« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

September 30, 2005

Gingrich Discusses White House Bid

Promoting his new book in Michigan, Newt Gingrich (R) "discussed a possible run for president in 2008, saying health care and government modernization are the pillars of his program," the AP reports. Said the former Speaker: "If I'm potentially going to run, I have to get my message out, and if it works and five others pick it up, I won't run. If the message doesn't work, I won't run. But if the message works and nobody picks it up, I'll run."

Whatever one thinks of Gingrich as political leader, he is, at least in my mind, an incredibly intelligent man who is driven by ideas. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, Gingrich has the power to infuse ideas into the election process and bring limited government principles back into the forefront.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:56 AM | Comments (7)

September 29, 2005

By The Numbers

Presidents Pro Tempore of the Senate: 118
Speakers of the House of Representatives: 59
Presidents of the United States: 43
Chief Justices of the Supreme Court: 17

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:33 PM | Comments (6)

Bringing Hope and a Helping Hand

When 17 members of my church loaded luggage and supplies into a 30-foot RV, a 20-foot camping trailer, an SUV and a 15-passenger van (with the two rear seats removed) in the pre-dawn hours of September 19, none of us knew quite what to expect from our journey to Slidell, Louisiana. To fully comprehend the nature and magnitude of the disaster, you have to see it for yourself.

Over 100 miles from the gulf on Interstate 59 in Mississippi, we began to see obvious storm damage. Large trees uprooted, exit signs blown down, tarps covering damaged roofs. As we came closer, the musty smell of newly-exposed earth and decaying vegetation became stronger. And we weren't the only ones headed toward the disaster area. We passed (or were passed by) a variety of church groups, heavy equipment trailers, and even a convoy of several dozen brand-new white Chevy pick-up trucks with FEMA signs in the back windows.

When we arrived in Slidell around 5 AM local time on Tuesday, I was a little surprised at how close to normal things looked along Pontchartrain Drive--one of the major roads through Slidell. Although there was obvious damage (sometimes major damage) to some buildings, most looked structurally intact. There was even one drug store that looked untouched by the storm, its brightly colored exterior gleaming in the glow of its parking lot lights. Sturdier construction required by building codes seemed to have preserved these newer structures, although even these buildings will require major interior work, as flooding was a major problem throughout Slidell. Signs (literally) of what happened could be seen at every intersection, as shown in the first photo in my album.

The base of operations for Convoy of Hope was in a strip mall parking lot. We set up our camp in the parking lot of a Popeye's franchise. The light of day revealed the extent of the damage around us. Many of the storefront windows had been blown out. Where one window had been, two dresses still hung from a display lattice suspended from the drop ceiling. Between racks of clothing in the dim interior, styrofoam cups and other trash littered the floor.

For the volunteers, there were two major tasks. First, to organize the countless boxes of donated supplies into categories: bottled water, canned goods, cleaning supplies, paper products, etc. The generosity of the American people was tangible here and, at times, overwhelimg*. Once the supplies were organized, they went to a distribution tent. From 9 AM to 4 PM, a constant stream of cars, trucks, and vans would come by and volunteers would load water, ice, food, and other supplies into the vehicles.

The people coming through the line were a cross-section of society. I saw beat-up pickup trucks with the beds rusted through, as well as a number of luxury cars. A natural disaster is a great equalizer...no matter how rich people are, we all have the same basic needs for survival. Almost universally, the people were very thankful to us, even after spending 20 minutes or more waiting in line. Many expressed that they did not know how they would have survived if not for us and the volunteers who came before us. This was the most rewarding part of the work--seing a smile cross the face of a weary person. It's remarkable how much happiness a bag of fresh fruit can bring to a person who's been living on canned and dried food for weeks.

It was also sobering to meet these people and hear their stories. I'll never forget one particular man who came through the line to pick up supplies for his family. He was smiling and polite as we loaded up his blazer, and seemed like an ordinary guy who was doing just fine. As he prepared to leave, we asked if there was anything else he needed. He paused, then replied "No. No...just...just prayer," and began to weep. Several team members stopped what they were doing to pray with him, then we eventually sent him back to his family with the strength to make it through another day.

As for us volunteers, most of us slept either in the RV or the trailer. We also had one tent for extra room. A HAZMAT-style portable shower room and a couple camping shower tents were provided by Convoy of Hope. There was also a kitchen tent which provided hot meals for breakfast and dinner, and a freshly-prepared lunch. (This was an unexpected blessing, as we had prepared to subsist on cold cereal, sandwiches, and other supplies we'd brought with us.) I'd like to thank all those who prayed for our team. Throughout three days of hard work in hot weather (the temperature topped 100 two of those days), we had no injuries or cases of heat exhaustion. Everyone was able to do more work than they expected they'd be capable of in their own strength.

In addition to Convoy of Hope, we were joined in Slidell by a Christian organization called Night Runners. As well as generally helping with the relief efforts, they provided the mobile kitchen facilities for feeding the volunteers. Night Runners is headed by Rev. Gilbert Abrueo. His ministry is currently in need of funds, so if you can help, send a tax-deductible gift payable to Night Runners at the address listed on his web site.

*A couple things I learned about donating items to relief efforts: Although it's natural to want to pack a bag with an assortment of items, it makes it easier on workers if you send boxes or bags that contain only a single type of item--and label the boxes. Second, do not send anything that is not requested. The Burger King parking lot next to our camp was littered with mounds of clothing that were hardly touched and were most likely ruined when the rain and winds from Hurricane Rita hit the area.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:34 PM | Comments (3)

The DI's Dishonest Attacks on Barbara Forrest

As a measure of the desperation felt by the Discovery Institute over the case in Dover, one could hardly find a better metric than this dishonest attack piece by John West on Barbara Forrest, an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case and the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse. West makes it appear as though Judge Jones has declared that she is an unreliable witness. In fact, the opposite is true, but some background is necessary to understand what happened.

The TMLC attorneys made what is known as a Daubert motion to prevent Dr. Forrest from being able to testify at the trial. It's called a Daubert motion because the controlling precedent for what type of expert scientific testimony is admissable in court is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. In cases where experts are called as witnesses, one side may object to the witnesses of the other side based upon the standards in this case, essentially arguing that they are not qualified or bring no specialized knowledge to the case. The TMLC attempted such a tactic regarding Barbara Forrest and the DI cites a portion of the courtroom discussion concerning a portion of her expert report:

THE COURT: ...Within Ms. Forrest's testimony, I see repeated references to quotes that were apparently derived from magazine articles and third persons that look to me to be inadmissible hearsay...

...if... we're going to have Ms. Forrest take the stand, or Professor Forrest, I should say, I guess, take the stand and if she is going to rely on hearsay, extracted hearsay statements from articles or narratives, I think we have a problem.

That's not to say that she can't testify as to -- if, in fact, we get to this point and if I find it relevant, and that's another issue altogether, and I don't think we have to address it here -- that's not to say that she couldn't testify if it's otherwise relevant to what the scope of the report appears to be, which is a -- sort of panoply of what intelligent design has been over the course that she's looked at it or the course that she examined it. But these extracted statements by individuals I think are problematic. Tell me why they're not if you view it otherwise.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I do, Your Honor. First of all, what she is basically doing is a history of a --and I say this reluctantly -- an intellectual movement.

THE COURT: Well, and it read like a magazine article to me. I might find it interesting and others might find it even entertaining, but for the purpose of an expert report, I'll bet she hasn't probably testified many times, if at all, as an expert witness.

And the fact it has these quotes, that it is rife with these quotes, which not only present hearsay issues but also could be taken out of context and could otherwise be objectionable, I'm simply putting you on notice that either you've got to contour the report to -- contour her testimony, not the report, to address that, or I think you're going to get repeated objections.

And I think, unless you come up with something that is pretty remarkable, those objections could be sustained to the extent, again, not as to the general scope of her report, but as to these extracted quotes by individuals from unverified sources.

They're not from treatises. A lot of them were taken out of news articles, it appears to me, magazines, other things. Why isn't that hearsay?

So what is this conversation really about? Contrary to the implication being made by John West, the discussion is not about Forrest passing on unsubstantiated rumors or anything like that. The issue is over the difference between what may be perfectly admissable in a scholarly examination of an issue but not admissable in a court of law. In particular, Forrest's book on the subject and a portion of her expert report detailing the origins and development of the intelligent design movement relied upon the writings and speeches of the leaders of that movement, which she quoted at length. In a scholarly book or article, that is of course entirely appropriate.

But in a court of law, objections are inevitably raised to such quotations because the quote might be out of context or might be interpreted differently, but the person who said it is not available to take the stand and be cross examined. Hence, it might be called "hearsay" and be inadmissable in court. And that is the argument that the TMLC was making against her testimony and saying that the testimony should be excluded. And one would think, by reading the DI's spin, that the Judge agreed with them. In fact, Judge Jones denied this motion. And here are the relevant portions of the judge's order denying that motion:

In the Motion, Defendants move the Court to exclude the testimony and expert reports, including the data upon which they are based, of Barbara Forrest, Ph.D., a witness who intends to testify as an expert on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, 702, and 703. Defendants argue that Dr. Forrest brings no scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge to this case and accuses Plaintiffs of using her as a "Trojan Horse'' to bring into the courtroom impertinent matters to prejudice the Dover Area School Board (``DASB''). (Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Limine at 12). In response, Plaintiffs assert that Dr. Forrest's proffered expert testimony goes directly to the issue of the origins of intelligent design creationism, that she is qualified to testify as an expert pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702, that her methodology is reliable, and that her testimony "fits'' the issues in this case. An initial issue to address is Defendants' contention that Dr. Forrest is not qualified to give an expert opinion in the case sub judice. As Defendants submit, Fed.R.Evid. 702 provides, as follows:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed.R.Evid. 702.

We first recognize that there may be few experts with the particular area of expertise held by Dr. Forrest concerning the "nature and strategy of the intelligent design creationist movement." In fact, Dr. Forrest may be the only such expert. Accordingly, there is no particular touchstone in existence regarding an individual with Dr. Forrest's qualifications and the concept of "specialized knowledge,'' as there would be for example with an expert who is an accident reconstructionist specialist or one who is versed in the medical field. However, we find nothing in the submissions to indicate at least at this preliminary stage that Dr. Forrest is not an appropriate expert witness in this case. We are in agreement with Plaintiffs that Dr. Forrest's report makes clear that she has "specialized knowledge'' on the nature and strategy of the intelligent design creationist movement, and possesses the ability to assimilate information and research topics intimately involved with the concept of intelligent design pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702. Therefore, at this juncture, given Dr. Forrest's credentials, extensive research, and writings on the subject of intelligent design and the intelligent design creationist movement, we will permit her to testify at the time of trial, subject to the opportunity by defense counsel to conduct a voir dire examination on her qualifications. We reserve as we must ultimate judgment concerning her ability and the extent to which she can testify until the trial in this case.

The second pertinent rule to consider for purposes of this inquiry is Fed.R.Evid. 703. Federal Rule of Evidence 703 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Fed.R.Evid. 703.

We recognize that Fed.R.Evid. 703 permits experts to rely on hearsay in expert reports; however, the hearsay statements present in Dr. Forrest's report may be problematic because without more, we are unable to verify the accuracy of the statements at issue, nor can we determine whether the individual statements have been taken out of context. Accordingly, in an effort to be equitable, to balance competing concerns, and after a careful review of the submissions, we hold that to the extent that Dr. Forrest testifies and such testimony references hearsay statements found in her report, we direct Plaintiffs' counsel to stand ready to provide the Court and defense counsel with any pertinent material cited by Dr. Forrest. In particular, we are concerned with quotations within her report attributed to certain individuals, which purport to have been taken from books and publications. Counsel can either provide the Court and defense counsel with the entire article or section, for example, or a verifiable portion thereof with the quotation at issue clearly marked for inspection. This process will allow for any statement(s) taken from publications to be verified for accuracy purposes and to ascertain whether such statement was taken out of context. Finally, we are in agreement with Plaintiffs inasmuch as they assert that Dr. Forrest's testimony should be allowed in these areas as Defendants are free to cross-examine her concerning any and all inaccuracies present in her characterization of intelligent-design writings.

There is a good deal of irony to be found here. The text that West cites do not concern Dr. Forrest's veracity or reliability as a witness, they concern the issue of whether a witness can quote from others without having the full context of their statements available or having the person being quoted available for cross examination. And the judge dealt with that question quite reasonably and fairly, ruling that it was not enough for the defendant's attorney to argue that quotes might be out of context and therefore quotes are not allowed, that they must make specific arguments about the accuracy or contextuality of specific quotes as they may arise. And to that end, he ordered the plaintiff's attorney to make all of the original documents available for examination. The irony, of course, is that by selectively quoting out of context, the Discovery Institute has tried to turn legitimate concern about out of context quotes into the wholesale bashing of a witness by a judge who in fact ruled precisely the opposite of what they are implying. Just another example of deceitful propaganda from the DI.

Posted by at 01:27 PM | Comments (0)

Free abortions for "mothers"

World Magazine offers the following:

An Arkansas doctor is offering free abortions to hurricane evacuees unable to return home. Little Rock Family Planning clinic director Dr. Jerry Edwards has already waived his usual fee--between $525 and $600 during the first-trimester--in order to perform six free abortions. "If we didn't provide it now, they would get it later," said Edwards, "a late-term abortion that would give greater risk to the mother's health." But wait--what "mother" is he talking about?

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:48 PM | Comments (0)

Back to Basics?

Novak has a great account of a new block of serious fiscal conservatives in the Senate who want to take back the Republican Party from its free-spending habits.

The Senate was up to its old tricks Monday evening. It prepared to pass, without debate and under a procedure requiring unanimous consent, a federal infusion of $9 billion into state Medicaid programs under the pretext of Katrina relief. The bill, drafted in secret under bipartisan auspices, was stopped cold when Republican Sen. John Ensign voiced his objection.

After Lincoln's tirade, another member of the Republican economy bloc -- Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire -- responded by coolly analyzing the bill's excessive spending. Also on the floor were two other bloc members: freshman Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and McCain. Although previously out of step with his party on tax cuts, McCain is aligned against tax increases as "a cop-out" to avoid budget trimming.

Among others in the bloc are the two South Carolina senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint. Graham wants this group to join the House's conservative Republican Study Committee in a "full frontal assault" on runaway spending. The culture of Washington is against them, but stopping one $9 billion outlay is a start.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:43 AM | Comments (4)

September 28, 2005

This Will Be Interesting

Due to the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) must nominate a replacement. Hastert plans to nominate Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) according to most reports.

To anyone with an intimate knowledge of the leadership this should raise eyebrows. Blunt is the third ranking Republican member of the House. Why would Hastert skip over David Dreier (R-CA), who was second in rank and next in line? Was it due to widespread rumors that he's gay?

Update: The Washington Post sheds light on how DeLay's successor was chosen. According to the article by Shailagh Murray and Jim VandeHei, DeLay favored Rep. Dreier but "the GOP caucus immediately erupted in anger over rumors that the selection of Dreier, whom they regard as too moderate, was being presented as a fait accompli."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:37 PM | Comments (6)

Sterile Science is No Fun

In the debate in the comments to Monday's post about Intelligent Design, David Heddle links to a post of his own, which I think deserves a mention here. David argues that while ID shouldn't be included in public school curricula, discussions of ID should be allowed in science classes, and that those who insist only strictly scientific subjects should be allowed in science classes are taking a wrong-headed approach that would sap much of the flavor out of science education.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:23 PM | Comments (28)

Interesting juxtaposition

• Number of millionaires hits record
• Credit-card delinquencies hit record

Both stories were run today.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:28 PM | Comments (1)

School Voucher Plan Tucked into Katrina Bill

"Buried in what might eventually total $200 billion in federal spending for Hurricane Katrina is $488 million for what would be the nation's largest school voucher program," the Palm Beach Post reports.

"The proposal, which to this point is formalized only to the level of a few paragraphs in a press release, would give families displaced by the storm as much as $7,500 per child to spend on a private school, including a religious school, for the coming year."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:05 PM | Comments (1)

Settling for Less

While meeting with women in a politically liberal area of Saudi Arabia, Karen P. Hughes, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, expressed her hope that Saudi women would soon be able to drive and "fully participate in society." But the women reacted coolly saying that they resented the American assumption that, given the chance, "everyone would live like Americans" and that being denied suffrage and the right to drive was not oppressive. "I don't want to drive a car," said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital, "I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver's license?"

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:44 AM | Comments (6)

Flip Flop?

"Back-to-back hurricanes have reshaped the geography of the Gulf Coast and the contours of George W. Bush's presidency," USA Today reports.

"Bush was elected in 2000 as a 'compassionate conservative' who promised a 'humble' foreign policy. After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, he made fighting terrorism his main mission, launching wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq."

"Now, in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- to the consternation of many in his Republican base -- he is outlining one of the most ambitious domestic goals of any modern president. It is akin to FDR's New Deal, a response to the Depression, and the anti-poverty projects of LBJ's Great Society."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:25 AM | Comments (4)

The Smartest Public Intellectuals

Foreign Policy and Prospect magazine are running a poll on the smartest public intellectuals. Due to clerical error, ITA's Paul Musgrave was inadvertently left off the list. Luckily you can include write-in candidates.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:09 AM | Comments (3)

Pass right

In a story titled "Weis grants little boy's dying wish," ESPN serves up a moving account that is sure to pull at your strings.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:03 AM | Comments (1)

September 27, 2005

Televising SCOTUS

Thanks to certain members of the ITA family, I was alerted to a new Senate bill aimed at televising US Supreme Court proceedings. You can read about the bill and its legal background at Indiana Barrister.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:06 PM | Comments (3)

More on the removal of church/state separation

The Washington Post reports, "FEMA Plans to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid." Religious organizations that operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers, or medical facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama can be reimbursed for expenses including "labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water."

Some of the groups will accept reimbursement, while others are refusing money to show the Christ-like nature of their work, to avoid potential entanglements, and to keep volunteer donations coming in.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:21 AM | Comments (12)

September 26, 2005

Intelligent design under trial

A Pennsylvania federal court Monday was set to consider whether school districts may teach a concept known as "intelligent design" prior to teaching biology lessons on evolution. Eight families in Dover, Pennsylvania, claim that teaching the theory in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. The "intelligent design" concept, developed by scholars over the last 15 years, sets forth the belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution cannot completely explain the origin of life, contending that an unidentified intelligent force played a role. The eight families suing the school district claim that the theory is not appropriate for the classroom (pdf) (here are ACLU case materials) because it is just a "masked" version of the Bible's story of creation. The Dover Area School District is the first known district in the nation to require teaching of the concept to ninth-graders. In a related decision in 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that states may not mandate public schools to teach creationism in order to balance evolution lessons. AP has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:29 PM | Comments (51)

Back at Home

Just a short post to let ITA readers know that I have returned safely from my hurricane relief trip to Slidell, Louisiana. You may recall that I had anticipated going to Gulfport, Mississippi. Two days before our scheduled departure, however, we were asked to travel to Slidell instead, because more volunteers were needed there.

From what I've gathered, Slidell was not as devastated as Gulfport (the latter is right on the coast), although there was still massive flooding and extensive damage to buildings. Because of Hurricane Rita, we had to leave a day earlier than expected. We rolled out of Slidell around 11 PM Thursday, just hours before tropical storm conditions hit the area.

I'll have more to write soon, and pictures to share, after I catch up on the things that accumulated during my 8 days away from work and home.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:33 PM | Comments (1)

Bush beats LBJ in spending

Now that the state of Washington has repealed Reagan's 11th commandment (see post below), they may wish to use their new found freedom on the president. Nick Gillespie reviews a new study by the American Enterprise Institute that calculates President Bush "has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ -- the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War -- only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow.... since the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush's first term) aren't in yet."

The great conservative political movement of Goldwater and Reagan was largely spawned as a response to Johnson's domestic policies. It's sad, to say the least, that our current so-called Republican president has so radically turned his back on that movement. The similarities between Johnson and Bush are striking. The two Texans have launched a large, unpopular war and skyrocketed domestic discretionary spending at a shocking rate.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:50 AM | Comments (17)

Washington Republicans Drop 11th Commandment

The Washington state GOP's 11th commandment -- Thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans -- "was repealed at a weekend meeting of the party's executive committee," the Seattle Times reports.

"The Reagan-era rule was supposed to ensure a sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules for Republicans running against each other in primary elections. A campaign attack against a fellow Republican was punishable by a $5,000 fine and the loss of any support from the party."

The party dropped the rule arguing it served more to protect incumbents than anything else. "In place of the commandment, Republicans are drafting a code of ethics they hope will keep their candidates on good behavior."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:27 AM | Comments (1)

September 25, 2005

Indiana University Leadership

Our ever-modest Mr. Musgrave hasn't yet mentioned that he has an op-ed in today's Indianapolis Star about the challenges IU President Adam Herbert must overcome in order to secure a bright future for the University. In his excellent way, Paul touches on every nuance to make a powerful case.

And a related tidbit I failed to note last week is this AP piece on faculty complaints about IU's lackluster undergraduate population. In addition to being underpaid, '"In some parts of the university, the faculty are actively disengaging from the educational enterprise because they're so frustrated with the students," said Ted Miller, a public affairs professor and president of the faculty council." I had Prof. Miller for a graduate-level statistics class, and I will attest to his sincerity. He's a brave man to make an unpopular but necessary case.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:40 PM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2005

Who knows?

In the wake of a lengthy and ongoing campaign in Iraq, many will be asking, "How much did we spend?" Unfortunately no one seems to know.

The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday.

The Defense Department has reported spending $191 billion to fight terrorism from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks through May 2005, with the annual sum ballooning from $11 billion in fiscal 2002 to a projected $71 billion in fiscal 2005. But the GAO investigation found many inaccuracies totaling billions of dollars.

"Neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing and details of how appropriated funds are being spent," the report to Congress stated.

The Washington Post article is here, and the GAO report is here (pdf).

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:31 PM | Comments (4)

Education pays costs

Typically when I cross the border from the Hoosier state into Kentucky I'm greeted with a sign that reads, "Education Pays." It's apparently one of the many Kentucky slogans. State leaders may wish to re-think that campaign in light of recent news that numerous school districts will switch to four day weeks because of budgetary constraints.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:28 PM | Comments (6)

September 22, 2005

Autumnal equinox

Today is the autumnal equinox, the moment when the sun appears to cross the celestial equator, heading southward. In the southern hemisphere, the equinox occurs at the same moment, but heralds the beginning of spring. At the equinox, the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west. In the northern hemisphere, before the autumnal equinox, the sun rises and sets more and more to the north, and afterwards, it rises and sets more and more to the south.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:54 PM | Comments (11)

Emancipation Proclamation

On this day in 1862 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in Confederate territory by January 1, 1863.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:53 PM | Comments (10)

Personal Finance Reality TV Show

Hearst Entertainment (Modern Marvels) has teamed up with Atchity Entertainment International (Joe Somebody, Life Or Something Like It) and financial author and speaker Peter Bielagus (Getting Loaded Book Series, Mastering Your Personal Finances) to develop a new Reality TV Show about real young people and the interesting money problems they face.

The show is now conducting a nationwide search for unusual, extreme, and entertaining stories about real money messes from funny, outgoing and interesting people who are starting their financial life off on the wrong foot. And, the biggest turn around story may end up winning the resources to start off on the right foot.

Offering a financial makeover to contestants with stories unusual or dramatic enough to capture America's hearts, the show is currently accepting email stories nationwide from America's young people. In addition to appearing on the show, winners can receive financial assistance to help them solve their money problems.

"We want to hear the emotions and frustrations behind your situation,? Bielagus said. "Maybe you are 22, and you have $23,000 of credit card debt. How did you get there? Did you feel you had to have certain items to fit in with a certain crowd?"

Bielagus says the show wants personal financial tales from people who range from a college student longing to buy their first real estate investment property, to a soldier just home from the war who had to put on life hold for 24 months, to someone who had to declare personal bankruptcy at 25 and is now struggling to get back on their feet.

Applicants are encouraged to send an email describing your situation and why you think you would be a good candidate for the show. "Remember," says Bielagus, "we want more than numbers, we want to hear your story: what are the emotions, frustrations and pressure that got you where you are?"

Stories can emailed to stories@brokefolk.com

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:15 PM | Comments (1)

House OKs tax relief bill for Katrina victims

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday unanimously approved H.R. 3768, providing $6 billion in temporary tax relief aimed at helping people and organizations hit by Hurricane Katrina. In particular, the legislation offers $500 tax credits for those providing temporary housing for Katrina victims and raises caps on charitable donations made to charities helping those affected by the hurricane. The bill also allows temporary withdrawals from retirement plans, ensures that tax credits for child care and debt are based on 2004 income and offers businesses tax credits for hiring victims of the hurricane. The legislation focuses on short-term relief for those affected by the disaster, with Congress expected to work on longer-term relief efforts over the coming months. The tax bill is expected to receive quick approval from the US Senate and President Bush. A major issue of contention in Congress remains how the government should finance the recovery for the Gulf region that is expected to cost in the billions. Democrats and Republicans have jousted over whether to cut existing programs, increase the deficit or raise taxes to cover the costs. Reuters has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:35 AM | Comments (4)

September 21, 2005

Global warming on Mars

So reads the headline in this NASA article.

Update: The headline has since changed, but the story remains the same.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:54 PM | Comments (4)

Online Freedom of Speech Act

ITA friend Mike Krempasky will be representing RedState by testifying before the Committee on House Administration tomorrow about the Online Freedom of Speech Act, also known as the first Congressional step in protecting bloggers and political speech. You can read his testimony here.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2005

Right to privacy?

In a Sunday New York Times op/ed, Princeton University law professor and conservative pundit Robert George questions the Supreme Court's justification for finding a "so-called right to privacy" in the Constitution based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

"On what constitutional basis can we say that abortion is protected by "due process" but a right to assisted suicide - unanimously rejected by the court in 1997 - is not? Why is sodomy protected and prostitution unprotected? Why does the right to privacy not extend to polygamy or the use of recreational drugs?"

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:45 PM | Comments (6)

The FBI takes on porn

The FBI is gearing up to crack down on consensual adult pornography. The agents, though, are not overly enthusiastic about the task:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:42 PM | Comments (12)

September 19, 2005

Election commission recommends overhaul of US election system

The private Commission on Federal Election Reform, a 21-member bipartisan panel headed by former US President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, recommended Monday that widespread changes be made to the federal electoral process to ensure fairness and accuracy. The Commission, which spent five months studying the most pressing problems with the nation's electoral system, issued 87 recommendations (pdf) (here's the full text in pdf) and urged Congress to enact the changes if political parties don't change the system by 2008. The Commission's recommendations include requiring a paper trail for electronic voting machines, requiring photo ID at the polls, a reorganization of the presidential primary system, unrestricted access for all "legitimate domestic and international election observers" and prohibiting senior election officials from serving political campaigns in a partisan way. According to Commission Executive Director Robert Pastor, "Many of the recommendations build on the Help America Vote Act, while correcting its vagueness and limitations." The Help America Vote Act was passed by Congress in 2002 with the intention of helping states update voting systems, streamline voter registration and provide voter and poll worker education. The Los Angeles Times has more. American University's Center for Democracy & Election Management has additional resources.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:55 AM | Comments (16)

Support our sponsors

• Find out how sweatshops fight poverty, why Prince Charles is right to promote organic farming in Britain, and why outsourcing is good for jobs. Enter the world of the Globalization Institute - Europe's global think tank.

• Six months ago, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan put forth an ambitious and comprehensive agenda to make the UN more effective and accountable through the 2005 World Summit from September 14-16. After many hours of negotiations, the summit declaration, or 'outcome document,' is something worth exploring.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:43 AM | Comments (6)

Limits of Blog Power

ITA friend Peter Daou, a political consultant who headed online rapid response and blog outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, has posted an extended piece on Salon's Daou Report exploring the scope of blog influence. Here's an excerpt:

My challenge [at the Kerry campaign] was to bring the energy, ideas, and attitude of the netroots into the heart of the campaign, and provide tools, information and support to the online community. I ran into two big obstacles, one of which was the tremendous amount of money being raised online.... The second obstacle, and the more serious one, was the unwillingness of Democratic strategists to heed BC04 campaign manager Ken Mehlman's prediction that the party that dominated the Internet would win the election. I had faith in the collective wisdom of the netroots - I believed that if the Kerry campaign truly internalized the confrontational disposition of the netroots, Kerry would win, just as I knew that if Bush channeled the fire of the rightwing blogs, Kerry could lose. And I made my case as forcefully as I could. Many in the campaign understood the new political reality, including John Kerry himself, who was very attentive to what bloggers were saying. But the natural antagonism of the old guard toward the new was an institutional problem and the marginalization of the netroots as a communications force, as well as the hyper-focus on Internet fundraising, hindered the online-offline alliance.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:37 AM | Comments (2)

September 18, 2005

John Roberts, Abstraction and Broad Principles

I had lunch on Saturday with my friend Dan Ray, a con law teacher, and we had an interesting discussion about John Roberts and the issue of the level of abstraction at which you view a given claim when it comes before the court. This was an issue during his confirmation hearings, though I'm sure a lot of people missed the significance of it. Sen. Biden questioned Roberts about this issue and the exchange went as follows:

BIDEN: I asked Justice Ginsburg a question about . . . the Michael H. [v. Gerald D.] case. . . . You and I both know how you determine history and tradition determines outcomes. In that case, [the] question [was] whether . . . the natural father [had visitation rights when the child] happened to be born to a woman that was living with her married husband. . . . Scalia said . . . you go back and look at the specific historical precedent. . . . Have bastards ever been protected in the law? And Brennan . . . said, . . . you go back and look at fatherhood. Was fatherhood . . . part of the traditions and part of the embraced notions of what we hold dear? . . . So, Judge, . . . do you look at the narrowest reading of whether or not such an asserted right has ever been protected? Or do you look at it more broadly? What is the methodology you use?

ROBERTS: . . . I think you're quite right that . . . quite often the critical question in these cases [is] the degree of generality at which you define . . . the tradition, the history and the practice you are looking at.

The example I think that I've always found easiest to grasp was Loving against Virginia. Do you look at the history of miscegenation statutes or do you look at the history of marriage? . . .

The point is that, again, the court has precedents on precisely that question, about how you should phrase the level of generality.

ROBERTS: And you look at...

BIDEN: But which precedent do you agree with? There are competing precedents.

ROBERTS: Well, you do not look at the level of generality that is the issue that's being challenged.

So, for example, in Loving v. Virginia, if the challenge is -- it seems to me, this is what the court's precedents say: If the challenge is to miscegenation statutes, that's not the level of generality, because you're going to answer -- it's completely [circular]. . . . And I'm saying you do not look at it at the narrowest level of generality, which is the statute that's being challenged because, obviously, that's completely circular. . . . [O]bviously, that statute[,] that's part of the history. So you look at it at a broader level of generality.

Let me explain what they meant here by levels of abstraction. In any particular court case, you can state the issue in a number of different ways at different levels of generality or specificity. The textbook example of this is Bowers v Hardwick, the 1986 case which upheld a Georgia law that outlawed sodomy (this case was overturned in 2003's Lawrence decision). The majority opinion, written by Justice Byron White, states the issue at the most specific possible level - is there a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy? They analyzed that question by looking at the history of anti-sodomy statutes and said:

Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote a concurring opinion to "underscore my view that in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy." But is this the question put before them? One can easily state it more broadly. Indeed, Justice Blackmun did exactly that in his dissent, which began with this blunt (and, I would argue, entirely accurate) statement:

This case is no more about "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," as the Court purports to declare, ante, at 191, than Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was about a fundamental right to place interstate bets from a telephone booth. Rather, this case is about "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men," namely, "the right to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Obviously, Justice Blackmun and the dissenters on the court viewed the question more broadly than those in the majority. For them, the case was not about a "right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but a more general right to make personal decisions about conduct between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes free from the threat of government interference. And as both Sen. Biden and Judge Roberts said, deciding which level of abstraction one is going to use when viewing the issue at hand can be the key to determining the outcome of the case. And the Supreme Court proved this in 2003 when they reversed Bowers and overturned all state sodomy laws and did so by directly opposing the narrow level of abstraction used in that case:

The Bowers Courts initial substantive statement - "The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . . . ," 478 U. S., at 190 - discloses the Courts failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

As someone who strongly favors an expansive reading - even more expansive than the Lawrence decision allows - of the Bill of Rights, the fact that Judge Roberts explicitly said that you cannot view a case at its most narrow level of abstraction suggests that he is not a conservative in the Bork/Scalia mold. And there is another issue that came up which further suggests the same thing. In addition to the question of the level of generality at which one views the issue in a case, there is also the question of how you broadly you read and apply the principles stated in the Constitution. This is also a question of abstraction, of course. This question is important because there are many circumstances in which the men who wrote the Constitution, or later amendments, announced broad principles that they did not themselves apply consistently. For instance, the obvious contradiction between announcing that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and simultaneously owning slaves. So when a court looks at the question of weighing historical precedents, do they apply the broad principles announced or do they only apply the principle as far as the framers themselves would have applied them? Sen. Specter questioned Roberts on this question:

SPECTER: Dissenting in Poe v. Ullman, Justice John Marshall Harlan made one of the famous statements on th[e] issue [of a living constitution], saying that . . .“The traditions from which it [liberty] is developed, . . . that tradition is a living thing. And my question to you is: Do you regard the evolution of various interpretations on liberty as a living thing as Justice Harlan did and as Justice Rehnquist appeared to on the Miranda issue?

ROBERTS: Well, I think the framers, when they used broad language like liberty, like due process, like unreasonable with respect to search and seizures, they were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way down the ages. As they said in the preamble, it was designed to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity.

They intended it to apply to changing conditions. And I think that, in that sense, it is a concept that is alive in the sense that it applies -- and they intended it to apply, in a particular way, but they intended it to apply -- down through the ages.

SPECTER: Well, when you talk about intent, I think that's a pretty tough interpretation. When the equal protection clause was passed by the Senate in 1868, the Senate galleries were segregated: blacks on one side, whites on the other. So that couldn't have been their intent.

And the interpretation which occurs later really is captured by Justice Cardozo in the case of Palko v. Connecticut, a case which impressed me enormously back in the law school days.

When talking about the constitutional evolution, he referred to it as expressing values which are, quote, the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, close quote, quote, principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.

Would you agree with the Cardozo statement of jurisprudence which I just quoted?

ROBERTS: Well, the general approach of recognizing the values that inform the interpretation of the Constitution -- it applies to modern times. But, just to take the example that you gave of the equal protection clause, the framers chose broad terms, a broad applicability, and they state a broad principle.

And the fact that it may have been inconsistent with their practice may have meant that they were adopting a broad principle that was inconsistent with their practice, and their practices would have to change -- as they did -- with respect to segregation in the Senate galleries, with respect to segregation in other areas.

But when they adopt broad terms and broad principles, we should hold them to their word and imply them consistent with those terms and those principles.

And that means, when they've adopted principles like liberty, that doesn't get a crabbed or narrow construction. It is a broad principle that should be applied consistent with their intent, which was to adopt a broad principle.

Ignore for now the fact that Specter says this reading is consistent with the notion of a "living constitution". It does not necessarily mean this, of course. The question of applying broad principles rather than the narrow application or compromises of those principles that the men who wrote them may have engaged in need not imply "living constitutionalism". It is also quite consistent with what Gerber, Barnett and Sandefur, among others, have called "liberal originalism" (liberal in the classical sense, not the modern political sense). But this is something that many conservative originalists (or alleged originalists, which is what I contend Justice Scalia is) rejects entirely. This again suggests that Judge Roberts is not a conservative in the Bork/Scalia mold. When combined with his endorsement of substantive due process, another judicial concept that looks to the broad principles of natural rights and political liberty inherent in the nation's founding, I think these two things both give me confidence that Judge Roberts will be, from my perspective, the right kind of conservative. Indeed, it sounds to me like Roberts tends to be more a classical liberal originalist than a Bork type of originalist. And that, in my view, is a very good thing.

Posted by at 08:24 PM | Comments (2)

September 17, 2005

Contradiction?

President Bush on Friday said he was committed to a massive recovery effort in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and would fund the efforts through budget cuts. "It's going to cost money, and I'm confident we can handle it," the president said during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the White House. "We're going to make sure we cut unnecessary spending, maintain economic growth and therefore, we should not raise taxes."

Yet earlier this week Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) declared a "victory" in the war on budget fat. "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," he said. When asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:41 AM | Comments (11)

September 16, 2005

On a Mission From God

This will probably be my last post here at ITA for the next 11 days. This evening, I'm headed to Indiana for my 10-year high school reunion. But more importantly, six hours after I return to the Philadelphia area I'll be leaving in a caravan of 17 people from my church headed to Gulfport, Mississippi to help with hurricane relief efforts.

We'll be partnering with an organization called Convoy of Hope, which has delivered 220 truckloads of ice, water, and food to the disaster area over the last couple weeks. As you can imagine, there's not much in the way of restaurants and hotels operating in Gulfport, so we are going as a completely self-contained endeavor. We have a 35-foot motor home and a 20-foot camping trailer that were lent to us, and we'll be bringing a few tents for extra room.

I look forward to reporting the results of this trip on ITA after I get back. Your prayers for our team--and all the other thousands of relief workers on the gulf coast--are appreciated.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:35 AM | Comments (8)

September 15, 2005

Gays in the Military

Jason Kuznicki has an excellent post up at Positive Liberty about a contradiction in the military's handling of gay soldiers. On the one hand, they adamantly claim that allowing gays to serve in the military undermines morale and unit cohesion (the same exact arguments they made 60 years ago against allowing blacks to serve in "white" units, incidentally), but on the other hand when wartime comes around they suddenly stop discharging those who admit to being gay. The military has long denied that they have such a double standard, but a 1999 Unit Commander's Handbook has been uncovered that contains explicit instructions that if a unit has received its orders for mobilization, no request for discharge is to be honored. And as Jason notes, other nations, including Britain and Israel, have long allowed gay soldiers to serve without a problem. It's time to end this discrimination. Gay soldiers can serve their country just as bravely as straight ones.

Posted by at 01:21 PM | Comments (13)

Pledge litigation returns

Yesterday a U.S district court rejected a motion to dismiss Michael Newdow's recent case seeking to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Judge Lawrence Karlton's ruling is now available online via FindLaw. The judge granted legal standing to two families represented by Michael Newdow. Newdow is an atheist who unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge last year before the US Supreme Court, which dismissed his suit for lack of standing without passing on the merits of the constitutionality issue. The Supreme Court held the divorced Newdow could not sue on behalf of his daughter because he did not have sufficient custody to qualify as her legal representative.

This Reuters story on today's order is headlined, "Court says flag pledge violates U.S. Constitution." The Los Angeles Times reports, "Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Ruled Unconstitutional." Michael Newdow's website offers materials on the latest case, including the amended complaint (pdf).

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:13 AM | Comments (6)

Wal-Mart's poor detractors

Wal Mart's detractors carry plenty of irony:

The United Food and Commercial Workers wants to call public attention to the crying scandal of a Wal-Mart grocery in Henderson, Nevada's starting workers at $6.75 an hour. So what does it do? It hires temp workers at $6/hour with no benefits to walk a picket line in 104-degree heat in front of the air-conditioned store. Picketer Sal Rivera, as it happens, used to work at Wal-Mart, where he made $8.63 an hour, a good deal above what the union paid him to picket; he'd consider re-applying.

Via Walter Olson at PointofLaw.com, who in turn found the story via Las Vegas Weekly.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:10 AM | Comments (16)

September 14, 2005

The System is Broken

By now, it's quite obvious that President Bush has some 'splaining to do about his appointment of Michael Brown as FEMA director. And while the primary responsibility for filling that spot with a competent person rests with the President, did the Senate fulfill its Constitutional role to provide advice and consent on the appointment?

Brown's confirmation hearing lasted 42 minutes. Chief Justice nominee John Roberts' hearing is now in its second day. Does this reflect the real difference in importance between the two jobs, or only the perceived political importance? While Roberts decisions over the next 20-30 years will certainly impact the nation, his actions will never directly impact people's survival and livelihoods as greatly as the FEMA director's actions can.

Time magazine was able to uncover discrepancies in Brown's career record without much of a problem. If Senate Republicans had cared enough to uncover this information, they at least could have quietly told the President he should find another nominee. If Senate Democrats had cared, they would have finally found a substantive reason to oppose a Bush nominee. But no one cared. As important as everyone now agrees the position is, the Senate apparently viewed it as a political appointment unworthy of their attention. It's the politics, stupid.

Update: edited 2nd paragraph for clarity

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:54 PM | Comments (14)

September 13, 2005

A Worthy Cause... Get Fuzzy Coming to Indianapolis?

The Indianapolis Star is considering adding a strip or two to its already massive comic strip roster, and ITA favorite Get Fuzzy is among the nominees. Show your support.

Posted by Adam Packer at 11:44 PM | Comments (4)

Interesting Exchange in Roberts Hearings

I just watched this fascinating exchange between Arlen Specter and John Roberts in the hearings. I don't have an actual transcript, however, so this is paraphrased. Specter began by asking Roberts if he recognized that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, noting a 1981 memo that Roberts wrote to the then-Attorney General where he referred to the "so-called" right to privacy as an "amorphous right" that was not found in the Constitution. Roberts gave, in my view, an excellent answer.

Roberts said that this memo was in reference to a speech given by a law school dean who did take the position that the right to privacy does not exist, but that he himself does believe in a right to privacy. He then used the very same reasoning that Justice Douglas did in Griswold, pointing to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights that protect various aspects of privacy as evidence that the more general right to privacy did deserve protection. He didn't use the phrase "penumbral reasoning", but that is what he used. He then went even further and noted that the Supreme Court had long recognized a right to privacy in the due process clause and he appeared to endorse the notion of substantive due process. Score big points for Roberts, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, Specter then went on to point to the Dickerson case, where Rehnquist, who was opposed to the Miranda decision when it was handed down in the 60s, voted to uphold the Miranda ruling because Miranda warnings had become so ingrained in routine police procedure that it was now a part of our culture and should not be done away with as a result. Specter than asked Roberts if he thought this was analogous to the ruling in Roe v Wade, that even though one might be opposed to the logic of the decision, was it so ingrained in our culture after 32 years that it should be maintained even if one was opposed to it initially.

Roberts correctly said that he wouldn't answer a question about the specific application of a legal principle to a specific case, but he did not that this kind of reasoning is one of many tools at the disposal of a judge. He also noted that the court had already used that sort of reasoning when it came to abortion in Casey. Essentially, Specter, who is pro-choice, wanted Roberts to take a position that Roe was sacrosanct because it was now 32 years old and "ingrained in the culture" and Roberts wouldn't bite. I don't blame him.

The real answer to the question goes deeper than that, of course. I've gone on record as being opposed to general application of stare decisis, and this is why: would anyone today take the position, for example, that Plessy was "ingrained in the culture" and therefore should not have been overturned? By any measure, Plessy was far more ingrained than Roe is today. It had stood as precedent for twice as long as Roe and laws throughout the South were modeled on it. Segregation was far more a normal and unquestioned part of American culture in 1954 than abortion is today. The overturning of Plessy was virtually a revolutionary act.

So the problem with seeking a commitment to stare decisis in particular situations is that no one believes in stare decisis in regard to decisions that they strongly oppose. No sane person thinks that slavery should have been upheld merely because it was traditional and deeply ingrained as a cultural norm. Everyone thinks that deeply flawed decisions should be overturned. So reference to stare decisis as a general reason not to overturn a precedent just don't hold any water without reference to whether that precedent is constitutionally dubious or not.

It was an interesting exchange, both for what was said and what was not said. I was very much relieved to hear that Roberts accepts the notion of substantive due process, however. That is something that the Bork/Scalia wing of conservative judicial theory rejects entirely.

Posted by at 01:32 PM | Comments (10)

Sigh

The Israeli Haaretz reports the following:

Advisers appointed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair are proposing that Britain get rid of Holocaust Memorial Day because Muslims find it offensive, the British Sunday Times reported.

The draft proposals - which provoked a backlash from British Jewish leaders - want to replace Holocaust Memorial Day with a Genocide Day that would include recognition of Muslim deaths in the West Bank and Gaza, Chechnya and Bosnia, the Times said.

A Home Office spokesman said it would consider the proposals but said it regarded the Holocaust as a "defining tragedy in European history," according to the report.

"The very name Holocaust Memorial Day sounds too exclusive to many young Muslims," a member of one of the committees was quoted as saying. "It sends out the wrong signals: that the lives of one people are to be remembered more than others. It's a grievance that extremists are able to exploit."

Given that Hitler's Mein Kampff is still quite popular in a number of Muslim countries, perhaps it's time for the British to stop celebrating WWII as well? They might be offending their former foes.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:40 AM | Comments (5)

September 12, 2005

Breaking News

Major power outage in Los Angeles. Thousands of homes and businesses are without electricity. Traffic jams (worse than usual). Police declare state of emergency. Where is President Bush??

Update: Millions, rather than thousands, were affected. Thankfully, power was restored to 90% of those after about 90 minutes. Although authorities have blamed the incident on a utility worker's mistake, the Los Angeles Times' editorial board reportedly is still looking for a way to blame the blackout on the Bush Administration (or, failing that, to prove that the outage disproportionately affected minorities, then display righteous indignation).

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:38 PM | Comments (26)

Court Watch

The US Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its confirmation hearings today for John Roberts. The hearings will mark the first US Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 11 years since former President Bill Clinton's successful nomination of Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. If the nomination is successful, Roberts will begin work when the Court's new term commences on October 3. Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said that Roberts should be prepared for questions on several hot topics, including his views on the precedential effects of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the panel's highest ranking Democrat, has joined calls for increased scrutiny of the nomination, noting that the hearing "is the only opportunity for the American people to examine what kind of justice John Roberts will dispense if promoted to the Supreme Court." Reuters has more. Monday's hearing begins at 12 Noon ET; the Judiciary Committee offers a live webcast on its website.

Meanwhile Robert Novak reports that President Bush "met secretly" with Judge Priscilla Owen last week. Novak also mentions Edith Jones (5th Circuit), Karen Williams (4th Circuit), and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan as conservative women who may be under consideration to fill Justice O'Connor seat. Novak attributes the report about Judge Owen to "White House sources;" it isn't clear whether these additional names came from the White House or not. As Novak notes, Judge Jones is relatively old for the nomination at 56. Novak says that Edith Clement, reportedly the runner-up to John Roberts in the last go-round, didn't impress President Bush in her interview with him and is now out of the picture.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:03 PM | Comments (7)

September 11, 2005

Wal-Mart to the rescue

Here's a list of just some of the many things Wal-Mart has done in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, in addition to refraining from prosecuting the numerous looters of its stores:

• 150 Internet-ready computers delivered or on the way to shelters to help evacuess and families find each other via the Wal-Mart and Red Cross web sites.

• Shipments of beds were delivered to the Houston Astrodome.

• Wal-Mart donated two trailers full of water and basic necessities to the New Orleans police force.

• Emergency Prescriptions Filled Free for Evacuees With No Money: Evacuees with emergency medicine needs and no money may go to any Wal-Mart pharmacy to have their prescriptions filled free of charge, even if they do not have a copy of their prescription. People who have been displaced and are temporarily residing in other areas may receive a seven-day supply of free medication. Nurses and doctors who have authority to write prescriptions and are treating patients in special needs shelters as part of the recovery effort can send their patients' prescriptions to Wal-Mart stores to be filled. Pharmacists are also prepared to handle situations where people do not have their prescriptions with them.

• Wal-Mart also will offer free check cashing in about 126 stores in the hurricane disaster area for an initial two-week period. This includes government, payroll and insurance checks and computer-generated checks. Proper identification will be required.

• Wal-Mart continues to send trailers of needed product to the area.

• The Emergency Contact Service has been created in our stores and on the internet to allow Wal-Mart associates and customers to post messages regarding their well-being on our websites.

• Stores in affected areas are accepting vouchers from the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and FEMA.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:17 PM | Comments (15)

The poll numbers

President Bush's "overall approval rating has dropped to 42%, his lowest mark since taking office," according to a Time magazine poll. "And while 36% of respondents said they were satisfied with Bush's explanation of why the government was not able to provide relief to hurricane victims sooner, 57% said they were dissatisfied."

More findings: "Six in ten Americans (61%) surveyed think the U.S. should cut back on spending in Iraq to help pay the immense bill for the rebuilding of the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina... A majority (58%) favors the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to help with the recovery efforts."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:43 AM | Comments (19)

September 10, 2005

IU Football

There comes a time when an organization must ask itself not "Could we do our job better?" but "Should we be doing our job at all?" IU football has reached that point. The Hoosiers today defeated Nicholls State (enrollment: 7500), a Divison I-AA team ranked only 21st in its cohort, by only 35 to 31. One touchdown more by the Louisiana team (whose home campus has been disrupted by Katrina and its aftermath) and the Hoosiers would have lost. At this rate, next year Harvard will schedule IU for homecoming.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 09:22 PM | Comments (3)

Saturday Night's Alright For Blogging

What else would I be doing on a Saturday night?

Apropos of what other people are doing, I offer this days-old link on seduction from Tyler Cowen of the must-read Marginal Revolution. (If you can't trust an economist to improve your game, who can you trust?) Cowen's point is that those who think that a strategy of playing hard-to-get will lead to success in the meat dating market are right, but only up to a point, Lord Nash. (ITA's own Josh Claybourn has argued the game-theoretic properties of dating before.) Cowen notes that being hard-to-get can't succeed in isolation; it isn't a dominating strategy, in other words, but rather one that works only when the environment is right.
And so the post-modernists are proven right: You can't build a theory of anything useful from first principles.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:55 PM | Comments (1)

Agreeing with the Worldnetdaily

Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, right? Here's one I fully agree with the Worldnetdaily on. A Canadian minister named Stephen Boissoin has been brought up on charges before the Human Rights Commission of Alberta, his home province, because he submitted a letter to a newspaper condemning homosexuality. A professor from the University of Calgary, Darrell Lund, filed the charges and is demanding that Boissoin be fined (he could be fined as much as $7000) and be forced to apologize. This is nothing short of outrageous.

Boissoin is wrong, dead wrong, in his opinions about homosexuals. But that is irrelevant. The notion that having someone else disapprove of you or think you are immoral violates your human rights is patently absurd. The only one whose human rights have been violated in this situation is Mr. Boissoin, who has a right to speak his mind and state his position regardless of how offensive it might be to me or anyone else. The proper response to offensive speech is not to use the power of government to punish that speech, but to use one's own voice to condemn him and prove him wrong.

The fact that the charges were brought by a university professor, of all people, makes the situation all the more absurd. I doubt that Lund would so easily submit his own academic freedom to government coercion. If he is allowed to teach things that others believe to be offensive, then others are allowed to say things that he may find offensive. This is a crucial difference between the Canadian and American systems of law and one where the American system is clearly better. That principle was stated perfectly by Justice Robert Jackson in Barnette:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act.

Canadians may fool themselves into thinking that by allowing the government to punish offensive speech they are improving their society, but the reality is that they are simply building oppression into their way of life. The government that can punish speech that I find offensive can as easily punish my speech because others find it offensive (and they often do). The rights of all are far less secure when the rights of any are abridged.

All the more sad, then, that some Canadians are actually applauding this tyranny:

Human rights law is so crucial to Canadian society that its proceedings are not required to operate under traditional rules of evidence -- so obviously the people who enforce and adjudicate it are no fools. Did Boissoin think his violation would go unnoticed and unpunished? If so, what an insult to the commission and to the citizens who serve as its eyes and ears...

In a democratic society we have ways of gradually modifying and augmenting legislation that we don't like so that it favours our own interests more equitably. But instead of voting for the candidate that wishes to implement his views, Boissoin had to write his letter, raising the black flag of anarchy over himself and his church.

The black flag of anarchy? For speaking one's mind and not allowing the government to prescribe what he may or may not say? I'll take ridiculous hyperbole for 1000 Canadian dollars, Alex.

Posted by at 08:40 PM | Comments (33)

Republicans Demand Accountability

While the White House scrambles like mad to cover its butt and avoid any and all questions about what went wrong in the response to Katrina, at least some Republicans are breaking the party line talking points and saying what is obviously true, that the response at the Federal level was appalling and heads need to roll. Robert Novak has this column about those reactions. He writes:

Democrats have seized on the administration's performance in handling Katrina to bash George W. Bush, but Republicans are not much happier with him. The common complaint is that the President has let the lawyers take over. Chertoff, a former federal judge and assistant attorney general, is a quintessential lawyer who has surrounded himself at Homeland Security with more lawyers. Michael D. Brown, who as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is Chertoff's subordinate, is also a lawyer. Neither Chertoff nor Brown was experienced in politics or large-scale management before joining the Bush administration.

Chertoff's inexperience was shown when he said "I've got this down" into an open microphone, thinking he was safe because the cameras were off and not realizing his words were transmitted via satellite. He clearly saw himself as an advocate tailoring what he said to a lawyer's brief.

Political deafness mixed with lawyerly evasion was shown on "Meet the Press" when Chertoff claimed the breaking of the New Orleans levees "really caught everybody by surprise." Russert cited repeated forecasts of this disaster by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, but Chertoff insisted he did not say what he had just said.

Russert gave Chertoff a good going over, but that performance did not provoke Republican complaints (except for the usual grousing from White House aides). When Republican House members participated in a telephone conference call Sept. 1, the air was blue with complaints about the handling of Katrina. There was much hand-wringing about Republican prospects in the 2006 elections. Politics aside, however, the GOP lawmakers were unhappy with their administration's performance...

Criticism of FEMA was even voiced at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, of all places. While all other Cabinet members were silent, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson blew the whistle. He said HUD's readiness to send emergency housing to New Orleans was thwarted by FEMA's red tape.

Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut is more liberal than nearly all his fellow Republicans, but he has tried to be a Bush loyalist. He is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and chairs the national security subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. Consequently, it is noteworthy when he accuses the administration of "a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me."

Shays is on the money here. This juvenile blather about the "blame game" is a ridiculous talking point designed solely to get the heat off the administration. And it is symptomatic of a disease that has afflicted our government for a long time, regardless of what party is in charge. The politicians expend infinitely more effort engaging in PR campaigns to convince people that they're doing a good job, or didn't screw anything up, than they expend on actually doing a good job and trying not to screw things up. It's not just that we have lawyers running everything, it's also that we have an army of PR flaks behind them and the whole system is geared to sell an image of competence and engagement rather than create an actual reality that would mitigate the need to sell such an image. They view the task of government as that of a movie director, creating a pleasing fiction for an audience.

Posted by at 12:22 PM | Comments (1)

September 09, 2005

Jane Galt on Myth Busting

Jane Galt begins a recent post this way:

Hurricane Katrina seems to have triggered a lot of deep revelations to everyone. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these deep revelations consisted of . . . reaffirming exactly what they had previously believed. A certain stripe of conservative has learned that poor people are animals who can't be trusted to behave. Passionate Democrats have learned that the main responsibility for disaster planning rests with President Bush, who should be impeached. And European leftists have apparently learned, to their vast dismay, that America is a cruel and gluttonous place, building our so-called economy on cheap oil and the shattered lives of workingmen, whom we kill when they become inconvenient.

She begins to bust several myths and it all makes for an interesting post.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:56 PM | Comments (14)

Posse Comitatus Act relaxation considered

Lawmakers are reportedly considering relaxation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (Here is the text of 18 US Code s. 1385), which generally prohibits federal soldiers or National Guard troops under federal control from operating in a law enforcement capacity on US soil. Approximately 19,000 active-duty soldiers and 45,000 National Guard soldiers - the latter currently under the control of Louisiana Governor Katheleen Blanco - are now involved in relief efforts. Military and civic officials have thusfar tried to portray their involvement in recovery work and even the National Guard's law enforcement role does not amount to any sort of martial law.

Gen. Peter Pace, expected to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later this year, has called for Posse Comitatus to be reconsidered in response to suggestions that it slowed down deployment of troops, but has not specifically endorsed a relaxation. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has questioned restrictions under the law since the September 11th attacks, and has promised to do so again. Earlier this summer, new Department of Defense contingency plans for response to terrorist attacks also raised questions about the act and domestic deployment of federal troops. Legal scholars, however, have questioned any relaxation of the statute, noting that in earlier disasters "Congress and the public have seen the military as a panacea for domestic problems", and "minor exceptions to the PCA can quickly expand to become major exceptions" (75 Washington University Law Quarterly 953).

The Rand Corporation offers an overview of the Posse Comitatus Act (pdf), LLRX offers a print-oriented resource guide, and the conservative Cato Institute hosted a debate (video) on the Act's current applicability in 2002. Reuters has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:55 PM | Comments (7)

FEMA chief under fire

Time magazine asks, "How Reliable Is Brown's Resume?" The magazine's investigation reveals several discrepancies in the FEMA Director's resume, a few of which appear to be outright fabrications.

Update: Paul rightly notes that senior government officials are supposed to be cleared and scrubbed by the FBI before attaining office. How did Brown slip through? Paul also references this GAO report on federal employees with degrees from diploma mills. "Diploma mills" can be defined as nontraditional, unaccredited, postsecondary schools that offer degrees for a relatively low flat fee, promote the award of academic credits based on life experience, and do not require any classroom instruction. Here is an easy to read testimony by a GAO managing director on the report.

Update 2: FEMA Director Michael Brown has been relieved of Katrina relief duties.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:35 AM | Comments (8)

"Outing" Their Opponents

From Jason Kuznicki, I found this story about a gay activist couple--Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang--who have created a web site that will post the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. (If the petition gains 65,825 signatures, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will appear on the 2008 ballot.)

Under Massachusetts law, the petition signatures are a matter of public record. Needless to say, however, petition supporters are crying foul and alleging intimidation. It's one thing for a person to be able to make a trip to the Secretary of State's office and view the petition. It's another to collect the names and addresses and post them on a web site geared toward those who oppose the petition. I happen to have personal experience with the kind of harassment a person can cause armed with only your name and address (for details on that, read the extended post).

There is a slight precedent for what Westerhoff and Lang are doing. In 1997, a web site called the "Nuremberg Files" was created, which listed the names, addresses, photos and/or criminal and civil suit records of abortionists. Just as the stated purpose of Westerhoff and Lang's web site is to provide publicly-available information and "promote discourse," the stated purpose of the Nuremberg Files was to compile "factual information" to be used in a future trial of abortionists for their "crimes against humanity." Nevertheless, courts interpreted the Nuremberg Files as a threat against abortionists. Although I have no reason to believe Westerhoff and Lang wish physical harm to petition signers, Lang was quoted by the Boston Herald saying of the signers, "I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses"--clearly signalling a desire to punish petition signers economically. And surely Mr. Lang knows there are individuals out there who would use this information for purposes of harassment.

It's worth noting that Westerhoff and Lang have gone to lengths to keep their address private. The contact address on the web site is a PO box, and if you try a WHOIS lookup, you'll find that they registered the domain name using a proxy service. However, I have managed to find their address. If you'd like to write them a polite letter telling them what you think of their plan, you can contact them at:

Alexander Westerhoff & Thomas Lang
3 Colburn Rd.
Manchester, MA 01944-1201

Update: This is interesting. The photo that appears on this page also appears in several places on the anti-petition web site, with different text on the sign the couple is holding.

Here's what happened to me a few years ago: When I was a columnist at the Indiana Daily Student I wrote a column criticizing an argument often used to justify gay marriage--"you can't legislate morality." A week later, a vaguely threatening post card referring to my column was sent to me at the IDS. Although I was inclined to dismiss it, my editor insisted I report it to the campus police. Shortly after that, I began receiving magazine subscriptions I never requested, followed by bills for those magazines. Obviously, the post card sender was putting my name and address on magazine subscription cards and sending them in. This continued for nearly a year, and at least one of the magazines referred me to a collection agency before I was able to convince them the subscription request had been fraudulent.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:54 AM | Comments (9)

September 08, 2005

The Era of Small Government Over?

As I was doing my daily chores today, thinking of the backlash toward the government's perceived inaction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I wondered about the effect it would have on the nation's view of the proper role of government.

It seems I was not alone in those musings. "The era of small government is over. Sept. 11 challenged it. Katrina killed it." So writes David Wessel in the Wall Street Journal today. His column concludes:

The horror of New Orleans, the photos of Americans on rooftops waving "Help Us" signs, the squalor of the Louisiana Superdome and the convention center, the failure to heed well-publicized warnings about the inadequacy of the levees -- all are provoking loud attacks on local, state and federal governments. But those aren't cries for less government. Government spending over the next five years will be bigger, perhaps significantly bigger, because of Katrina and its aftereffects.

That poses a formidable challenge to the president and Congress. Today's combination of small-government tax rates and big-government spending plans is pleasant and popular. It isn't sustainable.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:07 PM | Comments (11)

Gov. Greed

The Washington Post contains a must-read article explaining the problem with Corps of Engineers spending in Louisiana was not a lack of funding (Louisiana receives more than any other state), but an intentional direction by Louisiana politicians to use such funds for pork barrel projects that would provide immediate political benefits. The article suggests that the Corps of Engineers exists almost entirely to fund pork barrel projects.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:13 PM | Comments (4)

September 07, 2005

Was New Orleans Already Dying?

Cities do not die, though they may be killed; but a great city can decline so much that it becomes unrecognizable. Venice today is a shadow of its former self; Philadelphia is nowhere as important to the United States as it once was; and Rome, though more populous than it was under the Caesars, is no longer an imperial city. Economic, political, and environmental changes can all reduce a city. New Orleans has fallen victim to all three in the past century.

The acerbic Jack Shafer in Slate writes of the many failings of New Orleans's government, failings that have been starkly exposed by the storm and the astoundingly incompetent and alternately corrupt municipal government left to manage the hurricane's aftermath. The city's solons were as clueless and as sordid before the levees burst as they proved apres le deluge. But a city may be blessed with a good government and still decline, because cities are economic institutions before anything. Though the cities of one era may be foci of consumption and those of the next loci of production, cities cannot exist except in certain economic contexts, and they cannot thrive unless they exist in favorable economic climates.

As the steady degradation of the wetlands around New Orleans and Lousiana's coastal areas left the city vulnerable to last week's catastrophe, so has a century of economic decline--relative and absolute--left its population particularly at risk to disasters. Shafer's basic argument, that the city had failed at providing the minimal amount of opportunity for its citizens to succeed, is at once a reflection and a cause of New Orleans' long slide. And his conclusion--that the government should not rebuild New Orleans as it was before the flood--is one that makes sound economic sense.

Some time ago, ITA discussed a theory of urban decline that relied on models of durable housing stock to explain why negative productivity shocks to an urban economy did not result in sudden severe drops in population but instead led to long periods of stagnation and steady contraction. New Orleans has apparently been caught in the Glaesner trap, with a low-productivity workforce able only to support itself but not to underwrite population growth and new housing construction, for a long time. That the city has continued to boast a sizeable population is not proof of the city's extraordinary ability to generate loyalty in the hearts of its citizens. More likely, it is simply a reflection of the inability of workers with the lowest productivity to leave their city.

They have now left. Why should they return? Being low-productivity, they do not possess the wage earnings to rebuild their housing stock; indeed, being low-wage, most of them are renters, and it is unlikely that many of their landlords will choose to use their insurance payments to rebuild. And being low-productivity, poorly educated, and unskilled, even if they returned, they would be unable to generate a dynamic economy able to sustain a thriving New New Orleans.

It is likely that many of the displaced will choose to remain where they have been evacuated to, or to find other new living arrangements. This will not be an entirely rational decision; having long underestimated the chance of a cataclysmic storm, people will now overestimate the probable costs from future Katrinas. But the decision will be rational enough. And New Orleans, once partly rebuilt, will likely become, like other once-great cities, a living monument, the Venice of the south.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

More on Calif. Gay Marriage Bill

Prof. Eugene Volokh, who tentatively supports legislative enactment of same-sex marriage, has serious problems with the California legislature's passage of the bill because its seems like a "pretty clear violation of the California Constitution."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:46 PM | Comments (3)

Iranian Good Will

Iran has offered to send 20 million barrels of crude oil to the US to help with the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, but US sanctions stand in the way. Some readers may remember the medical assistance the US sent to Iran following an earthquake in the city of Bam.

Fark describes the gesture thus: "Iran offers to give the USA a bunch of free oil as long as they can bring it in a big, wooden horse."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:52 PM | Comments (4)

First hand account

My aunt and uncle, along with some cousins, were caught in the path of Hurricane Katrina. Below is a recent email I received from them:

What has really been frustrating watching the news is that they are making all of us in the coast area look like uneducated hillbillies. "We don't gots nothin." "We needs everthing." I haven't seen one report yet with normal, middle class victims who have a ton of problems. So many daycares and babysitters have been lost, so even if jobs are available, the child care is gone, etc. I know one eye dr. who has gone to Birmingham to hire work crews to come to the coast and get his office up and running again. Half of our high school English dept. have lost their homes, (no telling how many others have aland will they be here to teach when the schools reopen... it goes on and on). We are looking at our schools doing double duty with sharing with schools that were damaged. Half a day for one school and half a day for the other.

It is hard to wrap your mind around the extent of the devastation when you drive around your town and then multiply that for all the surrounding areas. Even houses that look mostly intact have roof damage and the ceilings are caving in and everything inside is ruined, so they have effectively lost everything. It is like a war zone with many helicopters of all kinds flying over and landing just around the corner from us. Help has been coming, if people can get to it. Food is being served, but if you don't have a car or gas, when it's 95 degrees most can't walk far in the heat to get to it. Just about everyone I have come in contact with are managing somehow. My neighbor has 3 daughters and all 3 of them lost their houses. Three families are trying to stay in her small house. My hairdresser called me this morning on her way to PA to stay with her grandma. All 3 of her brother and she and her sister and mother lost their homes. In 3 different cities from NO to the coast. I never dreamed I would be living through the nation's worst natural disaster, that's for sure!

David and the Seabees are hard at work. He was doing clean up down near the beach in Gulfport yesterday and that is the area that the Health Dept. is saying it is unsafe to be in because the bacteria levels are extremely high and dangerous. He was given a pair of gloves and that's it. I fear for what these guys are being exposed to without masks and other safety gear. They are working 7 days a week now until probably forever. It is never ending. The debris is everywhere.

It is nice but frustrating to see the offers for help online. My friends on the coast don't have internet access, much less power, to see the offers and try to avail themselves of the help. At one point, 85% of the state was without power and it is only now slowly coming back in the central and northern areas. The electric crews from other states are a welcome sight and I pray for their safety while they are helping us recover. They always wave when they drive by and have a smile. It's the little things that are getting us through.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:29 PM | Comments (12)

Calif. Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

This story appears in today's Washington Post.

SACRAMENTO, Sept. 6 -- The California Assembly voted Tuesday to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, making the state's legislature the first in the nation to deliberately approve same-sex marriages and handing a political hot potato to an already beleaguered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).

After a vehement floor debate in which legislators quoted the Pledge of Allegiance and accused each other of abusing moral principles, the state Assembly passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which recasts the definition of marriage as between "two persons," not between a man and a woman. The state Senate passed the bill last week. * * *

The legislature's move goes further than other states, such as Vermont and Connecticut, which have passed legislation allowing more strictly defined "civil unions." And it differs from Massachusetts, the only state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples, because the Massachusetts regulations were passed by order of the state's courts, which ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signaled that he will veto the bill.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:14 AM | Comments (7)

Listen and Help

Christian rock band Third Day was set to release a new single,