In the Agora

« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

March 31, 2006

Courage Sans Frontieres

Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

Now, as a private business, I believe Borders has the right to determine what it will or will not sell in its stores, and I don't think they are stifling the free speech of Free Inquiry. But more generally, they are showing the enemies of free speech that their tactics can succeed.

From the information we have, it seems Borders is not taking a high-minded stance of deferring to the sensibilities of the Muslim Street. They have rightly identified the principles motivating the rioters as intolerance and violence. Rather than standing in opposition to them, Borders is cowering. This can only encourage more of the same uncivilized behaviour and the further erosion of freedom.

Does such a store deserve your business?

Dale Amon found Borders' email address: ccare@bordersstores.com
He further suggests informing them in person why you will not be shopping there in the future.

Robert Bidinotto sent his letter via snail mail:
Borders Customer Care
100 Phoenix Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-2202
888-812-6657

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:23 PM | Comments (11)

March 30, 2006

I Won't Grow Up

I won't grow up (I won't grow up)
I don't want to wear a tie (I don't want to wear a tie)
And a serious expression (And a serious expression)
In the middle of July (In the middle of July). . . .
'cuz growing up is awfuller, than all the awful things that ever were!
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up, (No Sir!)*

This "grup" phenomenon identified in the New York Metro article linked above strikes a really sour note with me (worse than any ill-fated attempt at singing the above notes on my part). There's nothing wrong with growing up, becoming an adult, and wanting to be involved in mature, adult things, including the "bad stuff" of "Dockers, management seminars, indentured servitude at the local Gymboree." It shows you've come to recognize there are things more important than yourself, your image, and your consumption habits. It shows you appreciate the more important things in life and have gotten off the never-ending treadmill of the pop culture here-and-now. It is a good thing when a person comes to a point in their life where buying a high quality dining room table and a brand new couch brings a greater sense of satisfaction than $450 pre-damaged designer jeans designed to fall apart after one wash. It's called the right ordering of priorities.

Seriously grups, it's still not cool to be pushing 40 and listening to teen bands, no matter how much you try to justify it by arguing there is no generation gap anymore. Yes, yes, "adulthood" and "adolescence" are partially social constructs, and sure, the "Generation Gap" of the baby boomers was a historical anomaly, probably made bigger than it actually was by clever and ubiquitous marketing. I'm not writing a silly article about how real adults wear suits to baseball games. But there is--and should be--a fundamental difference between adulthood and the teenage years. Adults should and indeed must realize that being "cool" isn't all there is in life, and it's ok to not be your kid's best bud. They have those in their own age group anyway.

In prior centuries, teenagers were expected to work, get married, and do something with their life at a very young age. Now it seems we've gone to the other extreme -- we expect adults to be teenagers with 401(k)s. No wonder why your kids don't take you seriously. They've seen you mosh.

The Bible was right about this: "When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11). Putting aside childish things? I'm such a suit! Maybe I'm having a quarter-life crisis...

*(from the Peter Pan soundtrack)

Posted by David Darlington at 11:07 PM | Comments (14)

March 29, 2006

The eclipse

As the major solar eclipse inspires awe across globe, I should note that famed prophet Nostradamus once said "a great solar eclipse" would occur just before the unveiling of the antichrist.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:47 PM | Comments (7)

Gambling

When I posted a link recently to Party Poker.com, it set off an interesting discussion about Christian views on the subject. Ignoring the particulars of that particular site and/or ad, I'd like to examine the Christian views of gambling and what response, if any, the church should have toward it.

It must be noted from the outset that gambling can be practiced in many ways. Some forms are quite innocent, and sometimes the profits are even used for a good cause. Others argue, though, that gambling in any form is contrary to God's will for a Christian. Billy Graham has traditionally taken the latter stance and offers these reasons in a book on counseling:

First, gambling or betting puts faith in chance or luck rather than in the care and provision of God. Second, one who gambles seeks to profit from another's loss. This borders on covetousness and stealing. Thrd, gambling promotes a greedy spirit. It emphasizes getting rathr than giving, selfish interest rather than self-sacrifice, and erodes the moral fiber of society.

His points are well taken, but his complaints would be just as valid against any athletic sport. And socialists might just as easily try to apply some of these criticisms to capitalism.

Simply put, there are no inherent problems with gambling. Rather, the dangers lie in an excess of gambling: when a person is unable to control the urge to gamble and it starts to resemble alcoholism. It should be noted that historically one could only gamble at bars or brothels, so the unwanted side show was presumed to come with it and the assumption still carries some weight today.

Interestingly two prominent Christian leaders, William Bennett and Pat Robertson, are well known gamblers. Bennett is reported to gamble large sums of money at various casinos and Robertson used to own equity in racing horses. And gambling through Bingo should be quite familiar to any reader who's visited a Catholic church social. While not inherently wrong, the Bible would seem to counsel against makng it a primary activity. Billy Graham notes the Biblical teachings on acceptible ways to earn a profit materially: "First, work. 'If any would not work, neither should he eat.' (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Second, by wise investments (Luke 3:10). Third, gift or inhereitance. (2 Corinthians 12:14)."

Ultimately the problems with gambling are more social than scriptural. More potentially harmful than inherently so. I think the comparison to alcohol is apt. In moderation these things are fine, but in excess they are dangerous.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:44 PM | Comments (31)

March 28, 2006

Kelvin is the right temperature for IU

To understand the head basketball coaching position at Indiana University, you have to understand that basketball is woven into the cultural fabric of Indiana. It ranks third behind God and family in importance to many of the state's citizens, so it's no easy task to lead a flagship team. Just ask Coach Norman Dale of the Hickory Huskers.

But it is possible, as Branch McCracken and Bob Knight have proven, and Kelvin Sampson - reported to be Indiana's new leader - appears perfectly poised to fill the role. Sampson's 1-3-1 motion offense, gritty defense and relentless recruiting will excite the Hoosier fan base. Hoosiers understand the game's particulars like few others and whether a coach runs a motion offense, like Bob Knight, or a set offense, like Mike Davis and most of the NBA, matters to those who take the sport seriously.

For Coach Sampson, his style has paid dividends. He possesses the highest winning percentage in Oklahoma history (.721), 8 straight 20-win seasons, and has won more Big 12 games than any coach in the conference's history. His team has played in post-season tournaments in each of his 11 seasons at OU. All of this, it must be remembered, was done at a school not considered a basketball power before his arrival. It's no wonder that he has twice been named the national coach of the year.

But beyond wins and offensive schemes, Hoosiers are culturally connected to the sport and so the coach must be as well. Jason Whitlock writes about this in a splendid ESPN column that argues the IU coach must have "unbridled love all things Hoosier, even the hokey, old-school traditions." For Coach Sampson, this doesn't appear to be a problem. A Sooners Illustrated article quotes him as saying, "I truly love Oklahoma, but Indiana is a program that all coaches hope to coach at one day, and once they offered it was just one of those programs that I couldn't turn down."

But for a state so passionate you can expect some naysayers and they will undoubtedly point to a three-year investigation by the NCAA into recruiting violations at Oklahoma, including 550 illegal calls made by Sampson and his staff to potential recruits. Although the NCAA decision on its investigation isn't expected until April, Oklahoma voluntarily put itself on a two year probation that limited scholarships and salary increases.

If this cloud of controversy weren't enough for detractors, they might point to a subpar graduation rate. One year the official school graduation rate measured a frightening zero percent. But as Steve Wieberg writes in USA Today, the reporting methods are highly flawed for not taking transfers into account, or those who don't graduate in six years.

Sampson does not come to IU squeeky clean, but no coach who's been doing it for 20 years can. The bottom line is that Sampson is a proven winner whose style of play, consistent success, and love for Indiana will mesh well with the Hoosier faithful. Indiana basketball is back in a big way.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:24 PM | Comments (20)

Another Perspective on Inerrancy

Chris Tilling, a Christian scholar based in Germany, is also discussing inerrancy this week in a series of posts. The first is here, followed by posts here, here, here, here, and here. In the series Tilling comes to some very different conclusions than ITA friend David Heddle.

I don't weigh in on the inerrancy debate because my own thoughts on the matter are muddled. I believe the scriptures are divinely-inspired ("God-breathed") and authoritative to the Christian for both doctrine and practice (2 Timothy 3:16). But I wonder if we really need to formulate a doctrine of inerrancy beyond that. It seems to me that debates about inerrancy always get bogged down with caveats (inerrant in original manuscripts only, authoritative for matters of X but not Y, etc) or in side issues (see the tangents below in the ITA posts on inerrancy and slavery) that we often miss the point. Indeed, we forget 2 Timothy 3:15, which states "Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Christ is the point of scripture.

I've been to a number of evangelism seminars that have argued we need to establish the Bible's authority before we can convince someone to accept Christ. I can't help but wonder now if that's backwards--that we should get people to accept Christ first by making that leap of faith, and then convince them that the Bible is a worthwhile source for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc. The modern mind has a hard enough time moving on faith versus demanding oodles of evidence. Perhaps it is more fruitful to get someone to make the big leap first--putting one's eternal fate into Christ's hands--and follow up by filling in the gaps with doctrinal teachings, including those on the nature of truth in the Bible.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:27 AM | Comments (18)

March 27, 2006

More about the Bible and slavery

The topic of the Bible and slavery has sparked a lot of interesting discussion lately. Ed Brayton's original post and my response have each drawn more than 50 comments. In Ed's response to me, he quotes passages from Leviticus and Exodus which explicitly permit slavery and seem to indicate that such slavery was--at least in certain cases--worse than the form of indentured servitude that I and others have pointed to as typical of slavery in the Scriptures.

I acknowledge that I did not have these Old Testament passages in mind when I wrote that "the slavery which existed in the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written was not the same as the enslavement of Africans in North America..." In light of those passages, it would be better to say that the slavery not condemned in the New Testament was more like indentured servitude than modern slavery.

The passages Ed quotes--Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21--deal with the treatment of non-Hebrew slaves. (Ed claims the latter applies to Hebrew slaves, but that seems unlikely to me.[1]) Ed points out (correctly, as far as I can tell[2]) that the Israelites were instructed to take slaves as spoils of war. And it's worse than that, actually. God instructed Israel to take part in wars of aggression and even to completely wipe out other groups of people. (See I Samuel 15) So, does the Bible endorse genocide?

The key to understanding this lies in the nature of the relationship between men and God before and after Christ (through His death) brought in the element of grace. Israel was God's chosen nation. They were governed by God through the ministry of the prophets, and just as God often punished them by allowing them to suffer losses in war and becoming enslaved by other nations, God also used Israel as an earthly instrument to wage war against enemy nations and take them captive. (Though again I will point out that there were laws for how the Israelites were to treat their slaves.) All of this took place to set the stage for Christ's incarnation, earthly ministry, and redemptive death.

I do not fully understand how the enslavement of Israel's enemies was a part of God's plan, but I do know this: when Christ came, the exclusive covenant between God and Israel ended, and a new covenant began between God and all those who accept Christ. So Ed is inaccurate when he states that taking slaves as spoils of war "is treated as absolutely normal in the Bible." It is an accepted practice in the Old Testament, but I believe it is clearly counter to the teachings of Christ and his apostles in the New Testament. Just as we no longer make animal sacrifices to atone for our sin, we are not authorized to take slaves and commit genocide. It's also faulty reasoning, I believe, to imply that because Jesus or Paul didn't explicitly tell their followers not to own slaves, they were somehow endorsing it. There are many things that are not explicitly prohibited which we can reasonably conclude are immoral or sinful based on the principles set forward in Scripture.

Also weighing in on the issue: Henry Neufeld discusses the topic and concludes that the Bible contains not so much the definitive word of God, but more a record of God's interaction with people. I think it would be fair to conclude that Mr. Neufeld does not consider the Bible to be inerrant.

Mark Olson comments, and is critical of Ed. Ed has responded to Mark.

1) The first eleven verses of Exodus 21 clearly deal with the treatment of Hebrew slaves, but then the text begins to discuss the legal handling of injuries in general. When we get to v. 20-21, we see that they apply to "slaves" in the NIV translation whereas 1-11 apply to "servants." While I don't know if the Hebrew words here were different, the intervening non-slave-related passages certainly cast doubt on whether these passages applied to Hebrew slaves. Also note that in v. 26-27, if a master causes a "servant" to lose an eye or a tooth, the servant must be set free. Does it make sense that beating a servant to within an inch of his/her life would not be punishable, but causing him/her to lose a tooth must be repaid by freeing him/her?

2) I searched in an online concordance, and I found several references to taking "captives." I found none for taking "slaves," though my assumption is the captives became slaves.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:57 PM | Comments (7)

March 26, 2006

Land of the Rising Son

JS Bach may be leading the Japanese to Christ in record numbers.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:01 AM | Comments (3)

Inerrant

I'd like to highlight a comment made by ITA reader David Heddle, which makes for a great post:

This is what inerrant means:

The bible, as written was inspired by God. The writers, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, wrote without error, although each writer's personality was preserved. In other words, what they wrote was not dictated.

Inerrancy also means that the bible, as written, is not only inerrant in matters of faith, but also in history and, to the limited extent that it touches the subject, science.

Inerrancy is not the same thing as literalism. Inerrancy is a property of the bible. Literalism is one of many hermeneutics used to interpret the bible.

In testing biblical inerrancy, the following points of analysis are fair game:
Miracles are possible, and by definition they are inexplicable by science. Thus, stating that the Red Sea parted does not prove that the bible is wrong because science can't explain it, that's why it's called a miracle and not a parlor trick. There are about 100 or so miracles but they take up only about ten pages of text in a typical bible. Each one gets a free pass: they are completely irrelevant in the debate over inerrancy.
Translation errors are possible. The onus is on the person defending inerrancy who wants to invoke the translation error explanation to provide the details.
Non-western writing styles are sometimes an explanation. It is well known that quotations are handled differently today than in biblical times. Whereas today we place a premium on reproducing the exact wording, in biblical times the emphasis was placed on reproducing the meaning and content. Similarly for numbers.
Genealogies in the bible were not intended as chronologies.
Multiple consistent interpretations are possible. The defender of inerrancy need only demonstrate that some plausible interpretation is possible.
Metaphors are common in the bible. "Christ is a vine" does not mean we can pick grapes from him. In particular, the apocalyptic texts are written in highly symbolic language.
Ancient Hebrew had a very limited vocabulary, more than ten times fewer words than modern English. That means there is a one-to-many mapping. The most famous example of this is probably the Hebrew word yom, which can be translated into day or age, and hence leads to different interpretations of the creation account.
Sometimes accurate translations are impossible, or at the very least problematic. For example, we Protestants use this passage:
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus (Matt 1:25)
To trivially disprove the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. (So "Catholic" is this doctrine that all three biggies from the Reformation, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli affirmed it!) But of course we should avoid a trivial proof, knowing that Roman apologists are not stupid. Indeed they have a good point: For us the word "until" means that state after the terminus was different from the state before. That is, If Mary and Joseph had no sex until Jesus was born, then it means that they did have sex afterwards. But it is not so clear. The Greek use of the word is more like: I am describing something about a certain time period terminated by the "until", but what I say about that period has no bearing whatsoever on the period that follows.

Here is how this debate always degenerates, in my experience. Those arguing against inerrancy will present a passage and demand that you interpret it literally as written. Any explanation using any of the analysis described above will be treated as a cop-out. For example I can argue that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate, but part of that requires interpreting yom as age. If you insist that I must interpret it as 24-hour day, then you might as well just anoint yourself victorious by default.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:43 AM | Comments (11)

Love Poker?

Thanks to a partnership with PartyPoker.com, ITA readers are entitled to a free $25 signup bonus when you deposit a minimum $50 with the site. Just click on the image to the left and use the bonus code "AGORA" when you sign up.

As a frequent poker player myself and a user of the site, I can attest to its superiority over other poker sites. It is, after all, the biggest poker website in the world. So if you like playing and want an additional $25, go here and get started. Remember to use the bonus code "AGORA".

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:27 AM | Comments (39)

March 25, 2006

We Win By Default!

Someone with better economics skills than me is kindly invited to explain why my gut says this is flawed:

Could defaulting on the national debt hurt the overall economy? Yes. It would likely crash the stock market. But, it would most certainly shake people's faith in government. And that would be a good thing. Once people realized that the federal government could default on bonds in the future, they would be less likely to loan money to the federal government. That would prevent the government from racking up a huge credit card bill ever again (or at least for several decades). Knowing this, investors would become quite bullish. The American economy would rebound and flourish. Without the federal government driving up interest rates through massive borrowing, companies could afford to expand like never before. And the federal government would free-up the $350 billion it spends every year just paying the interest on the national debt. Congress could give this money back to the American people through major tax cuts, further stimulating the economy. (Bone to socialists: Congress could also spend that money on health care, welfare, etc.).

(via Hit & Run)

Though I'm partial to the argument that the holders of gov't bonds (which also includes me) deserve what they would get.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)

The Best Constituents Money Can Buy

Back during the heady days of the GOP Revolution, the small-government rhetoric emphasized the salutary nature of welfare reform on our national character: Democrats had essentially bought themselves a constituency with entitlements, simultaneously sapping Americans of precious self-reliance. We were told that getting people off the public dole was not just fiscally responsible and practical; it would renew a spirit of independence that would check and ever-growing Federal Leviathan. A country in which few needed the government for a safety net would be a strong, idyllic Republic.

Things didn't quite work out that way:

A sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of Americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care.
A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time.

The study notes that the expansion occurred mostly in the under-65 crowd, as former welfare recipients moved to other forms of federal assistance to supplement low wages. This, I think, is a relative improvement, as people seem to be less dependent on the national government. But as far as the goal of diminishing the role of government as a significant factor in the everyday lives of Americans, welfare reform (or Republicans) failed.

What's more, this trend, if it persists, will likely hurt Republicans in the polls in the long term. I'm rather persuaded by Tucker Carlson's argument that once the public accepts that the government will supply a goody, they will almost always choose Democrats to deliver it, as the Dems will usually put together a more attractive package. (If the current security policymakers continue to be stubborn, Republicans could easily be outflanked in this arena as well -- whether the Democrats could get their act together in time to do so is a different question.)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:55 PM | Comments (1)

The Finest Resolutions Money Can Buy

The tired joke among the anti-war left is Q: Why were the neocons so sure Iraq had WMD? A: Because they kept the receipts. (Insert approving smirks in place of laughter.)

A similar jibe could be made about the conventional wisdom that holds the UN is corrupt. Ilyana Kuziemko and Eric Werker recently presented a paper that supplies and answer to the question, Why are the neocons so convinced the UN is crooked? The abstract:

Ten of the fifteen seats on the U.N. Security Council are held by rotating members serving two-year terms. Using country-level panel data, we find that a country's foreign aid receipts rise substantially when it is elected to the Security Council: on average, U.S. aid increases by 54 percent and U.N. development aid rises by 7 percent. We find that the positive effect of Security Council membership on aid is much greater during the years in which key diplomatic events take place, when members' votes are likely to be especially valuable. Further, the increase in aid is shown to begin the year a country is elected to the council and to disappear after its membership ends. We find evidence that the effect of council membership on U.S. aid is especially large for dictatorships and U.S. allies, suggesting that the United States seeks to form alliances with the council members who are cheapest to bribe. Finally, the connection between U.N. aid and council membership seems to be driven by UNICEF, and aid organization over which the Unites States has historically exerted much control.

(via Prof. Tabarrok)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:39 PM | Comments (0)

ESPN's reporting integrity

ESPN's infamous "national college basketball reporter" Andy Katz posted the following on his Thursday, March 23 blog entry:

Indiana's search committee pursued Gonzaga's Mark Few by speaking with Few's attorney Brad Williams, but the Hoosiers' reps were rebuffed.

Williams told ESPN.com the search committee did call to gauge Few's interest in the open job. Few has been adamant that he wouldn't talk about another job during the season, but Williams didn't need to wait. He said Few hasn't given one thought about Indiana. Still, the search committee threw figures at Williams -- upwards of $1.4 million to $1.6 million a year.

The report was insulting to IU fans by suggesting the IU job just wasn't good enough. ESPN linked to the story on its front page and soon after numerous radio and newspaper pundits repeated the meme. But the Olympian reports today that Katz had it all wrong.

Asked later whether Few would be interested in talking with Indiana representatives, Williams said, "No comment. I don't know what we're going to do."

Later, asked if ESPN.com was accurate in reporting that Few, through Williams, turned down a request to meet with Indiana's hiring committee, Williams said, "No."

Williams later clarified that comment, saying that neither he nor Few has talked with any Indiana officials. Williams said Atlanta's Dan Parker, who has contracted with the Hoosiers to aid in the coaching search, called Williams last week and asked if Few would talk with him about the Indiana job.

It seems then that Katz was wrong on a number of important facts and he does not appear to have taken very basic and standard journalistic steps to ensure accuracy. The only source he cites is contradicting his reporting. Katz should retract this erroneous report and ESPN should take greater steps at ensuring their so-called news stories are covered with the same integrity of other mainstream news outlets.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:56 PM | Comments (4)

Ben Domenech and the perils of plagiarism

Recently David noted that famed blogger Ben Domenech, a co-founder of the popular RedState blog, had started writing for the Washington Post in a weblog titled Red America. As I noted in the comments, Ben and I have been colleagues for nearly four years now. Both of us began blogging at roughly the same time and our journey in the medium has consistently crossed paths.

Ben has also had a notable career outside of blogging. As a speechwriter for President Bush he was the administration's youngest political appointee. He also served as a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and as the chief speechwriter for Texas Senator John Cornyn. Although I have not met Ben personally, we have communicated so frequently over such a long span that I feel as though I know him well.

Therefore it is with a sad and heavy heart that I report Ben has come under fire recently for allegations that he plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in a number of publications. The Washington Post's executive editor explains Ben's resignation here, Ben offers his own response here, and Human Events offers a good summary here. Rather than addressing the specific charges and/or repenting, Ben initially appeared to be claiming partisan "lefties" were the problem. More recently he is offering contrition.

Because Ben has been around for so long and because he is so well connected, the incident has created an enormous ripple effect through the punditry crowds. Instapundit offers a good collection of various reactions here and Matt Drudge and the New York Times are even covering it. While Ben has responded to a couple specific incidents, Michelle Malkin notes that there are unfortunately "multiple instances of what clearly appear . . . to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers." National Review has also outlined some questionable pieces here.

As one who has certainly been guilty of sloppy writing at some point or another, I am in no position to condemn Ben. And as Prof. Reynolds notes, journalism often operates under a double standard: "The rule for journalists seems to be: idea theft is fine; prose theft is fine if it comes from people who don't mind, as with a press release (even if the reader is fooled as to the source), but if you use even a short passage verbatim from another journalist -- perhaps because that is easily proved -- then you're a pariah." Ben, unfortunately, has fallen into the latter category and his controversy should serve as a reminder of the dangers that even mere sloppiness can cause.

Update: Mike Krempasky, a close friend of Ben's and one of the blogosphere's biggest advocates in Washington, offers a poignant response on behalf of RedState.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:13 AM | Comments (10)

March 23, 2006

Does the Bible condone slavery?

Ed Brayton has posted some interesting thoughts on what the Bible has to say about slavery. This was in response to something raised in comments to another (unrelated) post, wherein David Heddle brought up the standard modern Christian explanation of Ephesians 6:5-6, that is, Paul is exhorting slaves to obey the law--not endorsing the institution of slavery. To this, Ed responded:

The problem with this reasoning is that it requires that we condemn those who fought against slavery in America, where it was also legal at the time.

To which I respond: No, there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting people from working to change unjust laws. But what about those who broke the law by helping with the underground railroad? Were they violating Paul's admonition in Romans 13? Ed answers his own question in this case:

Now, a Christian might reply that Paul's admonition only applies when the government's law does not violate God's law...

Absolutely. And this is not merely a cop-out, it is a central point of Christian doctrine. We must obey God's laws first. We are to obey human governments in those areas that are not addressed by the Bible (e.g., don't evade taxes, don't violate copyrights, etc.) Ed continues:

...but bear in mind that there is not a single verse in the Bible that condemns slavery and dozens of verses that support it.

But we also must bear in mind that the slavery which existed in the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written was not the same as the enslavement of Africans in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries. It was not as brutal, not based on race, nor was it always lifelong. Some have compared Biblical slavery to military service. Probably the Biblical example of slavery that is most similar to slavery in early America is that of the Israelites being enslaved by the Egyptians. And, judging by the plagues God unleashed on Egypt and the eventual drowning of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea, it would seem that God was none too happy with the Egyptians.

Ed points to the Bible's treatment of slavery as "one of the primary reasons why [he] can no longer accept the Bible as the word of God, as [he] once did." I find this unfortunate, because I believe it is mostly a skewed modern perspective that leads one to condemn the Bible for "condoning slavery."

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:54 PM | Comments (52)

March 22, 2006

Few a good fit for Indiana

The Indianapolis Star has a good run-down of their top ten candidates to replace former IU basketball coach Mike Davis. I'm just as nostalgic as anyone about Steve Alford, but I agree with the Star putting Mark Few at the top of their list. He seems to be an excellent coach and a good fit for Indiana. On a personal level, read what this article from the Gonzaga athletic department had to say about him:

[Few has been] able to maintain a balance he has found to be important in life. Perhaps his upbringing in the home of a Presbyterian minister had something to do with it.
"God is first, family is second and self is third," Mark said. "That's the way I was brought up and that's the way Marcy and I feel about our family. The love that emanates from that carries over into everything we do."

In a well-publicized episode, Gonzaga standout Adam "wants to be Jim" Morrison wrote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" on a lockerroom white board after Few suggested his players attend church on Sundays.

I always felt that the following quote from the movie Hoosiers encapsulates pretty well the mindset of the state of Indiana:

"We trust that you're a fine, upstanding, God-fearing man with Christian morals and principals, who will set an example and a standard of leadership for our boys...tell me, do you believe in zone defense or man to man?"

I'm not sure which style of defense Few prefers, but either way he'll be right at home in Indiana.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:58 PM | Comments (8)

How Democrats can retake Congress this year

Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner wrote a recent column asserting that Congressional Republicans must act immediately to rein in the out-of-control spending in Washington or face a revolt among the conservative base in the elections this fall. The column is required reading for conservatives and anyone concerned about deficit spending.

By the same token, I think this presents a choice opportunity for Democrats. Until now, Democrats have done little about the deficit other than use it as a cudgel to beat Republicans with (and, somewhat strangely, most of their criticism is aimed at the lame-duck President, not their own Congressional opponents who voted for the spending). I am not aware of any serious Democratic proposals to rein in spending; most of what I hear from Democrats is that we should balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich.

If Republicans take Feulner's suggestions to heart and rediscover the commitment to fiscal responsibility they had in 1994, they may be able to reverse the dive in their approval ratings. However, if Democrats beat the GOP to the punch and claim the "fiscal responsibility" banner for themselves, they may well guarantee themselves a majority in Congress and win over many voters for years to come.

And I'm fed up enough with the explosion in the size of the government to hand the Democrats the key to defeating my party this November. But to do so will require a serious plan to cut pork, eliminate waste, and (here's the kicker) slow the growth of entitlement spending.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:44 AM | Comments (11)

March 21, 2006

Best Gameshow Ever

Dogbert: "I don't see how rich people ever get bored."

Mark Cuban: "Howie, if you can get Mr Trump to pull a rubber glove completely over his head and blow it up on your show, not only will I watch it, I will donate 1 million dollars to the charity of your choice."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:14 PM | Comments (1)

Cops and robbers alleged drug dealers

When I was younger (i.e. still in high school and college), I used to instinctively defend police officers and departments against their critics. After all, the police are the "good guys," and second-guessing or criticizing them seemed like siding with criminals. Now that I've looked more extensivly into cases of police misconduct and questionable practices--and had a few minor personal experiences with cops whose attitude was somewhat short of "to protect and serve"--I'd say I have a healthy skepticism of police actions. (I also used to think gun control was a good idea when I was in high school...my worldview has become rather more libertarian in the last 10 years of my life.)

Libertarian blogger Radley Balko has spent a good deal of his time over the past several months on a tragic and disturbing case of a police action which led to the fatal shooting of a police officer. Balko quickly came to the conclusion that Cory Maye (the man who shot the officer) was unjustly convicted of capital murder. His advocacy for Maye's case has led to him making a personal visit to Maye's family in Mississippi as research for a magazine article.

The basic sequence of events was this. Police had search warrants to raid Maye's apartment and that of his neighbor (two halves of a duplex) on suspicion of possession and dealing of drugs. The neighbor complied and allowed police to enter. Maye did not respond when police arrived at his apartment, so they forced their way through his back door. When an officer entered the apartment, Maye fired three shots, one of which struck and killed the officer.

The details of the events, of course, differ significantly. Here is Maye's account (taken from Balko, who got it from a TalkLeft blog post, which apparently excerpted it from a local newspaper):

Cory Maye, 23, said he was asleep on a chair in the living room of his Prentiss apartment as his 14-month-old daughter slept in the bedroom when he heard a loud crash at his front door. "I immediately ran to my daughter's room, got a pistol, put in a magazine and chambered a round," said Maye, who is on trial for capital murder in Marion County. "As I laid on the floor by the bed, I heard kicks at the back door. I was frightened, I thought someone was trying to break in on me and my daughter."
Maye testified that it was dark in his apartment when he heard someone breaking into the back door, which was located in the bedroom. "That's when I fired the shots," Maye said. "After I fired the shots, I heard them yell 'police! police!' Once I heard them, I put the weapon down and slid it away. I did not know they were police officers."

Here is prosecuter Claiborne "Buddy" McDonald's version of the events:

The warrants were served at the same time by two teams. The testimony was that there were several announcements that they were the police and that they had a search warrant. The occupants in the apartment next to Maye's allowed entry after announcement and there was no resistance. Maye did not. Porch lights were on in the front of Maye's apartment and the uniformed officers and marked cars visible in the front yard and on the porch. The officers announced at the front door and then at the back door. The officer who killed was at the front door initially and then went around the back to the back door before entry was made.

Obviously, a great deal hinges on whether the police announced themselves and allowed Maye enough time to respond peacefully. Balko is very skeptical of the surviving officers' claims that they announced themselves. I'm a little more skeptical of Maye's version of the events, although it's certainly possible that the truth has been obscured due to the tension and confusion of the situation. Even if Maye did not knowingly kill a police officer, I think he had the responsibility to warn a perceived intruder that he was armed before firing. (I also wonder what those who are defending Maye think about the Amadou Diallo case, wherein officers testified they believed Diallo was threatening their lives by reaching for a weapon in his jacket.)

What I do agree with Balko on, however, is that insufficient evidence was obtained to justify a late-night raid on Maye's apartment. Balko is working on a paper about "paramilitary-style" police raids where police gain the element of surprise against suspects by giving little or no warning before bursting into a residence. It's not clear to me whether Balko thinks such raids are ever warranted. I think there are cases where they are, but there must be convincing proof that the targeted residence is a base of illegal activity and that there is no other feasible way to apprehend the suspects and preserve evidence.

Here, again, is the link to the category page that contains all of Balko's writing about the Maye case.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:40 PM | Comments (6)

Red America

Several years ago, when I first started reading blogs, there were three young conservative bloggers that I read most often. The first was ITA's own Josh Claybourn. The second was Patrick Ruffini, who at last report works for the RNC and has all but ceased blogging. The third was Ben Domenech, who too disappeared for a while, but is now back blogging at Red America, a new venture under the auspices of the Washington Post. Seeing his familiar face at the Post is a victory for both young conservatives and bloggers. Good luck in the new digs, Ben.

Posted by David Darlington at 04:42 PM | Comments (2)

March 19, 2006

Cool new wallpaper

Desktop Earth is a wallpaper generator for Windows that updates with a photorealistic image of the Earth as it would be seen from space at that precise moment. "It runs whenever you're logged on and updates your wallpaper with an accurate representation of the Earth as it would be seen from space at that precise moment."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:37 PM | Comments (1)

South Park Revelations

So it looks like South Park pushed the boundaries of satire a little too far for Isaac Hayes, who has announced he is leaving the show in objection to an episode deriding Scientology. The ensuing spat, which involves rumors that Tom Cruise pressured Viacom to pull the episode, promises to unfold with ever more biting hilarity.

Part of South Park's appeal is the ability of creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone to combine crude humor with insightful criticism, often reflecting their libertarian sensibilities. While it is hard to extrapolate a broader worldview from these sensibilities, especially since Parker and Stone don't seem to take themselves very seriously, the show's pokes at religion reflect a rationalist suspicion of faith.

In rough approximation, the Enlightenment heritage holds that reason is the primary means by which one may access truth. Faith, however, holds that truth comes from something beyond what our natural abilities can discern. This other source of truth must be revealed to the believer through supernatural means, and I would categorize belief in the supernatural as the essential element of a religion.

This conception is useful for a pluralistic society; while I do not believe that the revealed tenets of other religions are true, I find commonality with other religious persons in this acceptance of the supernatural. One may trace in almost all religions instances of prophets, signs and wonders, angels, or direct contact with deities -- some definitive revelation of divine truth.

Most of these revelations are shrouded in the mists of time, and one must admit of a bias in favour of older religions. After all, the Hindu holymen, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and St. Paul aren't around for us to question directly. Newer religions, though, are more open to scrutiny. This is why it is hard to take Wicca, occultism or neopaganism, very seriously, given the ambiguous and esoteric nature of its origins. There is little but good will or political correctness to restrain the non-Wiccan from regarding the so-called Old Religion as much more than fabrication or fancy.

South Park is the epitome of mischievousness and political incorrectness, so it is unsurprising that one of their most fiendishly clever episodes skewers the origin of Mormonism. And what else can Scientology expect from South Park given that its founder was a lunatic?

To rationalists, religion is viewed as an inferior means of truth at best and as a fount of corruption at worst. If one rejects the supernatural outright, then all of religion is open to criticism, sometimes in the harshest of terms. To them, Christianity is just as absurd as Scientology. And as men ostensibly of the rational worldview, Parker and Stone have by no means confined their attacks on religion to absurd origins.

But not all fans are rationalists, and those criticisms that focus on the hypocrisy and shallowness of some religious adherents, rather than the invalidity of supernature, probably have the greatest currency among those who watch the show.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:47 PM | Comments (13)

March 18, 2006

Most annoying fan ever

What's more annoying than Adam Morrison's failed attempt at a mustache? That deranged harpy who was screeching "AaaaaAAHHH!" every time Indiana had the ball in their loss tonight to Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament. Sheesh!

Posted by Eric Seymour at 11:50 PM | Comments (1)

Atheism is the fastest growing religious identity in America

The San Antonio Express-News reports the following:

A study done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that the percentage of the population that describes itself as "nonreligious" more than doubled from 1990 to 2001, from 14.3 million to 29.4 million people. The only other group to show growth was Muslims. . .

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 16 percent of Americans (about 35 million) consider themselves "unaffiliated" -- a category that includes "unaffiliated believers," "secularists" and atheists/agnostics.

The latter terms -- atheists and agnostics -- are lumped together, says Green, because they share so many similarities. But there is a subtle difference: Atheists forthrightly affirm that there is no God; agnostics simply say as humans we can never know. Together, they constitute about 3 percent of the American population.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:04 PM | Comments (11)

Commie Chic

Nazism and Sovietism both killed tens of millions, but only the Soviets get a hip t-shirt from Urban Outfitters. Yeah, I know most of the people who shop at Urban Outfitters are too young to remember the Cold War, but come on...

Karl Marx said capitalism takes everything sacred and makes it profane. Apparently it also takes everything evil and makes it mundane.

Well, not everything.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:49 PM | Comments (1)

March 17, 2006

The Distinction Between Law and Gospel on American Idol

This one is dedicated to all you Lutherans out there (as seen on the BHT).

Posted by David Darlington at 12:37 PM | Comments (2)

The Other Tourney

Here's a question: say you're a mens college basketball team with a proud history like Michigan or Stanford, or you won the NCAA national title a mere four years ago like my alma mater Maryland, and you win the NIT, do you even display the banner?

Posted by David Darlington at 08:28 AM | Comments (6)

March 15, 2006

An Embarrassment of Glitches

Back in the olden days of the mid- to late-1990s, when I was working my way through college doing campus tech support, we had it easy. The web--brought to us via Netscape's web browser--arrived in the computer labs during my freshman year, while dorm room networks were an ongoing project for the next three years on campus. Many students, but not everybody for sure, had their own in-room computer. Nobody that I can recall had more than one machine, even the computer science majors. But the times they are a-changin', as the Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported (subscription required). Twenty-seven percent of college students have more than one computer on campus, according to survey, up from 19 percent five years prior. A separate, larger survey found that 21 percent of college students owned both a desktop and a laptop in 2005, up four percent from just 2004. At University of Michigan, 32 percent of students had more than one computer.

The multiple-computers-per-student phenomenon is causing major headaches for my successors in the campus tech world. The multiplication of computers on campus means more hardware troubleshooting, more virus checking, and of course, more brownouts on campus, as many dorms still resemble public housing projects from the 1970s, in both accommodations and electrical capacity. Student-established wireless networks often conflict with the official campus network, which causes tech problems for all involved.

Multiple computers per person has gone from unheard of to a "need," many students would attest, in about a decade. What do we make of this phenomenon? I'm sure we have a number of readers who are never far from 100 gigabytes of storage, no matter where they are.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:36 AM | Comments (2)

March 13, 2006

McCain-Feingold v. Bloggers

In September 2004 Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) exemption of internet activity from the McCain-Feingold legislation was contrary to congressional intent, forcing the FEC to amend its rules. Federal law already allows exemption from FEC regulation to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." But the new rules, proposed last spring, set off a firestorm for including blogs and emails in the regulations. The proposed rules would apply to all internet activity except that with "limited distribution" or with password-protected sites. Emails to more than 500 people in 30 days would also trigger FEC regulation.

Understanding the potential affront to free speech, not to mention the political ramifications, some representatives in Congress attempted to pass legislation which would amend the campaign finance laws to give Internet publishers the same exemptions that print newspapers and magazines enjoy. After Democrats first blocked the effort last November (thanks in part to procedural rules which required a 2/3 vote to pass), a House panel successfully approved H.R. 1606 late last week which exempts certain online communications from the reporting rules.

CNET, which offers a good summary of the recent events, reports the House reform proposal is only one sentence long and reads that the portion of federal election law dealing with publications aimed at the general public "shall not include communications over the Internet." Writing at his VOLPAC blog, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., explained why he has proposed companion language to H.R. 1606 as an amendment to a bill to overhaul lobbying regulations. Here's an exerpt:

From the earliest days of our republic, freedom of speech and freedom of the press - be they anonymous pamphlets, celebrated essays or local newspapers - were understood to be fundamental to the practice and defense of liberty. Without the ability to convey ideas, debate, dispute, and persuade, we may never have fought for and achieved our independence. ... And, today, it's bloggers whom we now have to protect. There are some who, out of fear or shortsightedness, wish to restrict the ability of our modern day-Thomas Paines to express political views on the World Wide Web. ... I stand firmly against these efforts to hamstring the Internet and squarely with the champions of free speech.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:54 AM | Comments (2)

Something odd

Just curious. Has anyone else noticed scenes on television where you're watching a mirror image of the actual scene that was filmed? The giveaway is when you spot some backwards text. I think I've seen this more than once on Survivor. Perhaps the editors concluded the scene looked better with action going from right to left rather than left to right?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:55 AM | Comments (2)

March 12, 2006

Life Imitates Art

I have no idea where this originated from (it looks vaguely British), but I love it. The Real Life Simpsons

Posted by David Darlington at 02:38 PM | Comments (2)

March 10, 2006

Ozzie and Harriet were right

While you're reading the story of the unintentionally sabotaged liquid nitrogen tank, you may want to check out what Derek Lowe has to say about women and science, a la the Lawrence Summers controversy.

In a similar vein, a recent study by sociologists at the University of Virginia has found, unsurprisingly, that women are most happy in marriage when their husbands are emotionally engaged. However, in what will be a surprise to some, it found that women are also happier when their husbands provide 68 percent or more of the family income. This result holds true even among women who support egalitarian ideas. Furthermore, women who hold more traditional attitudes about home, family, and work report more affection and understanding from their husbands.

Add this to recent studies that show results such as married couples being happier than cohabiting couples, and it appears that "old-fashioned" values and thinking, maligned as they may be by modern thought, hold nuggets of truth and wisdom. Men and women *are* different, though different is not synonymous with better or worse, or more or less valuable.

If there is inequality in traditional gender roles and employment patterns, perhaps the real problem is the value our economy and/or culture assigns to those roles. Unfortunately, it is more difficult to solve that problem than to insist on a 50:50 gender ratio in every existing employment category.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:10 AM | Comments (5)

Liquid nitrogen tank - relief valve = bomb

Courtesy of Derek Lowe, my favorite blogging chemist, here is an amazing story of how things can go wrong when you bypass safety features on equipment.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:01 AM | Comments (2)

Dubai Ports Deal is Dead

The fiasco over a Dubai company buying shipping operations at six US ports is finally over. The company has agreed to divest the operations to a US company.

...Does anyone know if Halliburton wants to get into the shipping business?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:57 AM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2006

The latst from reality TV

Prof. Gerry Beyer tipped me off to a story about Sir Benjamin Slade, owner of an estate in England worth approximately $13 million, who is seeking an heir for estate in the United States. His estate includes a 13th-century manor house in Somerset. But before you apply, note the following conditions:

You cannot be a drug addict.
You must have enough funds to pay $140,000 per year to upkeep the manor.
You must be willing to invest $1 million to fix the stables.
You must fix the driveway for an estimated $70,000.
You cannot be a Communist.
You must be heterosexual.

Prof. Beyer writes: "The plan is for Sir Slade to run an Apprentice-style reality television show in which potential heirs spend time in the Manor and endure various challenges. Sir Slade may then eject the losers with the phrase, 'You're disinherited.'" Here's a NY Times article on it all.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:22 PM | Comments (1)

March 08, 2006

Lott Endorses McCain

"Four days before the Southern Republican Leadership Conference -- the first cattle call for potential 2008 candidates - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appears to have snagged the endorsement of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)." Lott told CNN's Morning Grind "that when he takes the stage in Memphis on Saturday, his remarks will focus on 'the Republican Party in the South and about my friend John McCain.'"

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:25 PM | Comments (27)

What if Roe v. Wade was Overturned?

Josh Goodman analyzed information produced by NARAL and found that if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow and found that 23 states would be likely to ban most abortions, 20 states would keep abortion legal and 7 states would be battlegrounds.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:21 PM | Comments (6)

Rumsfeld v. FAIR

I don't have much to add in the way of analysis, but I thought it'd be good to mention the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that law schools cannot deny military recruiters the opportunity to participate in on-campus recruiting opportunities because of the U.S. military's policy toward gays and lesbians. The so-called Solomon Amendment denies federal funds to any school discriminating against the military. The law exempts any institution with "a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation."

Thirty-six schools challenged the amendment because it "forced hosting" of military recruiters and constitutes a "crisis of conscience" over compelled speech. They claimed the law compelled them to support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and their hosting also subsidized the military's expression of its view that openly gay people are not suited for service.

The high court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, points out that schools are still able to discriminate against the military: "You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money." The law in question "regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do - afford equal access to military recruiters - not what they may or may not say."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:06 PM | Comments (6)

March 07, 2006

Beleaguered Bonds

An asterisk awaits Barry Bonds's career home run total and single-season home run record if the allegations in a new book, Game of Shadows, due out this month, are true. San Francisco Chronicle writers Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams conducted a two-year investigation and concluded that Barry Bonds used a vast array of performance-enhancing drugs, including steroids and human growth hormone, for at least five seasons, starting in 1998. There have been questions about Bonds's training regimen ever since his association with the BALCO drug company was revealed a few years ago, but nothing this definitive. The extensively footnoted and documented tome, which is exclusively excerpted here by Sports Illustrated, argues that Bonds's troubles began when he became enthralled with the media coverage of the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run chance. Always concerned about his position in the history of the game, Bonds became a user and subsequently put up unprecedented home run totals for a man past his 34th birthday, culminating in breaking McGwire's three-year-old single season home run record in 2001. Bonds's alleged usage stopped in 2003 when the MLB began cracking down on performance enhancers.

What does this mean for Barry Bonds's legacy and for the MLB? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the slugger, who hinted earlier this spring that he was going to retire after the season (but later took it back), has played his last game of major league baseball. However, I'd guess he'll probably avoid the Pete Rose treatment because the substances he allegedly used were not illegal at the time. If these allegations are true, his mammoth post-34 home run totals definitely deserve an asterisk, and doubts about his career totals are certainly justified.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:51 PM | Comments (7)

Casey pandering to popular pay-raise outrage?

It has been the number-one political story in Pennsylvania since last summer. On July 7, 2005, a bipartisan effort in the Pennsylvania legislature passed a pay raise for legislators, judges, and top executive-branch officials. They probably couldn't have picked a worse way to do it. The measure was passed at 2 AM without debate or public notice. Undoubtedly, the secretive manner in which they approached the measure was in anticipation of the universal public resentment of politicians voting to raise their own salaries. Predictably, it made that resentment much worse.

The popular outrage against the pay raise itself is rooted in ignorance. As Paul Musgrave wrote here last May, Americans demand top performance from our state and federal lawmakers for sub-par compensation. Before the pay raise (and since its apeal on November 16), the base pay for a Pennsylvania legislator was $69,647. According to US Census data, the median income for a 4-person family in Pennsylvania was $68,578 in 2003. What a joke. We expect our representatives to be intelligent, well-eduated, highly-motivated people, but we're paying them no more than a middle manager at an auto parts factory, and substantially less than the average Penn State University professor ($86,900 salary--$110,600 total compensation--in the 1999-2000 academic year).

Enter state treasurer Bob Casey Jr., whom political junkies nationwide will recognize as US Sen Rick Santorum's expected opponent in this year's election. Casey has filed a brief with the state Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by "citizen activist" Gene Stilp against the government for the pay raises. In his brief, Casey states that he believes the pay raise was illegal. He denies, however, that this is a calculated political move. "When you're brought into a lawsuit, you've got to respond," says Casey.

It's certainly possible Casey has honestly come to the conclusion that the pay raise bill was improperly passed, even though as state treasurer he paid the increased salaries to Pennsylvania's public officials for four months without making a peep. What I do know is this: we, as citizens, get the government we pay for.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:28 PM | Comments (9)

Who woulda thunk it?

A post-Oscar observation... Last year brought us two movies with some interesting contrasts:

Brokeback Mountain: A movie about gay cowboy lovers, portrayed by two straight actors. It received great mainstream acclaim, but has been panned by conservative Christians.

End of the Spear: A movie about a Christian martyr, portrayed by an openly gay actor. It received scant mainstream attention, but was embraced by conservative Christians.

Weird.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:12 PM | Comments (15)

March 06, 2006

Rap Battles

When Chris Parnell and Andy Samberg created "Lazy Sunday", a music video that had its debut on the Dec. 17 broadcast of Saturday Night Live, few people involved expected it to be as popular as it became. One site alone, YouTube.com, had been used to view it more than five million times. Hip ITA readers will know that the skit is made in the traditional East Coast style of rap, so it wasn't long until a few West Coasters made a response of their own in "Lazy Monday."

It's a decent piece, but my favorite response paved a new path between the traditional East Coast/West Coast rivalry. "Lazy Muncie" (alternate link) features two fishing buddies rapping the virtues of their midwestern Indiana town, home to Bob Evans's delicious biscuits and gravy, Elks Lodge dances, and Garfield creator Jim Davis. Forget Lazy Sunday and Lazy Monday. Lazy Muncie has won the rap battles in my mind and I recommend it to all of our readers.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 PM | Comments (3)

March 04, 2006

Dead to Me

Former Rep. Duke Cunningham was sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in the slammer yesterday, which I don't think is long enough.

When the story first broke, I wasn't that surprised by the corruption. No, what struck me was how cheaply he was bought. I thought $2.4 million sounded awfully low for a U.S. Representative, especially one who handles defense funding.

Prof. Tabarrok also noted this and comes to a disturbing conclusion:

What's most disturbing about this is how low the prices were, $50,000 for $1 million in contract value. Now let's remember Econ 101, what makes prices low? That's right, competition. So who was Cunningham competing with?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:35 PM | Comments (3)

I'm OK With the Black SUV's

I regularly read The Agitator to learn about libertarian issues the MSM ignore, but I'm not particularly troubled by the following item Radley picked up:

The large, black SUV passed the woman on the left, abruptly slowed down, and then dropped behind her. Suddenly, flashing red and blue lights lit up her rearview mirror.

"Ma'am, you were pulled over because you set off a nuclear radioactive alarm," a man dressed in a blue jumpsuit-type uniform and a baseball cap said in a monotone.

t sounds like a scene from the movie "Men in Black." A select group of state troopers and inspectors from the state Department of Motor Vehicles now wear ultra-sensitive, portable radiation detectors on their belts to check for dangerous materials inside large trucks.

But the 45-year-old Suffield woman wasn't hauling nuclear waste. She had been injected with a radioactive substance for a common medical test.

Passive detection of radioactivity on our roadways sounds like a pretty good idea to me, but I'll agree that "they need to set the calibration back just a bit."

A second item, though, strikes me as not only intrusive but a dangerous misallocation of resources:

The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable . . .

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

As Nick Gillespie says, "Terrorists Hate High Monthly Interest Payments."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:15 PM | Comments (4)

March 02, 2006

Crunching the Sales Figures

While he doesn't exactly give us a review of Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons (which sits on my bookshelf, ready to be read in the next week or two), The Washington Examiner's Patrick W. Gavin does make a valid point about political books and political discourse in general. The undying binary depiction of American politics--blue/red, liberal/conservative, crunchy/mainstream--serves to create stereotypes and sell books, but is not an accurate portrayal of American political life. Most Americans, he says, are politically pragmatic and unconcerned with politics during their day to day lives. In fact, if a book came out describing accurately how most Americans view politics--uninteresting but something you have to muddle through every 2 to 4 years--it wouldn't sell at all. For most people, the personal isn't political--but that doesn't move copies off the shelves.

(as I should have noted earlier: via Kevin Holtsberry)

Posted by David Darlington at 07:37 PM | Comments (0)

Google Maps Outdone

Here's a hat tip to--surprise surprise--Microsoft for its new Windows Live Local preview. Microsoft's "immersive city navigation" features not only the map+satellite image system of Google Maps, but integrates it with a car's-eye view from the ground level, which changes as you move around the city. A great aid for those if us who still get lost even with multiple Google Maps and Mapquest printouts occupying our passenger's seat.

The preview only features Seattle and San Francisco at the moment. Here's hoping they add more cities--fast.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:10 AM | Comments (2)

March 01, 2006

Citizen or Resident of Indiana

I was just alerted to the following howler from USA Today:

Indianans suspicious of toll road deal

To those of you not from Indiana, such misidentifications grate on our ears like fingernails on a chalkboard. The correct headline would read, of course, "Hoosiers suspicious of toll road deal." But one really can't expect too much from USA Today.

The Morning News is much more conscientious. Editor Andrew Womack explores the proper designations for each of the states at length, whether to end with -ans, -ians, -ers, -ites, or -ders. He almost mistakenly settles on Indianians, but

During this exercise, a pair of emails arrived from Indianians, both of which alerted us that, thank you very much, people from Indiana are not "Indianians," nor are they "Indianans," but, in fact, are "Hoosiers."

Damn straight.

He also came up with an interesting map.

Another quibble might be found among our northern neighbors. While "Michigander" might be wildly popular, the state government seems to prefer "Michiganian," a term at which most Michiganders I've met balk. One ruefully told me that the legislature, contrary to reason and tradition, even made the -ian suffix the standard back in the 70's. This page from michigan.gov seems to dispute that.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:11 PM | Comments (5)

Employer-Provided Healthcare

In examining America's current healthcare problems, many parties will agree that provision by employers is an artifact of WWII wage/price controls. There is simply no compelling reason why one should expect healthcare to come from one's employer -- except that employees constitute a now-historical risk pool.

Daniel Weintraub's article in the Sacramento Bee last week explains why the cons outweigh the pros under this artificial arrangement. Most importantly, continued reliance on third-party payers for healthcare stymies innovative solutions for controlling costs: for statists, a single-payer model; for free marketeers, multiple-payer vehicles (vouchers or HSAs).

So who would further cement employers' role in healthcare (dis)management?

Now comes a national movement to require employers, especially large ones, to spend a certain amount of money on health insurance for their workers or pay a tax to the state to cover their care. In California, a state senator says she plans to introduce a version of this bill.

Ultimately, the anti-WalMart crowd.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:26 PM | Comments (4)