against Santorum this year.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:54 PM | Comments (3)

Santorum

I'm ambivalent about mentioning Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) today, not because I don't think he's worthy of criticism but becase it's almost too easy. One could exhaust oneself tracking the idiocy of Senators.

Andrew Sullivan's guest blogger Dan Savage (not to be confused with Michael Savage) heard Santorum on NPR last week and provides the following quote (no link, so I don't know how reliable this is):

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want.

Republicans often don't make the full leap to libertarianism because we are comfortable with some level of government regulation of social issues, and that comfort zone can obviously be quite elastic. However, I think that any nimwit who finds something objectionable about a cultural issue has been all-too-happy to brand himself a 'conservative' in order to get the power of a major political party behind his cause. The GOP is full of such hangers-on and those who tolerate them. We should tell them where to get off.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:13 AM | Comments (9)

Don't Play the RINO Card

Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at the Republican convention last fall was memorable for its humor and its emotion, but it was also memorable for the Governor's characterization of the Republican party as an inclusive, united party. Schwarzenegger said, "many of you out there tonight are "Republican" like me in your hearts and in your beliefs... And maybe just maybe you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight I believe that's not only okay, that's what's great about this country. Here we can respectfully disagree and still be... good Republicans." Those who slap the label of RINO (Republican In Name Only) on any Republican who doesn't believe exactly what they believe have taken the word "Republican" hostage and are trying to narrow its scope. They must be stopped. They are the real RINOs.

The "RINO Hunters," and others like them, forget that this is the "party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan and the party of George W. Bush," as the Governator said, not just the party of the far right, who has it wrong here. Rick Santorum is not our poster child. Republicans shouldn't have one poster child. Leave that for the Democrats, with their litmus tests for membership and constant search for a catch-phrase that will resonate with voters. By letting the extreme right of the party play the RINO card when someone like Giuliani or Schwarzenegger or Mitt Romney finds himself on the national stage, we let the naysayers seize an opportunity to point and say that the Republicans are splitting at the seams. Don't give them that chance, RINO-slingers. Remember Rockefeller, Lincoln, and (gulp) Steve Forbes. They were all "real' Republicans.

Truly, there are some Republicans who are no service to the party at all, like Lincoln Chafee and former L.A. mayor Dick Riordan, but lumping people like Sen. McCain in with them dilutes the rhetorical power of criticisms of actual fake Republicans.

"But Adam," say the poachers, "what about Reagan's oft-used quote that 'a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency...?'" As long as we have a 2-party system, we simply cannot afford to live by Reagan's quote or we risk the opportunistic left seizing control of the country. Therefore, it is partly political expediency that keeps the Republicans together. A fractured party spends more money and emotion on primary elections (like the Democrats often do, see 2004). But it's also a belief in free markets, privatization, and lower cost government that keeps us together. The Republican Party should be where libertarians run when they want to actually influence an election instead of make a statement. It is where the Rockefellers should feel at home. But its national image is becoming that of the far right's puppet, and that image will drive those folks away. They will take with them millions of registered voters, but, more importantly, they will take with them any chance we have of success in the issues on which we all agree. Let's unite as Republicans and rally around our common ground, and have healthy discussions about the rest of the issues. Leave the self-destructive habits to the other guys.

As a side note, one group's definition of RINO lobs real criticism at Republican members of Congress who hardly support limited government. While I might disagree with their use of RINO, as the term caters to a crowd that wants to see Republicans quarreling with each other, the Club for Growth seems to have legitimate criticisms of greedy Republican politicians.

Posted by Adam Packer at 05:58 AM | Comments (0)

The Republican Imperial Congress

One of the most disturbing revelations about the collapse of the '94 Republican Revolution is the rise of a new "Imperial Congress," an epithet formerly applied by House Republicans to the arrogant, implacable Democrats they rallied to defeat. In power for four decades, the Democrats had come to disregard the rights of the Republican minority, notably by rigging the house rules so as to stifle deliberation and participation.

Unfortunately, the GOP have come to be just as bad if not worse than the unethical legislators they replaced. The list of abuses is most comprehensively summarized by the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), in her 2004 report: "Broken Promises; The Death of Deliberative Democracy. A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic Process in the 108th Congress." (PDF). In it, Slaughter's office thoroughly lists and categorizes the various tactics by which the Republican leadership have quashed discussion and amendments on substantive legislation since their rise to power in the 104th Congress.

Slaughter manages to make the seemingly dry minutiae of House Rules interesting, if disturbing, but one need not turn to Democrats alone for evidence of Republican Imperiousness. Dr. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute complained of Republican dirty tricks in Roll Call on July 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004. Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote a syndicated piece on it on October 4, 2004. Slaughter's report quotes liberally (no pun intended) from her Republican colleagues, including Newt Gingrich. Perhaps the most powerful quote comes from former Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL):

Ten years ago, Republican Congressional candidates like me were running as Washington outsiders promising to balance the budget and pay off the federal debt. We campaigned against the Imperial Congress and promised Americans that if we got elected, we would be different. We lied.

I believe this strikes to the heart of why this is an important point on which to Break the 11th. Some partisans may feel inclined to look upon the Republican tactics with a wink, feeling somewhat justified that the GOP are in the majority, after all. But such partisans must give pause when asked whether running roughshod over the rules of deliberative process has resulted in the advancement of legislation that results in smaller, more limited government. It clearly has not. And what is more, if Republicans wish to proclaim that we desire men of high character to serve in the public interest, such shenanigans must stop.

Perhaps it was naive to think that "Washington outsiders" would be immune to the temptations to rule arrogantly and abusively. No matter what good intentions the revolutionary Republicans of '94 held as they went off to the District of Columbia, the Federal Leviathan offers too much power to whomever is in control. Everyone is corruptible. This is a profoundly cynical revelation, and it diminishes the hope of every conservative that someday, we can get the Statist Genie back in its bottle.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:57 AM | Comments (4)

Including the States

While they capture the attention of the national media, we should not focus just on Republicans operating at the national level. State Republicans also deserve our criticism. In 2003, USA Today reported that

State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats. State spending rose slowest -- 6% annually -- when legislatures were split, and each party controlled one chamber. Inflation averaged 2.55% annually 1997-2002.

At a time when states are facing severe budget problems, many Republicans are blaming shortfalls on runaway spending by Democrats during the economic boom of the late 1990s. USA TODAY's analysis suggests otherwise.

As Andrew Sullivan noted at the time, "At this point, it's clear that the Republican party, at all levels, is simply fiscally irresponsible."

The other side of the fiscal coin, taxation, also gives us little room for hope. While USA Today noted that Republicans had been better at cutting taxes, that trend may be over. As Ramesh Ponnuru noted in April 11th, 2005 issue (hey, also on the 11th!) of National Review:

In recent months, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels has proposed a "temporary" tax increase on high earners to balance the state's budget. Colorado governor Bill Owens has proposed letting the state government keep part of a scheduled tax refund . . . Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama stumped for a $1.2 billion tax hike. Next door, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue made a range of tax increases his first order of business after Republicans swept the state elections in 2002. Bob Taft of Ohio has raised sales taxes and business taxes. Kenny Guinn of Nevada, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, and George Pataki of New York have also pushed for tax increases. And several Republican legislators in Virginia helped a Democratic governor raise taxes.

Ponnuru assures us the outlook is not quite so dim, but one can't help but feel that some Republicans no longer adhere to fiscal conservatism. The excuse that tax increases are a bid for at least fiscal responsibility is belied by the USA Today data above (Gov. Daniels being a notable exception). Looking for Republican principles at the State level is just as fruitless as at the national.