« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Initial Reaction to Alito

As I'm sure everyone knows by now, President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to replace Harriet Miers and will send his name to the Senate for confirmation to take Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. It's an interesting pick to me, as I would have put him about 3rd or 4th on the list of others with similar credentials. The pick was determined by the criteria Bush chose to use. If he was going to try again for a woman, there was one short list; if he was going to try and name the first hispanic to the court, there was a different short list. And if he was going to just pick from the top names, I would have ranked that short list roughly like this: McConnell, Luttig, Alito, Wilkinson. All have fairly similar resumes (though McConnell has a much stronger record as a legal scholar than the others, which is why I rank him at the top) and all are solidly conservative.

Alito has written some very interesting religion law opinions, which I haven't had the chance to go through in their entirety yet. The most prominent is probably FOP v. Newark, in which Alito wrote the unanimous opinion for the court, ruling that the Newark police department could not forbid Muslim officers from having beards even though the policy against beards was generally applicable and not aimed at any particular religion. That suit was brought by the ACLU and the Becket Fund. Very strong free exercise case.

Another was ACLU v Schundler, a holiday display case from Jersey City. Alito wrote the majority opinion (2-1) upholding the constitutionality of a holiday display on public property. The court had previously struck down that city's display on establishment clause grounds, but the city had changed it significantly, adding in secular symbols and the like to bring it in line with the controlling precedents, Lynch v Donnelly and Allegheny v Pittsburgh. Interesting to note that the defendant in that case, Jersey City, is an unusually diverse city that has a long history of providing public commemoration of a wide range of holidays of religious significance. They hold an annual parade on a Hindu holy day and have a public commemoration of Ramadan, Hannukah and others as well. So that's a case in which O'Connor's endorsement test would likely not be invoked, putting Alito's ruling in line with the justice he would be replacing.

Another interesting case is Blackhawk v Pennsylvania, which came down last fall. It's a free exercise case where an American Indian was seeking relief from a state law against keeping bears in captivity because, in his religion, black bears had great spiritual significance and were used in religious rituals. Alito applied the obvious precedent, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, and ruled that Blackhawk must be granted an exemption from those laws.

So far, I've seen nothing that makes me react badly in his religion clause rulings. He appears to be very strong on free exercise cases, but he applies the same standards to all religions. And on the establishment clause cases, the rulings I've seen are all reasonable. Of course, that is as an appeals court judge where one must rule pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, but his use of such precedents is reasonable and often compelling. He writes well, from what I've seen.

I'm sure more will come out on Alito over the next couple weeks. I make the same caution I made with Roberts, which is that you should not believe anything an interest group on either side says about his rulings or writings without looking it up for yourself. Court rulings often involve very narrow technical grounds which are easy to distort and make it sound as though the judge just wantonly came out against good and for evil.

Posted by at 01:10 PM | Comments (9)

Happy Reformation Day

On this day in 1517, God sent yet another prophet to exhort His people to forsake false teachings and follow again the ways of the Lord.

This event is popularly thought of as the act of a righteous Augustinian monk defiantly nailing 95 Theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, symbolically fixing his disapproval upon the institution.

History is full of such myths, the uncorroborated but handy tales that reflect an underlying message, like the start of the Reformation. In this case, that message is all wrong.

To begin with, that monk was also professor at the University of Wittenberg, and the church door was analogous to the modern-day bulletin board (both digital and analog). It was common for people to post academic works and invite debate. While Luther's theses were perhaps more controversial than the usual fare, it wouldn't have been an extraordinary gesture.

This raises a second issue: there is no contemporary evidence that he actually did nail up the theses. He did send them to the Archbishop of Mainz in a letter dated October 31, with the Bishop of Rome and other eminent people in the CC. This would be consistent with the nature of the debate at the time. As is written in the introduction, "Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg . . . those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter." What's more, Luther's superior, Cardinal Albert, asked him to keep the theses private until Rome had made a public reply; the evidence shows that Luther complied, though they may have been posted later (the theses hit the printing press within two weeks anyway). So far as Dr. Luther was concerned, the theses were no Protestant Declaration of Independence.

It is important to emphasize the academic nature of the beginning of the Reformation. Luther knew he was skating on thin ice, and he wasn't looking to split off from the Church of Rome. His theses were a matter of internal debate, an effort to remove corruption from the church. While Dr. Luther was a flawed man, and may be rightly criticized for his personal failings, he was not motivated by a desire to create division within the Body of Christ.

The myth of the church door in Wittenberg reinforces that perception. There certainly were people at the time who were eager for any chance to cut off ties to Rome and its 'pointy-hatted king,' and the reformers did benefit from their support. As John Stuart Mill notes in 'On Liberty,' "The Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put down . . . Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted." The splitters were merely the strength that protected Luther. He, on the other hand, was compelled solely by the truth of the Gospel.

Modern Christians should be edified by the examples set by the reformation leaders. Division within the church is a grave matter, and we should always approach it in truth and love, in a spirit of discourse and reconciliation. However, we are also to be mindful that the highest priority is the purity of the Gospel, and there is nothing for which that is worth sacrificing.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:55 PM | Comments (16)

Alito and Luttig

Federal appellate judges Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig are reportedly at the top of President Bush's list of possible US Supreme Court nominees to replace the withdrawn Harriet Miers. The US News profiles linked in their names offer a great starting point for background information.

Republicans have said Bush's short list is similar to the one he reviewed before he chose Miers and includes "highly credentialed, solidly conservative" judges. Alito and Luttig seem to fit the mold of justices with judicial philosophies similar to Justice Antonin Scalia. Alito, a judge on the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has often been compared to Scalia, even earning the nickname "Scalito," while Luttig, a US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judge, worked for Scalia as a clerk. An anonymous source said that Bush is not planning to make a decision based on avoiding a battle with Democrats, despite receiving a letter from Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) warning him not to pick "an activist who would bring an ideological agenda to the Court." Bush is expected to reveal his choice today.

Update: The Associated Press is conclusively reporting that President Bush has selected Judge Samuel Alito Jr. as the next nominee. The announcement is expected at 8am EST.
Update 2: My own contact within the White House has also confirmed the Alito selection and sent the RNC's talking points for the nomination.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:02 AM | Comments (24)

Happy Halloween

Adam Packer and I celebrated a bit early at a hog roast on Saturday, courtesy of my cousin J.P. In keeping with my obsession with the ancient Roman empire I went as a gladiator. Adam is Louis Tully (played by Rick Moranis) in Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 AM | Comments (4)

October 30, 2005

On Rocky Ground

Just two weeks after it was reported he will be making another Rocky movie this winter, actor Sylvester Stallone is going to be revisiting the other role that cemented his movie icon status: John Rambo. Production is set to begin on "Rambo IV" once Stallone completes "Rocky Balboa." The first three films of the Rambo franchise, launched in 1982, have grossed $614 million worldwide.

Why would Stallone revisit his two biggest roles (other than money)? The actor turns 60 this year and imagining him in jungle combat gear or boxer's trunks gives me "1980s-era Roger Moore as James Bond" vibes. You also have to question the wisdom of messing with established franchises so many years after the fact; "Rambo III" was released in 1988 and the last Rocky (which as Bill Simmons likes to remind us, "never happened") in 1990. Just look at the inability of the Star Wars prequels to recapture the magic of the originals. I have serious doubts about these two films, and about "Indiana Jones 4," which is currently scheduled for a 2007 release. At this rate, by the time Rocky 10 comes out, the only people Balboa will be able to beat up are nursing home security guards.

Posted by David Darlington at 01:48 AM | Comments (5)

October 29, 2005

Los Angeles Saints?

The Washington Post reported this week that the NFL will consider moving the New Orleans Saints to Los Angeles on a permanent basis should New Orleans be unable to adequately recover from Hurricane Katrina. The Saints are splitting their home games this season between the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas, and LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, but the NFL has no intention of repeating the scenario next season. The Los Angeles market has been without an NFL team since Al Davis's last hissy fit in 1994.

If you ask me, the team would have to change its name should it move to LA. "Los Angeles Saints" make about as much sense as "Utah Jazz."

Posted by David Darlington at 12:55 PM | Comments (14)

October 28, 2005

The Plame Game

Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was indicted today on five charges related to the Valerie Plame affair. Libby resigned his position on Friday after a federal grand jury handed down one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements. Out of the woods at least for now is White House advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney himself, who was subject to wild resignation rumors last week. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is still looking at whether Rove committed perjury during one of his four appearances before the grand jury.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't play one on the blogosphere. There are plenty of lawyers on this and other blogs who can talk in more detail about what Libby is up against. My political gut reaction is that today could have gone worse for the president, especially if the higher-profiles like Rove and Cheney ended up facing indictment too. That the jury is still out on Rove's involvement means the administration can't breathe easy just yet.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:06 PM | Comments (9)

Two Questions

Now that the Quag-mier is over, here are two questions I'd like to see someone ask:

First, for Miers, "Say, what do you think about Roe v Wade, anyway?"

Second, for Bush, "What did you learn from all this?"

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:40 PM | Comments (1)

On nature and nurture

I'd like to add a small addendum to Paul's critique of Josh's post. Even if it is possible to state conclusively that men are naturally more promiscuous than women--which, as Paul points out, it's not, because of the practically insurmountable difficulties in disentangling cultural and genetic influences--it does not follow that gay men share these tendencies. Research has shown that homosexual men actually tend to follow female patterns of cognitive performance on spatial and linguistic tests, possibility because they show different levels of hormone release at the onset of puberty as compared to heterosexual men. Certain types of spatial performance, for example, can be enhanced in mice if they are injected with hormones at particular stages of development. Gay men, therefore, may have the "nurturing characteristics" of heterosexual women, whatever those might be.

Overall, linking behavioral differences to genetic influence is so problematic and so morally and politically suggestive that, in my opinion, such claims should only be made once we can link genes to neural structure to neural function to behavior. Given that we are most likely decades away from being able to compose such a coherent story for any field of human behavior, be it memory to object recognition to long-term planning, any definitive statement on innate male-female differences (or lack thereof) will be a very long time in coming. Until then we'll just be projecting our biases onto an almost completely blank screen and calling it science.

(Note, by the way, that my position does not amount to a denial that there are innate differences between men and women. Such differences obviously exist, and you will not find anyone in the field of cognitive science who denies that fact; nevertheless, we have essentially no idea what those disparities are, and relying on our intuitions is likely to be about as successful as relying on our intuitions about physics.)

Posted by Adam Tierney at 05:07 PM | Comments (4)

Name that place

Below the fold is a picture taken by a photography enthusiast friend of mine. First commenter to identify this location gets a Gmail invite--assuming there are people in the blogosphere who don't have a Gmail account yet. (Hint: since many of ITA's readers are Indiana residents, it's a place many of you may have seen in person.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:56 PM | Comments (9)

On Nurturing, Nature, and Advocacy

I wrote my last post before reading this morning's ITA contributions. Joshua's post below on the differences in sexual natures between men and women, and the implications of those differences for the institution of marriage, strikes me as misguided, for several reasons.

First, Josh writes that it is in women's nature to be more faithful than men. This is a simplification of a more complicated argument, which holds that although women are less likely to jump at the chance for casual sex, they are, indeed, "naturally" inclined to cuckold their partners by having a fling with attractive men (attractiveness here including, but not limited to, physical attraction). If evolutionary biology is accurate, men's reproductive strategy is "as much as possible, whenever possible;" that of women is to bag a husband through the use of sex as a relationship-building tool and seduce a father with excellent genes. The father and the husband need not be the same person.

However, to speak of "male" and "female" reproductive strategies is deceiving, because as influential as our genes are, they do not tell the whole story: It is not just our genes, but their expression, and hence their environment, which matter. "Environment" in this sense is not limited to climate or geography, but the social context that partly determines our actions every day. (As a brief example: The formal establishment of harems is nowadays frowned upon, which has led to the extinguishing of a once not-uncommon sexual "identity," that of the eunuch, as well as providing more grist for the celebrity tabs.) What is expected of men and women in the expression of their sexual drives changes from age to age; Charlotte Simmons, for instance, couldn't have lived her life twenty years ago, and certainly not two hundred. To speak of a "natural" reproductive impulse is to tread on dangerous ground, because reverse-engineering drives from only part of the available experience is likely to lead to error. (See, for instance, Cathy Young's article on the subject in Reason.)

But equally interesting are the variations in sexual urges among members of each sex (as opposed to the variations between sexes). There must somewhere be a cousin of the Kinsey scale ranking how over- or undersexed people are. I do not know what the distribution on this scale is--I suspect, however, that the people falling into what will forevermore be known as the "Steve Carell" category is larger than most would suppose--but the existence of a distribution in itself undermines the larger part of Josh's argument, which is that the inherently greater sex drive among males works against the nurturing institution of marriage. If, however, it is not the sex drive of "males" or "females" in general, but that of individual males and females, which matters--and it is--than variations between sexes are less relevant than the drives of individuals.

This is a fundamental argument against prejudice simply restated. One's actions cannot be judged because he is a member of a group which displays certain proclivities on average, at least if any principle of individual rights is to be respected. Marriage, as a nurturing institution, will succeed better for those partners who are more interested in acting out their nurturing selves than their natural instincts.

(Incidentally, this avoids two of the major flaws in Josh's logic, notably the arguments that if all men are said to be less faithful, and hence less nurturing, than all women, then heterosexual marriage itself is unstable and unsustainable--and, on current divorce rates, a great many of them may be, though not necessarily because of infidelity--and, second, Josh's argumentation must lead him to endorse lesbian marriage, even if he opposes gay unions.)

I should note that Jason Kuznicki's original post on this matter recognizes these issues head-on:

But the great benefits that children get from marriage do not exhaust or interfere with the good effects that adults may also derive from it. After all, who really wants to grow old alone? It is perhaps the bleakest question in all the modern world. Marriage answers it with the promise that no matter how ill or how deformed we may become in old age, someone will stand beside us until the end; someone will follow us into the unknown.

Next to this, the thrill of having a new sex partner is negligible.

Kuznicki also makes the interesting point that--if statecraft is soulcraft--government should have an interest in encouraging marriage as a gender-blind institution because it will increase fidelity and hence the overall virtue of the populace, an argument I am comfortable with as he is not.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:26 AM | Comments (5)

Disclosure--But Not At Warp Speed

George Takei, better known as Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, has come out of the closet. At this point, learning that a celebrity is homosexual is as astonishing as learning that government officials sometimes mislead the public. But Takei's announcement nevertheless is significant, because it invites readers to consider the strain of keeping up a false identity for no better reason than that the prejudice of others prevents you from being honest. That Takei has been in a committed relationship for eighteen years only highlights the gap between his public and private personae.

Actors are, of course, skilled at bringing falsehoods to life. But so long as one's actions cause no harm to anyone else, one should have the right to live one's life freely, in peace, and without lies.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 08:17 AM | Comments (5)

This Day in 312 A.D.

Contrary to the advice of his military strategists, Constantine invaded Italy from Gaul and descended upon Rome in the fall of 312 A.D. His target was Maxentius, Casaer of the East and claimant to Augustus' title. Constantine's move could have been foolish, because if Maxentius had stayed behind Rome's walls he probably could have withstood a lengthy siege. But Maxentius went forth instead and was defeated on this day in 312 while crossing the Tiber over the Milvian Bridge.

Twenty five years later Bishop Eusebius recalled that Constantine mentioned a vision he had had of a cross in the sky bearing the legend "By this conquer." Another Christian author, writing earlier, said that Constantine had had a dream. Constantine himself claimed to have an experience of conversion, but he never mentioned a vision or a dream. Either way, the "Battle of Milvian Bridge" is generally regarded as a turning point in Christian history - the beginning of the official recognition of Christianity by the Roman Empire.

Why did Constantine embrace Christianity, and how fully did he understand what he had done? Politically speaking, his course would seem like sheer folly, since at the time less than one-tenth of the population in the West were Christians. For someone who came to rule in an already turbulent period with festering religious feuds, it almost seems suicidal.

There may be some truth in the story that Constantine believed Jehovah would guide him to victory. He gave up the claim to divinity and in church disputes that would soon arise he often played the role of a humble servant. Whatever his motivation Constantine's conversion and the Battle of Milvian Bridge forever changed the course of human history.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:52 AM | Comments (7)

On Nurturing and Marriage

In a typically thoughtful post Jason Kuznicki argues that nurturing is the true purpose of marriage, not reproduction, government benefits, or romantic fulfillment. He writes:

In reality, marriage is about nurturing, and nurturing alone confers legitimacy. Government accommodates either some, or all, or none of these nurturing relationships, but even non-accommodated relationships may still be nurturing and therefore legitimate marriages.

. . . Nurturing is the one essential thing that all good marriages have in common, be they gay or straight, fertile or infertile, octogenerian or twentysomething. Nurturing is the reason for marriage and the goal toward which marriage should lead us.

I don't necessarily agree with this thesis, but even assuming it's true, I wonder how that applies to homosexual relationships given the differences in men and women. Women wish and need to be monogamous and faithful; it is in their nature. Men, however, have impulses to promiscuity at a much higher rate*. This is no slam or knock on homosexuals, but rather a statement of fact about men of all orientations. As it has grown easier for men to be openly homosexual, the promiscuity of the bathhouse and orgy has become more the norm as well. There are of course countless other differences among the sexes as well. These differences have some important implications for nurturing. Simply put, men and women express and receive nurturing in very different ways. Jason foresees this point and responds:

Many, I suspect, find that homosexuals simply aren't capable of the lifelong nurturing that marriage demands, or perhaps even that this nurturing has something intrinsically heterosexual about it: To care for a man requires a woman, and vice versa. Yet even while this may be true for a great many people, it does not necessarily follow that it is true for all, nor does it follow that the exceptional cases somehow injure or degrade the ordinary ones.

So although Jason recognizes the point, I'm not convinced that he has satisfactorily responded to it. The differences in nurturing among the sexes may not matter to a small minority, but it's still a large issue to resolve for most. If nurturing is to be the primary model for marriage, and "[g]overment has every interest. . . in watching over individuals as they nurture one another," the potential differences in nurturing among the sexes is an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

* Some sociologists have recently hypothocized that the differences in promiscuity are merely a reflection of cultural structures in which women had less financial and social freedom to cheat on partners. Given the freedom, they speculate, women would be just as promiscuous as men.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:32 AM | Comments (17)

Around the Horn

Here are a few non-Miers posts/issues around the blosophere:

• Forbes' new cover story - Attack of the Blogs - is guaranteed to cause a ripple among the blogosphere. (Registration is required, but the bugmenot login/password "forbesdontbug" worked.) According to the story penned by Daniel Lyons, blogs are "the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective." Ironically enough the article turns Forbes into the very thing it decires.

• Glenn Lucke and others debate inner city poverty, schooling and more over at Common Grounds, a blog named after Lucke's book that I reviewed here.

• Martin Roth offers a "Bird Flu Update" with an old school blog featuring the subject.

• David Wayne has a lengthy post on the roots of Halloween.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:53 AM | Comments (0)

October 27, 2005

Rove Arrested

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has posted the following picture on his blog.

Sorry, just Joshing.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:39 PM | Comments (5)

Indiana Native Rides the SCOTUS Carousel... again?

George W. Hicks, Indianapolis native and graduate of Park Tudor School, has had an exciting few months since graduating from Harvard Law School. Having sewn up a clerkship with DC Circuit Judge John Roberts long ago, George didn't study for any bar, instead taking a summer clerkship with the U.S. Solicitor General's office. Then, upon "his" judge's elevation to the Supreme Court, and with it being quite rare for a fresh graduate to become a Supreme Court clerk, he was passed along to DC Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Not a bad backup plan.

The Miers withdrawal makes George's story even more interesting. Judge Brown's name is at or near the top of everyone's list of successors to O'Connor. If she is nominated, poor George probably will be passed along to yet another Circuit Judge.

But don't feel too sorry for the guy; few people get to clerk for one Supreme Court justice in a lifetime, let alone two in less than six months. George's fortunate position also puts him on a fast track to a Supreme Court clerkship after a year or two in Circuit Court. How many other applicants will be able to list two of the current justices on their resumes? In any case, George Hicks' head will be spinning once again if Judge Brown is Bush's next SCOTUS nominee, and for good reason.

Posted by Adam Packer at 09:37 PM | Comments (1)

Bring it on

Good editorial at National Review. The bottom line:

President Bush should pick the most qualified and confirmable conservative he can find - male or female. Such a fight could be the way out of the president's current trough.

We do not for a moment believe that the president will pick someone unacceptable to conservatives out of spite. He did not pick Miers in that spirit; as we said on the day of her nomination, we thought it was a good-faith, though mistaken, choice. Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face.

Just like a good workout can help you clear your head, a straightforward confirmation fight may be just the thing to shake conservatives out of the early second term funk we've been in for awhile.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:45 PM | Comments (6)

Miers Withdraws, Ed Wins, Film at 11

As I predicted last weekend, Harriet Miers has withdrawn as a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. This paves the way for someone competent to be named to the court. But far more important than that, it wins me another dinner from my buddy Dan Ray. And that's what really matters, right?

In his statement accepting her resignation, Bush of course had to spread a little manure around that even a 10 year old would know is nonsense:

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel.

Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

Oh yeah, George, her decision was made because of her deep respect for the separation of powers. Could she even give a passable answer on relevant court precedents regarding separation of powers? Highly unlikely. One really has to wonder what it would take to get Bush to admit that he made a mistake. No, George, this one sits squarely in your lap. She withdrew because you should never have nominated her in the first place. It was a monumentally bad decision on every possible level. The real story here is that, for once, our political system actually responded rationally to a really bad idea. As a general rule, really bad ideas get passed rather quickly.

Now the question is, who replaces her? Does Bush continue to look for a woman? Go for the first Hispanic on the court? Or does he go with a solid but confirmable conservative like McConnell or Luttig? I'll reveal my prediction as soon as I figure out what Dan's prediction is. Might as well make it three dinners, eh?

Posted by at 10:32 AM | Comments (11)

I Called It

Yesterday: "It is likely that the Republican majority will try to soft-pedal this until Miers, voluntarily or not, withdraws her own nomination after suffering a thousand cuts."

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 09:44 AM | Comments (2)

Miers Withdraws!!!

"Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications."

It's over!

Charles Krauthammer must be smiling.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:14 AM | Comments (4)

In Sporting News...

The Chicago White Sox completed their sweep of the Houston Astros last night, winning 1-0 and capturing their first World Series title since 1917. A slap on the back goes out to friend of ITA and White Sox fan Brian Balta (blog currently dormant).

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:55 AM | Comments (6)

A Little More on the Costs of Miers

I think it is becoming clearer that the division among the Right over Miers can be viewed as difference of opinion over the importance of two costs: the opportunity cost of her nomination and the political cost of opposing her.

For the pro-Miers camp, the opportunity cost is reckoned to be rather small. Everyone outside of the White House (and some inside) will admit that Miers wasn't their first choice, but for the pro's, she'll do. The cost of her withdrawal or defeat, however, would be large, even -- literally -- catastrophic.

Contrariwise, the anti-Miers camp has been adamant from the beginning that the opportunity cost is enormous, a point I explain here. And also contra the pro camp, the political costs have been estimated as small, trivial, or negative.

Undecideds perhaps need more data or reflection before they can give a confident estimate of either cost.

The cause of the friction between the two camps is the absolute incredulity with which each side views the other's underestimation of costs. I am stunned that the pro-Miers pundits don't grasp what a monumental betrayal this nomination is to the decades of investment conservatives have made toward changing the legal culture, and relatedly, the implications for the very process of nominating Supreme Court Justices. They see the opposition as a foolish and unnecessary self-inflicted wound.

I think it is much easier for the anti-camp to understand the pro side. They are result-oriented populists. One can't blame them for not sticking to high standards they do not hold. Some of us do have high standards, yet I haven't seen much evidence that they are capable of ascribing to us anything but unflattering motives.

As noted yesterday, some Senators have cautiously chosen to be or pose as Undecideds, and the fate of Miers will rest on which estimates they find to be more convincing.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:42 AM | Comments (3)

October 26, 2005

Political Predictions

Now that indictments are about to be handed down, let me take this opportunity to predict yet another of those epic partisan flip flops that so afflict our political system. Here are my predictions.

1. No one will be indicted for actually outing Plame, but one or more people, including Rove, Libby or both, will be indicted for perjury and/or obstruction of justice. At that point, the leadership of the two parties will meet on the steps of Capitol Hill and they will exchange the scripts they worked from back in the late 90s.

2. The White House and partisan Republicans will immediately call this a "witch hunt" that had to keep going until they found something. They'll say that no crime was ever proven and that the perjury and obstruction charges are just technicalities and the whole thing was politically motivated in the first place. Just like the Democrats said about Ken Starr.

3. Partisan Democrats will immediately call this an incredible scandal and will call for heads to roll. They will make speeches that sound exactly like the speeches that Republicans made in the late 1990s - "It's not what they did, it's that they lied about it." They may even call for congressional hearings. Just like Republicans said about Bill Clinton.

4. I also predict, though, that there will be no serious movement for impeachment this time. Not because the Democrats wouldn't love to do it, but just because they know they don't have the votes to get it done in Congress.

Let the games begin!

Posted by at 05:03 PM | Comments (11)

Selling Out Is Easy To Do

At AOL's valuation of Weblogs.com, InTheAgora.Com is worth more than $300,000. I'd sell the blog too for that piece--and I'd sell AOL short.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 04:57 PM | Comments (7)

Why I'm (More) Right on Miers

Hewitt thinks that failing to back the president on Miers will hurt congressional Republicans next year and the party in 2008. I think the opposite is more plausible, and that Republicans in the legislature will increasingly try to distance themselves from a White House that is not tremendously popular, with even its base showing diminishing enthusiasm.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Hewitt thinks the Republican Party is the proper subject of analysis. But electorally, the Republican Party doesn't exist.

Instead, there are hundreds of Republican candidates who have to win election on their own (as opposed to the party-list of other democracies, like Italy and Israel, or the party-centric elections of the Westminster model). And given the choice between jeopardizing their own jobs or breaking with the president, I can't think of any senators who would not choose the latter unless the president was acting out of some deeply-held principle the senator happened to share.

And that, to put it lightly, doesn't seem to be the case: The whole Miers nomination seems like a joke, the consequence of a faulty vetting process rather than the product of sophisticated calculation. And if senators are motivated by pure self-interest, going against the president's wishes on this matter is a no-brainer.

Incidentally, Hewitt is wrong to say that the absence of an anti-Miers champion in the Senate proves Republican support. It is likely that the Republican majority will try to soft-pedal this until Miers, voluntarily or not, withdraws her own nomination after suffering a thousand cuts. Similarly, the lack of a grassroots campaign to defeat Miers is not conclusive evidence that Republicans really, really like her; if they did, they'd be organizing under the leadership of the activist core of the conservative movement. But it is precisely the demoralization of those activists--not just commentators--that has resulted in the relative inactivity of the base.

For empirical support for my position, see this excellent Wall Street Journal position, which fully supports my earlier diagnosis of the Miers case.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 03:52 PM | Comments (3)

Miers and Populism

Those interested in the aforementioned populism/elitism issue within the GOP would do well to read John C. Eastman's "The End of Federalism?" This is a much more informed and insightful narrative of the GOP and Miers, and I'll brand this the 'must read' for today.

And if Eastman explains the calculus of the Big Government GOP, David Frum shows how it works inside the Bush White House.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:41 PM | Comments (0)

Miers Roundup

• SMU law professor Beth Thornburg in the Dallas Morning News, "If she follows her lifelong pattern, [Miers] will bond with and start deferring to the most appealing powerful male on the court."
• You can see the first TV spot from Americans for Better Justice here.
• The Washington Post mines speeches Miers made in the 90's for clues about who she is.
• Most sensational news of the day: the New York Times reports that Republican Senators are expressing faint anxiety about Miers. One can almost see the wincing. The ending is most damning:

  Asked if the debate had become "one-sided," with too few defending Ms. Miers, Senator Sessions, the Alabama Republican, struggled for words, then pushed a button for a nearby elevator in the Capitol building and told an aide, "Get me out of here."

• The Seattle Times finds Miers unqualified.
• SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston has an elegant piece on the Krauthammer Factor. (hat tip: Josh)
• Reports that the WH is going to try for Miers v 4.0 soon, which may include a speech by the mystery woman herself.
• Jack Kelly:

  But it is one thing to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence, another to continue giving him that benefit in the face of evidence.

  If Ms. Miers were as smart and as conservative as Mr. Bush said she was, criticism should have abated as we learned more about her. It hasn't worked out that way.

• Radley Balko looks at more of Miers' writing, "It reeks of a dumb person writing to impress smart people."
  
• Virginia Postrel's complete opposition to Miers in one post.
  
• Paul Zummo fisks Hugh Hewitt.
  
• Two good pieces on Miers and recusals from PoliPundit and The American Prowler.
  
• Pejman Yousefzadeh is off the fence, saying waiting for the hearings is an unreasonable position. Read it if you find yourself also playing the waiting game.
  

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:02 PM | Comments (3)

The Press's Superman Complex

Jonah Goldberg's latest column does a good job of deconstructing some of the pitfalls in granting special exemptions to journalists from having to testify before courts and grand juries, an obligation which everyone else must obey. He writes:

Other than the obvious problems - that the First Amendment is not a blanket protection to conceal crimes, that nowhere in case law or in the Constitution itself has such a right been established - there's a sticky public-policy problem. Who gets to be a journalist? That question is why federal shield laws are the camel's nose under the tent of journalism licenses. If everybody can be a journalist simply by pecking away at a keyboard, then tens of millions of bloggers, newsletter writers and coupon-clipper weekly editors are journalists. If that's the case, then such a sweeping right is unenforceable and dangerous. If, on the other hand, only some people get to be called "journalists," then we've got the makings of a trade guild here.

Last Wednesday New York Times reporter Judith Miller and US Attorney Chuck Rosenberg offered differing takes on the need for federal legislation to protect confidentiality of journalists' sources during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Miller, who was jailed for 85 days after refusing to reveal a source for a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity, testified that the committee should move forward on legislation currently pending in the Senate and House that would offer journalists protection from subpoenas by federal law enforcement officials. AP has more.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:21 AM | Comments (1)

Weird Political Science

I'm not a public-choice theorist--much to my chagrin, my studies in political science have been almost strictly qualitative--but I do know the essentials of the field, or at least as much as anyone else who's finished a master's degree coursework at a competent university would. Fortunately, the Internet has democratized even what was once rare information, available more or less only to specialists: here is a competent outline of the theory. (See also this Wikipedia entry on Mancur Olson.)

Hugh Hewitt challenges anyone to argue, using the basics of public choice theory, that Republican senators should not vote to confirm Harriet Miers. I offer, from a strictly academic perspective, four reasons why they should not.

1. The public does not perceive Miers as qualified. True, CNN initially reported that a plurality of the public rated her as qualified. However, the numbers for Miers were far below those for Roberts, and I believe below nearly every other recent Supreme Court nominee in recent history. And today, Bloomberg reports that a slight plurality now see her as unfit for the Court.

2. Conservative groups are not rallying behind the President. Of course, one of the major planks of public choice theory is that self-interested and highly motivated groups can get their way on issues of public import even if their desires would be counterproductive to the public interest. In other words, were conservative groups to be able to credibly threaten legislators by withholding their support later on (for instance, in primary battles or in fundraising), then they might be able to force through an unpopular Court nominee even against modest but broad opposition among the public. But this is not what has happened.

3. The President lacks political capital to force compliance. Neither is the president himself able to act as an organized interest group acting on his own behalf. With approval ratings below fifty percent, and with the upcoming months unlikely to bring any major successes to the White House, it's unlikely that there will be substantial penalties for bucking the executive on this issue. In fact, given the notably tepid reaction of much of the conservative base (now spreading to the Republican members of the Senate) and the cool reception to the Miers nomination among the public at large, there may indeed be benefits for self-styled "mavericks" among the majority to join with the opposition by taking a principled stance. Republican senators in swing states may indeed be tempted to follow this course out of pure self-interest.

4. The institutional arrangement of the Senate augurs against disciplinary measures by the leadership. The notoriously weak ability of the Senate leadership to exercise discipline over its co-partisans lessens the harm to members for disobeying what is, nominally, the party line. (In particular, one might add, the strained relationship between Senator Specter and the bulk of his caucus makes it difficult for the leadership to exert control in the Judiciary Committee.)

Instead of finding that there is an obvious case for Republican senators' supporting Miers, we see instead that there is a strong case to be made (for some of them, at least) to vote against her. What explains the difference between my analysis and Hewitt's? It is that he commits the cardinal sin of anaylsis: choosing the wrong unit to examine. His post looks at the interests of the Republican Party, which is why he discusses the "51-49 nation" and talks about the problems of being "in the minority."

But the United States is not a parliamentary system, and "the Republican Party" as such (that is, the president and members of Congress) cannot be in the minority. The interests of Republican legislators are not perfectly aligned with the interests of the president--especially as the congressional party gears up for midterms that (if the insiders' polls in the front pages of National Journal and Charlie Cook's columns are any indications) could be bloody for the majority party.

It is not hard to make a plausible case that being too close to the president could hurt legislative candidates. President Clinton came to the same conclusion, in reverse, in 1996; is it inconceivable that congressional Republicans could devise a "triangulation" strategy of their own?

Having answered Hewitt's challenge, I would like to turn briefly to other parts of his argument. In the first place, does he really believe that--with a war on, as the saying goes--voting against a Supreme Court nominee that more Americans oppose than support "will be political suicide...if the nomination is defeated?" In the second place, does he really think that the measured lack of support for Miers among the Senate Republicans is "high panic"? And third, does he not understanding that invoking public choice theory in support of a policy proposition is a tremendously revealing argument? Public choice theory, as explained above and here, usually postulates that the result of self-interested and highly organized groups is a policy not in the best interests of the public as a whole. Justifying one's position by such a naked and narrow appeal to self-interest may, in fact, be the last refuge of a bad argument.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at 01:31 AM | Comments (4)

October 25, 2005

In Memoriam: Rosa Parks

Civil Rights notable Mrs. Rosa Parks passed away Monday night. Parks is of course best remembered for her role in sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott by refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. The boycott, which ended when the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision that Alabama's racial segregation laws for buses were unconstitutional, launched the career of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. But Parks was already 42 years old at the time of the bus incident and had enjoyed a long career of civil rights activism, having worked several years as a secretary for the NAACP. Subsequent to reaching iconic status in the civil rights community, Mrs. Parks joined the staff of Congressman John Conyers, where she worked from 1965 to 1988. Rosa Parks was 92.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:07 PM | Comments (10)

Ill-Advised Law Against Vile Protests

Josh Claybourn passes along this link about a proposed law in Indiana that would make protesting at a military funeral a felony. There's some background required to understand it though. It involves the infamous Rev. Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, the cretins behind God Hates Fags. You will find no more loathsome people on the face of this planet than Phelps and his followers, most of whom are members of his own family. In the last couple years, Phelps' cult of idiocy has been protesting at funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, claiming that they were killed as God's punishment for protecting a nation that tolerates gays. This has prompted Indiana State Sen. Brent Steele to propose changing the law to make such protests at a military funeral a felony. It's an ill-advised law in more than one respect.

First, one has to wonder where these folks have been. Phelps has been doing this for well over a decade, protesting outside the funerals of gay people dozens of times. His followers carry signs that says that the deceased deserved to die because they're a faggot and God hates fags, and they do so right outside the funeral home where people are grieving the loss of a loved one. I've never heard a politician suggest a law to stop them, but now that it involves military funerals, suddenly it's an outrage? Soldiers aren't worth any more as human beings than gay civilians are.

Second, as horrible and disgusting as these people are, they have a constitutional right to protest as long as they don't trespass in the process. I know that's terribly hurtful to the families. It makes my blood boil too. I'll say this, though. We have a very narrowly drawn exception to the first amendment called the "fighting words" exception. When someone's speech will inevitably cause a breach of the peace through its timing and manner, we make very narrow exceptions to the first amendment. But we can't do this as a matter of prior restraint, only in hindsight. And in this circumstance, I think it applies.

I surely would not charge someone else with assault if they took a shot at these folks for protesting at the funeral of a loved one claiming that they deserved it. In fact, let me make it more personal than that. If these evil people had shown up to protest the funeral of my uncle, who died of AIDS, with signs saying he deserved to die...well, there would likely have been more funerals soon afterward. And I might well have gone to jail, but there's no way I would have been able to stop myself. And I think this sort of situation is probably narrowly drawn enough that it's justifiable for a jury, at least, to refuse to convict someone for reacting violently.

The government may not be able to punish them, but I sure as hell would. I'm not a violent man. I haven't hit anyone since the 8th grade, and that was in self-defense. But that's a line that, once crossed, would only result in bloodshed. Judge that however you'd like, I don't much care. I'm just being honest.

Posted by at 02:59 PM | Comments (12)

Sticking Up for the NCPA

Amid the swell of growing disenchantment among conservatives with the President is the minor controversy over Bruce Bartlett, who was recently let go from his position at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a libertarian/conservative think tank. Bartlett has been a consistent and honest conservative critic of the President's policies, and several pundits have suggested his firing was retribution for his upcoming book, Impostor : How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy., Prof. Bainbridge, Juan Non-Volokh, Daniel Drezner, and Noam Scheiber among them.

It would be easy to jump to that conclusion, but I would give the NCPA the benefit of the doubt. I've been a subscriber to their daily policy digests for years (and I recommend them), and I would not characterize them as knee-jerk apologists for the Administration. Often, they include studies and reports that run counter to conservative conventional wisdom. They don't strike me as the sort of outfit that would exact punishment upon a dissenting voice.

Further, they offer a plausible alternative reason why Bartlett was let go. From their statement on the matter:

Bruce Bartlett is no longer a senior fellow at the National Center for
Policy Analysis (NCPA). Approximately a year ago, the NCPA reduced
Bruce's work load so that he could write a book for the NCPA about
economic policies and taxation. He agreed to do so, in writing.

Less than a month ago Bruce handed NCPA President John C. Goodman a book that he has written and for which, he informed us, he received a
six-figure advance from his publisher while he was also being paid a
salary by the NCPA. The book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an evaluation of the motivations and competencies of politicians, rather than an analysis of public policy.

Bruce was employed to analyze taxation and economic growth policies.
The NCPA's mission is to promote private sector solutions to public
policy problems, and we have never engaged in analyzing the motivations and competencies of politicians. We will not do so now.

So in the first place, Bartlett failed to deliver on his obligations to his employer, and in the second, what he did deliver was inappropriate for the mission of his employer. The NCPA obviously doesn't want to be in that game, and I have never seen them engage, "in analyzing the motivations and competencies of politicians." Their webpage describes the think tank as, "a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." The consequences of Bartlett's actions seem consistent with an organization sticking to its founding purpose.

Unless someone finds a web of funding that leads back to Rove, I think it is unfair to accuse the NCPA of being disciplinarians of the Right (and quickly looking over the Board of Directors, that doesn't seem likely). This reflects rather badly on Bartlett, then, and perhaps with some charity his allies on the right should overlook his dismissal. Let's focus on what's in the book.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:24 PM | Comments (4)

Technology and the March of Mankind

David Wayne nicely extends a discussion between David Darlington and me on what impact certain technologies have on intellectual growth. I briefly discussed a new Steven Johnson book and asked, "Does TV Make You Stupid?" David countered with an excellent review of Neil Postman's book titled "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Using Postman's thesis, Wayne turns the focus from television to the internet and blogging:

This is my way of saying that, though I think we are seeing and will continue to see sexier technologies than blogging, the sexier technologies will not necessarily quash the desire to read. Postman was afraid that, in a graphically driven age, people would lose their ability to think. In some ways this is true, I am quite certain that thousands, maybe millions of minds have been turned to mush by technologies like film and the internet. Yet, the same technologies that have turned many minds to mush have revealed brilliance in the minds of others.

This is what we are currently seeing in blogging. Yes, there is enough drivel in the blogosphere to fill an ocean, but blogs have revealed many great minds that most of us would never have known had it not been for blogging.

History shows that nearly every great advance in civilization was preceded by an advance in communications technology - from the earliest invention of language to the printing press to the telephone. In the Middle Ages, for instance, books were rare commodities. Monks and others spent lifetimes copying texts by hand. Knowledge was only available to the few who could afford books. But once Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, the common man had firsthand access to knowledge.

Not only could an ordinary person read his own copy of the Bible, but he could read it in his own language - German, French or English - rather than in Latin. As we all know, this led ot the Reformation and tremendous changes in Western culture. The comparisons between the internet and the printing press may be the most cliche comparison in modern times, but I think it's so widely used because it's so very true. The printing press may have improved the spread of knowledge more than any prior invention in history, and I think we'll soon find that the internet has come closest to offering a similar advance.

Of course just as the printing press brought the common man a Bible, Plato, and Ayn Rand, it would also soon bring Playboy and Hustler. Kristie Vosper, Rhett Smith, and Joe Carter take a deeper look at those implications.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:05 PM | Comments (7)

I-69 + Tolls

The cost-benefit analysis on the proposed extension of I-69 south from Indianapolis is a deeply flawed study, a mess of confusing numbers that gives credence to the belief that the chosen corridor was supported by little more than the will of former Governor Frank O'Bannon. If Hoosier politicians were to take an honest look at I-69, they would need to redo the analysis*, especially in light of the current Governor's proposal that we use tolls to help pay for it. This letter to the editor in today's Indianapolis Star raises the legitimate concern that tolls would significantly reduce the potential 'benefits' of extending the interstate through southwest Indiana (though, like all anti-I-69 activists, the writer needs to tone down his overwrought rhetoric). If I-69 wasn't a losing investment before, it certainly may be now.

*I was taught in grad school that politicians love to spend money on cost-benefit analyses and then routinely ignore them.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:54 AM | Comments (3)

Book review: Common Grounds

"Common Grounds" is one of those rare theogical novels that manages to weave intelligence, humor, and pleasant prose into one piece of literature. Authors Ben Young and Glenn Lucke take a unique, entertaining look at truth and the soul.

The novel centers around three friends in different places in life: Brad is a Baptist investment banker, Lauren is an unbelieving former Catholic corporate attorney, and Jarrod is a Charismatic graduate student in philosophy. Each Sunday they gather as any friends might to talk and enjoy each other's company.

During one of their meetings Brad meets a new friend, Dr. MaGregor, who will soon turn their meetings upside down, or rightside up, depending on your perspective. Dr. MacGregor eventually presents them with the basics of Christian theology, all while addressing such things as sin, evil, sovereignty, and a number of other weighty issues.

The book is notable for its ease of reading and broad appeal, to the believer and nonbeliever. Common Grounds is good for what it sets out to be. It isn't a Tom Wolfe or P.K. Dick novel, and it makes no attempt to suggest otherwise. Don't expect to find it on Time's list of 100 best English-language novels. But it's an enjoyably engaging book for high school grads and college students that are grapling with theological and apologetic issues.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:27 AM | Comments (1)

October 24, 2005

Bernake Roundup

• Tyler Cowen discusses his contributions to the field of economics and provides a link for reactions around the blogosphere.
• Just kidding, that's it.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:02 PM | Comments (1)

Is TV Good for You, or Are We Still Amusing Ourselves to Death?

Over the weekend, Josh presented a book which argues that television viewing has potential to improve intelligence. I'm generally in the negative camp on that point, represented best by the late Neil Postman. In one of the lengthy first posts on my old blog, I reviewed Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, which is regarded by those in the extreme anti-television camp (which I am not) as something of a holy writ. I re-post that original review in the extended entry.

If you want the short version, here it is: rather than learning valuable problem-solving skills, improving IQ scores, or performing "group psychology experiments," Postman would argue that the only thing you can learn from "educational television" is how to uncritically accept what television is giving you, and regard it all as entertainment.

Amusing Ourselves to Death is the title of a 1985 book by Neil Postman, the late professor of media ecology at New York University. The book is a harsh diatribe against the television industry and its effects on intellectual discourse in the United States. Postman argues that television, especially when compared to the written word, cannot foster deep, rational thought in its viewers, because it requires absolute passivity from them. Television can only be about entertainment, and its cultural dominance, Postman argues, has had negative effects on education, politics, and religion.

The first half the book dedicated to Postman's updating of the famous Marshall McLuhan postulate, "the medium is the message." Postman agrees, but takes it even further, stating in chapter one that "the medium is the metaphor." What he means by this is that our language -- how we communicate -- is only a metaphor for reality. We describe as best as we can what we see and know, but our method of communication circumscribes how and what we can actually communicate. (Postman speculates that this might explain the Second Commandment injunction against craven images: the ancient Israelites didn't want to limit their view of an all-powerful God). Postman argues that whichever mode of communication we chose to communicate with — be it oral, written, or televisual — each comes with its own set of limitations. That is to say, "the form excludes the content." Some ideas simply can't be expressed by certain forms, which should be obvious to anybody who has tried to write a sarcastic email without the appropriate smiley face at the end.

Postman then guides the reader through a history of communication, laying out eras where oral, print, or visual communicative forms were culturally dominant. For Postman, the print era (or "age of typography"), which he dates roughly from the Reformation to the 19th century, is when rational argument reached its pinnacle. The form of the written word, Postman argues, requires the marshalling of evidence and the presentation of that evidence in a logical order on behalf of the writer, and patience and discernment on the part of the reader. Only in the printed word could complicated truths be clearly and rationally conveyed. During the 19th century, when print had reached hegemony in communications, rational thought was most most valued. A striking example that Postman provides is the Lincoln-Douglas debates. While these were certainly public spectacles (usually held at state or county faires), Postman presents them as if they were dueling long-form essays. In one particular debate (Peoria, October 16, 1854), Stephen Douglas went first for three hours, after which Lincoln suggested everyone go home to have dinner and come back in the evening. They did, and when they returned they were treated to another four hours of oratory, starting with Lincoln's rebuttal of Douglas. This sounds more like a paper session at an academic conference than a political debate, which is Postman's point exactly. Lincoln and Douglas did in fact write their speeches out, to make sure they made sense, though neither man was insensitive to audience response. In this era — the era defined by typography as the leading communicative form — major public figures, be they politicians, preachers, or activists, were expected to be able to make a long, rational, public argument, and the people were willing to listen to it. They weren't bored into a catatonic state by long speeches at all, Postman says, but rather interacted with the orators to encourage them, or challenge them to stay on point.

In the modern (television) age, however, things are different. Following the maxim "the form excludes the content," political discourse is no longer about rational argument, says Postman, but about entertainment and appearance. People get bored if television images are too static, so change has to happen, and frequently. There's no time to lay out a rational argument, but no matter, the passive audience doesn't want long, convoluted logic anyway. Television makes its viewers demand constant stimulii, so if things take too long, people just tune out. Debates rarely last even 90 minutes (poor Stephen Douglas), and politicos are lucky to get five minutes on a particular question. Not that they're expected to give a logical answer, anyway. In fact, they can repeat catchphrases as much as they want ("lockbox!" "it's hard work!") as long as they don't look bored (Bush 1992), condescending (Gore 2000), or annoyed (Bush 2004). Who really remembers what was said at the debates in last fall's campaign anyway? Indeed, did those commenting on the debates immediately following ever really analyze what was being said? In rare cases, such as on PBS, you'd get issue analysis, but for the most part television political commentary was limited to "how did the candidate come across to voters?" "Did he appear honest? Likeable?" Postman says that we're no longer in the Age of Typography, but rather in the Age of Show Business. Television's rules control how we communicate today, even if we aren't on television ourselves.

Take, for example, religion. Postman spends a chapter on religious discourse in the modern era, basically laying into television preachers. Postman [who was Jewish, but used a good number of biblical examples in the book] found some televangelists intelligent, others insulting and emotionally manipulative, but, above everything else, they were all entertainers. There was very little theological depth compared to say, Jonathan Edwards or even Charles Finney. Postman comes to two conclusions about religion on television:

The first is that on television, religion, like everything else, is presented, quite simply and without apology, as an entertainment. Everything that makes religion a historic, profound, and sacred human activity is stripped away; there is no ritual, no dogma, no tradition, no theology, and above all, no sense of spiritual transcendence. On these shows, the preacher is tops. God comes out as a second banana.

The second conclusion is that this fact has more to do with the bias of television than with the deficiencies of these electronic preachers...

Postman is probably lucky he's not around anymore to see the new crop of television evangelists, like Joel Osteen, who are all show and barely mention Christ at all in their sermons. (On the other hand, maybe it's Osteen who's lucky...)

Anyway, the point is that in the Age of Show Business, nothing escapes becoming entertainment. Postman reserves special scorn for the way education and news are handled by television. The news chapter is specially informative. Our news programs (even the "serious" news shows), he says, are basically entertainment, because they have music introducing ideas and pretty people ("talking hairdos") telling the stories. News items are stripped from local context, commodified, and given to the viewer in bit-sized chunks, separated by the "now.... this!" phenomenon, which serves to make the viewer dismiss it all as meaningless candy he or she can do nothing about. The "now... this!" phenomenon can be tried on any news broadcast. Tonight, for example, and update on the bombings in Lebanon will be followed by ("now.... this!") the Michael Jackson trial. Postman says this serves to reduce it all to meaningless trivia.

Amusing Ourselves to Death is definitely a polemic. Postman starts off the book with a comparision of George Orwell's 1984 with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, stating that the point of his book is exploring the possibility that Huxley's dystopia was correct. Unlike 1984, where people are controlled by violence and pain, Huxley presented a world where people are controlled by giving them every pleasure they want. For Postman, television is the device that controls us by entertainment and pleasure. Is Postman provocative? You bet. But he does raise important questions about our uncritical acceptance of what we see on television, and our easy adoption of any new technology that comes down the pipe. Amusing Ourselves is a book that should be read and discussed by as many people as possible.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:41 PM | Comments (1)

Miers Roundup

• It seems that Miers wasn't really raised in the Roman Church.
• WSJ comes out against Miers.
• Ed Morrissey and Charles Krauthammer see the escape route for the Bush Administration. Bush might be taking the bait.
• John Fund expands upon his predictions that the hearings will dig up uncomfortable Texas history.
• Todd Zywicki alerts us to a new interest group to b announced tomorrow:

  Americans for Better Justice, Inc. (ABJ) is a 501(c)(4) political non-profit organization made up of grassroots conservatives from across the country who support President George W. Bush, but disagree with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

  Update:David Frum gives us the URL and reveals that they will be airing TV and radio ads.
• George Will takes Miers' supporters to task.
• More from Prof. Zywicki:

  A friend of mine made the interesting observation that perhaps the best evidence of the continuing problems with the Miers nomination has been the willingness of so many inside and close to the White House to leak so much negative information to John Fund, from a White House that has been able to control such matters in the past.

  John Fund's devastating piece on WH intimidation, lies, and incompetence is a must-read.
• Second piece based on high-level leaks: this Washington Times report that WH insiders are asking around about withdrawing Miers.
• National Review calls for some brave Senator to stop this madness else we suffer grave consequences:

  It now looks as if the confirmation hearings will be the very fight over judicial principles that conservatives have long wanted, but the White House has tried to sidestep. Instead of having a nominee as equipped as, say, a Judge John Roberts as their champion, conservatives will watch the case be made by Miers, who may not even grasp all the principles or believe in them. If she implodes at the hearings, it will not just be her personal embarrassment. She will set the conservative cause back dramatically. Surely, she will be coached to say all the right things initially, but she has no depth in conservative judicial philosophy. If she wilts under questioning, the conventional wisdom might be that the principles themselves were indefensible.

• Jonah Goldberg comes out against Miers.
• David Frum: "You cannot serve a president well if you are afraid him - or if you admire him so much that you think that everything he does is always right. It's never fun to displease a president, but it's absolutely fatal to tell him only what does please him." NY Daily News: "Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss' wrath."
• WithdrawMiers.Org . . . This may put the 'Miers Roundup' out of business.
• Steven M. Teles uses an insightful framework to explain the elitist-populist split in the GOP over Miers.
• Very good news at ConfirmThem.Com:

  RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President — namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination.

• The Truth-Laid Bear counts noses in the blogosphere. Right now, 73% of blogs oppose her.
• Byron York contrasts Miers' selection process with Bernanke's. Does Bush think the Fed Chairman is a more important office than a seat at the SCOTUS?
• Daniel J. Solove: "Are Bloggers Having an Influence Inside the Beltway?" "In essence, a set of virtual confirmation hearings are being held in cyberspace, and the fate of the nomination may well be decided before the actual hearings in the Senate even begin."
• JB has a long discourse on what Democrats should do.
• Newsweek: "Behind the scenes, however, the comfort level is very low. Some White House officials are already worried that Miers's rehearsals for her hearings are not proceeding smoothly, according to current and former administration sources who declined to be named because the sessions are secret."
• Radley Balko imagines the hearings: "Sorry Senator, only had time to read every other page. Not really sure about the privileges and immunities stuff. Besides, I'm only here pass/fail."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:16 PM | Comments (6)

The "War on Christmas"

Fox News anchor John Gibson's latest book is out and it's titled, "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought." Chapter 6 is titled, "Indianapolis, Indiana: The Law School Evicts a Totally Legal Christmas Tree." The chapter quotes me in several places. Given the prominence this book will have it's worth exploring its accuracy and thesis.

Chapter 6 focuses on a two year old controversy at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis involving the removal of a Christmas tree from the building's atrium. After Prof. Florence Roisman and two students had complained about the alleged Christian connotations of the tree, it was removed and an "Indiana winter scene" was put up in its place (pictured right).

The chapter begins with a detailed description of former Dean Anthony Tarr's slow exposure to American holiday festivities (he is Australian by birth), eventually culminating in his purchase of a "12 foot kangaroo with a red nose." The chapter includes extensive quotes from his wife, professor Julie-Ann Tarr, all designed to paint the picture of a well-intentioned dean about to unwittingly step in a hornets nest.

Well intentioned or not, a hornet's nest is exactly what Dean Tarr stepped into. To his credit John Gibson does a decent job of reporting the facts that led to the tree's removal, but it is the thesis that follows which I must differentiate with to some degree. Gibson works hard to portray an ongoing battle between Christian students and a monolithcally liberal faculty. On page 107-108 he writes:

So the Christian students were in a state of extra watchfulness even before the Christmas tree incident, but when it was taken down they were positive they had caught the school in what they believed was yet another incident that demonstrated an anti-Christian bias.

Claybourn and [Jon] Mayes weren't alone in their objections.

One gets the sense that I believe our particular school has a bad anti-Christian bias, and simply put, I don't. I did object to removing the Christmas tree, both on principle and because it was done in secret without discussion. I think a vast majority of people, including faculty members, would admit that academia is home to a large number of secular liberals. But I don't believe our school has any more "anti-Christian bias" than others.

That was clearly the picture Gibson wished to portray based on the questions he kept posing to me. I declined to take the bait and ultimately he turned to a student email from the infamous listserv debate:

One of the Christian law students wrote in another e-mail that the issue of liberal indoctrination in the classroom was on the minds of many Christian students. "I also brought it up before class with people," the student wrote to one of his friends, also a Christian student, "and they said they usually just pretend to be indoctrinated to get the grade and then go on believing their same values. It seems that a large number of people do think they need to offer a non-Christian view on exams in order to pass."

Gibson doesn't offer the name of that student, but I have to disagree with them. One's religion rarely, if ever, becomes an issue on exams or classroom discussion. And even if the topic arose and some sort of religious position had to be taken, I can't imagine a single professor at IU School of Law - Indianapolis who would mark a student down for it.

Although Christians are not persecuted at our law school any more than elsewhere, I would remind them of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:11-12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." In other words, Christians should expect to be persecuted for their beliefs until the end of time.

When all else fails there's always satire. In one Christmas episode of South Park, the popular cartoon program on Comedy Central, the townspeople go at one another's throats over what symbols can and can't be used in the children's Christmas play. In order to quiet fighting Jews, Catholics, and tree-huggers, the mayor orders the town to come up with "the most non-offensive Christmas ever." The school even takes away Christmas lights "because they might offend people with epilepsy."

The actual pageant, billed "The Happy Non-Offensive, Non-Denominational Christmas Play," ends up featuring minimalist composer Philip Glass playing hideous avant-garde music. The audience erupts in rage until they are calmed by the Yuletide figure called Mr. Hankey, who tells them to get over themselves, to quit focusing on what's wrong with Christmas, and instead celebrate the joy and fellowship of the season. (The program also shows a lonely Jesus with a birthday cake, having to sing "Happy Birthday" to himself.)

It's funny stuff, especially since Ms. Hankey is talking fecal matter. But as with most things South Park, there's a serious point: It's a sad day when the message given by a cartoon Christmas poo is more reasonable than the humorless, uptight P.C. crowd.

Bonus material: Here's a link to the video of John Gibson on the O'Reilly Factor discsusing the book. Here's John Gibson's column introducing the book.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:07 AM | Comments (27)

Around the Horn

• The Truth Laid Bear is tracking the blogosphere's support/opposition for the Harriet Miers nomination. As of this posting she was losing horribly.

• Looking for the "true conservative" in the 2008 election? Both RedState and Mark Byron are pushing Sen. Sam Bownback of Kansas, particularly in light of his apparent opposition to the Miers nomination.

• Just how bad has Republican fiscal policy becomes? President Bush "is tracking toward a 40 percent spending increase as he approaches five years in office -- and that pace could quicken as new obligations come due," the Sacramento Bee reports. "Spending growth under Bush is averaging 6.9 percent a year, almost double the 3.6 percent rate that occurred under his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton. It also exceeds the spending increases that occurred under Clinton's Republican predecessors. Federal outlays grew an average 5.4 percent under Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and 6.7 percent under Ronald Reagan, who engineered a massive Cold War military buildup."

• Longtime ITA and JC.C commenter Joel Thomas is taking a break from the blogosphere until 2006, after which he'll resume posting under his real name.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:00 AM | Comments (3)

October 23, 2005

Direct to video sanctuary release

When I heard that the third Left Behind movie--"Left Behind: World at War"--was being released in churches this weekend, my first question was "There was a second one?"

The rest of the MSNBC article linked above discusses what it identifies as a new trend in marketing products through suburban megachurches. It's not hard to understand why marketing execs would view such churches in much the same way as a "Prayah Playah" does: as a target-rich environment. With such a powerful profit motive knocking at their doors, it's up to pastors, church leaders, and church members to make sure their motives remain Christ-centered.

Some fundamentalists I've encountered still view movie theaters as "the Devil's house," and I can only imagine what they would think of a church that shows a movie in their sanctuary on a Sunday night. But while churches' primary function should be worship, instruction, and evangelism, they are also places for fellowship. Furthermore, the film's producers have been overt in describing their film as an evangelistic medium. Many churches are using their screenings of "World at War" as outreach events to their community.

There's a fine line between being "seeker-friendly" and watering down Biblical truth so as not to offend. A church should seek to grow because such growth represents saved souls--not just so they can build a bigger and better "kingdom" on earth. I think a good guiding principle is contained in 1 Corinthians:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (I Cor 10:31)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 02:10 PM | Comments (25)

October 22, 2005

Out-of-this-world sex

NASA works to cope with "sex and romantic entanglements among astronauts".

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:46 PM | Comments (8)

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination in the Dover trial begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke. That paper, called Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Feature that Requires Multiple Amino Acid Residues, was based upon a computer simulation that attempted to answer the question of how long it would take cumulative point mutations in a single gene to produce a new trait - the interaction of two proteins - requiring a change in multiple amino acid residues if there was no selective advantage to preserve any of the individual mutations until they were all present and the final result was fully functional. For Behe, this is a simple example of irreducible complexity:

Thus in order for a protein that did not have a disulfide bond to evolve one, several changes in the same gene have to occur. Thus in a sense, the disulfide bond is irreducibly complex, although not really to the same degree of complexity as systems made of multiple proteins.

This paper has been lauded by ID advocates as an excellent example of ID-stimulated research. The DI has listed it as an example of genuine peer reviewed research that supports ID. William Dembski has declared that Behe and Snoke's research "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." Unfortunately for them, this paper didn't hold up well under questioning during the Dover trial.

I'm going to post a very long section of the transcript and I'll start below the fold. It begins on page 42 with Mr. Rothschild describing the article to Behe and Behe correcting a few minor things and agreeing on what the paper examined and concluded, and with what restrictions.

Q. And let me just ask you a few questions, and you tell me if I'm fairly summarizing the results of your computer simulation. What you're asking is, how long will it take to get -- and please follow with me, I'm trying to do this slowly and methodically -- two or more specific mutations, in specific locations, in a specific gene, in a specific population, if the function is not able to be acted on by natural selection until all the mutations are in place, if the only form of mutation is point mutation, and the population of organisms is asexual?

A. I would have to look at that statement closely because there are so many different aspects to it that I don't trust myself to sit here and listen to you say that and form a correct judgment.

Q. Anything I said about that sound incorrect?

A. If you repeat it again, I'll try.

Q. I'd be happy to. Two or more specific mutations?

A. Actually, this dealt with one or more.

Q. One or more mutations?

A. Yes. If you notice, in figure -- if you notice in figure 3, you look at the x axis, you notice that there are data points there that start at one. So we considered models where there were one, two, and more mutations.

Q. Fair enough. In specific locations?

A. No, that's not correct. We assumed that there were several locations in the gene that could undergo these selectable mutations, but we did not designate where they were.

Q. In the specific gene?

A. We were considering one gene, yes.

Q. In a specific population?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If the function is not able to be acted on by natural selection until all mutations are in place?

A. Yes, that's what's meant by multiple amino acid residue, multi-residue feature, yes.

Q. If the only form of mutation is point mutation?

A. Yes, that's a very common type of mutation, which is probably half or more of the mutations that occur in an organism.

Q. And if the population of organisms is asexual?

A. Yes, we did not -- actually, we did not confine it just to asexuals, but we did not consider recombination.

Q. Are prokaryotes an example of the kind of organism that you were studying there?

A. Again, we weren't studying organisms, but, yeah, they're a good example of what such a model has in mind.

Q. And to say this very colloquially, you conclude that it will take a large population a long time to evolve a particular function at disulfide bond, right?

A. A multi-residue feature. That's correct, that's correct.

Q. And specifically --

A. I'm sorry.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Let me just finish. Depending on -- as we emphasize in the paper, it depends on the population size. And, of course, prokaryotes can oftentimes grow to very large population sizes.

Q. And here the conclusion, the calculations you concluded was that, if you had a population of 10 to the 9th power, that's a population of 1 billion?

A. That's correct.

Q. To produce a novel protein feature through the kind of multiple point mutations you're talking about, it would take 10 to the 8th generations, that's what it says in the abstract, correct?

A. If, in fact, it was -- if, in fact, the intermediate states were not selectable.

Q. Okay.

A. And if this is by gene duplication as well.

Q. Okay. So 10 to the 8th generation, that's 100 million generations?

A. That's correct.

Q. And yesterday, you explained about bacteria, that 10,000 generations would take about two years in the laboratory, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. So 100 million generations, that would take about 20,000 years?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. 100 million generations, which is what you calculated here, that would take about 20,000 years?

A. Okay, yes.

Q. And those are numbers based on your probability calculations in this model, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now it would be true that, if you waited a little longer, say, instead of 10 to 9th generations, 10 to the 10th generations, then it would mean that you wouldn't need as big a population to get the function that you are studying?

A. That's right. The more chances you have, the more likely you are to develop a feature. And the chances are affected by the number of organisms. So if you have a smaller population time, and more generations, that could be essentially equal to a larger population size and fewer generations.

Q. So, as you said, so if we get more time, we need less population to get to the same point, and if we had more population, less time?

A. That's correct, yes.'

Q. Now would you agree that this model has some
limitations?

A. Sure.
Q. And you, in fact, were quite candid in indicating that in the paper?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if we could turn to, what I believe is, page 8 of the document. And if you look in the paragraph that's actually continued from the previous page that says, we strongly emphasize. And if you could --

A. I'm sorry. What page number is that?

Q. It's page 8 in the document. And it's up on the screen as well.

A. Yes, okay. I've got it.

Q. Could you read into the record the text to the end of the paragraph beginning with, we strongly emphasize?

A. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes, such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less efficient.

Q. So it doesn't include recombination, it doesn't include insertion/deletion of the mutations?

A. That's correct.

Q. And those are understood as pathways for Darwinian evolution?

A. They are potential pathways, yes.

Q. This study didn't involve transposition?

A. No, this focuses on a single gene.

Q. And transpositions are, they are a kind of mutation, is that right?

A. Yes. They can be, yes.

Q. And so that means, this simulation didn't examine a number of the mechanisms by which evolution actually operates?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And this paper, let's be clear here, doesn't say anything about intelligent design?

A. Yes, that's correct. It does imply irreducible complexity but not intelligent design.

Q. But it doesn't say it?

A. That's correct.

Q. And one last other question on your paper. You concluded, it would take a population size of 10 to the 9th, I think we said that was a billion, 10 to the 8th generations to evolve this new disulfide bond, that was your conclusion?

A. That was the calculation based on the assumptions in the paper, yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q. What I've marked as Exhibit P-756 is an article in the journal Science called Exploring Micro--

A. Microbial.

Q. Thank you -- Diversity, A Vast Below by T.P. Curtis and W.T. Sloan?

A. Yes, that seems to be it.

Q. In that first paragraph, he says, There are more than 10 to the 16 prokaryotes in a ton of soil. Is that correct, in that first paragraph?
A. Yes, that's right.

Q. In one ton of soil?

A. That's correct.

Q. And we have a lot more than one ton of soil on Earth, correct?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And have for some time, correct?

A. That's correct, yes.

So let's review what the article that is going to be the "nail in the coffin" of Darwinian evolution actually proves, according to its author. But first, let's bear in mind something very important: the evolution of a new binding site between two proteins of the type described here by Behe's own article is, by his own definition, an example of irreducible complexity:

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.

In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it.

Posted by at 01:38 PM | Comments (10)

Does TV Make You Stupid?

I've long believed that, contrary to popular opinion, television actually has enormous potential to improve intelligence. Steven Johnson makes that case in his latest book, "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter".

Why are the right kind of TV shows and video games good for kids? "[N]ot only are they learning valuable problem-solving skills, they'd probably do better on an IQ test than you or your parents could at their age. Go ahead and let them watch more television, too, since even reality shows can function as 'elaborately staged group psychology experiments' to stimulate rather than pacify the brain."

It's important to state that this isn't an absolute - not all television is good. But Johnson argues the underlying premise behind television can, and often is, quite helpful to improving the mind.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:26 AM | Comments (1)

Another Irresistible List

Time magazine critics Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo have picked "the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present." Read the whole list here. Did they leave something off? Comment below.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:16 AM | Comments (7)

October 21, 2005

Dial-Up isn't Dead

Apparently it's just pining for the fjords. Forty percent of Americans are still using dial-up connections to browse the web from home. While compression technology has made dial-up much better than it was five years ago, it still doesn't even come close to broadband in speed capability. In the test cited, loading Amazon's start page took 29 seconds with dial-up on the initial hit and 11 seconds after caching, but only 5 seconds with a broadband connection. I don't know about you, but I'm not cutting my web browsing speed 50 to 75 percent just to save $20 a month.

Posted by David Darlington at 07:37 PM | Comments (4)

Your Mom Goes to College

And so do a lot of other fine women. In fact, women now make up 57 percent of college students, according to a recent report. Correspondingly, women have earned more than half of all college degrees in recent years, though they are still a significant minority of advanced degrees in some fields (like engineering). Women's dominance on campus exists despite the fact that there are more men than women in the 18-24 age bracket in the United States (15 million to 14.2 million).

What does this mean? While more women in college is great news, where are the men going? Military recruitment isn't exactly breaking records, and blue collar jobs requiring just a high school diploma aren't exactly as prevalent as they once were, unless one is willing to move to Bangladesh. Boys are dropping out of high school and college, and apparently disappearing off the radar of many educators. If relative equilibrium between the genders is a goal of our institutions of learning (which it should be), schools need to start recognizing at the primary and secondary levels that boys aren't succeeding and techniques need to be developed that speak directly to their learning styles. Heaven forbid that someday we'll need affirmative action for men.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)

Kansas high court overturns harsher treatment for underage gay sex

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that illegal underage sex cannot be punished more harshly if it is homosexual. The case before the court involved convicted sex offender Matthew Limon, who was sentenced to 17 years in prison for performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy when he was eighteen. If the underage victim had been a girl, the state's 1999 "Romeo and Juliet" law would have applied, giving Limon a shorter sentence because the age difference between participants was less than four years. The Kansas high court ruled unanimously that illegal homosexual sex should be treated the s