You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 » March 31, 2007Physics is PhunThis deserves at least partial credit. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:22 AM | Comments (0) March 30, 2007Andrew Jackson and the ConstitutionYesterday I received in the mail my copy of Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generational Regimes by Gerard N. Magliocca. At various periods spanning two years I served as a research assistant to Prof. Magliocca on this project. He is, without reservation, the finest professor I've ever had in seven years of higher education. Working with him was a pleasure. I say all of the above to note from the outset that I may be a bit biased in my review. But I suspect that every historian and legal scholar will enjoy Magliocca's book about the continual rebirth of our Constitution. Focusing primarily on the Jacksonian era - an all too forgotten period in American history because of its lack of major wars - Magliocca takes us on a journey which first traces the rise of Jacksonian Democracy, and the rise of states' rights and white supremacy in the Indian Removal Act. He then explores Jackson's successful attempt to pack the Court following the establishment's efforts to expand federal authority. After taking us through the rise of Jacksonian Democracry, Magliocca observes all of the many ways in which the new order must deal with responses to its power - abolitionism, the growth of the Republican Party and, ultimately, the 14th Amendment, which became the "central legal text for all time." The value in Magliocca's work is that it is neither a history book nor an instruction on how the Constitution should be read. Rather, it is about how our Constitution changes in a predictable cycle. Magliocca writes: "The only thing that remains constant from age to age is the pattern by which this desire for reform unfolds. Understanding that process of collective rebirth can unlock the mysteries of our constitutional past, present, and future."History is largely built upon the constant struggle of reformers and conservatives, and this dynamic, Magliocca argues, shapes the nation as much as the creativity of judicial decisions. Click the link to the right to order the book, and click here for more on Prof. Magliocca. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:57 PM | Comments (1) March 29, 2007Jeri Kehn for First Lady!
Jeri is an attorney and political media consultant who previously worked for the Senate Republican Conference and the Republican National Committee. She's also, according to Bob Novak, pushing Fred to run. By the standards of any objective observer she's perfect for the role of First Lady, but success attracts jealously, and she's attracted plenty of it. Commenter "Beansox" blasted Thompson's wife as a "gold-digger" and other offensive things (all while lecturing us on who is and isn't Christian). Wonkette adds her own two cents that Kehn is a "trophy wife." Meanwhile the website "Draft Fred Thompson" came to the couple's defense by noting their relationship did not overlap with previous marriages (as compared to Rudy and Newt). Frankly, I didn't need many more reasons to support Thompson. But having read about and seen his wife, I may need to buy a bumper sticker. Surely not since Jacqueline Kennedy have we had such a photogenic First Lady. And, really, who wouldn't get behind Jeri Kehn's quagmires? Related ITA entries: Holier Than Thou, by Z. Wendling Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:54 PM | Comments (31) Holier Than ThouAs noted below, James Dobson doesn't think Fred Thompson is a Christian. This seems like an extraordinary pronouncement, so perhaps, thought I, that Thompson had gone all Hollywood and adopted Kabbalah or Buddhism. You know how those actors are. A followup comment from Dr. Dobson's spokesman clarified matters: he never claimed Thompson is a member of a non-Christian faith. Oh, so maybe Dobson is calling Thompson an atheist? Not so, "Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. 'Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ*.'" So, is Dobson claiming that the Churches of Christ are non-Christian? Wow! The leading voice of religious conservatives launching a theological broadside against the Stone-Campbell movement! Sensational! Ah, but no, the criticism is much more widespread, "'We use that word-Christian-to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,' [the spokesman] added. " This gave me pause. I am definitely Evangelische, but I don't consider myself an Evangelical. Does that mean I'm not a Christian, according to James Dobson? Does that mean most "Christians" aren't either? The church invisible must be relatively small indeed. This new definition of Christian is worrisome, since no real Christian wants to be bound by Dr. Dobson's key. If you need help figuring out what the Council of Nicaea left out, be sure to check out this quiz from Lark News, the absolutely best source for religious news on the Internet. *I assume from this page he was referring to the Churches of Christ. If he meant the United Church of Christ, well . . . Previously In The Agora . . . Famous for Being Fred, by D. Darlington Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:30 PM | Comments (8) Famous for Being FredSome additional thoughts about Fred Thompson. I couldn't find space for it in my last post, but I really like this Matt Yglesias article from American Prospect. While writing on the other side of the aisle, I think Yglesias puts his finger on why conservatives are waiting for a white knight like Thompson to save them rather than forcing a Brownback or a Huckabee onto the party: he's already famous. For Yglesias, the most qualified Democratic candidate is Bill Richardson. It's hard to disagree with him. Richardson was a congressman for 15 years, energy secretary, ambassador to the U.N., and is a respected governor. Yet his presidential campaign so far is a non-starter. He's fallen behind lesser-qualified but more famous candidates. John Edwards served only one term in the Senate but is well-known for being on the 2004 losing ticket. Barack Obama hasn't even completed a term, but is famous for his 2004 convention speech. The source of Hillary Clinton's notoriety is obvious, and she might even be the best qualified of the top-tier candidates if she learned anything by osmosis from her husband. But the fact remains that the Democrats have won a whole bunch of statehouses since 2000 and should have a bumper crop of qualified presidential candidates. Yglesias mentions Bill Richardson, Katherine Sebelius, Rod Blagojevich, Ed Rendell, and Janet Napolitano as some, yet only Richardson is running (and it's hard to tell). There may be reasons why the other folks aren't in it, but it seems to me that Yglesias is on to something when he says, "[the national media] simply decided unilaterally some years ago to only cover people who were already famous." You have the same thing on the GOP side. Giuliani and McCain have been famous for years. As have fantasy candidates Thompson and Gingrich. Romney's political resume is comparatively short, but he has been in the public eye for a while due to his prior engagements (such as the Olympics). Meanwhile, candidates with records to run on, like Mike Huckabee, or Mark Sanford, or Tim Pawlenty up in Minnesota (who's signed on with McCain), get ignored. I'm sure our readers can suggest other qualified individuals who have better resumes than the current frontrunners. The point is, these guys aren't famous enough for the national media to take them seriously. And that's a problem. Or perhaps I should say, "to take them seriously yet." That's the real issue facing conservative Republicans right now. Do conservatives begrudgingly get behind a Giuliani or a Romney? Do they continue to hold out for a Fred Thompson to come in with guns blazing? Do they force one of the more conservative guys currently in the race to the front line via hard work? It's time for choosing. Update: As alluded to in the comments, James Dobson gave the thumbs down to Thompson, thumbs up to Gingrich. Posted by David Darlington at 09:01 AM | Comments (6) The Scan of the BeastAnd I thought the "mark of the beast," as described in Revelation 13, would consist of a tattoo. Then again, we were raised on A Thief in the Night in Sunday School. Not so for a former Hertz employee, who has filed a Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e) suit against the company for not allowing exception to a hand scanner to track employee hours. Title VII, you will recall, requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious convictions. Apparently for Mr. Amos, the plaintiff, hand scanners are but one piece of the eschatological puzzle. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 08:43 AM | Comments (0) March 28, 2007Hard ChoicesIf you prefer plastic at the end of the line and live in San Francisco, your days are numbered. It appears that the city may be the first to pass a plastic bag ban; after a 10-1 vote it is poised to become law when Mayor Here's Your License Newsom signs it into law. Not surprisingly, a number of grocery chains oppose the move, which will require them to offer paper or a "plastic" bag that easily decomposes. Craig Noble of the National Resource Defense Council said that the new measure will "offer[] consumers a way out of a false choice, a way out of the paper or plastic dilemma." But when does a choice become a dilemma? Or, more so, since it is a false choice to begin with, why should it cause pause as a dilemma? Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:03 PM | Comments (11) Right Said, "Fred?"What are we to make of the Fred Thompson boomlet that is going on among the Republican Party regulars these days? A recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows Thompson, who first mentioned he's considering running two weeks ago, pulling in 12 percent of those polled, a solid third behind Giuliani (31 percent) and McCain (22 percent). Thompson's support comes mainly at the expense of Mr. Giuliani, who has dropped 13 points since the last Gallop poll, and Mr. Romney, who at three percent is approaching Tom Tancredo levels of support. I think the reason that Thompson polls so well is not because how similar he is to Jack Bauer, but rather the general dissatisfaction the GOP regulars currently have with the current crop of "top tier" candidates. Even a year out, their problems are already well known: McCain is too old and too much of heretic; Giuliani is a social liberal; Romney is evidence flip-flopping is caused by Massachusetts drinking water, etc. etc. etc. The crown of conservative hero is still up for grabs, and rather than working for one of the dark horse guys like Brownback or Huckabee (how these "tiers" got assigned is beyond me), conservatives would rather be rescued by a man on a white horse. The GOP prefers coronating their candidates rather than grassroots fights, so perhaps this is the way it has to be. In politics as in life, success and money does tend to follow success and money. Uphill battles are called that for a reason. Nevertheless, Thompson, like Newt Gingrich who always seems to be mixed up in these things, polls well because he brings instant top tier status to the conservative cause without having to do the retail grunt work. To that end, Thompson represents another idealized type for the GOP. With nearly 6 out of 10 Republicans saying they're dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates, the party is looking for a "none of the above" candidate who they can project as both conservative hero and election winner -- and getting both of those in one man is the tricky part. Thompson's sudden strength also bodes ill I think for the GOP's chances next year, as it shows the party is lost and looking to anyone for leadership, while the Dems at least have two blue chippers in Clinton and Obama to choose between (and don't count out Edwards). Still, I could get behind Fred Thompson. Especially if he is Jack Bauer. Extra especially if he can convince fellow conservative Abby Carmichael to be his running mate. Related ITA entries: Gov. Mark Sanford: The GOP's Savior? by J. Claybourn Posted by David Darlington at 04:58 PM | Comments (3) Stupid Transit TricksDon't tell me you've never imagined doing something like this. (Or is that just me?) Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:16 PM | Comments (0) Robo-Jacko?This sounds like something straight out of South Park, but according to reports, Michael Jackson is in discussions to have a 50-foot robotic likeness of himself roam the desert near Las Vegas, shooting laser beams. Feel free to leave your related jokes in the comments. Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:12 PM | Comments (2) March 27, 2007Spring cleaningOur friends over at Positive Liberty have re-designed the site's layout, which gives me a good excuse to bring them up and once again recommend them to the libertarian academics among us. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:30 PM | Comments (0) One Corrupt Bureaucrat Down...Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence M. Small resigned over the weekend after a seven-year tenure. Small has been the subject of criticism recently about the personal and business bills he racked up at taxpayer expense. Small was accused of living a "Dom Perignon" lifestyle in which he earned a $915,000 annual salary and incurred another $1.15 million in housing expenses during his tenure to pay for the high cost of holding fundraisers and entertaining guests. Many of the items Small charged to the government were along the lines of the infamous $2,000 hammers that the military used to buy. Small also reportedly pressured the inspector general conducting an audit of his spending habits to look the other way. The auditor concluded that despite Small's spendthrift ways, he actually raised less money annually for the institution than his predecessor in 1999, when adjusted for inflation. While it puts a smile on my face any time a profligate bureaucrat gets nailed for spending too much, wasting taxpayer money was not the worst of Mr. Small's offenses. That distinction belongs to a deal he brokered in 2006 between the Smithsonian and Showtime Networks, giving the cable company, among other things, the right of first refusal on commercial documentaries that relied significantly on the museum's archives, curators or scientists for the next 30 years. Historians and filmmakers are understandably still outraged about this. Ironically, however, the first person bitten by the deal was conservative icon Oliver North, who had a heck of a time (see here and here) just getting footage of the Enola Gay for an upcoming "War Stories" documentary on the history of the atomic bomb. In his most recent column, North said, "The secret deal with Showtime/Viacom gives exclusive control over images of historic artifacts in more than 150 Smithsonian facilities to a single company. This is an injustice to every citizen whose taxes support these magnificent museums. Worst of all, it's an affront to the courage, perseverance and ingenuity of all who made our nation's history worthy of preservation." Amen Ollie. Cristian Samper, a 41 year-old biologist and head of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, will serve as acting secretary until a replacement can be found. Posted by David Darlington at 08:55 AM | Comments (2) March 26, 2007Another Thousand Words of Irony
Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:09 PM | Comments (2) A One-Page Essay Due FridayScott Adams almost always has something interesting to report: One of the most potent forms of persuasion has to do with people's innate need to be consistent. Studies show that people will ignore logic and information to be consistent. (In other words, we are moist robots.) According to the research, humans are hardwired for consistency over reason. You already knew that: People don't switch political parties or religions easily. What you didn't know is how quickly and easily a manipulator can lock someone into a position.This struck me because it is pretty much how we taught undergraduate policy courses at IU, at least in the classes where I was the TA. The ironic thing is that we handed out these assignments with the purported goal of fostering critical thinking skills. Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:00 PM | Comments (1) "undefended except by the dishonest and the duped"Robert Novak reports on the lack of support for President Bush on Capitol Hill. He writes: "In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment." The administration has left the Congressional wing of the party in the lurch so often that it no longer trusts the president to give them political cover. Congressional Republicans are growing bolder in using the I-word (incompetence) in describing the administration. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader said to Novak. "How can we claim that anymore?" The party is also becoming more willing to "leave [the president] to his enemies," as Zach says, especially with regards to Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales. The president is increasingly alone. Sounds like self-preservation to me. Posted by David Darlington at 12:53 PM | Comments (4) We've no less days...This past weekend marked the 200th anniversary of Britain's Slave Trade Act of 1807. The recent film, Amazing Grace, captured well the fervor and religious zeal of William Wilberforce, and offered a brief, refreshing reprieve from Kevin Phillips' alarms of the slavery that is Christianity. Interestingly, the Slave Trade Act of 1807 did not bring the result heralded today. It simply levied a heavy tax for each slave found on a ship flying the British flag. In many cases British ships would continue to transport slaves for trade; if the British navy paid a visit, many captains would simply throw the slaves overboard rather than pay the tax. It was not until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which ordered the immediate freedom of every slave in the Empire under the age of six, and the graduated freedom, over a period of four years with graduated compensation as well, for every slave in the Empire over the age of six. Most importantly, the Crown would offer up to 20 million pounds for slave owners' lost "property." (Lincoln's first proposal of the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet also included this, but after the victory at Antietam this buffer was removed.) And heralded, or at least some degree of happiness over the abolition of slavery, may be the wrong sentiment for many in England. Michael Nazir-Ali, Anglican Bishop of Rochester, refuses to join in the chorus of mea culpas heard throughout England. His rationale: Such a response clouds the involvement of Africans and Muslims of East Africa and, more importantly, such a sentimental response to an affront on human dignity does not sufficiently recognize slavery's treachery. Whether one agrees with the Bishop's underlying critique, his appeal shifting the discussion from "Peccavimus" to the dignity of the human person is welcome. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 08:35 AM | Comments (0) Quick LinksHere are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:
Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:23 AM | Comments (3) March 23, 2007Is The Daily Show Biased?To this question, most conservatives would reflexively answer "yes." The belief that The Daily Show caters to liberal sensibilities runs so deep that producer Joel Surnow described his new show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" as "The Daily Show for conservatives." Yet, many liberals argue that TDS lampoons both Republicans and Democrats in equal amounts. Along these lines, blogger "squeezychortle" links to a clip of Jon Stewart hilariously poking fun at Democratic House members as well as Vice President Cheney. Indeed, Stewart spends roughly equal time making both parties the butt of his jokes. But a closer examination of his material reveals a certain bias. While Stewart portrays Pelosi and Obey as bumbling and incompetent, the assumption is that they are right in their intentions, even if inept in their performance. On the other hand, Cheney is described as questioning the Democrats' patriotism, wanting to "undermine" the troops, stretch the military too thin, and provide them inadequate medical care; "has been wrong about everything," exposed a CIA agent, misled Congress, and is the sort of person who would help you cover up a "dead hooker in [your] hotel room." The accuracy of any of these claims are beside the point--Stewart is basically describing Cheney as evil while the Democrats are merely bumbling. In other words, the Democrats play Bullwinkle while Cheney is Boris Badenov. This is typical of what I've seen of TDS' version of balanced satire. Other TDS fans say that, sure, the show is biased against the Republicans, but that's because the GOP is in power. I don't clearly recall how the show treated President Clinton, but I don't think it was quite as political in that time period, anyway. So it remains to be seen whether the show's bias will shift if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. All of this, however, is ultimately beside the point. The Daily Show is, after all, the funniest news satire on television today. Its primary aim is to be funny--not accurate or balanced. Anyone smart enough and aware enough to appreciate its jokes on politics and current events is surely perceptive enough to account for its bias. Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:52 PM | Comments (5) March 22, 2007Truth and Consequences in Global Climate ChangeThe current debates over global climate change remind me of the public discourse over evolution in one insightful way. As an undergraduate, my evolution professor taught us that people don't reject the Theory of Evolution based on evidence; they reject it based upon the consequences of accepting it, by which he meant that it would be intolerable to hold a thought in one's head that undermined core tenets of religious conviction (namely, the veracity of Scriptures and the sovereignty of God.) In order to protect those tenets, creationists latch onto all sorts of misguided criticisms of evolution. Likewise, I think most global warming skeptics are also not so much interested in the evidence for (or against) anthropogenic climate change as avoiding the consequences of accepting the policy prescriptions of the activists, which are intolerable to libertarians and fiscal conservatives as well as a substantial number of moderates, who tend to see global warming as an end-run around reasonable objections to government control. Since the earliest days of the global climate change alarm, the activists have skewed the debate by making government regulation the default setting. Sheldon Richman points out that recognizing this is the key to righting the ship of public discourse: For advocates of individual liberty it is tempting to believe the skeptics are right because the other side is associated with statist solutions to climate change. Most solutions call for government control over the burning of fossil fuels. No advocate of free markets can be comfortable with a position that entails substantial taxes and subsidies to achieve a political objective -- reduction of carbon emissions -- especially when the solutions promise no more than negligible reductions in temperature. (Temperature, not emissions per se, is supposed to be the believers' cause for concern.)via Don Boudreaux I would quibble over his use of the word belief, but otherwise, he has good advice. And so it is with some irony that we should also give special recognition to Al Gore for pursuing a non-statist solution to carbon dioxide accumulation. Richard Branson and Al Gore announced today a $25 million prize for the best way to remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Note that this also exemplifies something I've noted before: libertarians (like Tabarrok) tend to be optimistic about the resourcefulness of human ingenuity in confronting problems. It is very welcome indeed to see Branson, also a reputed libertarian, win Gore over to our side, if even only for this modest effort. Could it be hard to convince other activists as well? Related ITA entries: 'You're Totally Wrong' by J. Claybourn Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:29 PM | Comments (14) Putting Up WordsJen Wagner of Taking Down Words (a blog of the Indiana Democratic Party) on January 11, 2007: The next time [Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Budget Director for the Bush administration] gets all high and mighty about trusting his leadership and executive judgment, remember this story, and remember it well. The word most frequently applied to the little fella's management style in Indiana is 'bold.' But in Washington, TDW would venture to guess the word is 'wrong.'Then less than a month later, on February 3, 2007, she writes in a post titled "Guv's Estimate Revised: Dubya To Request $245 Billion More For Wars":"A new study . . . concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. . .Before the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an 'affordable endeavor' and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as 'very, very high.'" Consider this post one in a series of reminders that the Guv's been wrong before. Really, really wrong. Unless, of course, he's drawn up some talking points about how his initial estimate was only supposed to apply to one year of war.Ms. Wagner implored us to "remember this story, and remember it well," so that we did. But has Ms. Wagner herself forgotten this apparently detestable practice? The Washington Post reported on Tuesday: Democrats are using the same tricks as President Bush in their rival plan to balance the federal budget by 2012: ignoring long-term costs of the war in Iraq and the need to fix a tax law that threatens unsuspecting middle-class families. . . The same flaws that Democrats derided in Bush's plan also exist in House Democrats' budget plan. . .I wonder, are House Democrats also wrong? "Really, really wrong"? Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:31 AM | Comments (3) March 21, 2007'You're totally wrong'None of ITA's authors have addressed global warming to the same degree that it has been receiving attention in mainstream news, or even on other blogs. While I cannot speak for my colleagues, I will say that my own silence is due primarily to my lack of scientific knowledge on the subject. I have nothing close to an authoritative opinion - but neither do most people who comment on global warming. Indeed, it seems that many (and arguably most) who comment on and discuss global warming base their entire argument on an appeal to authority, often another interest group. I have neither the time nor the intelligence to examine the science and walk away prepared to inform and influence others. In spite of all of this, there remains good reason to be skeptical. James Taranto put it thus: Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies.It's true that global warming offers a tangible and frightening motivator for certain ideologues who have long wanted to scale back industrial growth. For other subsets of the Left it even offers the added benefit of holding America (and the West) to blame, an all too popular de facto position. Yet both sides of the global warming debate fit neatly into pre-existing political ideologies. When Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Al Gore "You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," one has to wonder what makes Barton so certain. Was Gore simply "wrong" because business interests (particularly Texas ones) would be threatened by the solutions man-made global warming would necessarily require? Was Gore wrong because the most plausible solutions fly in the face of small-government, libertarian principles? I have no idea if Barton or Al Gore are correct; I am no scientist. Instead I am left to rest my conclusions on those of the scientific community, who appear to be in near universal agreement that the earth is warming. The remaining debate simply focuses on the cause: man-made or "natural"? As this debate progresses and continues, I look forward to hearing from informed and intelligent authorities. But I have absolutely no interest in hearing the scientific opinions of politicians like Rep. Barton. Related ITA entries: Al Gore and the difference between right and left by E. Seymour Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:19 PM | Comments (19) The Battle of CurrenciesSome of our readers may find interest in the case of Liberty Dollar, a private currency suing the U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Mint Director Edmond C. Moy. I initially intended to say nothing about the dispute because my law firm is representing the plaintiff. However, I feel comfortable pointing to news articles such as this one and commentary on the subject that are already in the public sphere by others. Liberty Dollar has posted a copy of the complaint (pdf) on its website. A number of blog posts on the subject are listed on Technorati. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:39 PM | Comments (0) March 20, 2007Students and the Limits of Permissible SpeechOn Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Morse v. Frederick (06-278), the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. The factual issues of the case are no less entertaining than its importance. In early 2002, a group of students gathered outside a Juneau high school while the Olympic torch passed through the city. The students also sported a 14-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." All of the students involved were subsequently reprimanded by school officials. Mr. Frederick brought suit against the school, alleging First Amendment violations. This is the first time that the Court has approached the issue of student speech since Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), wherein the Court stated that it is permissible for school officials to censor student speech when such speech might be deemed "school sponsored." Morse will likely form a quartet of what had been a trio of student speech cases, with the first being Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Tinker, a case involving student protest of the Vietnam War (the students wore black armbands during class), in many ways represents the zenith of student speech. Subsequent generations of law students have been taught that "children do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," and that school officials may not censor student speech unless there is a reasonable belief that such speech will materially disrupt the educational environment. Thus, Morse comes to the Court under unique auspices: Frederick's speech was not school sponsored, nor was the speech on school grounds. Or was it? After all, Frederick's plight is before the Supreme Court precisely because the school responded in the first place. Further,what exactly does "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" mean? Like the hypostatic union of the Son, such a question may never be fully answered, but a cursory reading of the transcript (dial-up warning: large PDF file) leads me to wonder if Justice Alito will part company with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia on a retreat from Tinker's plateau. As Robert's and Scalia's questions intimate, both appear comfortable with affording local school officials greater latitude in promulgating and enforcing student speech codes. And, mirabile dictu, Justice Breyer seems to be riding down the same trail: "It's pretty hard to run a school where kids go around at public events publicly making a joke out of drugs." The Court is expected to decide the case before summer recess. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 07:58 PM | Comments (3) March 19, 2007Parsing the NumbersIn analyzing America's healthcare system, pundits and critics will often note that the United States has the second highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world. Today, however, Slate examines those numbers and finds that the reason is actually due to superior resources. (James Taranto also covered this in January of '05.) "Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread." (H/T: Reason's Hit & Run) Indeed, the Slate piece points to a 2002 New England Journal of Medicine study which suggests more resources (i.e., more Medicare/Medicaid funding) may actually promote neonatologists where they aren't needed, resulting in infants "subjected to more intensive diagnostic and therapeutic measures, with the attendant risks." It's worth noting that this danger of excess testing and procedures - both to our health and pocketbooks - was the impetus of the highly complex Stark law and Anti-Kickback statute. Yet studies such as these prove that the problem is deeper and more institutionalized than we may realize. Related ITA entries: Americans without health insurance by J. Claybourn Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:02 PM | Comments (7) Iraq: Time to GoFour years ago, only intractable pacifists were calling for a withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and as the occupation has dragged on, that strategy still remains at the fringes of acceptable discourse. The conventional wisdom has been that the costs of a withdrawal far outweigh the pain of staying. At best, the suggestion that we should leave has politely been considered Plan Z. But now that Plans A through W have failed, it looks as if we are approaching the point where it is time to start talking seriously about "redeployment." Of course, many opponents of the war have been doing that for quite some time, but mostly on principle. Two recent pieces, however, argue for withdrawal as a practical matter. Robert Dreyfuss, writing in the Washington Monthly, argues that we have good reasons to expect that the dangers aren't as great as previously supposed and even finds reason to be optimistic that leaving may have a salutary effect. In a compelling Cato Institute Policy Analysis, Ted Galen Carpenter is even more thorough, detailing why the costs of leaving are much less than the costs of other strategies. Neither piece makes a definitive case, but they do point out the most important points for considering a withdrawal. As the surge crests, we'll know what to look for when plotting our next move. As even the stay-put Economist says, the Cato piece is a must read. I would advocate for a withdrawal except for one large objection: the prospect of an anarchic Iraq drawing its neighbors into a regional war (Carpenter aptly describes every key player's interests and abilities before dismissing the threat). Besides the human misery of expanded conflict, the global recession likely to ensue from a war in the oily Mideast would have unimaginable long term consequences. The only silver lining would be an increased impetus to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels (though I can scarce conceive of a worse way to internalize externalities than a shooting war). Another nagging question is our moral obligation to the Iraqis. Carpenter rightly brings up a point often overlooked by the hawks: we also have a moral obligation to American soldiers and citizens. But what of the Iraqis who have bravely fought and worked with us? A recent 60 Minutes segment focused on thousands of refugees who assisted the coalition in their attempts to rebuild the shattered nation -- and our national disgrace of abandoning them. If we withdraw, we absolutely must implement a policy of granting asylum to those individuals and their families who risked their lives and livelihoods for their country. How can we do anything less? Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:14 AM | Comments (7) March 17, 2007Support Sunshine for Presidential RecordsAll historians and supporters of open access to governmental records should raise their voices in appreciation to the House of Representatives for passing H.R. 1255, the Presidential Records Act Amendments (PRAA) of 2007, and in encouragement to the Senate to pass the matching bill, S. 886. Though the act passed the House overwhelmingly, 333-93 (Democrats unanimously in favor, joined by the majority of Republicans), the White House has threatened its second veto. The heart of the PRAA is to restore access to presidential records by re-establishing the standards set in the Reagan and Clinton eras. Specifically, Reagan-era standards made presidential records open to the public 12 years after the end of an administration, except in cases where national security was still at risk. An executive order issued by President Bush in November 2001 set aside this standard and significantly increased the scope of "executive privilege" claims against the release of records, allowing presidents, former presidents, presidential families, and even vice presidents to claim privilege and virtually keep records sealed in perpetuity. A charitable reading of this action says that historical records were just caught up in the administration's post-9/11 secrecy craze. A less-charitable reading says the current president was trying to keep his father from being embarrassed about something. The National Coalition for History gives further detail on H.R. 1255 below the fold. As passed by the House, H.R. 1255 would require the following: Accessibility means accountability. Open those records! Posted by David Darlington at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) As requested, a few thoughts on PurgegateThe punditocracy from the middle leftward have joined in a single chorus bemoaning the partisanship of this Administration's recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys. This is appropriate, and as more facts come to light, it is becoming more apparent that the firings were baseless, that the highest levels of the White House were involved, and that A.G. Alberto Gonzales is done for. In the wake of this scandal, there may be some interesting discussions about how U.S. Attorneys are appointed, but the real red meat is pointing out, yet again, how crass the Bush Junta really is. My only response is, "Did this seriously surprise you?" If you had asked me ex ante whether Bush would use the authority of his office to maintain partisan discipline within the DOJ, I would have wondered why you even bothered to ask. Even further, it should be no surprise to anyone that his screws were tighter than any previous President's. After six years, this is the only thing we have been led to expect. As a practical matter, replacing Gonzales might lead to better personnel. Hounding the Administration did give us Alito instead of Meijers and Gates instead of Rumsfeld. But stepping on a bug won't kill the nest. If this were bad enough to lead to Rove's firing, any number of other scandals would have done that before. I don't think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense, nor do the sum of Bush's scandals. It might push Bush's dismal approval ratings even lower, but we already know he couldn't care less about those. The clear winners in this are the Democrats, who only stand to gain the longer Bush & Co. are allowed to regularly generate outrages. A similar analysis may be applied to any of the recent White House "foibles." A large number of conservatives have long since abandoned this President (and indeed, the GOP itself). Joining the scrum over these recent scandals seems unnecessary, and I am content to leave him to his enemies, undefended except by the dishonest and the duped. Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:17 PM | Comments (33) Where do they all come from?Yeah, what is the deal here? Scott Adams: While I am hard at work in my office, I imagine that the rest of the world is working too. I like to think that we're all doing our part to keep the economy humming along. This perspective makes it easier for me to put in the long hours. Occasionally - quite rarely, actually - I need to drive somewhere in the middle of the day. That's when it hits me. I know it's wrong to argue from incredulity, but I can't believe that everyone I see out and about during the daytime consists of housewives (and -husbands), retired people, the unemployed, people using vacation time to run errands, and third-shifters. Or maybe those people are workers just dawdling on their way back from dentist appointments. Do you think that dentists can account for a substantial portion of their business due to the fact that an appointment with them is an unimpeachable way to get out of the office? Maybe the American workforce's obsession with long working hours explains our reputation for beautiful teeth. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:09 AM | Comments (3) An Evolving TorahRabbi Barry Leff offers some interesting reflection on an encounter with Justice Scalia after a discussion on faith and the death penalty. While Leff's approach to both Torah and the Constitution appears to be at odds with Scalia's originalism, the Rabbi does seem sympathetic to Scalia's accommodation for Jewish practice, especially as evidenced by his dissent in Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994). Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) March 15, 2007'Beware the Ides of March!'"Well, the Ides of March are come," said Caesar. The seer replied, "Ay, they are come, but they are not gone." On this day in 44 B.C. Imperator Gaius Julius Caesar Divus was assassinated in a portico attached to the Theatre of Pompey. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:55 PM | Comments (7) Calculating March MadnessAs millions of Americans fill out brackets online and for office pools, Kevin Cornwell points to several methods of mathematically improving your chance at winning. Some methods claim to have netted over $250,000 for its users. However most pools do not give additional points for upsets or margin of victory, and therefore picking the highest seed is still the best method under the point system of most pools. (John McCain takes the conservative approach.) Of course, the calculations and predictions all depend upon the number of teams playing, and for an analysis of that process we turn to resident ITA sports guy JP Claybourn, whose post is below the fold. (Eds.: The following is written by JP Claybourn) Congratulations, you're in ... kind of A recent Indy Star article discussed the disappointment felt by the Niagara team after learning that their Metro Atlantic Conference Tournament Championship had only earned them the an invitation for Tuesday night's NCAA Tourney play-in game. A disappointment that is certainly warranted. Since the inception of the play-in game, I have been amazed by the apparent lack of time that went into calculating how to include an extra team in the field of 64, as well as nearly everyone's infatuation with the idea. Commentators, analysts, and schools all love the idea of including more teams, but essential questions seem to go unasked and unanswered each spring. Why have only one play-in game? There are four 16 team brackets, but only one top seed plays the play-in winner. Wouldn't having a play-in game for each bracket allow more of the bubble teams to play in the tournament? It would seem more fair then to have the last eight at large teams (currently the last four in and last four out) who make the list of 68 participate in a play-in game that determines who is deserving of the bid. If Pre-Tourney Tuesday featured bubble teams like Syracuse, Drexel, K State, Purdue, and Texas Tech, wouldn't we see better basketball? The winner of those games could then become a predetermined mid-range seed in each bracket. This assumes that adding more teams is beneficial to March Madness and college basketball. Tennessee Coach Bruce Pearl is a proponent of going with an 80 team tournament. Aside from the added complications that this presents mathematically, being forced to incorporate byes, etc., I fear that we would be pushing college basketball even more towards an NBA environment, where underachieving is rewarded (see the Isaiah Thomas contract extension) and regular season games lose value. My advice: Cut the field back to 64. The tournament works, and small conference champs deserve to get pummeled by a number one seed without a play-in game. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) March 14, 2007'It Ain't Easy Being Green'
It is common, indeed required among some, that people wear green to commemorate [St. Patrick's Day]. But I hasten to note that green is the color for Catholic Irish to wear. Protestant Irish, such as myself, should wear orange.As I then noted in the comments, I picked up on the "rule" from my grandfather; I knew of no formal authority on the matter. But if the number of people searching for a variation of "wear orange on St. Patrick's Day" is any indication, the tradition may be catching on. Protestant Irish have been known as "orange" ever since William of Orange (William III), the King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in 1690 defeated King James II, a Roman Catholic, in the Battle of the Boyne near Dublin. William's victory would ensure Protestant dominance on the island and has been a source of tension ever since. (This is also why orange appears in the Irish flag.) So perhaps orange has long been worn on St. Patrick's Day by Protestants, but the clearest expression of the tradition that I could find was with the Orange Instiution, a fraternal organization more commonly known as the Orange Order. If this Wikipedia entry is to be believed, some members of the order wore orange on St. Patrick's Day as a mark of defiance. No matter its roots, the tradition appears to be gaining ground. This year on St. Patrick's Day I'll be going orange. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:25 PM | Comments (14) March 13, 2007The Importance of Poker NightNew research shows that men who live socially isolated lives are more likely to die of accident, illness, or suicide, reports the Washington Post. Men who have strong social support networks especially outside his immediate family, on the other hand, are less likely to develop heart disease and suffer from depression or other mental health issues. Why is this? Well, there may be some social pressures to live a clean life, such as eating right, exercising, or not smoking. But also, having a buddy to share personal struggles with is just as important than taking care of one's body physically. Unfortunately, women are far better at maintaining close personal relationships with their friends, especially after big life-changing events like marriage or the birth of a child. So, ladies, let your man have poker night, the occasional weekend fishing trip, or that men-only bible study. It may literally save his life. Related ITA entries by the author: On Small Groups and the Evangelical Search for Authentic Community Posted by David Darlington at 08:27 PM | Comments (5) 'I cry out to you, O God, but you do not answer'Rep. Pete Stark, D-Cal., is known as one of the most liberal members of Congress. To lawyers, and particularly health lawyers like myself, he is even more well known for orchestrating the "Stark Law," one of the most complicated and overbearing regulatory systems on the books. Now, however, Rep. Stark may be known for something even more unique - "the first openly atheist member of Congress in American history." The revelation came about after he "acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America." The LA Times reports: "When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Stark said. "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."(Eds.: This post has been updated to include the LA Times piece.) Related ITA entries by the author: Do Professors Believe in God? Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:35 AM | Comments (22) March 12, 2007The NRA is MIAIn the post below David addresses the federal appeals court decision in Parker v. the District of Columbia and notes that the plaintiffs were "backed by the libertarian think tank CATO Institute." Notably, however, the National Rifle Association (NRA) - the nation's largest and most prominent gun rights organization - "has fought this suit every step of the way." Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy of the Cato Institute addressed the NRA's counter-productive methods in a Washington Times article titled "Battle of the gun ban." Related ITA entries: D.C. Gun Ban Struck Down by D. Darlington Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:49 PM | Comments (1) D.C. Gun Ban Struck DownOn Saturday, a federal appeals court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns in the home, saying it was unconstitutional. By a 2-to-1 vote, the panel struck down the thirty year old ban, one of the toughest in the nation because it banned all handguns not registered before 1976, and said unequivocally that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to possess firearms. This individual interpretation of gun rights goes against the liberal line of gun rights existing only in the collective (the "well-regulated militia"). The plaintiffs in Parker v. the District of Columbia were backed by the libertarian think tank CATO Institute, and the co-council commented on the case here. The Washington Post editorialized against the decision and D.C.'s new Mayor Adrian Fenty promises to push the case to the Supreme Court. If the Court takes the case, it would be the first time it has addressed gun control in 70 years.1 For the resident lawyers, the text of the decision can be found here. 1 Another reason why the Rudy for President crowd needs to think things over. Posted by David Darlington at 04:29 PM | Comments (1) March 11, 2007It's Full of Cards
This one wins on the title alone. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:27 PM | Comments (1) Morning Darkness Saving TimeMy blood pressure will rise to dangerous levels if I dwell too long here on the purported benefits of Daylight Saving Time -- I and other critics can make a strong case that DST is, on net, a negative for energy, crime, and the economy. (It also does not help the case of most proponents that much of their data is decades old.) via the Environmental Economics blog, here is the abstract to a new study disputing today's extension of DST: Rising energy prices and environmental concerns are driving countries to consider extending Daylight Saving Time (DST) in order to conserve energy. Beginning in 2007, the U.S. will lengthen DST by one month with the specific goal of reducing electricity consumption by 1%. In this paper we question the findings of prior DST studies, which often rely on simulation models and extrapolation rather than empirical evidence. By contrast, our research exploits a quasi-experiment*, in which parts of Australia extended DST by two months to facilitate the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Using detailed panel data on half-hourly electricity consumption, prices, and weather conditions, we show that the extension failed to reduce electricity demand. We further examine prior DST studies and find that the most sophisticated simulation model available in the literature significantly overstates electricity savings when it is applied to the Australian data. These results suggest that current plans and proposals to extend DST will fail to conserve energy. Previously by the author: "A Bad Plan for Indiana" Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:02 PM | Comments (2) March 09, 2007SWAT-ing flies?Radley Balko is likely the biggest blogosphere critic of paramilitary police raids. Yesterday, he highlighted a case in Akron, Ohio, where a woman and her 12-year-old son were caught up in a SWAT raid on a convenience store. The Akron Beacon-Journal reported: Georgette Prince was making a quick run to the store last Thursday morning for orange soda and lottery tickets -- a venture that should have been an uneventful five-minute trip but became a terrifying 20-minute ordeal. Balko notes that "The SWAT team raid corresponded with a shoplifting investigation." Like any reasonable person, I thought that was insane until I read the entire article, in which you find this explanation: Roach and Thornton explained that a SWAT entry was used because the "target," the store owner, allegedly had a violent background and carried a gun. Ms. Prince confirmed that the store owner "had a gun on his hip." From this bit of information, I'd conclude that the use of a SWAT team to apprehend the owner would have been appropriate--if it had taken place at his home, not at a convenience store at 10 AM. Related ITA entries: Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:49 PM | Comments (5) March 08, 2007Outing conservatives and the limits of privacy2006-2007 seems to be turning into an era of outing prominent Christians and conservatives as promiscuous homosexuals. First came the downfall of Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and one of the Christian community's most outspoken and prominent opponents of gay marriage. Haggard appears to have solicited drugs and sex from a male prostitute. Then came Rev. Lonnie W. Latham, a member of the executuve board of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was arrested for soliciting a male undercover police officer. In a tremendous stroke of irony, Latham argued, among other things, that Lawrence v Texas - a case in which the Supreme Court struck down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas - should prevent a conviction. He was eventually acquitted because "it is not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts." The latest dustup comes from Matt Sanchez, a Marine Corps reservist who attends Columbia University. Sanchez became a media darling on the conservative television and talk radio circuit when he complained of how badly he was treated when he tried to recruit on the Columbia campus. His blog has also grown in popularity. Sanchez's star has grown so bright that he was honored at the largest conservative gathering at the Conservative Political Action Committee with the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award. In short, Sanchez was a minor celebrity among conservative pundits and activists. Yet Sanchez apparently also had another side, or at least a previous one far different from the current. Sanchez is a former gay porn star, performing under the screen names Rod Majors and Pierre LaBranche. What does all of this mean, and should it be an issue? When does someone become a public figure, and when they do, what are the limits of personal investigation? How relevant are the personal lives of activists? Tough questions, with no easy answers. Sanchez has written about the issue on his blog. It's an introspective piece that documents a long and windy path to conservatism: How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? Like all followers of a cult, it's tough to figure out when you stopped believing in the party-line, but I can tell you that by the time I finished my summer tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers only interested in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high. Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me to today?I'm in no position to judge Sanchez, in large part because I know very little about his background or the positions he's taken. But I do know that this revelation and media reaction will have larger implications on political activism, and I'm not so sure the result will be a good one. Bloggers with interesting reactions include B. Daniel Blatt and Michelle Malkin. Related ITA entries: Ted Haggard by J. Claybourn Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:09 AM | Comments (19) March 07, 2007Little "Green" MenA former Canadian defense minister is calling on governments worldwide to release technologies obtained from crashed alien spacecraft in order to fight against global warming. Paul Hellyer, who served as defense minister under Lester Pearson and transport minister under Pierre Trudeau in the 1960s, reports having seen a UFO once, and believes that aliens must have advanced propulsion and/or fuel technologies that can help solve the planet's fossil fuels dilemma. I kid you not, eh. Posted by David Darlington at 10:29 PM | Comments (2) Halt the HagiographyIt seems many in the GOP want to nominate a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gun control mayor of New York City to be its standard-bearer in 2008. But perhaps they've got the wrong one? Consider this article from the Financial Times about Rudy's alleged managing skills compared to his successor, Michael Bloomberg. Instead of taking on new challenges after his re-election in 1997, he dedicated his second term to vanquishing his remaining enemies. Fran Reiter, who served as a deputy mayor under Mr Giuliani, describes him as depressed and directionless after being sworn in for the second time. "He can get mired in the petty stuff," Ms Reiter says. "He doesn't suffer political opponents well and there are times when he doesn't compromise well." This echoes what I've said before about Rudy. If it wasn't for the "bang" of 9/11, Rudy's career would have ended with a whimper. Posted by David Darlington at 04:44 PM | Comments (3) Americans without health insuranceAmerica's health system and its deficiencies will continue to be a focal point in the coming year for pundits, policy makers, and perhaps most prominently, presidential candidates. It seems hard to begin a discussion of the health care industry without someone asserting that 47 million Americans are without health care. The number of news sources repeating this meme is nearly impossible to calculate. An important aspect of this figure, though, is that it is the number without health insurance at any point over a given 12-month span. Moreover, the figure includes many millions of illegal immigrants and noncitizens. Regret the Error has more. Update: Here's more on the "47 million" figure: "Of the estimated 47 million people currently uninsured, almost 19 million are between the ages of 18 and 34." Related ITA entries: Consumer-Driven Health Care III by Z. Wendling Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:52 PM | Comments (18) Wikipedia for DummiesOne of the most prominent Wikipedia contributors in recent times has been a user known by the handle of Essjay. He has contributed to over 20,000 Wikipedia articles and worked on the site's arbitration committee, "a team of expert administrators charged with vetting content on the online." Much of this editing came as a result of his alleged position of professor of religion, holding advanced degrees in theology and canon law. Sadly for those often relying on Wikipedia, "Essjay" is really a 24-year-old community college drop-out who relied on texts such as "Catholicism for Dummies". Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) March 06, 2007Consumer warningDo not, under any circumstances, do business with AT&T. Twice in the past month, they tried to charge me for services I had already cancelled. Late last year, I was informed by MCI that they would no longer offer DSL service in my area. I found that AT&T offered a bundle of telephone and broadband service that was slightly less expensive than the local de facto monopoly, Verizon. However, when I called AT&T, the employee I spoke to (obviously located somewhere in India--ironic for a company whose initials came from "American Telephone & Telegraph") told me that MCI would not let me keep my phone number. I really did not want to change my phone number, but the employee convinced me to allow him to assign me a new phone number, promising that if I called within the next seven days to cancel the order, I would not be charged. Also, because it would be some time before new DSL service could be activated, he convinced me to accept a free month of AT&T dial-up internet access. The next day, I called MCI, and they told me they were not keeping me from switching my phone number to AT&T. So I called AT&T back and cancelled the order for the new phone number. Because they still couldn't (or wouldn't) give me AT&T service on my old phone number, I reluctantly signed up for service with Verizon. I have had no problems whatsoever with Verizon ever since. A little over a month later, I got a bill in the mail from AT&T for $70.30 worth of "service" on the new phone number which I'd cancelled according to the AT&T employee's instructions. I argued with somebody else in New Delhi for 10 minutes until he decided to transfer me to a "specialist." The specialist turned out to be a native English speaker (thank God), I'm guessing in Texas by the accent. After a brief attempt to convince me to accept the charges, he removed the charges from my account. But that's not the end of the story. Along with the $70.30 for phone service, I was charged for a month of dial-up internet service, since I'd forgotten to cancel the account before my free month expired (I forgot because I'd never used it). Since that was technically my fault, I paid that charge, but asked to cancel the service. I was told the service was already cancelled. What do you think I got in the mail this past Saturday? Yep, a bill for another month of dial-up service! When I called this evening to complain, an AT&T employee figured out that the last person I spoke to was looking at the DSL service I'd requested in December but was never activated, instead of the dial-up service which was active at the time. I explained that it wasn't my fault they screwed up, and I shouldn't be charged for a service I asked to cancel. The AT&T employee argued with me, and I had to threaten to file a complaint with the FCC before she agreed to remove the charge and close the account! So what do we have here? Either AT&T is guilty of trying to defraud their customers, or they have horribly incompetent outsourced customer service, which has never heard of the phrase "the customer is always right." Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:04 PM | Comments (4) Junk Mail
Sealed Biblical prophecies. Handkerchiefs from the Book of Acts. I thought James Cameron had been in some cave again. Sure, this beats the pants off another solicitation from Geico, but what is one to make of this? Upon opening the envelope, I found three letters, printed on three separate sheets, and one "handkerchief" made from paper with an aesthetically-pleasing red pattern. On the page that is supposed to be returned to Saint Matthew's after a night under my bed, I read: "I received this Bible Handkerchief and this Sealed Prophecy you loaned me, and I used it as you instructed.... Pray for my family and me for...A New Car...A Money Blessing...Pray for God to bless me with this amount of money: $_____." After visiting Saint Matthew's web page, more confusion ensued. The church appears to be a non-denominational body with an interesting mix of orthodox theology (the church affirms the Nicene Creed), evangelical fervor (the church's missionary efforts and emphasis on Scripture), and Roman vestments (the picture above was taken at the church - notice the high Gothic mitre and cope!). Before drawing conclusions, it should be noted that the church minimally asks for a donation - and the fruition of your "Biblical prophecy" is not contingent upon its reception. But I would posit that such ministry programs may be counter productive. Even among Christians sympathetic to this type of evangelization (my grandfather was a non-deononimational pastor in Tulsa for nearly a decade before his death), sending "sealed prophec[ies]" of "a new car" or "a money blessing" gives the impression that spiritual wealth easily translates to earthly wealth. But the letter does hint at the subtle nuances of Christian theology: I opened the letter before sunset, thereby voiding my prophecy. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 05:31 PM | Comments (6) 1/2 Hour News Hour not bad, needs improvement
The second of two pilot episodes of Fox News' satirical news show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" aired on Sunday night. Described by creator Joel Surnow (producer of "24") as "'The Daily Show' for conservatives," THHNH aims to deliver humor on current events from a right-of-center perspective. The first episode received mostly negative reviews from liberals and mainstream media reviewers, and mixed reviews from conservatives. The second episode, however, showed a step in the direction of some needed improvement. Overall, I enjoyed watching both episodes. In its first two episodes, THHNH fell well short of Comedy Central's veteran satire, "The Daily Show." TDS viewers would probably find THHNH to be amateurish in its production--but that could be excused for a fledgling show's first steps. THHNH's primary failing is that its writers seem to be endeavoring to write jokes aimed at ideological targets, in contrast with TDS, which seems to aim to generally find humor in current events--albeit from a liberal perspective. The result is that some of THHNH's jokes come off as too pointed, such as the swipes at Hillary Clinton and the ACLU in the first episode. Nevertheless, there was genuinely funny material in the pilot episodes, such as a mashup of Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series with reports of allegations of sexual harassment by first-graders. Generally speaking, the comedic quality is on par with Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" segment. I am hoping that Fox News gives THHNH a contract for a month or two of weekly installments. The show has great potential for improvement if its production schedule allows for more timely humor. Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:32 PM | Comments (10) March 05, 2007Christian Groups and HPV Vaccines"Conservative Christians oppose cancer vaccine" -- How many times in the past year have you read blog posts or editorials on this meme? How many articles have been written about how the "Christian Right" is against vaccines which protect against strains of HPV which, if left untreated, can lead to cervical cancer? Often, these articles claim that conservative Christians believe a vaccine against a sexually-transmitted disease will encourage promiscuity. In extreme cases, the authors claim that such Christians wish to see fornicators punished with STDs and even cancer. But while the former claim may contain some truth in regard to individual Christians, the fact is that no major Christian organization opposes the widespread availability of HPV vaccines. The Family Research Council explains their position in this article, which says this has been their official position since October 2005. Interestingly, the FRC says that vaccine maker Merck actually investigated the possibility of the vaccine enouraging promiscuity (referred to technically as "sexual disinhibition"): In our meetings with Merck regarding the vaccine later that year, they indicated that they were quite aware of the potential for sexual disinhibition, and that they had examined that issue in the course of their clinical trials for the HPV vaccine. They assured us that they had found no evidence for any increase in sexual disinhibition in connection with the vaccine. (See Focus on the Family's position statement here.) What these organizations do oppose, however, is mandatory vaccination. Because HPV is not transmitted through casual contact, mandating the vaccination infringes on parents' rights to determine their children's medical care. By the way, this is likely to be only the first round in the fight over STD vaccines. It is possible that a long-awaited vacccine for HIV could arrive in 5-10 years, and other vaccines are most likely in development as well. (h/t: evangelical outpost) Related ITA entries: Gardasil: The Coming Battle by E. Seymour Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:53 PM | Comments (8) March 03, 2007More Trouble for the National Association of EvangelicalsThe National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is in the news again, as prominent evangelical leaders are calling for the ouster of its vice president, Rev. Richard Cizik. Cizik's crime you ask? Is he preaching heresy? No. Is he doing X and having sex with male prostitutes, like the organization's former president? No. Cizik's crime is...he's an environmentalist. As if liberals needed another reason to write off evangelical Christians as brain-dead foot soldiers of the Republican party, Focus on the Family President James Dobson, along with American Family Association Chairman Don Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and others recently wrote a letter to the chair of the NAE board, calling for Cizik's removal because he has an alleged "preoccupation" with global warming and his "relentless campaign" against it is "a threat to the unity and integrity" of the organization. Dobson et al. said that Cizik's talking about global warming takes away emphasis "from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." Cizik talking about environmental issues is "divisive and dangerous," they said, because it creates confusion about what evangelicals stand for. "We believe that some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its 'conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality' can be laid at Richard Cizik's door." For his part, Rev. Cizik believes that environmentalism, or "creation care" as some evangelicals would call it, is an important part of his Christian witness, along with the regular biggies of traditional family, sanctity of human life, religious freedom, etc. He said he believes there's a biblical mandate for taking care of the earth, though he recognizes the organization has yet to take an official stand on global warming. Neither Rev. Cizik or the organization's interim president expect him to resign. As a fun addendum to this issue, the Christianity Today article linked above reports that on February 25th, Rev. Jerry Falwell preached a sermon on "The Myth of Global Warming" at his church in order to raise "a flag of opposition to this alarmism about global warming and [urge] all believers to refuse to be duped by these 'earthism' worshippers." Gotta love Brother Jerry, always hitting the audience with Law and Gospel. Jeez. Related ITA entries: "Keep Politicians out of the Pulpit" by E. Seymour Posted by David Darlington at 05:48 PM | Comments (11) Taking it DZWhen I first heard about the great sorority cull at the Delta Zeta Chapter at DePauw University in Greencastle, IN, I was slightly shocked. I wasn't surprised that a house would try to cut loose girls that didn't fit the conventional mold, but for the national organization to take such steps seemed extraordinary (maybe I'm just naïve). National organizations are generally more protective of the Greek brand, often distancing themselves quite a lot from the negative stereotypes that go with sororities. This time, the orders came straight from the top. If there's an alternative explanation, they sure haven't come up with a good one; and with a media freeze, we aren't likely to get one. What has most convinced me that the national organization is being petty and cruel is that I know one of the women asked to leave. Former DZ president Carolyn Thatcher gave Newsweek an interview explaining the situation. I see Carolyn regularly at swing dances, and I've known her for years. Not only is she a fantastic dancer, but she's super-cute. (Even better, she has an identical twin -- watching them dance with each other is mesmerizing.) Despite her modesty in the article, she's very friendly and warm. I'm always happy to see her, and she always has a ready smile when I greet her. It's hard enough to see how a former president could be deemed insufficiently committed to an organization, but the suggestion that she isn't up to snuff is simply absurd. I don't know what constitutes a good sorority sister, but if Carolyn doesn't qualify, the criteria must be deranged. What this means for the Greek system, I don't know. I think it's silly to cling to some of the hype about sisterhood (or brotherhood) and other lofty virtues. But one hopes that members get something out of the experience, even if it is merely a place to stay with interesting and friendly people. That an organization would actively work against the self-esteem and comfort of its members in pursuit of that hype is unconscionable. Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:38 PM | Comments (0) Bad Back CatalogueThe top ten most sought after out-of-print books in 2006, according to BookFinder.com. America's taste in out-of-print books is almost as bad as its taste in current publications. Posted by David Darlington at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) March 02, 2007A language barrier?The News Buckit has done an interesting survey of right-leaning and left-leaning blogs to determine "Which side produces the most profanity-laced diatribes". The results point to a much more profane left than right. But this so-called study carries a number of questionable methods. First, it doesn't appear as though the search of Google differentiated between comments and posts. I would imagine that there are countless profane words here on the pages of ITA, but many of them are in the comments. Such must surely be true of other sites as well. Indeed, given the comment/post differences, much of the profane language on the left-leaning sites may simply be the result conservatives cussing out the leftist writers (mere conjecture for the sake of argument). Second, the short list that The News Buckit used of the "18 biggest Lefty blogs" and "22 biggest Righty blogs" is highly arbitrary, in spite of its alleged reliance on various ranking systems. A number of incredibly popular popular blogs are left off, and by the same token a number of low traffic sites are included. Finally, The News Buckit only counts the total number of profane words rather than the ratio of all words to cuss words. A blog that posts ten times the amount of material as other blogs is likely to end up with more total cuss words, but it isn't necessarily fair to call it more "profane-laced." In sum, The News Buckit experiment aimed to answer an interesting question, but fell far short of investigating it accurately. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:25 PM | Comments (1) Et in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam EcclesiamIn his weekly pastoral letter, Bishop Vasa offers reflections on the Catachumenate and entry into the Catholic Church. He notes that the recitation of the Creed shortly before Confirmation is a moment of "great freedom" and an "abandonment of oneself." In discussing the role of this public profession, the Bishop notes that it is a "decision which alters how we see the world." Certainly the Sacrifice of the Mass is no small part. With regard to Catholics and the Blessed Sacrament:
As ITA readers may recall, the Bishop's remarks here sound vaguely familiar. Then again, doesn't Christ Himself tell us, "Out of the mouth of politicians you have perfected praise?" (Ps 8.2; Matt 21.16). Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:19 AM | Comments (11) March 01, 2007A tale of two marketsThe Economist explains, "If you are salving your conscience by buying carbon offsets, which allows you to cheerfully emit 20 times more than the average person, then even a conservatively estimated rebound effect means that carbon offsets are increasing the amount of emissions." Update: Still more from the Economist. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:28 AM | Comments (3) RIP: Arthur Schlesinger Jr.Historian and public intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. died yesterday of a heart attack at the age of 89. During his career, Schlesinger wrote more than twenty books and won two Pulitzer Prizes, one for history (1945's The Age of Jackson) and one for biography. He is perhaps best known for his inside relationship with the Kennedys and for his definitive biography of the JFK administration, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Schlesinger was the very epitome of the "vital center" of the time (indeed, he coined the term): liberal domestic policies coupled with strong anti-Communism. His kind of "liberal consensus" politics that governed political discource in the 1950s and early 1960s is no longer with us, forced out by the forces of polarization of both the left and right. Posted by David Darlington at |
I love Fred Thompson and hope he decides to seek the presidency. But beyond his public life I did not know much about his personal one. Yet thanks in part to a slew of posts here regarding the former Senator I recently became aware of his wife, the former Jeri Kehn. To put it simply, she is a bombshell the likes of which we have not seen since Mrs. Kennedy held the role of First Lady.
In anticipation of the now-global celebration of Saint Patrick's Day, it's worth addressing an issue that has sent a signficant number of visitors to ITA via search engines to 
I'm almost afraid to post this because I don't know whether you will enjoy this on as many levels as I do:
Three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and junk mail. Today I received a letter in the mail from 