« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 31, 2007

. . . In Bed

This almost beats "You will find true love on Flag Day."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

What's in a Name?

There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth on the blogosphere about the Democrats' rebranding of the Left. The debate centers around how liberal became a dirty word and the propriety of now using this other term, progressive (which Hillary Clinton explicitly favours).

The arguments aren't important, but they are interesting. On the other side, Ross Douthat notes that this rebranding signals, "an epiphenomenon of a larger conservative ascendancy in American life," and, "a blow for linguistic precision." He can say this because, for him, the two terms represent distinct ideologies, and the shift in terms points to the adoption of not only the label but also the legacy of progressivism, which he politely points out has some dirty laundry (other conservatives have been not-so-polite). Jane Galt piles on with more problems the progressives gave us in the 20s and 30s. This rebranding isn't giving the Left the clean break they want.

The response from liberal pundits has ranged from hostility, to incredulity, to indifference. In the succinct words of Ezra Klein, "What of it?" Matthew Yglesias comes closest to telling everyone else that their points are irrelevant, because progressive merely means what liberals now want it to mean. This will certainly be the case for the great unwashed masses, who don't know and don't care what a bunch of people back in the 20s thought -- what will Hillary do about healthcare if she's elected? Douthat et alia may try to discern the parallels all they want, but I suspect that all they are finding are coincidences (and probably weak ones at that).

So what is this all about? People talking past each other. The key insight here is that conservatives and libertarians are concerned about intellectual legacies and the historic threads of their ideologies. Liberals, not so much. This is why libertarians and their sympathizers are enthusiastically grateful for Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism on the one hand, and Democrats unabashedly claim Thomas Jefferson as one of their own on the other. Liberalism, or progressivism, will always be more about advancing convenient policies, rather than hammering down a coherent genealogy of political thought. The current collection of left-wing policy proposals have simply been rebranded, as glibly and significantly as an advertising campaign. One really shouldn't read too much into this.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:02 AM | Comments (19)

Ethanol: "One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles"

I've heard anecdotal comments relating to this before, but now a new article in Rolling Stone seems to confirm that ethanol hurts the environment and is more expensive than gasoline. Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that the energy used to produce ethanol far outweighs any environmental advantages, and even after it's been produced, more efficiency concerns remain.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:41 AM | Comments (1)

July 29, 2007

And a Few More Things

Regular reader philosopher finds Andrew Sullivan's and Rod Dreher's lists of things they no longer believe more compelling than Joe Carter's, which I linked to below. For what it's worth, I find Daniel Larison's list the most compelling, as it seems he and I have had similar naivety-shattering journeys. To wit:

On conservatism and American politics:

1) First among these was my assumption that most Americans who called themselves conservatives distrusted government and feared the expansion of government power. That was the conservatism I had been raised with, and it seemed to be the one that had a visceral appeal to a large number of conservatives during the '90s. Obviously, this conservatism is held by only a fairly small number of conservatives, and, as wiser people than I have known all along, the popularity of a "roll back the state" message is extremely superficial.

2) One of my other false beliefs connected to this was that most conservatives were conservatives first and GOP partisans second (if at all), and would therefore be just as outraged by GOP government activism and overreach as they had been in the 1990s. This was the worst sort of naivety on my part, and it was repeatedly shown to be false. To point out that some of the same people who wanted to attack Iraq opposed aggression against Yugoslavia was almost useless--partisans are well aware that they use a double standard, and they have no problem with it. Again, I mistook the attitudes of conservatives whom I knew for what was true for "conservatives" generally--this was just sloppy analysis.

3) Another false belief that I held was that most conservatives were conservative as a result of custom and reflection, with rather more emphasis on the latter, and to discover that most conservatives were such on the basis of little more than visceral dislike of various hate figures was something that took some time to accept.

4) Another mistaken assumption was that most conservatives were likewise wary of government power overseas and that they would therefore be extremely skeptical of foreign adventurism. It seemed obvious to me that if I and others who took this view simply pointed out the bizarre Wilsonian pretensions of the administration, that would cure them of their enthusiasms....

As for other changes, I'd have to say my belief in original sin has gotten much stronger in recent years. We're all idiots, and it would be good if none of us got too powerful.

Posted by David Darlington at 08:03 PM | Comments (4)

Five Things

ITA friend Joe Carter stirs the pot with his post "This I No Longer Believe: Five Lessons Learned from the Iraq War." I believe Joe's words would be echoed by a lot of pro-war (or formerly pro-war) conservatives upset with the way the Iraq war has been prosecuted and how public support for it has been lost. Joe's pessimism won't win him any fans though.

Posted by David Darlington at 06:04 PM | Comments (1)

July 25, 2007

Darfur versus Baghdad

In a thought-provoking column today, Jonah Goldberg picks up on Barack Obama's recent endorsement of withdrawal from Iraq even if such an action would allow genocide to occur. Goldberg contrasts the Clinton-era willingness of liberals to send US troops overseas to intervene in genocidal conflicts (and, indeed, the current interest in intervention in Sudan) to the current attitude of "out of Iraq at any cost":

[I]f genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren't at least partly to blame. Yes, the mass murder would have more immediate authors than the United States of America, but we would undeniably be responsible, at least in part, for giving a green light to genocide. Obama offers precisely that green light in his proposed Iraq War De-escalation Act....

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home....

If you can justify causing genocide in order to end a nation-building exercise that -- unlike similar efforts elsewhere -- is fundamentally linked to our national interest, then how can you ever return to arguing that we should get into the nation-building and genocide-stopping business when it's explicitly not in our interest?

This touched off an interesting discussion in The Corner, with John Derbyshire responding that genocide was not at all certain and, besides, we have spent 4 years already trying to help the Iraqis "get their act together." Follow-ups here, here, here, here, here, and here. I agree with Derb that our presence in Iraq at current levels cannot be maintained indefinitely to ward off a genocide that Iraqis themselves cannot or will not avoid. But I do hope that a gradual decrease in troop levels could prevent sparking catastrophic internal violence. At the very least, we must offer asylum and safe passage out of Iraq to all those who are at personal risk for having stood beside us to bring democracy to Iraq.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:23 PM | Comments (29)

July 24, 2007

The New Testament Canon and Tradition

For all of the beneficial ecumenical developments over the past few decades, Tradition's role in the normative, orthodox expression of Christian doctrine continues to perch angels on pins. Perhaps one of the most delicate areas of the debate is the intersection of Tradition and the formation of the Canon of Scripture, especially the New Testament. If it is indeed the case, as many of our evangelical friends will affirm, that the pronouncements of Tradition are not binding as is Scripture, what do we do with the unfortunate happenstance of history that the Church Fathers (viz. St. Athanasius' Easter Letter of 367) and Councils (viz. Councils of Carthage) promulgated this same Scripture? Of course the answer to this query makes the conversation worth pursuing and affirms the importance of why we indulge in such nasty noeticism in the first place.

Ben C. Smith's ongoing "Canonical Lists" over at Thoughts on Antiquity adds much to the discussion and sheds greater light on just how fungible those Pauline Epistles were to many of the Church Fathers.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)

Irony Meter Breaks

Celebrity gossip monger Perez Hilton needs little introduction. But if you're not familiar with the low-life, here's a Wikipedia primer, which may even underestimate his impact on Hollywood and 16 year old girls. Today, as you might imagine, he's been writing incessantly about Lindsay Lohan's apparent trouble with the law (something Matt Drudge sadly found hard to ignore as well). In a slew of ridiculous posts charting her every step, complete with lewd and childish drawings, Perez addresses Lindsay's father, who, according to Perez "Won't Shut Up!" This was dripping with so much irony I nearly choked:

True to his shady behavior in the past, Lindsay's ex-convict father, Michael Lohan, who was released from jail just a few months ago, is talking and talking and talking and talking.

He's taking a very private family matter into the media spotlight, and that's just not cool.

Henceforth, let us not forget these words of wisdom from Perez: Taking a very private family matter into the media spotlight is "just not cool."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:32 PM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2007

Switching Channels

If you don't want to watch those Rubes at the YouTube debate, you can look at something slightly less convoluted here.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:03 PM | Comments (0)

He Means What He Said, He Said What He Meant

David Brooks knows better than me. I routinely ignore the public statements of politicians, confident that whatever they say is mere platitudinous drivel, devoid of any useful information. But in his New York Times op-ed last week, he uncovered a startling find: Bush actually means what he says, which is much more disturbing than my prejudice:

He's convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference . . .

History is driven by the club of those in power. When far-sighted leaders change laws and institutions, they have the power to transform people.

(More excerpted here.)

Is it too played out to remind everyone how deeply unconservative Bush is?

As a foil, Brooks trots out Tolstoy:

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations -- from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can't be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush's theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

This is a position Russ Roberts identifies as downright Hayekian.

Of course, there are counter-examples, and David pointed out Bush's inapt self-comparison to Churchill. But the inability to distinguish between the exceptions and the rule is what is leading Bush, and by extension the country, to ruin. Bush is indeed, in the words of Ezra Klein, "completely untethered from reality." Klein continues:

So what Bush has been telling himself, apparently, is that public support is really malleable, and he still retains the bully pulpit power to rebuild it. He just hasn't decided to expend the effort yet. That's a rather unsettling admission, actually. Bush has managed to delude himself into believing the war isn't actually unpopular, but that he's just been focusing on other things besides the cultivation of public support. But so long as he believes the public is so weak-minded that their opposition is transient and their support can be summoned later on, he need never face up to what it means to be undemocratically pursuing a loathed war above the opposition of the electorate.

To an enormous extent, Congressional Republicans are enablers of this self-delusion. Eventually, they will realize the Emperor is naked, too -- not that even then will Bush feel the draft -- and that will be the real turning point. Those who put their hopes in the Democratic leadership are looking on the wrong side of the aisle.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:52 PM | Comments (6)

Quote of the Day

"Politicians don't amount to much, but ideas do." -- Rep. Ron Paul

This comes from yesterday's New York Times profile of the presidential contender, which is generally very good. It starts off strong, but it kind of falls apart at the end. But hey, that's how newspaper articles are designed, right? I think the casual reader will come away with a relatively flattering portrait of Dr. No. Go read the whole thing.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:45 PM | Comments (0)

Dungy Talks With Dobson

I learned from a friend that Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy appeared on the Focus on the Family radio broadcast earlier this month. In a three-part interview with Dr. James Dobson, Dungy talks about his faith, his family, and his experiences in the NFL. You will not find a more authentic and gentlemanly person in professional sports than Coach Dungy. You can listen to the archived audio online: part 1, part 2, part 3.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

Sour Grapes?

Some fantastic and endearing quotes from men who have realized that they will never be President (probably):

• Newt Gingrich, "Read Lincoln at Cooper Union where he gave a 7200 word, two-hour speech, which he spent three months composing, and then go back and watch the Las Vegas debate. Compare leadership with patheticness."
• Al Gore, "What politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:39 AM | Comments (1)

July 21, 2007

Sexy Viral Political Videos

The much-beloved and highly entertaining video "I Got a Crush ... On Obama" has rightfully caused waves in the political marketing realm. The group that created the video, BarelyPolitical, has posted a follow up titled "Debate '08: Obama Girl vs Giuliani Girl". But others have gotten in on the act of using sex to sell political candidates. Someone has posted a Ron Paul video on YouTube which is, well, somewhat in the same vein. Click here to see it. (The attempted response to Obama Girl for Thompson's candidacy wasn't quite as effective.)

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:47 AM | Comments (3)

July 19, 2007

Long Time Comin'

I found this quote from Jonah Goldberg's latest column fascinating:

Stephen F. Hayes's riveting new biography, Cheney, recounts a discussion in 1980 at the American Enterprise Institute between two new congressmen, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich.

"Congress has been a big part of the problem," declared Cheney, a veteran of the Ford administration. "A fundamental problem has been the extent to which we have restrained presidential authority over the last several years. ... We have been concerned with the so-called myth of the imperial presidency."

"We must restore some balance" between Congress and the White House, Cheney insisted.

Gingrich vehemently disagreed. "What we need is a stronger Congress, not a weaker Congress," he shot back. "The greatest danger of the Reagan administration is that conservatives will decide they can trust imperial presidents as long as they are right-wing when they are imperial."

I'd be curious to know if Gingrich still feels that way, now that his hungry eyes seem focused on the presidency. But the Newt of 1980 was definitely on to something. Today, most people object to the imperial presidency only when the other party controls the White House.

I too would be curious to know if Gingrich still holds the same views. My respect for him would increase immensely if he did.

Nevertheless, the above quote shows, if anything, the current Imperial (Vice) Presidency has been a long time coming. And the mood of most of the current GOP establishment and its apologists has been, to butcher an old phrase, "He may be an imperial president, but he's our imperial president." That's not good enough. And it doesn't matter if Bill Clinton did any of the things President Bush has done first. An imperial presidency--be it W! or Hillary! or Rudy!--get its power not just at the expense of Congress, but at our own expense as well.

Posted by David Darlington at 05:00 PM | Comments (9)

Ron Paul's Iowa Surge

I'd like to think Hugh Hewitt and I are friends. We've corresponded with each other regularly over the years, he's been kind enough to invite me on his radio show a few times, and at a blog conference he sought me out to come hear me speak. Needless to say, given that Hugh is one of the most listened-to national talk show hosts in the country, I was rather flattered.

Yet over the past six months, and possibly longer, I haven't been able to read much of Hewitt (and I suspect he would say the same about me). I think Hugh is intelligent, but he is far too entrenched in generic, GOP establishment rhetoric. It's incredibly hard to distinguish between Hewitt's blog and the website of national Republican party.

So perhaps it's fitting that blog neighbor Patrick Ruffini - former Bush webmaster, RNC staffer and Giuliani webmaster - now posts on Hugh's blog. They are in many ways "two peas in a pod". The two of them represent the epitome of establishment Republicanism; a Bush-style ideology that looks first to the political party, and then to underlying policy. Yet, whatever their misguided political positions may be, they are both highly adept political minds that understand how the "game" of politics works.

I say all of this background in order to stress the significance of a recent piece from Ruffini, posted on Hewitt's blog, which boldly and blunty proclaims that Ron Paul will place second at the Iowa straw poll. When the GOP establishment fears Ron Paul, perhaps it's time for the mainstream media to take notice. According to the most recent Gallup poll Ron Paul leads all so-called "second tier" candidates and follows only Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:02 AM | Comments (15)

July 18, 2007

Curse the Antebellum Era!

In this guess the presidents quiz, courtesy of my brother, I got 41 out of the 43 presidents correct. Both of my misses were from the 1850s, which is appropriate, considering that era wasn't the nation's finest hour. How many can you get?

Posted by David Darlington at 08:17 PM | Comments (4)

July 17, 2007

Bush picks Judge Tinder for appeals court

In law school I was fortunate enough to be paired with a "mentor" through the Indianapolis Bar Association. That mentor was Judge John Daniel Tinder of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. I found him to be an engaging and intelligent judge, so I was pleased to see that President Bush has nominated Judge Tinder to replace retiring Judge Daniel A. Manion on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

While in law school, and for a brief time after, I created and operated a website called Indiana Barrister, which still exists and is run by colleagues, albeit with a somewhat different focus. There I created a feature titled "The Ten Spot," where I would interview judges throughout the state and country. The first judge to participate in that was Judge Tinder. You can read the insightful interview here.

Update: Gary Welsh thinks one of Judge Tinder's answers to "The Ten Spot" may be "one that some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee may ask him to elaborate on during his confirmation hearing." I would agree.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:17 PM | Comments (1)

Quick Links

Here are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:

• Find your favourites songs by humming them.
• The 15-year, 17,000-mile journey of 29,000 rubber duckies is coming to a close.
• "Ceiling Height Can Affect How A Person Thinks, Feels And Acts"
• "How children lost the right to roam in four generations"
• The coolest photo you will see today.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:39 PM | Comments (2)

The Sad Fate of the Comma

Robert J. Samuelson writes in Newsweek about a sad trend I have also noticed: the declining use of the comma.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:45 AM | Comments (1)

July 16, 2007

Support From Our Troops

On the Right, we have the punditerati who say we should defer to our troops. On the Left, the Washington Monthly says playing to them is fruitless. How then are we to interpret the answer to Democracy in America's little poser? "Guess which Republican presidential candidate has received the most donations from members of the military and veterans."

Answer here.

Update: Another key constituency.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:40 PM | Comments (5)

Schererville?

CNN/Money Magazine's annual "Best Places to Live" feature highlights small towns (7.5k to 50k in population) in its Top 100 list this year. Middleton, Wisconsin, population 17,400, took top honors. I'm familiar with quite a few of the NJ and PA locations on the list. Most of the NJ towns I would not recommend unless you have a household income of over $100,000. Indiana's only entrant is Schererville at number 71. I'll leave it to you Hoosiers to discuss its merits.

Update: The user comments on this list are funny. Half the readers are wondering where perennial favorite Naperville, IL (number 2 last year) is. Though Naperville might be a fine town, its school system must not be the best, as its defenders don't recognize 141k residents is not between 7.5k and 50k.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:41 PM | Comments (3)

The Costanza Defense Revisited

One of the tenets of Bush's detractors is that he lied in order to convince the country to support his invasion of Iraq. Against this charge, I can only offer the weakest defense, which comes from a favourite Seinfeld quote, ""Remember, Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it." In other words, when the Administration told us Saddam had WMD, they were arguing in good faith, even though their beliefs weren't based upon solid evidence (or, as the hipsters say, reality).

This was a plausible line for two reasons. First, if the WMD were entirely fictitious, one wouldn't expect the President to pursue a course of action that would immediately reveal his deception. Second, I was under the impression that part of the reason why the initial phase of the occupation was so half-assed was because the military were focused on finding Saddam's WMD rather than providing security. Seemingly, the planners were behaving as if the WMD were real. Recent blogging by Andrew Sullivan casts this story into considerable doubt:

I should also add that the war-plan itself, while it did include some minimal protective armor for troops, in no way prioritized securing suspected sites of WMDs. Many were indeed left to looters. That's a pretty good sign, I think, that the president and his generals were not too worried about WMD use. [Link]

. . .

The salience of it is either a) rank incompetence, or b) that the military leadership really didn't have reason to fear the WMDs the president had scared the rest of us about. But even well-known nuclear sites were left to be raided by looters. If the Bush administration really feared WMD programs, they had a funny way of invading. [Link]

This indicates an Administration that didn't fully believe the line they were giving the public -- and expected to get away with it.

And yet, since the push for the invasion, they have doggedly stuck to their fantasies about WMD as the debacle has unfolded. Indeed, their belief may have increased as the evidence against mounted. Did you think I was kidding when I said they were Surrealists? Sully continues to connect the dots:

My own sense is that it was an obvious mixture of genuine concern and less genuine corner-cutting. In their own way, they thought they were doing the right thing. But their refusal to involve the larger body politic, to bring in Democrats, to bring in even sensible Republicans and Bush cabinet members, led to the mess they're now in. They weren't fully honest with us, or perhaps with themselves, and their arrogance and defensiveness and secrecy prevented them from becoming more honest. And so the conduct of the war has been accompanied by behavior more redolent of a cover-up. Hence Libby's perjury. And the interminable lies about torture and detention. And the wiretapping and secret gulag of torture sites. And the weird war-plan that did not focus on WMDs. The arrogant dismissal of the insurgency, the refusal to accommodate it, the inability to look ahead, and the reflexive tendence to deploy fear as a political weapon. And on and on.

If Bush, Cheney, et alia aren't outright liars, then they are at least paranoid, incompetent, delusional, irrational, and truculent. And that is no defense.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:29 AM | Comments (7)

July 13, 2007

The Council Has Been Canceled

At least for Bishop Brandolini of the Italian Episcopal Conference, who still proudly wears Archbishop Bugnini's episcopal ring. On July 7th Pope Benedict issued his much-anticipated apostolic letter, Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal). Since at least October 2006 interested parties worldwide have speculated when the motu proprio might be promulgated and what exactly the Pontiff would decree. Well into the season of Pentecost, its recent advent has sparked considerable commentary. Mr. Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, as an apparently nascent Catholic theologian, has stated that the use of the 1962 Missal signals a "theological setback in the lives of Catholics." Richard John Neuhaus has suggested that Benedict was quite clever to attach the dark and dirty smells and bells of the old Latin Mass to Pope John XXIII, whom liturgical progressives have lauded since a conga drum first arrived in a sanctuary.

As I suggested back in October, I do not believe the motu will act as the ultimate gesture to bring the schismatic Society of St. Pius X back into full communion, but it may well be a penultimate signal to the group that the Vatican takes seriously the "dignity and harmony" (St. Pius X's Abhinc Duos Annos) of the Tridentine Rite. Again, the liturgical issue is but one of many considerations that keep Lefebvre's followers outside St. Peter's piazza, but as the Society's Superior General, Bishop Fellay, has stated, the motu is a "very significant historical event."

Nevertheless, the motu is momentous, so to speak, for a number of reasons:

• This is the first time in 19 years a Pontiff has addressed the use of the 1962 Missal, and is the first time since the conclusion of Vatican II that a Pontiff has given explicit, plenary permission to celebrate the Mass according to the Rite promulgated by John XXIII. Unlike John Paul's Ecclesia Dei, promulgated in 1988, Summorum Pontificum is clear that no permission is required from the local Ordinary for a priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. In addition, celebration of the older Rite may take place at any dioscean church.
• The motu is clear in confronting the common misconception that the Tridentine Mass was somehow abrograted by the Novus Ordo of Paul VI. Benedict sets down the first Article of the motu with this in mind: "The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless [emphasis added] the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same [emphasis added] 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage." Further, in his letter to bishops worldwide, Benedict plainly states that the Tridentine Mass "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." This is not to say that the Tridentine Mass was actively suppressed, however.
• Although some have suggested, including British Bishop Kieran Conry, that the motu will lead to something of a bifurcated litrugy and ecclesial identity, I am hesitant to agree. From personal experience at parishes in New Haven, Connecticut, and Indianapolis, I have found the opposite to be the case. Serving as a lector for the Novus Ordo Mass and a regular communicant at the Tridentine Mass, I routinely have witnessed churches socialize and worship as one ecclesial body - all the while celebrating both the (now) ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Consider Holy Rosary Church in Indianapolis. In a ten-year period since the introduction of the Tridentine Mass, the church has grown by 35% - in both Novus Ordo attendance as well as Tridentine. At the church's recent Italian Street Festival, parishioners worked together without regard to who was standing or kneeling to receive the Host. Whatever else parishioners may be thinking while sitting in the pews, it certainly is not the "otherness" of worshipers of a different tongue. Notwithstanding the sincerity of pastoral concerns that certain prelates express, they appear detached from reality.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)

Will They Submit to Ticketmaster?

My friend Joscelynn is positively animaniacal:

Inspired by an add on the train for Lollapalooza, here is my list of potential economics Indie Rock band names:

The Invisible Hand
Market Force
Elastic Demand
Nairu
Fed Funds
The Reasonable Man
Keynes' Cross
Dead Weight Loss
QED (This is more math, but I like it)
Creative Destruction
Schumpeter and/or von Thünen (Because what German name wouldn't work? Von Thünen gets extra points for the umalut)
Rent Seekers
Tragically Common

It's Friday, really, I could go on like this all day. . .

Can you think of more?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:03 PM | Comments (4)

July 12, 2007

Quote of the Day

In response to news that Sen. David Vitter, R-La., engaged the services of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's "escort service," Blogger Ann Althouse rips into him as, you might suspect, a hypocrite, noting that he helped enforce and implement the very laws outlawing prostitution that are now being used against Palfrey. But James Taranto succinctly offers a retort:

How would advocating the legalization of prostitution expiate Vitter's sins? Prostitution is illegal because it is wrong, not the other way around. The reason we have laws at all is not so that "good" people can impose their will on "bad" people, but because everyone has the capacity to do bad things. Thus it's not surprising that moralists sometimes turn out to be hypocrites. They are moralists because they are closely acquainted with the temptation to do wrong.

Larry Flynt does a better job in living up to his own moral standards than David Vitter does in living up to his. But that is because Flynt has no standards, not because he is some sort of exemplar.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:49 AM | Comments (20)

Late Freedom

Today is the first day of this year the average American will be working for himself/herself, and not for the government. Up until now, they've been entitled to everything you've got. Here's a graph of the changing date of "Government Day".

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:35 AM | Comments (5)

July 11, 2007

Picking Two Much

Trade-offs are usually bipolar and confront us everyday (some people even intuitively see the world in these terms), but occasionally, they are trivalent. In these cases, we are presented with three qualities, of which we must sacrifice one or two in order to salvage the rest. The most famous example is in fast food: cheap, fast, and good -- pick two. (Okay, okay, I've been over this before.) Another handy example comes from automobile design: fuel efficiency, safety, and horsepower -- pick two. For most intents and purposes, safety is synonymous with size and weight; heavier cars are inherently safer, have more safety features to load them down, and may also be larger (commanding a better view of the road).

There are three possible results. First, we can have cars that are highly fuel efficient with a lot of horsepower, which essentially means stripping them down to get rid of weight (and therefore safety). Second, we can have high fuel efficiency and safety, which means using wimpy engines. Third, we can have big cars with big engines that have poor gas mileage. I'm sure the third option is easy to recognize, because you're probably driving one.

The kind of trade-offs we have made are due largely to consumer preferences; indeed, they seem to confound the intentions of policymakers. While I don't think the preference for safer cars is irrational, Free Exchange noted that the preference for size, at least with SUVs, is due to a kind of arms race:

The height of SUV's had certainly had a ratchet effect; more and more people I know in suburban areas talk about getting a big vehicle simply so they can see past all the other huge cars on the road.

Likewise, the preference for more powerful cars is also to some extent an arms race:

Horsepower is of course intrinsically enjoyable, and some people argue that it is in itself a safety feature, since it makes the car more responsive . . . But though I might enjoy horsepower even if no one else has it, when they do have more powerful cars, I have an even greater incentive to get a power vehicle of my own. Being the slowest car on the road is not only annoying, but also dangerous; if other drivers think that you can merge, or dodge, faster than you can, you may get into big trouble.

I think it's more likely that dangerous drivers mis-estimate their own driving abilities rather than mine (I also think that assuming everyone else on the road is a total idiot promotes defensive driving). The overall problem is that drivers (read: consumers) are locked into a vicious circle of demanding ever larger and more powerful cars, always at the expense of fuel efficiency. While I think CAFE standards are a pretty lousy instrument of policy, I find myself persuaded to conclude, as does MMM, "These ratchet effects are perhaps the best argument for government regulation of the road."

Update: A roundup of evidence that weight/size is not correlated with safety.

Related on ITA

"Traffic Laws Can Kill" by J. Claybourn

Posted by Zach Wendling at 02:19 PM | Comments (3)

Simply Amazing II

So, a month ago Josh posted a video of unexpected phenom Paul Potts wowing the folks at Britain's Got Talent. I'd like to add to this collection of international operatic brilliance with something a bit more bizarre (and, of course, German).

Boy sopranos are really not unusual, but this is a challenging piece.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)

EOS

Way back when I first started here, I wrote about an annoying tendency among audiences to give standing ovations to performances that, while not bad, really didn't deserve the high honors:

This strikes me as pretentious, as if the audience wanted to think themselves a part of something grand. Casual standing-O's cheapen the honor intended, perhaps even detracting from the performer(s) by bringing attention to the audience. In effect, the standing ovation is an insincere honor.

Valerie Scher, classical music critic for the San Diego Union-Tribune also picks up on the phenomenon, and adds her own explanation:

There's a malady sweeping the nation that's highly contagious to concertgoers. It doesn't have a name yet, so let's call it Excessive Ovation Syndrome (EOS for short). Those suffering from it stand and applaud at performances that aren't good enough to deserve such enthusiasm. In extreme cases, they shout "Bravo!" during events that are best forgotten.
The more people pay for tickets, the more susceptible they are to EOS, because ovations confirm that their money was well spent. Even those in bargain seats can easily catch it from their neighbors. The urge to stand and cheer may be irresistible if everyone around you is doing it.

Indeed, I've often been rather isolated in a full house when I'm the only one sitting.

Alas, EOS has no cure. But awareness is key to treatment.
As concertgoers, we must ask ourselves: Is this performance so exceptional that it merits a special response? Is this truly an event in which mere applause isn't enough?

. . .

But that doesn't mean that everything is worth an ovation. Too often in our culture, ovations are knee-jerk responses before heading for the exits, push-button reactions rather than genuine outpourings of pleasure.

The danger is that ovations will become so routine that they'll hardly mean anything at all. Their worth will be devalued; their excitement, seriously diminished. What was once a high point of concert-going will become humdrum.

So let's fight EOS together. With enough determination, we can win. All it takes is staying in our seats.

via Tyler Cowen, who is "on the verge of endorsing Excessive Ovation Syndrome."

(Why has my blogging been so self-referential lately? Am I prescient or merely unoriginal?)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:40 AM | Comments (11)

July 10, 2007

Rudy, the "c"atholic Politician

"Married three times, Giuliani simply isn't the Catholic candidate he claims to be. He can't have a confessor. He can't receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, or marriage. While bishops disagree about whether or not a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights can receive the sacraments, there is no disagreement about the consequences of divorcing and remarrying outside the church, as Giuliani did a few years ago."

No, it's not Fr. Frank at Priests for Life, nor the vocal proponent of all things orthodox, Archbishop Raymond Burke. It's Wayne Barnett's latest salvo against Giuliani in the June 26th edition on the Village Voice. You'll recall that Barnett has made sport of disparaging Rudy, recently writing on the public servant's extensive jewelry collection.

Sure, Barnett make no claims of impartiality, but his observation that Giuliani's quandary with the Church is more dramatic than John Kerry's seems exceptionally apt. All the while being irreconcilable with his faith, Kerry's intoning the mantra of choice appears more defensible than the "C"atholic Giuliani's tertiary marriage - especially when one considers Donna Hanover's rather "hurtful" (as she told the Daily News in September 2000) disposal.

And don't forget the grassroots effort. Catholics Against Rudy was launched earlier this month. Whether Rudy receives the Republican nomination or not, the continued discongruity between the candidate and his professed faith will once again provide occasion for all elected officials to ponder the intersection of religion and society.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)

The Chamber of Secrets

Speaking of Harry Potter, Matthew Stevenson points us to an intriguing piece from Publisher's Weekly on the great secrecy surrounding the printing of the final volume in the series, including some mysterious activities at a press in Crawfordsville, IN, a small town west of Indy, where, as Matt says, "It's an open secret that a large portion of the first printing of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is being printed . . ."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:59 PM | Comments (1)

What Makes a Church?

(Hat tip: Jacob Tomaw)

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Ah, that silly Bishop of Rome! Doesn't he know that only James Dobson can make such declarations?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:50 AM | Comments (2)

The Myth of the Literate Voter

Earlier this year, I wondered whether Freakonomics could influence public policy by making the public more savvy. (Bryan Caplan pins his hopes for democracy on making a more economically literate public through better education, but Freakonomics, as has been frequently pointed out, isn't really about economics.) But savvy isn't everything: people respond to emotional appeals more than intellectual ones. It stands to follow that fiction might be more persuasive in politics. Hence, University of Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton's pet theory that the Harry Potter series is crypto-libertarian propaganda with the potential to sway public attitudes toward government.

Brian Doherty remarks, "While speaking at the libertarian gathering FreedomFest in Vegas over the weekend, a panel on Atlas Shrugged was confronted with the question: in 50 years, will libertarian gatherings be mulling over the continuing libertarian significance of Potter?" My answer: I doubt it. Like Harry Potter, Atlas Shrugged was and has been wildly popular, particularly among the impressionable young for decades, but its influence on government has been rather limited. I think that the reason for its popularity isn't the objectivist preaching but the more universal theme of individualism (so goes the explanation for teenage enthusiasm for Rand). Atlas Shrugged makes readers more self-centered, not more enlightened.

Similarly, people love Harry Potter for the wizardry, not the dysfunctional Ministry of Magic. The latter is mere backdrop to the story. Indeed, if anything, it would impress upon young minds that they should take for granted that government will everywhere and always be a constant source of incompetence and bullying, not a reducible quantity.

Update: Via Jesse Walker, "Juliusz Jablecki contrasts the libertarian fiction of Ayn Rand and J.R.R. Tolkien."

Previously on ITA

"Random Links" by J. Claybourn
"Atlas-Mart" by Z. Wendling
"Give the Man an Award" by J. Claybourn
"News Flash: Harry Potter Movie is Entertaining" by A. Packer
"Atlas At Last" by Z. Wendling

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:52 AM | Comments (0)

Bumper sightings

I saw my first Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker this weekend on a car at the IKEA in Conshohocken, PA. A few days before that, I spotted a bumper sticker with a gas pump icon on the left, "Impeach Bush" in the middle, and a Human Rights Campaign symbol on the right. I couldn't quite figure out the message behind that one. Impeach Bush so gay couples can get cheap gasoline?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:39 AM | Comments (1)

July 09, 2007

Why, Again

During the Harriet Miers fiasco, I wondered why Bush would have pushed such an unqualified and infuriating nominee. It has been increasingly difficult to explain the actions of this administration, which have grown more and more bizarre. And I'm not just referring to the incidental dramas like the Vice President's hunting incident, which, as I will explain, was probably no accident. No, this Administration has done some truly jaw-dropping things, like issuing signing statements that simultaneously authorize laws and render them null and void. Or how about sending White House henchmen to John Ashcroft's hospital bed in the middle of the night to obtain his approval of illegal wiretapping? Or Cheney's claim that he is not subject to Executive Branch requirements because he is a member of the Legislative Branch? Or most recently, the arbitrary commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence?

The volume of incredible moves coming out of the Bush Administration astonishes liberals, alienates conservatives, and dazzles the writers at The Daily Show. But I think they've all greatly misunderstood what is actually going on.

I was recently watching Reno 911!: Miami, when the answer came to me in a jolt of inspiration. Bush and his senior advisers are not, in fact, stubborn and isolated neoconservatives. They are a highly dedicated and creative troupe of improvisational Surrealist performance artists*. Rather than following some ideological agenda, every aspect of this White House seeks to top the previously held conceptions with ever more outlandish behaviour and policy decisions.

Let's imagine how this works. The premise: a highly-unpopular President with no political capital is looking for a way to rescue some sort of legacy for his administration. There are many pedestrian themes one could play on to bring this scenario to resolution, but Team Bush came up with the most unexpected: go after the remaining 28% of his supporters and try his best to alienate them. Brilliant!

And it's not only broad story arcs like this that reveal their talent. Bush is able to manufacture surreal jokes on the fly. Remember when he was asked by the German weekly Bild am Sonntag what was the high point of his Presidency? The improvised answer: catching a 7.5-lbs. perch on his lake. (Or maybe not? This is a multi-layered joke.)

The real pity is that The Daily Show is really making fools of themselves. They are obviously not "in" on the jokes, or else they would not so smugly mock the Administration. If only they could recognize the creative talent before them.

I'm pretty proud of my theory, and it's hard to observe the White House and not see how well it fits. While Bush is the obvious ringleader, we at once see why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not been fired: he is simply too talented at improvisational Surrealism, as evidenced by his Congressional testimony. Dali himself could do little better at a public grilling. And Karl Rove, long viewed as a mere political mastermind, early-on proved himself to be a master of found art and absurdity. Cheney, of course, is the most daring artist of the bunch. (Hence, the hunting accident. Bold. During a time of war when opponents complained that the rich and privileged were shielded from any personal sacrifice or risk, he shoots a supporter in the face. Take that you bourgeois pacifists!) He's the Maestro of Irony. The only wonder is that the Washington Post didn't put their four-part expose in the "Arts & Living" section.

The best part of this theory is the realization that things can only get better. This Administration has managed to consistently top their previous feats of absurdity. Now that voters are evenly split on whether Bush should be impeached, we can expect the White House to come out with their most outlandish escapades yet. Whatever will they think of next?

* Really, what's the difference between a great comedy group name like "Upright Citizens' Brigade" and "Project for the New American Century"?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:28 PM | Comments (7)

July 08, 2007

If it Wasn't for the Churches, We'd Have Been Forgotten

As I alluded to in a prior post, I spent June 24-30 down in Biloxi, Mississippi helping Habitat for Humanity rebuild houses that had been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina almost two years ago. Despite the heat (90-95 every day) and the humidity (same) and the bugs (plentiful), I have to say it was the best, most rewarding, and indeed enjoyable vacation I've ever been on. My church plans to do it again next year, and, as long as it is up to me, I have every intention of going back.

I arrived in Biloxi around noon on the 24th, having grabbed a flight out of Dulles that morning and then made a brief layover in Atlanta (AirTran has daily service between the two cities). As I arrived a couple hours before the rest of my group (who decided to drive 18 hours rather than fly 3.5), my first order of business was to take a brief tour of the Mississippi Gulf Coast along Highway 90. Two years later, the coast still has abundant evidence of the devastation brought by Hurricane Katrina. The coastline is still flat -- all development along the coast in the Biloxi/Gulfport/Pass Christian area has been reduced to building foundations with the occasional multi-story building where the upper floors are intact, but the first floor no longer exists. Beauvior, Jefferson Davis's retirement home, is still closed and is undergoing salvage. The locals don't go in the water, as both disease and debris concerns remain two years later. The only people you see in the water, we were told, are tourists who don't know any better. The exception to the rule of destruction was the casinos, most of whom were operating again by the end of 2006. The juxtaposition of the towering casino hotels who were operational and didn't look any worse for wear (from the outside) with the single-story wooden homes that make up most of Biloxi provides a pretty clear testimony to the power of money in our society.

Our host for the week was Bethel Lutheran Church (ELCA) in Biloxi. Bethel's sanctuary lost its roof during the hurricane, but thanks to some angelic good luck and the hard work of its members, Bethel found its footing quickly and has since become a hub for various disaster ministries in the Biloxi-Gulfport area. Much of the facility has been turned over to housing and feeding volunteer groups, and the church runs a free medical clinic out of its building during the work week (they need volunteer doctors!). The church works closely with Habitat for Humanity, who we were pared up with for the week.

Our project was a small house (on Santini Street, for those familiar with the area) that belongs to a single mother of five children. Work had begun on the house a couple weeks prior, so our task was to finish up the outside and prepare the inside for another group to come in and install insulation and drywall. We put up siding, painted the exterior (including me getting to climb rickety scaffolding and do the 2nd level), built a screened-in porch from scratch, installed gutters, leveled the floors, built closets, solidified studs, and who remembers what else. We did everything. As a single, non-homeowner, virtually every task other than painting was a brand new one for me, but one of the best things about Habitat is that they show you what to do first before they expect you to do it. By the end of the week, I was pretty handy with a circular saw...

Everywhere we went during the week, people expressed appreciation for the volunteers who keep coming back to Biloxi. With the media attention gone, and the casinos and WalMarts running close to normal, there's the impression that things are ok on the gulf coast. This is most certainly not the case. Indeed, a frequent refrain -- from local restaurant owners to local Baptist pastors to, believe it or not, the garbageman who stopped his truck to check out the progress we'd made on our house -- was that "if it wasn't for the churches, we'd have been forgotten long ago." The most striking example of this for me was the youngish single mother of a teen who lived next door to our project house. This woman's house was also a Habitat house; she had been living in a FEMA trailer in her front yard for two years since the hurricane and had just moved in three weeks ago (those FEMA trailers, it should be said, are tiny and not meant for long-term use). She showed us the inside of her small house like the proudest homeowner in the world, brought us sweet tea, gave t-shirts from her restaurant to the women in our group, and offered us shade from the Southern sun. The whole time she repeated to us, "God is good," "God is good," "God is so good." Considering what she'd been through -- losing her small house to Katrina (a rent-to-own deal from what I gathered) and living in a trailer for two years -- it was a powerful testimony to how much simple generosity can be a witness to others. (2 Corinthians 9:12-13)

And that, for me, was the take home lesson of the week. The best apologetics are not the ones that intellectually dazzle, but rather those that are tangibly "good" in this world. The people whose houses we were working on didn't care if we were adult LCMSers from Northern Virginia or a bunch of college kids from a church in Overland Park, Kansas (another group staying at Bethel). The locals just know that churches of all stripes, along with the Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity, are still hard at work two years later--after the government and the media are long gone--and are praising God for it.

Let me add that anyone who feels called to help out on the gulf coast should do it! Habitat estimates that at a rate of 54 houses a day it would take ten years to replace all that was lost to Katrina. Lutheran Disaster Response, who operates out of a local LCMS church not far from Bethel, anticipates being in the Biloxi-Gulfport area for up to 25 years. There's still much to be done. Contact your local Habitat for Humanity or your local church to find out how you can help.

Previously on ITA:

"Bringing Hope and a Helping Hand" by Eric Seymour

Posted by David Darlington at 03:59 PM | Comments (2)

July 06, 2007

Quick Links

Here are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:

• "Predictions of the Year 2000 from The Ladies Home Journal of December 1900"
• The dirty truth on farm subsidies
• Ghost cities of 2100
• A Polish man wakes up from a 19-year coma to find the Cold War has ended.
• Gasoline prices around the world:

  

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:03 PM | Comments (16)

July 05, 2007

Actual Headline

I must strenuously agree with Instapundit that the following headline should be awarded some sort of memorial honor:

"HERO CABBIE: I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON"

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)

Another Dreary Post on Higher Education

Is a college education worth it? This is a vague question, but the public, and their elected representatives, do not hesitate to answer with a decisive Yes. I believe this is because they do not understand the ambiguity of the question or the uncertain intrinsic value of higher education. A few months ago, Richard Posner delved deeper:

These points are consistent with higher education being a good private investment, but do not suggest that it is either a particularly good social investment (it does improve matching of employees to employers, but at great cost) or that its value has much to do with the institution's educational program.

Indeed, these are themes we've touched on before, and which are neatly summarized by Ohio University professor Richard Vedder, who runs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity:

The more evidence that I see that I believe is creditable and meaningful, the more I am convinced of the following:

• Too many students, not too few, are going to college;
• College and universities are extremely inefficient, and at the marginal public spending on them more likely lowers rather than raises economic growth;
• The federal financial aid programs have contributed to raising higher education costs, lowering efficiency, and increasing corruption within higher education --and done precious little good, sending few more kids to college than would have gone anyway (which, given the first point, is not all bad);
• Colleges and universities often violate an implicit contract with their donors in the way they allocate resources, very often paying scant attention to the needs of the undergraduate students who typically are their bread and butter;
• People need knowledge and skills more than ever, but alternative forms of providing those skills, such as vocational schools and on-the-job training are often superior and lower cost options.
• A greater percentage of entering college students should be attending community colleges, moving up to four year universities only if they succeed well at the community college level.

Unfortunately, the funding structures of most colleges and universities reinforce the status-quo, and with the considerable bulk of administrative inertia joining public misperceptions, I'm not sure what, if anything, will lead to necessary reforms.

Previously by the Author:

"Reinventing Higher Education" by Z. Wendling
"The Sorry State of Higher Education" by Z. Wendling
"The Engine of the Economy III" by Z. Wendling

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:12 PM | Comments (3)

July 04, 2007

Declaration of Exegesis

Last year on July 4th Zach posted "Words of Wisdom from P.J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores (1991, pp. 8-11)." 'Twas a good read, and seems worth re-visiting.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:34 AM | Comments (19)

What's So Great About America?

On July 4th it seems like a good time to turn to foreign-born Dinesh D'Souza's splendid piece titled, "What's So Great About America?" It's well worth taking the time to read it through.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:29 AM | Comments (2)

The Declaration of Independence

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

July 02, 2007

Hitchens on Theodicy

Speaking of atheists, a recent Q & A with Christopher Hitchens. The author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything again does what Sam Harris and Dawkins cannot - witty, engaging banter.

Right, as we saw in the recent case of Seung-Hui Cho. What did you think of the Virginia Tech shooting?I don't think about it. To me it's a non-event. There will always be a tragedy with some little kid falling down a mineshaft some week. Horrible things will always happen, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. We had a moment of silence at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. But why not for the 116 people who were torn to pieces in Iraq, which does have implications for us, because the people who did that want to do it to everybody? Instead, this little nutcase has state power. I hate it!

When I heard about the Virginia Tech event, I thought, This is horrible, because I knew there would be nothing on the television, in the newspapers, or on the airwaves for weeks. Everyone wants the shooting to be about them, the Russian Federation included. If you look through my window you'll see the Russian Federation has its flag half-mast. What does the Russian Federation have to do with Virginia Tech? Nothing! Nor do I. Nor do you. Though are you Korean?

No. Taiwanese. I thought [mutual friend] Windsor said you were Korean. I'm sorry. Because I was just going to say you don't look it. But you say Taiwanese. That's interesting, because Taiwan's airline is China Airlines, but you don't say Chinese?

No. My parents raised me to think of Taiwan as separate from China. I know what you mean. I always say I'm English, not British.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 05:44 PM | Comments (2)

Dawkins Demolished

As a blogger, I enjoy short, pithy topics and thoughts which can be dispensed with concisely and can be digested by readers with ease. But occasionally a thought or topic will lodge its way into my head which is so lengthy and complex that I sit on it, mulling over how best to present such a lengthy topic.

While on vacation in Britain I picked up and read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, an international bestseller which has had a sizable impact on religious discussion. It's an incredibly interesting book and one that is sure to spark deep thinking in any reader.

But it's also wrong. Very wrong. And the manner in which Dawkins makes his case is irksome. So much of it is half-truths or faulty logic wrapped up in snarky condescension. It begs to be addressed in blog posts, but where would I begin? Each page deserves and needs a full response. And so for nearly a month now I have been pondering how best to do that here on these pages.

Yet it now seems as though I need not mull it over any longer. Andrew Rilstone has read the book and, as Confessing Evangelical notes, provided a must-read fisking of important portions. (Hat tip to Zach.) Kudos to Rilstone.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 PM | Comments (13)

Bush as PM

Former White House correspondent and historian Lynne Olson, author of Troublesome Young Men: The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power and Helped Save England, argues in the Washington Post that while President Bush frequently cites Winston Churchill as an inspiration in the war on terror -- an example of someone who stood up for what was right despite heavy public pressure against him -- Bush's governance more closely resembles that of Churchill's dishonored predecessor, Neville Chamberlain. Drawing historical parallels is aways dangerous business, because, like with statistics, you can prove anything with historical comparisons, but Olson makes a clear, perhaps not entirely convincing, case. She writes:

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations -- the forerunner to today's United Nations -- to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism's march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament "like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day."

[...]

Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to oversee the executive (even when, after becoming prime minister, he often railed against MPs who criticized him). In August 1939, when Chamberlain rammed through a two-month parliamentary adjournment just weeks before the war began, Churchill -- then still a backbencher -- exploded with anger in the House, calling the prime minister's move "disastrous," "pathetic" and shameful." He encouraged his anti-appeasement colleagues to mount similar attacks against Chamberlain, and when one of them, Ronald Cartland, called the prime minister a dictator to his face in the same debate, Churchill congratulated Cartland with an enthusiastic, "Well done, my boy, well done!"

Likewise, Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration's years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the "war on terror" and the conflict in Iraq -- tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain's attempts to quiet his opponents. Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment. That's not to say that he was never guilty of infringing on them himself. In June 1940, when a Nazi invasion of Britain seemed imminent, he ordered the internment of more than 20,000 enemy aliens living on British soil, most of them refugees from Hitler's and Mussolini's fascist regimes. But as the invasion scare abated over the next few months, the vast majority were released, also by his order. "The key word in any understanding of Winston Churchill is the simple word 'Liberty,' " wrote Eric Seal, Churchill's principal private secretary during the early years of the war. "He intensely disliked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion. . . . He demanded for himself freedom to follow his own star, and he stood out for a like liberty for all men."

Honestly, I think the comparison works. Of course, that might just be because I'm looking for some modern day "troublesome young men" (and women) who will deliver the GOP from the Bush era.

Posted by David Darlington at 09:27 AM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2007

Spare ze Rod, Spoil le Child

Are the "wimpy" French stricter parents than their "hearty" American and British cousins? And does the French propensity to discipline their children more harshly than indulgent Americans and Brits result in more well-behaved children? One writer from the London Telegraph says yes.

Please forgive my radio silence this week. I was on the Mississippi Gulf Coast building homes with Habitat for Humanity and Lutheran Disaster Relief. Best. Vacation. Ever. But that's another post for another day.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:12 PM | Comments (5)