Samuel Alito's Confirmation

Terry Eastland explains why he thinks Samuel Alito is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court despite the howls of protest likely to accompany his confirmation hearings.

By the way, those hearings commence on January 9th and will likely be replete with all manner of senatorial grandstanding and other buffoonery. We hope Senator Kennedy does better getting Judge Alito's name right than he did in his futile attempt a couple of months ago to get a handle on the name of Senator Obama, which at one point he had transformed into Osama Obama.

We're looking forward to the proceedings.

Tax Time

I recently received my last paycheck for the year. Often, I wonder where in the world my money is going as like most of us, it seems to go out faster than it comes in. Where, I ask myself, is my money going???!!!

Well, I think I have discovered at least part of the answer to my question. First I looked at the deductions portion on the pay stub. You know, the government grab known as Federal Withholding, FICA, MEDFICA, and State. Some folks also have County and City.

That accounted for a full 30% difference between what I earned and what I took home. 30% !!! Those dollars are gone and might as well have been thrown down a rat hole for all the benefit I will ever receive from them.

But that doesn't resolve my continual confusion about why it's so difficult to save. Then I began to consider this partial list of other taxes (including the ones mentioned above) that I must spend from my earnings that have already been taxed!!!...

• Accountants Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• Capital Gains Tax ( a tax on your savings )
• CDL License Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Court Fines ( indirect taxes )
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel Permit Tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inheritance Tax Interest expense ( tax on the money )
• Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges ( tax on top of tax )
• IRS Penalties ( tax on top of tax )
• Liquor Tax
• Local Income Tax
• Luxury Taxes
• Marriage License Tax
• Medicare Tax
• Property Tax
• Real Estate Tax
• Septic Permit Tax
• Service Charge Taxes
• Social Security Tax
• Road Usage Taxes ( Truckers )
• Sales Taxes
• Recreational Vehicle Tax
• School Tax
• State Income Tax
• State Unemployment Tax
• Telephone Federal Excise Tax
• Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
• Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
• Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
• Telephone Recurring and Non-Recurring Charges Tax
• Telephone State and Local Tax
• Telephone Usage Charge Tax
• Toll Bridge Taxes
• Toll Tunnel Taxes
• Traffic Fines ( indirect taxation )
• Trailer Registration Tax
• Vehicle License Registration Tax
• Vehicle Sales Tax
• Watercraft Registration Tax
• Well Permit Tax
• Workers Compensation Tax

None of these taxes existed 100 years go, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no debt, had the largest middle class in the world and mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened? Simple. America has become a liberal, socialist, welfare state.

And there's another tax that is referred to as the "hidden" tax...the insidious tax of inflation.

From the link:

The inflation tax - collected in the form of a continually depreciating currency - has been especially egregious in the postwar period. What you could buy for $1 in 1946 you have to pay $8.77 for today. Another way to put it is that $1 then is worth 11 cents today. What happened to the 89 cents? It has been taxed away by the Federal Reserve's continuing expansion of the money supply. The Clinton inflation tax alone (1992 to the present) has sliced off 18 cents from the value of the dollar.

And another link:

It is an insidious system. It gives us more by actually giving us less. That means we seem to have more money, the nominal amount of the money in our pockets or in the bank is larger. The economy seems to humming along. Stock prices and earnings seem to grow by huge amounts over the long term. But it is a trick.[14] Our judgment has been distorted by the long-term effects of inflation and the destructive policies of the central bank.[15]

These devalued dollars actually can buy fewer things. And this cycle of spending and inflating will worsen unless there is a signal change among tens of millions of Americans who are disgusted, but feel compelled to vote for one of these two windjammers. They just want to go about their business, work harder and be left alone. This kind of person is the "forgotten man.[16]" He has increasingly been pushed into the background by special interests and those forever demanding more of the welfare state.

And this link:

Inflation spurs the growth of central governments. It allows these governments to grow larger than they could become in a free society. And it allows them to monopolize governmental functions to an extent that would not occur under a natural production of money. This comes at the expense of all forms of intermediate government, and of course at the expense of civil society at large. The inflation-sponsored centralization of power turns the average citizen more and more into an isolated social atom. All of his social bonds are controlled by the central state, which also provides most of the services that formerly were provided by other social entities such as family and local government. At the same time, the central direction of the state apparatus is removed from the daily life of its prot�g�s.

And again:

Fiat money is the means by which governments obtain instant purchasing power without taxation. But where does that purchasing power come from? Since fiat money has nothing of tangible value to offset it, government's fiat purchasing power can be obtained only by subtracting it from somewhere else. It is, in fact, "collected" from us all through a decline in our purchasing power. It is, therefore, exactly the same as a tax, but one that is hidden from view, silent in operation, and little understood by the taxpayer. [pg. 162]

America once enjoyed a stable dollar backed by gold deposits, a "gold standard" system. This system gradually was undermined throughout the last century, until President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Fed has employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the total amount of dollars in circulation (the money supply), and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.

What does all of this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses. Inflation acts as a hidden tax levied disproportionately on the poor and fixed-income retirees, who find the buying power of their limited dollars steadily diminished. The corporations, bankers, and wealthy Americans suffer far less from this inflation, because they can take advantage of the credit expansion that immediately precedes each new round of currency devaluation.

And from House Representative Ron Paul:

Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. So even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception. Should the dollar continue to decline in value, America will find itself struggling to service our already massive debt load even as our foreign creditors become less interested in our dollars.

America once enjoyed a stable dollar backed by gold deposits, a "gold standard" system. This system gradually was undermined throughout the last century, until President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Fed has employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the total amount of dollars in circulation (the money supply), and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.

What does all of this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses. Inflation acts as a hidden tax levied disproportionately on the poor and fixed-income retirees, who find the buying power of their limited dollars steadily diminished. The corporations, bankers, and wealthy Americans suffer far less from this inflation, because they can take advantage of the credit expansion that immediately precedes each new round of currency devaluation.

Brilliant Austrian school of economics scholar Murray Rothbard asked a seemingly complex question in the title of his essay: "What has Government Done to our Money?" The answer turns out to be pretty simple: Government consistently debases our money. How and why it debases our money has everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with the laws of economics.

It's as though you have given your check book to the government, or more accurately, they simply have taken it.

WCS

New Year's Resolution

Our New Year's resolution at Viewpoint is to continue to bring our readers thoughtful and incisive commentary on the political, religious, and social issues of the day, especially where these interface with science and philosophy. If you look forward to, and enjoy, reading us even half as much as we enjoy writing for you we will consider our task here to be worthwhile.

We hope you'll continue to read us regularly throughout the year and that you'll link us frequently to your family and friends.

Best Conservative Films of 2005

Don Feder at FrontPage Mag lists his top ten conservative movies of the year 2005. What's as interesting as his picks is his definition of a conservative movie:

What is a conservative film? Let's start with what it isn't. It's not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It's not cartoonish action heroes. It isn't revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It instructs and inspires.

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They're about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They're concerned with conservatism's cardinal values - faith, family and freedom.

He goes on to mention what he regards as the best conservative films of the last ten years:

[T]hey would include: "Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King (2003)" "Open Range" (2003), "LA Confidential" (1997), Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" (2000), and "Spiderman," I and II (2002 and 2004). But also some quieter films, like last year's "In Good Company" and "The Family Man" (2000) would make my list.

Go here for his ten best of the year.

Planning to Attack Iran

The Jerusalem Post reports that planning for a strike on Iran is well along. The twist, though, is that the Post thinks that the attack will be carried out by American forces rather than by Israelis:

The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran. The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.

According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.

The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan. American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.

Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.

Let's hope, and pray, that Iran reconsiders its nuclear ambitions and makes such an attack unnecessary.

New Year's Wish

This may portend good news for those of you who consumed too much alcohol in your youth or who may be planning to imbibe more than you should tonight:

The apocryphal tale that you can't grow new brain cells just isn't true. Neurons continue to grow and change beyond the first years of development and well into adulthood, according to a new study. The finding challenges the traditional belief that adult brain cells, or neurons, are largely static and unable to change their structures in response to new experiences.

In any event, Bill and I wish all our readers a happy, fulfilling, and spiritually prosperous 2006. And please don't count on your brain cells being able to regenerate themselves if you have a few too many tonight.

Surprising Verdict

This will surprise you, perhaps:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the decision of a U.S. district court judge in Kentucky, upholding Mercer County, Kentucky's inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the display of historical documents in the county courthouse. The unanimous decision rejected the ACLU's arguments that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In fact, in writing for the court, the circuit justice specifically rejected the ACLU's claims, noting that the ACLU's "repeated reference to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." The court went on to say that a reasonable person viewing Mercer County's display would appreciate "the role religion has played in our governmental institutions and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious reference influences, even in the form of sacred text, in honoring American traditions."

This represents a huge victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally. For far too long, these counties have been lectured like school children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means. What the Sixth Circuit has said is that people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution than most courts do. The court also recognized that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of religious heritage and traditions. This is by far the most significant Ten Commandments victory since the Supreme Court's decision to allow a display to stand in Texas. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court striking down McCreary County's display, which was identical to this one, this bodes well for us in future cases.

...It is quite likely that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems plain to almost everyone except lawyers that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to expunge religion from public life but rather to prevent the government from establishing a national church. It will be interesting, if the case is appealed, to see how the Court will rule with Samuel Alito seated on it. Alito should be confirmed by the end of January and his presence on the bench may precipitate a shift toward sanity in the Court's rulings on church/state separation.

Best Economic News of 2005

Arnold Kling at Tech Central Station claims that the best indicator of economic health is a nation's productivity, and by that measure we're doing pretty well. He concludes with these observations:

In a recent TCS interview, Robert Fogel suggested that productivity growth of 2 percent per year would be sufficient to ensure the soundness of Social Security. With three percent productivity growth, even Medicare may be sound.

In The Great Race, I argued that our economic future boils down to two trends. Moore's Law is raising productivity, helping to increase the size of the economy relative to government spending. On the other hand, Medicare is growing, which tends to increase government spending relative to the size of the economy.

In the 2-1/2 years since I wrote that essay, nothing has been done to slow the growth of Medicare. However, if the economy can sustain or increase its rate of productivity growth, the long-term outlook may be reasonably good. We are headed for the scenario that I called "affordable welfare state," meaning that the lavish benefits that we have promised ourselves when we get older will require relatively modest increases in tax rates. Tax revenues will be high because incomes and payrolls will be high.

The politicians have done nothing to slow the growth of entitlements. The mainstream media have totally missed the most important economic news of the early 21st century, which is the strong productivity growth. The state of the economy in 2005 is that it is performing well in spite of both the pols and the pundits.

Almost makes one think that the millenium is right around the corner.

The Terminator's Response

Some lefty pols in Arnold Schwarzenegger's home town of Graz, Austria, in self-righteous snittery over his refusal to commute the death sentence of a multiple murderer, one "Tookie" Williams, decided to express their displeasure at their favorite son's barbarism by proposing that Arnold's citizenship be yanked and his name removed from a municipal athletic stadium. What's worst, they proposed that the stadium be renamed after the man who shot four people to death for a couple of bucks (See here.)

The Terminator didn't take this affront meekly, however. Mark Steyn has a "don't miss" column on Schwarzenegger's response to the moral Euro-midgets who serve on Graz's city council. It's a hoot.

Looking for the Leaker

We're heartened by the news that the Justice Department is investigating the leak which led to the New York Times revelation of the secret intelligence gathering operation conducted by the NSA (National Security Administration). We remember how excited the media was over the possibility that the identity of a minor CIA functionary had been leaked by an administration official and their high hopes that someone in the administration (i.e. Karl Rove) would be indicted for it. We await the same degree of breathless reporting, endless speculations, and fervent hopes that someone who really has done serious damage to our national security will be caught and punished.

Since, however, the leaker in this case was trying to make Bush look bad the media will probably hold him or her to a different standard than they would have held Rove or Libby. That the leaker made each of us more vulnerable to those who want to kill us will be a matter of little moment to those who assess the heinousness of a crime in terms of who stands to gain or lose politically.

Honoring Islam

This post by a blogger named Athena is over a year old, but its theme is one which bears repeated mention:

To kill a girl because she has sex is quite sickening, especially when the guy is deemed as only giving into the girl's "seductions." It's even worse when the person who chooses to kill the girl is her father, brother or uncle. I guess it reminds me of the passage in the Bible where Jesus rescues the woman who is about to be stoned and says "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

When a family learns that the girl has threatened their "honor" in the community, they discuss this without the girl's presence, even with the mother, and they just "know" that the girl has to be killed in order to regain their standing in the community-even though the community may not know about the relationship. It's not even a choice, but a duty.

The mother knows this is the fate for her daughter, and even agrees to it, sometimes choosing the manner in which she will die...perhaps being burned alive, her throat cut, stoned or clubbed to death. The family leaves the house, and the person who is chosen to kill her comes in and does it as the family is away so there are no witnesses. The whole community knows of the killing and accepts the family into the community with open arms because they have wiped their slate clean with the blood of their child.

Today I was visiting the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan and my roommate, we'll call her Sally, went with me because she had to meet with the same professor as I. She started crying in the taxi on the way back home telling me about her experience the other night with her Jordanian boyfriend, we'll call him Malik.

Sally and Malik haven't been dating for very long, and I won't go into the details of their relationship, but she really did like this guy, and I liked him as well. He seemed very Western, spoke English well, acted respectably, dressed nice, came from an affluent and well-off family. He even lived in Europe for two years and had relationships with girls there.

They went out to eat last night and she brought up the subject of honor killings. Malik nonchalantly said that he would be willing to kill his sister or support his uncle or dad if they killed her if she had sex. This really upset Sally. They were holding hands and she immediately jerked away. He looked at her quizzically and asked what was wrong. She said she couldn't be touched by someone whose hands would kill his own sister for doing things that this guy enjoys fairly often with females.

Malik just didn't get it. He said it was just his culture. Sally said that she can't be around someone who would kill his own sister, and she asked him what he thought of her, did he even view her as human or was she just some object since she was an American girl? Malik couldn't explain himself, indeed it's a position that cannot be rectified. These people think they are so free here, but they're shackled in their own chains. They try to be so Western, so modern, so rich but they are wallowing in their own backwardness.

There's a stark difference between not condoning promiscuous behavior and killing someone over it, especially when the guy is not held culpable. Malik just explained that he was only being honest with her, and that if most guys here were really honest, they would tell her the same thing. "It's just our culture."

I guess what's really upsetting is that Malik is from the rich in society, which seem to be so much more liberal and modern. You generally think of honor killings as coming from the lower classes, but I will tell you, it's not the case, the sentiment is there in the upper classes as well. And only "20 per year" isn't the case either. Many go unreported because the people in villages support the act and the man is never turned in for his crime.

The only reason there are less honor crimes with the upper class is because the girls have enough money to get abortions. It's common practice here for girls to revirginize themselves before they get married, because if they are found out to not be a virgin when married, they are shamed for the rest of their life and their husband may kill them or leave them. Indeed, it's not just them that is shamed, but also their family and entire tribe. Everyone is so related here, that you shame an entire community, and the only way to expunge that shame is to do away with the girl.

And many of the girls feel like they must have sex with their boyfriends. Even girls wearing the hijab. The hijab is mainly not religious piece of apparel, it's expected and a social pressure. It signifies modesty, but it's just a sick prison. This whole society is imprisoned. On the surface they seem to be taking so many initiatives to liberalize and pursue freedom, but deep down they prescribe to the same beliefs. And you know, women are their own oppressors many times. They do themselves in more than the men by partaking in labeling, gossip and prescribing to arguments they know aren't true. Even one of the biggest feminists I've met here went off on a rant when she heard another woman divorced her husband because he "bought her 3 mink coats last Ramadan and bought her a nice car and gave her everything she wanted."

These hijab-wearing girls will have sex, because the guys will threaten to leave them, and it's such a large pressure on these girls to get married that they do anything they can to keep a man. Then, if for some reason their guy leaves them, they must get re-virginized through an operation.

It's these girls' own mothers that pressure them so much into marriage. In one family, the girl is 29 and not yet married. Every other night a new guy comes to the house with his mother and they check her out up and down to see if she's suitable. She doesn't like any of them, but the guys that she meets on her own, she can't even tell her parents about...she has to date secretly. This girl's mother was in the Jordanian Parliament and seen as a modern, pro-Western woman.

Anyway, my friend Sally invited Malik over tonight and told him she couldn't see him anymore. He just didn't understand. He's a nice guy, and I know that's weird to say after all this. But, he really is. In a way you can't blame him, he's just following what he's been taught. But who do you blame? And how do you change it? And there's a twist to this story. My other friend, we'll call her Megan, lived with a host family called the Salah's for two months before moving into our apartment with us. The Salah's have a son, Mohammed, who dates the sister of Malik. Malik was over at our apartment one night, and it clicked with Megan who he was and she, like a normal American was excited and said, "Ohhhh, now I know who you are! Your sister is my host brother's girlfriend! I've heard of you!" Malik just looked at her puzzled and shook his head saying, "Uh no..she doesn't date." Because to him, it's just completely out of his mind that his sister would date. We're hoping Malik is still in denial and that nothing happens to his sister...

Don't believe it when people tell you how modern a lot of the people in Jordan are. It's one big facade. They may be one of the most modern Middle Eastern countries, and they drive their 8 series BMWs, the women have the nicest clothes, they engage in talks about "freedom" and "feminism," they seek out capitalistic business ventures, and they can quote Locke and Marx and Hume all they want.

These people are living lies. All the women here are veiled, whether the physical fabric is covering them or not. And the men are just as blind.

Some enterprising journalist should set about to ask every Muslim imam in America to publicly state his opinion on the practice of honor killings and whether he thinks Allah approves of such barbarism. It would be interesting to see the results. Alas, the media are too obsessed with their pursuit of the great white whale of the Bush administration to be bothered with reporting on a matter of real importance to our national health.

We wonder, though, whether such apathy would prevail in our nation's newsrooms if it were discovered that some Christian group somewhere was endorsing honor killings.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the tip. Michelle has more details on the honor killings by Nazir Ahmed of his daughters that we commented on here.

The Dover Decision III: Is it Science?

With this post we continue our examination of Judge Jones' much acclaimed opinion which he handed down in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and turn to his discussion of whether ID is science sensu strictu. Parenthetically, this is a question we find largely irrelevant to whether it should be permitted in science classes, for reasons we'll explain below.

The judge writes:

As previously noted, the Supreme Court held in Santa Fe that a public school district's conduct touching on religion should be evaluated under the endorsement test from the standpoint of how the "listening audience" would view it; and, if members of the listening audience would perceive the district's conduct as endorsing religion or a particular religious view, then the conduct violates the Establishment Clause.

Moreover, a review of the letters and editorials at issue reveals that in letter after letter and editorial after editorial, community members postulated that ID is an inherently religious concept, that the writers viewed the decision of whether to incorporate it into the high school biology curriculum as one which implicated a religious concept, and therefore that the curriculum change has the effect of placing the government's imprimatur on the Board's preferred religious viewpoint.

Accordingly, the letters and editorials are relevant to, and provide evidence of, the Dover community's collective social judgment about the curriculum change because they demonstrate that "[r]egardless of the listener's support for, or objection to," the curriculum change, the community and hence the objective observer who personifies it, cannot help but see that the ID Policy implicates and thus endorses religion.

Of course, many of those same letter writers believed that Darwinism is a religious concept as well, and they were moved to write because they're tired of that religious view being granted immunity and preference in our schools to the exclusion of all others. Evidently, however, the opinion of these folks on the religious implications of Darwinism is of little interest to the judge.

...we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.

Aside from the fact that the judge probably meant to say abstruse, not obtuse, it is ironic that just a few days after his decision a philosopher from Amherst, Alexander George, published a column in the Christian Science Monitor in which he claimed that ID is indeed science, but that it's bad science and for that reason shouldn't be taught. His column pretty much dismantles the arguments of the "ID isn't science" brigades, and is really quite well done except for the interesting fact that, although he effectively argues that nothing about ID disqualifies it as science, he never really demonstrates that it's "bad" science. He merely asserts it.

Anyway, even if it were granted that ID is not science per se, it's certainly part of the domain of the philosophy of science and, specifically, the philosophy of biology. As such there is no reason for excluding it from a science classroom unless it is, indeed, bad philosophy, which no one has suggested it is. There is much philosophy taught in any science classroom, even bad philosophy (such as the standard scientific method), to which no one objects. Indeed, there's one bit of metaphysics that masquerades as science in our classrooms which Judge Jones has himself immunized from criticism - the idea that all of life has arisen as a result solely of blind, purposeless processes. We'd like to hear how the judge would subject that claim, a fundamental tenet of Neo-Darwinian evolution, no less, to scientific scrutiny.

Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

Well. It's certainly true that there has been a tremendous waste of resources and time in the adjudication of this question, but one wonders whose fault that is, really. Is it the fault of some misguided board members who tried to the best of their abilities to neutralize the corrosive threat to their students' religious beliefs that the "universal acid" of Darwinism presents? Or is it the fault of the handful of parents and their abettors in the ACLU who were just scandalized that their board would ever dare to do such an innocuous thing as put a disclaimer in a textbook, clumsily worded though it was, suggesting that there may be other theories on the matter of origins that students could investigate if they're so inclined?

We'll have more to say on the Judge's reasoning in a day or so. See here and here for our previous posts on his decision.

Getting it Really Wrong

Mona Charen pulls all the MSM-generated myths about Katrina and New Orleans together in a single column. She points out that from the size of the storm to the number of casualties, to the conditions in the Super Dome, to the disproportionate effect on the poor, to the inability of the poor to escape, the media got just about everything wrong, and in some cases, really wrong.

The question is, why did they blow it so badly? The answer, at least in part, perhaps, is because they saw a chance to hurt Bush, and they took it. The media obsession with discrediting this president has brought much more discredit to themselves than it has done harm to Bush.

Christian Belief V

Taken as a whole the Bible points insistently toward the salvific role of sacrifice, and Christians have long held that this recurrent theme is a kind of prelude to the greatest sacrifice in history: The sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Jesus' death is seen by Christians as being more than just a martyr's execution. It has for 2000 years been viewed as a substitutionary atonement for the sin of all mankind.

Our betrayal of God - our falleness - requires, in the Divine economy, that our self-imposed estrangement from Him be permanent. The divine law demands a complete divorce with no reconciliation, but Divine Love also has its demands and it was out of that love that God refused to give up on His beloved. He chose rather to do all He could to redeem mankind from the stringent requirements of the law.

His solution was to take our place, to die physically in our stead, to pay the price for our sin. Somehow, even the temporary death of an infinite God was commensurate to the eternal deaths of finite men. God's death in Christ settled a debt that otherwise could never have been paid and insured that even though we still must endure the fears and sufferings of physical death ourselves, our separation from God need no longer be forever. There is now a chance for reconciliation, both corporately and individually. Because of His death, ours is now more like a birth into a new existence, a reunion with the creator and source of all that is good in this world.

But a question arises: Was the death of Christ sufficient to guarantee that no one at all would be left out of eternal union with God? Christians have historically given several answers to this question. One answer is that this salvation from eternal death is granted only to those who repent of their sin and accept Jesus' forgiveness and own Him as their God. This pretty much limits eternal life to Christians and is a view called "exclusivism" by theologians.

Another answer to the question says that Christ's death paid the price for everyone's sin and therefore everyone will ultimately have eternal life. This view is called "universalism" since salvation is seen as extending to everyone who ever lived no matter what their life was like.

A third view, called "inclusivism," falls between the other two. It agrees with the exclusivists in that it maintains that apart from Christ's sacrifice no one would have eternal life, but it also partly agrees with the universalists in believing that God accepts into His bosom more than just those who've made a willful decision to accept Christ as their savior. It holds that salvation is a matter of the condition and attitude of one's heart toward God.

Jesus' work on the cross is the price paid to secure salvation for anyone who obtains it, but those who never heard of Jesus, or who for cultural reasons, perhaps, find it exceedingly implausible that Jesus' death was a divine gift are nevertheless not excluded from receiving it. People whose hearts are open to God, people who, indeed, may be infatuated with God, are embraced by Him even though their understanding of His redemption is inadequate or attenuated. After all, whose understanding isn't?

Theological conservatives (fundamentalists and evangelicals) tend to hold the exclusivist position, liberals (e.g. unitarians) tend to be universalists, and moderates tend to be inclusivists.

But what of those who choose not to accept Christ, whose hearts are closed to God, who would prefer that He not even exist and who would find eternity with Him to be a kind of hell? A possible answer to this question is that God compels no one to love Him. He forces no one to accept His embrace. Those who find the very idea of God repellant, who want to have nothing to do with Him, will be given their way. They will be, for as long as they wish and/or as long as they exist, separated by their own volition from the source of everything that is good. They choose for themselves a destiny devoid of the love, peace, happiness, and intellectual stimulation that flows from God.

It's a tragic choice, but God will not force us against our will to choose Him. It might be noted that if this is true then universalism must be false. People can choose not to accept heaven. Read C.S. Lewis' fanciful description of this state of mind in The Great Divorce.

Our earlier posts on Christian Belief can be found here(I), here(II), here(III), and here(IV).

Biting the Bullet

Assorted home intruders, robbers, thugs, and would be spouse abusers all bit the bullet, so to speak, this week. You can read the stories at Civilian Gun Defense Blog. Here's one from The Dallas Morning News:

A convenience store clerk shot a man who was trying to rob the store Tuesday afternoon in Old East Dallas. About 1:45 p.m., two men entered a Shell convenience store off Interstate 30 near Winslow Avenue and began to act suspiciously, police said. When the clerk saw one man reach for gun near his belt, the clerk shot him in the chest. The man was hospitalized in critical condition, and the other suspect fled.

Remember as you read the other accounts at the blog that were gun control enthusiasts successful in realizing their ambitions to disarm the American public, none of these people would have had the means to protect themselves. Even so, the threat posed by their assailants would quite likely still have been just as great. If they were physically superior to their intended victim or if they were carrying a weapon, no laws to restrict gun ownership would have changed matters except that the intended victims would have been completely defenseless.

Pass 'Em a Shovel

Despite the best efforts of the New York Times and its accomplices on the Left, their collective outrage over the fact that the Bush administration would actually be doing its constitutionally-mandated duty by protecting the country from terrorists just isn't resonating in the heartland.

Talk of impeachment has been heard swirling about the fever swamps of the Left ever since the Times ran a story a week or so ago revealing that the National Security Administration has been eavesdropping on telephone conversations between al Qaeda suspects abroad and their contacts here in the States.

This, of course, is seen as an unconscionable infringement on our civil rights by the Left, which, however, only cares about civil liberties when they can be leveraged for their own power and influence.

Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Numerous lawyers and constitutional experts have acknowledged that the Bush administration has the Constitutional warrant to do what it's doing and every president since Carter has thought likewise. Nevertheless, the MSM and the Democrats demands that Bush be punished for doing what most people want him to do and think he has the right to do simply reinforce the impression that these are not serious people when it comes to protecting our children from the Islamist plague.

Go ahead lefties, keep digging.

The Dover Decision II: Singling Out Evolution?

Judge Jones, presiding in the Dover ID trial, takes the school board to task for singling out evolution from all other topics in the high school curriculum as the focus of a disclaimer to be read to students. This, he argues, makes evolution suspect in students' minds which the school has no legal authority to do. The disclaimer, he writes:

...singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is "just a theory," which plays on the "colloquial or popular understanding of the term ['theory'] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch.'"

....Whether a student accepts the Board's invitation to explore Pandas, and reads a creationist text, or follows the Board's other suggestion and discusses "Origins of Life" with family members, that objective student can reasonably infer that the District's favored view is a religious one, and that the District is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion....

It is important to initially note that as a result of the teachers' refusal to read the disclaimer, school administrators were forced to make special appearances in the science classrooms to deliver it. No evidence was presented by any witness that the Dover students are presented with a disclaimer of any type in any other topic in the curriculum. An objective student observer would accordingly be observant of the fact that the message contained in the disclaimer is special and carries special weight. In addition, the objective student would understand that the administrators are reading the statement because the biology teachers refused to do so on the ground that they are legally and ethically barred from misrepresenting a religious belief as science, as will be discussed below....This would provide the students with an additional reason to conclude that the District is advocating a religious view in biology class.

That's one way of looking at it, but it's not the only conclusion a fair-minded person might arrive at. It could well be that these people see Darwinism, unlike anything else in the high school curriculum, as a challenge and a threat to students' religious beliefs, which even many Darwinians believe it is. Rather than prohibit it, they feel it necessary to try to maintain some measure of religious neutrality by letting students know that the school, even though it teaches Darwinism, is not endorsing the religious implications of Darwinism and seeks to offset those implications by referring students to works that present other possibilities. It might well be that the works the board chose to commend to students were of inferior quality (I have not read Pandas and People), but then they should be criticized for not picking the best resources available instead of castigating them for having the temerity to present an alternative to evolutionary dogma so that students don't get the feeling that the school is trying to undermine their religious convictions.

Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the "Origins of Life," the paragraph .... "reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life," thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class's study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat.

The judge is not saying here, is he, that it's wrong for teachers to remind students that they can rightly hold on to beliefs they've been taught by their parents on this or any subject? Is he really saying that it's constitutionally acceptable to undermine in the classroom a student's religious beliefs, but it's wrong for schools to say anything that would protect students from having their religious beliefs subject to corrosive scrutiny? Is this what the constitution mandates, that we send our children to school to have everything they've been taught by their parents called into question, and the school dare not do anything to attempt to soften the blow? How Judge Jones can claim later that he's not an activist judge after writing something as arrogant and as radical as this completely escapes us.

....because [the] disclaimer effectively told students "that evolution as taught in the classroom need not affect what they already know," it sent a message that was "contrary to an intent to encourage critical thinking, which requires that students approach new concepts with an open mind and willingness to alter and shift existing viewpoints".

This is utter nonsense. Which position is most likely to foster "a willingness to alter and shift existing viewpoints," teaching evolution in the classroom and encouraging students to check out dissenting views on their own time, or teaching only evolution in the classroom and not permitting even the mention of any criticisms of the theory and refusing to encourage students to entertain the possibility that there may be other explanations for the design which permeates nature besides the blind mechanisms of neo-Darwinism? How can students alter and shift existing viewpoints if they're only exposed to a single view?

[T]he administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as part of the disclaimer, that "there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue." .... a reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of "secret science that students apparently can't discuss with their science teacher" which... is pedagogically "about as bad as I (plaintiff's witness Dr. Alters) could possibly think of." Unlike anything else in the curriculum, students are under the impression that the topic to which they are introduced in the disclaimer, ID, is so sensitive that the students and their teachers are completely barred from asking questions about it or discussing it.

Apparently the judge is tone deaf to irony. He quotes Dr Alters' testimony that a reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of "secret science that students apparently can't discuss with their science teacher" which he indicated is pedagogically "about as bad as I could possibly think of." and then proceeds to forbid the teaching of ID and the weaknesses in the Darwinian creation story, an unprecedented judicial action in the experience of almost all high school students. Does he not recognize that by banning ID from the classroom he's doing exactly what he criticizes the board for doing?

Accordingly, we find that the classroom presentation of the disclaimer, including school administrators making a special appearance in the science classrooms to deliver the statement, the complete prohibition on discussion or questioning ID, and the "opt out" feature all convey a strong message of religious endorsement.

As we argued above, there's no reason why any of these things have to be seen as an endorsement of religion. There's no reason why they cannot be interpreted as the actions of men and women concerned to avoid the appearance of lending the weight of the school district's prestige to a theory that is a manifest threat to the religious beliefs of students and thus violating the clear intent of Sante Fe.

There's more to criticize, and wonder at, in the judge's opinion and we hope to get to some of it later this week. To read our previous installment in this series on Judge Jones' decision go here.

Conservative Pride Day?

Are you a forlorn conservative college or high school student who feels isolated and tyrannized by the hegemonic lefty professoriat and social milieu on campus? Are you beset on every side by silly left-wing pieties and intolerance? If so, you'll want to read this article and maybe visit this brand new web site to network with similarly situated ideological minorities:

Though Christopher Flickinger calls himself "dean" and poses in parodistic photos waving a small American flag and looking stern, he says he's never been more serious about eliminating what he claims is pervasive anti-conservatism on college campuses today.

"When I was on campus, I had no help," the recent Ohio State University graduate told FOXNews.com. "I was harassed, intimidated, shouted down."

Flickinger, schooled in broadcast journalism, said he wants to provide the support he never had as a lonely conservative in college. That's why in November he launched the Network of College Conservatives to act in part as "a link for these conservative students, to let them know they are not alone."

Running the Web site solo from his Pittsburgh, Pa., home, Flickinger said he wants the network to be much more than a shoulder to cry on. Conservative students are still easy targets of liberal intimidation, he claims, but more than ever, they have a growing body of legal and activist support groups to turn to - and he wants his organization to be top among those resources.

Flickinger added that his group plans on "exposing and letting people know what is going on" on campuses by creating a clearinghouse on the Web site for students to pass along information about individual schools and professors.

As welcome a development as this is, we think it's time for conservatives to have more than just their own web-sites. Conservatives need to demand their own dorms on campus, just like other minorities have. Perhaps also a conservative pride day is not out of the question. A conservative history month is a capital idea, and, while we're at it, affirmative action and quotas for hiring conservatives are certainly not too far-fetched.

Anyway, back to earth. Follow the link to read the rest of the article.

Bad Culture Drives Out Good

After reading stories like this we must remember to repeat to ourselves - All cultures are equally valid; No way of life is inherently better than any other; All values are equally good - lest we succumb to the seductions of common sense and begin to think that maybe the troglodytes on the right are correct when they tell us that Western culture really is superior to the way the rest of the world lives. Wouldn't it just be awful to discover that, contrary to what we've been told now for over a generation, the values that arise out of a Judeo-Christian worldview actually are superior to those which arise out of secular or Islamic worldviews? Here's the gist of this tragic tale:

MULTAN, Pakistan - A father, angry that his eldest daughter had married against his wishes, slit her throat as she slept and then killed three of his other daughters in a remote village in eastern Pakistan, police said Saturday. Nazir Ahmad, a laborer in his 40s, feared the younger girls, aged 4, 8, and 12, would follow in their sister's footsteps, police officer Shahzad Gul said.

Hundreds of women are killed in Pakistan every year, many by male relatives, after they are accused of staining their families' honor by having affairs or marrying for love without family consent.

But, as we're reminded by the multi-cultis and the diversity hucksters, who are we to judge? What right do we have to impose our values on another culture? If it's right for them then it's right, don't you know? Who's to say that our way is better than theirs? If you think this way of life is horrific that's just your opinion.

Well. It's time to say to our friends celebrating the beauty of all cultures except their own that some ways of life, some cultures, and some values are just plain ugly. Not just subjectively, aethetically ugly, but ugly at a deep, objective, moral and spiritual level. What's more we should not shrink from saying so when the opportunity arises, whether it arises within our own culture or in some other. When we lose the will to pass judgments on behavior then it becomes only a matter of time before bad behavior drives out good, before standards and values all decline, and the Nazir Ahmads of the world become increasingly common both here and abroad.

Too Much to Ask

The Guardian informs us of the unsurprising news that Hollywood types are refusing to go to Iraq to entertain the troops:

Wayne Newton, the Las Vegas crooner who succeeded Bob Hope as head of USO's talent recruiting effort, told USA Today. "Now with 9/11 being as far removed as it is, the war being up one day and down the next, it becomes increasingly difficult to get people to go."

Newton said many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."

Fear is also a factor. "They're scared," country singer Craig Morton, who is in Iraq on the USO's Hope and Freedom Tour 2005, told USA Today. "It's understandable. It's not a safe and fun place and a lot of people don't want to take the chance."

Let us suggest another factor: Many of these "beautiful people" are narcissistic, self-centered, pampered children who don't care about the troops and don't have any desire to inconvenience themselves for their sake. Yet we treat these people like gods even as the soldiers who are risking, and sacrificing, life and limb for the safety of those same celebrities, are all but anonymous except to their families and friends.

These people are rewarded with lavish lifestyles for doing nothing more than entertaining us. They live in multi-million dollar homes and can have anything money can buy, yet they can't give a few days out of their life to perform for the men and women who risk their own lives for next to nothing in order to ensure that the glitterati can go on living as they do.

We wonder if the celebs would think any differently were the next terrorist attack on our soil directed at Hollywood or if the president leading this war were Bill Clinton.