I'm taking a two week break from Shoe starting Monday, June 30. I'll be back on/around July 14. Have a great 4th of July!
Update: For your entertainment and/or enlightenment while I'm gone check out Tim Blair's Blog and/or VodkaPundit over on Pajamas Media and/or Little Green Footballs or the always fabulous Corner.
29 June 2008
26 June 2008
String Theory in 500 Words or Less
Today we’re going to stray off the beaten path and talk about particle physics and String Theory. What’s in it for you, you ask? Well, for one, since I’m going to take a shot at explaining it in 500 words or less, you can learn quite a lot in a very short time. Also, if this set of ideas that some call "The Unified Theory of Everything" proves out someday, you’ll be able to nod knowingly and say, “Yes, yes, I have always thought so.” If neither of those are enough to keep you, then go away and come back tomorrow when we'll talk about something easier like how screwed up the Supreme Court is these days.
So. We’ve been told that ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. We call the electron a fundamental particle belonging to a nice little particle family called “leptons," and we believe that its neutrons and protons are made of even smaller fundamental particles called “quarks.” Our current beliefs about the subatomic universe are summed up nicely in what we call the Standard Model of particle physics. This model describes what we say are the twelve basic building blocks: six types of quarks, and six types of leptons. Quarks go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The leptons include the electron and its two heavier pals, the muon and the tauon, plus three neutrinos.
The Standard Model also describes the four known fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is believed that each of these forces are produced by particles that act as carriers of that force. The most familiar of these is the photon, otherwise known as a light particle, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. The graviton is the particle associated with gravity (and is already familiar to Star Trek fans). The strong force is carried by eight different particles known as gluons, and the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- and the Z. (Disappointing little labels after names like “charm” and “strange” – but I digress.)
The Standard Model pretty thoroughly describes all particles and forces, with one exception: gravity. The gravitational force has proven difficult to describe or map. For years this has been one of the most important problems in theoretical physics. We seem unable to come up with a viable quantum theory of gravity. In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as one possible means for developing a microscopic theory of gravity as well as possibly being the possible Holy Grail of quantum physics, the aforementioned Unified Theory of Everything.
The fundamental idea supporting String Theory is that all the different particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: something that is too small to be visible on any existing microscope and which looks like a little piece or loop of string. So, whereas we would commonly picture an electron as a point with no dimensions and no internal structure – a point that cannot do anything but stay where it is, or move to another place in space-time – String Theory says that if we had an adequately powerful microscope, we would see that the electron is not really a point and is instead more like a tiny string. And we would see that this string is able to do something besides sit still, or move: it can oscillate and/or vibrate.
So, if one of these strings, of a certain mass, oscillates and/or vibrates a certain way, then from a distance we would be unable to tell it is a string and might see what we call an electron. But if it had a different mass, or oscillated and/or vibrated in some other way, we might call it a photon, or a quark. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of these tiny strings of varying mass that oscillate and/or vibrate at different speeds or “resonances”…and it is our ability to see (and/or hear? and/or sense?) them that will lead to further knowledge and possible theoretical breakthroughs.
Update: I asked my brother to fact-check this post; he emailed with this: "Good summary; you excluded anti-particles, but that's not a big deal. Also, the standard model doesn't contain gravity at all; it doesn't predict gravitons. More importantly, though, is that the key behind string theory is that strings exist in more than 3 spatial dimensions (various theories have different "extra" dimensions, up to 8, I think). This makes it a highly mathematical theory with few testable predictions with current technology."
Update 2: There's now a comment by someone who says I'm wrong in other ways, too. I'm just glad someone besides my brother (and Mom) read the whole thing. But I guess I'd better give up my Dreams of becoming a world renowned String Theory Expert...
So. We’ve been told that ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. We call the electron a fundamental particle belonging to a nice little particle family called “leptons," and we believe that its neutrons and protons are made of even smaller fundamental particles called “quarks.” Our current beliefs about the subatomic universe are summed up nicely in what we call the Standard Model of particle physics. This model describes what we say are the twelve basic building blocks: six types of quarks, and six types of leptons. Quarks go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The leptons include the electron and its two heavier pals, the muon and the tauon, plus three neutrinos.
The Standard Model also describes the four known fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is believed that each of these forces are produced by particles that act as carriers of that force. The most familiar of these is the photon, otherwise known as a light particle, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. The graviton is the particle associated with gravity (and is already familiar to Star Trek fans). The strong force is carried by eight different particles known as gluons, and the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- and the Z. (Disappointing little labels after names like “charm” and “strange” – but I digress.)
The Standard Model pretty thoroughly describes all particles and forces, with one exception: gravity. The gravitational force has proven difficult to describe or map. For years this has been one of the most important problems in theoretical physics. We seem unable to come up with a viable quantum theory of gravity. In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as one possible means for developing a microscopic theory of gravity as well as possibly being the possible Holy Grail of quantum physics, the aforementioned Unified Theory of Everything.
The fundamental idea supporting String Theory is that all the different particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: something that is too small to be visible on any existing microscope and which looks like a little piece or loop of string. So, whereas we would commonly picture an electron as a point with no dimensions and no internal structure – a point that cannot do anything but stay where it is, or move to another place in space-time – String Theory says that if we had an adequately powerful microscope, we would see that the electron is not really a point and is instead more like a tiny string. And we would see that this string is able to do something besides sit still, or move: it can oscillate and/or vibrate.
So, if one of these strings, of a certain mass, oscillates and/or vibrates a certain way, then from a distance we would be unable to tell it is a string and might see what we call an electron. But if it had a different mass, or oscillated and/or vibrated in some other way, we might call it a photon, or a quark. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of these tiny strings of varying mass that oscillate and/or vibrate at different speeds or “resonances”…and it is our ability to see (and/or hear? and/or sense?) them that will lead to further knowledge and possible theoretical breakthroughs.
Update: I asked my brother to fact-check this post; he emailed with this: "Good summary; you excluded anti-particles, but that's not a big deal. Also, the standard model doesn't contain gravity at all; it doesn't predict gravitons. More importantly, though, is that the key behind string theory is that strings exist in more than 3 spatial dimensions (various theories have different "extra" dimensions, up to 8, I think). This makes it a highly mathematical theory with few testable predictions with current technology."
Update 2: There's now a comment by someone who says I'm wrong in other ways, too. I'm just glad someone besides my brother (and Mom) read the whole thing. But I guess I'd better give up my Dreams of becoming a world renowned String Theory Expert...
25 June 2008
Don't Blame It on the Rain
Last week the WSJ reported that as the Mississippi river rises, a debate is storming between scientists, environmentalists and housing developers over whether irresponsible development is the cause of all the recent flooding. Due to the high demand for waterfront real estate, developers of new and expanding communities often push for new, taller, and stronger levees. But by building along the riverbanks and forcing the Mississippi into a bed that’s less than half the width it was 100 years ago, developers are forcing the river to run faster and higher.
Also, as the developers pave over and drain off nearby low lying wetlands, additional runoff water is channeled into the river. Critics say the result is a self-perpetuating cycle: Levees are built; wetlands are drained; the rivers rise higher, new levees are built even bigger; and the rivers rise again. Add in a little spring rainfall and disaster ensues.
At the center of the problem is the lack of a comprehensive river-management plan. Each levee along the Mississippi is under local control. “Each levee has a small impact, but cumulatively they can have a large impact," said David Busse, chief of engineering and construction for the St. Louis District of the Army Corps of Engineers. "From an engineering point of view, it would be great to look at the system as a system."
Can anyone say “Duh”…???
Also, as the developers pave over and drain off nearby low lying wetlands, additional runoff water is channeled into the river. Critics say the result is a self-perpetuating cycle: Levees are built; wetlands are drained; the rivers rise higher, new levees are built even bigger; and the rivers rise again. Add in a little spring rainfall and disaster ensues.
At the center of the problem is the lack of a comprehensive river-management plan. Each levee along the Mississippi is under local control. “Each levee has a small impact, but cumulatively they can have a large impact," said David Busse, chief of engineering and construction for the St. Louis District of the Army Corps of Engineers. "From an engineering point of view, it would be great to look at the system as a system."
Can anyone say “Duh”…???
24 June 2008
From NASA: Great Shuttle Mission Photos
For your viewing enjoyment, some great NASA photos from a past shuttle mission.
23 June 2008
Hathida Prosecutions: 0-7
I was glad to see Michelle Malkin raking the New York Times over the proverbial coals for their dishonest reporting in re: to the Haditha trials. Over the past two years The Times has written 35+ stories (along with headlines in giant font) re: the alleged crimes of these Marines while editorializing that the incident was the “defining atrocity” of the war, yet has posted only two small blurbs noting that seven of these eight officers have now been acquitted (one still awaits trial).
The blatant bias and lack of integrity at the NYT continues to be appalling. And while we’re talking about character assassination and biased, irresponsible journalism, how about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s characterization of the “willful targeted brutality” of these Marines before the trials even began? Or The Nation’s conclusion that the regiment “perpetrated a massacre”? Or similar comments in The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the L.A. Times? Will any of these entities, or Congressman Murtha, who also slandered these Marines, now apologize for their propaganda? Honesty and integrity not being on their agenda, we won't hold our collective breath.
The blatant bias and lack of integrity at the NYT continues to be appalling. And while we’re talking about character assassination and biased, irresponsible journalism, how about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s characterization of the “willful targeted brutality” of these Marines before the trials even began? Or The Nation’s conclusion that the regiment “perpetrated a massacre”? Or similar comments in The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the L.A. Times? Will any of these entities, or Congressman Murtha, who also slandered these Marines, now apologize for their propaganda? Honesty and integrity not being on their agenda, we won't hold our collective breath.
22 June 2008
Is Obama in Violation of US Code Title 18-713?
When I saw this story on Obama's new seal, I recalled this little piece of U.S. Code which refers to: Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress, and which says:
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And wondered...???
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And wondered...???
21 June 2008
What a Difference the Messenger Makes
The liberal media is praising Obama for making some critical statements about black fathers in front of a predominantly black audience. Addressing the congregation of a large black church, Obama mentioned his own absentee father and said “we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” He went on to state, “more than half of all black children are living in single parent households” and “too many fathers are MIA” and “the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” Obama is being widely credited with making a speech that was “striking for its bluntness” and is being applauded for his courage in presenting it to a black audience.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
20 June 2008
Because Baby Alex's Momma Says So
Recent days have seen quite a few media chime-ins on the ‘Baby Alex’ ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. The ad features a young mother bouncing a beaming baby boy on her lap and emoting in a quavering, affected voice, “John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him.”
We’ve become accustomed to the Left’s propensity for not letting the facts get in the way of a nasty campaign ad, but one still feels disgusted at the ad’s blatant exploitation of babyhood in an attempt to manipulate voters. For the umpteenth time, McCain never said he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. He simply referenced our ongoing military presence in countries like South Korea and Japan and said the same would be fine in Iraq “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And, presumably, it would also be fine with McCain, and any other sensible American, if Alex grew up, enlisted in the military, and were stationed for a time in peace time Iraq.
It’s not ok with this quavering, indignant mother, though. Asserting lifelong ownership of her son, she is not going to let John McCain “have him.” Nevermind that McCain will likely die of old age before the boy turns 18, and nevermind that the boy may well grow up and decide to serve his country of his own free will. Those facts do not make for good Drama – and it is drama, after all, that so often trumps the facts in our national dialogue.
Too bad little Alex’s mother is not as committed to truth telling as she is to claiming ownership over a life that, ultimately, is not hers. Her assertion that she knows what is best for another, both now and for all time, embodies the justification for the Left’s entire political agenda. As this ad reveals, the lefties do not hesitate to try to dictate the life choices of others. Other viewpoints, and freedom of thought and choice, are not in the script...even for their own children.
We’ve become accustomed to the Left’s propensity for not letting the facts get in the way of a nasty campaign ad, but one still feels disgusted at the ad’s blatant exploitation of babyhood in an attempt to manipulate voters. For the umpteenth time, McCain never said he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. He simply referenced our ongoing military presence in countries like South Korea and Japan and said the same would be fine in Iraq “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And, presumably, it would also be fine with McCain, and any other sensible American, if Alex grew up, enlisted in the military, and were stationed for a time in peace time Iraq.
It’s not ok with this quavering, indignant mother, though. Asserting lifelong ownership of her son, she is not going to let John McCain “have him.” Nevermind that McCain will likely die of old age before the boy turns 18, and nevermind that the boy may well grow up and decide to serve his country of his own free will. Those facts do not make for good Drama – and it is drama, after all, that so often trumps the facts in our national dialogue.
Too bad little Alex’s mother is not as committed to truth telling as she is to claiming ownership over a life that, ultimately, is not hers. Her assertion that she knows what is best for another, both now and for all time, embodies the justification for the Left’s entire political agenda. As this ad reveals, the lefties do not hesitate to try to dictate the life choices of others. Other viewpoints, and freedom of thought and choice, are not in the script...even for their own children.
Yet Another Gaza Ceasefire
Mind boggling as it is, another Israeli ceasefire on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip has gone into effect. Previous ceasefires have been punctuated by regular attacks from Hamas and have given Hamas a chance to re-group and re-arm. This one will be no different. Israel’s intermittent periods of capitulation and “military restraint” continue to teach Hamas that there are no real consequences to their actions. Furthermore, the Palestinian moderates have zero chance of ruling Gaza as long as Hamas can convince the people that they are gaining ground and winning concessions.
And indeed, they are. The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire places no limitations on Hamas activities in Gaza (and even if it did, there is no way to monitor them). Hamas is free to stockpile arms, plant mines, dig tunnels, and build bunkers. By the end of the ceasefire, Gaza will be fully armed and ready to do battle even more effectively than before. Another few such ceasefires and Hamas will not only be equipped to hold sway over Gaza indefinitely but could also make an attempt at invading parts of Israel.
What is Israel thinking, and why is the White House expressing hopeful optimism about this latest ceasefire? It borders on insanity.
And indeed, they are. The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire places no limitations on Hamas activities in Gaza (and even if it did, there is no way to monitor them). Hamas is free to stockpile arms, plant mines, dig tunnels, and build bunkers. By the end of the ceasefire, Gaza will be fully armed and ready to do battle even more effectively than before. Another few such ceasefires and Hamas will not only be equipped to hold sway over Gaza indefinitely but could also make an attempt at invading parts of Israel.
What is Israel thinking, and why is the White House expressing hopeful optimism about this latest ceasefire? It borders on insanity.
19 June 2008
Sign the Petition: Broadcaster Freedom Act
Today's CNSNews.com E-Brief sums up the latest in the Left's attempt to resurrect the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" so they can subdue or silence some or all of the voices of conservative talk radio. Apparently there is a new bill in the works - "The Broadcaster Freedom Act" - that liberals in Congress are blocking from getting to the floor for a vote. CNS has named this July 4th "Radio Independence Day" and has provided a link to their Citizen Petition to stop the Fairness Doctrine and push forward the new Freedom bill. You can sign the petition here.
The goal is to present Congressional leadership with at least 100,000 signatures demanding that the Broadcaster Freedom Act be brought to a full floor vote before the Fourth of July. So far, 194 members of Congress have signed a petition asking for a discharge of the bill from committee to The Floor, but 24 more signatures are needed.
The goal is to present Congressional leadership with at least 100,000 signatures demanding that the Broadcaster Freedom Act be brought to a full floor vote before the Fourth of July. So far, 194 members of Congress have signed a petition asking for a discharge of the bill from committee to The Floor, but 24 more signatures are needed.
18 June 2008
U.S. Department of Gangster Rap Promotion
Johah Goldberg @ The Corner on NRO made up this blog post title a couple of days ago, and provided this fascinating snippet from a profile of Alicia Keys in Blender:
Jonah: Well, first of all, I want that government agency closed immediately. Second, I want to know why the brilliant bureaucrats in charge of blowing up New Orleans levees, creating AIDS, and concocting the Gangsta Rap Myth are never put in charge of, like, the Department of Education or HUD. Imagine if they could use their skills for good instead of evil?
We ask what other gangsta rappers she liked. And that’s when Keys drives a steamroller through the wall.
“‘Gangsta rap’ was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other,” she says, putting down the sandwich. “‘Gangsta rap’ didn’t exist.”
Come again? A ploy by whom?
She looks at us like it’s the dumbest question in the world. “The government.”
Jonah: Well, first of all, I want that government agency closed immediately. Second, I want to know why the brilliant bureaucrats in charge of blowing up New Orleans levees, creating AIDS, and concocting the Gangsta Rap Myth are never put in charge of, like, the Department of Education or HUD. Imagine if they could use their skills for good instead of evil?
17 June 2008
The Strange Mathematics of Oil
To date, I agree with every word and/or admire every question that comes out of Victor Davis Hanson's keyboard. Here is a verbatim transcript from one of his posts on The Corner yesterday:
1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
16 June 2008
Viva Ireland!
It is worth nothing that Ireland has voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the replacement document for the previously rejected EU Constitution by which the EU is trying to achieve full status as a sovereign entity. Against the urgings of their prime minister, their cabinet, the majority of the business sector, the Catholic church, and the media, the Irish people have refused to water down their national identity or give up sovereignty in favor of more bureacuracy and oversight of/from the EU.
The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."
The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."
13 June 2008
Cali Bound
We're in south-central Cali today and all Father's Day weekend. Among other things, we're going to visit the Reagan Library, have brunch in Montecito, enjoy the oceanside hills of scenic Santa Barbara, and hit the beach. Blessings!
12 June 2008
Polygamy
A few weeks ago, Anne and I puzzled over the non-enforcement of federal polygamy laws in certain enclaves where it is practiced openly (brought to light vis a vis the recent goings-on in and around that Texas compound that's been in the news). Anne said, "Either it’s against the law or it isn’t. It suggests to me that there exists an undercurrent of uncertainty as to the justice of the ban, if not in the courts, certainly among individuals."
Perhaps it is ignored or tolerated in certain parts because it's seen as a religious thing that causes no harm to the common good, since these folks don’t seem to cause any trouble otherwise? However, I can't help but feel disgusted that these people marry their 15 to 18 year old girls off to the community's old men. One feels sorry for these young women, who are taught from birth that it is their Heavenly duty to go along with it, and that only by this path will they reach the ultimate Celestial place.
Perhaps it is ignored or tolerated in certain parts because it's seen as a religious thing that causes no harm to the common good, since these folks don’t seem to cause any trouble otherwise? However, I can't help but feel disgusted that these people marry their 15 to 18 year old girls off to the community's old men. One feels sorry for these young women, who are taught from birth that it is their Heavenly duty to go along with it, and that only by this path will they reach the ultimate Celestial place.
11 June 2008
Where's Voltaire When We Need Him?
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire
Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)
As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.
In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.
Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)
As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.
In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.
09 June 2008
NV: More Knee Jerking Over Yucca
“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in this Sunday's Nevada Appeal. “Nevada's experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”
I'm wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. I think I'll call the AG's office this week and ask. If there's one thing I've learned in my short stint on NV's political airwaves, it's that big words get bandied around like nobody's business and follow-up questions are key. (Shall we take a wild guess and speculate that at least some of these "experts" are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past? And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their "expert" verdict...? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository...so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days?)
We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain lately. Stand by!
I'm wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. I think I'll call the AG's office this week and ask. If there's one thing I've learned in my short stint on NV's political airwaves, it's that big words get bandied around like nobody's business and follow-up questions are key. (Shall we take a wild guess and speculate that at least some of these "experts" are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past? And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their "expert" verdict...? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository...so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days?)
We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain lately. Stand by!
LOL
I haven't posted much about Obama because I can't bring myself to believe my beloved country will elect this naive, inexperienced, vapid person of questionable judgment to the office of the Presidency. Today, however, I was presented with something so funny and apt that I felt I must share (and which made me wish I could draw better). Anne of Idaho wrote in:
Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."
I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!
Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."
I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!
08 June 2008
Seattle Bows Down to the Carbon gods: Beach Bonfires Discouraged Due to Carbon Emissions
Didn't have much time for reading The Corner this week, but Anne of Idaho sends along an excerpt from a new carbon emissions story Jonah mentioned, followed by her own comments (with which I heartily agree). According to a memo on beach bonfires from the Seattle Parks and Recreation Dept. released this Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."
Anne: This can be likened to a dieter wiping sweet peas off the list of things he can eat while retaining ice cream and cake. Or a husband coming home with a set of new golf clubs after telling his wife she needs to have fewer manicures in order to help with household economies. Doesn’t anyone on these boards and committees and government entities ever raise the issue of rationality? There were nearly one million acres of forest land burned in Idaho last year due to past government policies about logging. I hardly think a few thousand beach fires, or even a few million, matter.
Andrew Stuttaford on NRO had this to say about the world's New Religion: The Seattle Sacrifice An entertaining story...and yet another example of how certain aspects of environmentalism are, in some ways, taking on the characteristics of a religion. You can read the banning of the beach bonfires both as ritual sacrifice and as no less ritual renunciation of pleasure. The whole thing is, in all likelihood, futile, but it generates a comfortably shared illusion that 'something' is being done, as well, of course, as providing an excellent opportunity for those in charge to demonstrate their moral superiority and for those beneath them to be bossed about. In its own remarkably petty way, it's perfect.
Anne: This can be likened to a dieter wiping sweet peas off the list of things he can eat while retaining ice cream and cake. Or a husband coming home with a set of new golf clubs after telling his wife she needs to have fewer manicures in order to help with household economies. Doesn’t anyone on these boards and committees and government entities ever raise the issue of rationality? There were nearly one million acres of forest land burned in Idaho last year due to past government policies about logging. I hardly think a few thousand beach fires, or even a few million, matter.
Andrew Stuttaford on NRO had this to say about the world's New Religion: The Seattle Sacrifice An entertaining story...and yet another example of how certain aspects of environmentalism are, in some ways, taking on the characteristics of a religion. You can read the banning of the beach bonfires both as ritual sacrifice and as no less ritual renunciation of pleasure. The whole thing is, in all likelihood, futile, but it generates a comfortably shared illusion that 'something' is being done, as well, of course, as providing an excellent opportunity for those in charge to demonstrate their moral superiority and for those beneath them to be bossed about. In its own remarkably petty way, it's perfect.
07 June 2008
Sketchy Judgment
It's being widely blogged this weekend that 9/11 plotter Khalied Mohammed was allowed to glance over a courtroom drawing of himself and that military prosecutors caved to his complaints that his nose was drawn too big. According to a story in the New York Post, the courtroom artist was then given additional time to "properly" depict the terrorist. A Pentagon spokesman said, "It shows the lengths we go to take their desires into consideration."
And we are proud of this because...?
And we are proud of this because...?
Chuck Muth: Paul Supporters Announce Their Own Personal Convention Restart
Chuck Muth's June 6 Nevada News & Views lights on exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about when advising Libertarians to either pacify or disavow their nuttier factions. Chuck is a Ron Paul supporter who laments being tarnished with "the same brush as the wacko fringe of his supporters here in Nevada..." He's referring to a small rebel force of "Paultard" (Paul + retard - re) agitators who have donned their light sabers, dubbed themselves the new experts on Robert’s Rules of Order, and announced their intention to convene their very own Nevada Republican Convention on June 28th in Reno. Of course, only one convention can be held in a presidential election year and the state committee has already announced that it will be on July 26th...but the Paultards are not going to let a little thing like the rule of law get in the way of a good time. Their Thursday press release announced: "Nevada Delegates Reject State Party’s Date for State Convention.” The rest is too ridiculous to repeat.
I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!
I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!
Yucca Licensing Application Is In
The Reno Gazette Journal reports that Reid and Ensign blast the latest push to get the repository at Yucca Mountain approved. No surprise there. And, since the licensing approval process will take at least another 3 years, this issue will soon be sleeping again. Is no one in Nevada going to get ready for the likelihood that the site will be approved? Don't we have some lobbying and negotiating to do to ensure Nevada benefits from this decision? At least one man is trying, see here.
06 June 2008
United We Must Stand
It seems to me that the steady decline of conservatism presents an opportunity for the Libertarian and Conservative movements to unite – if the Libertarians will agree to judiciously advance their agenda within the existing political and cultural framework. If they wish to be taken seriously, Libertarians must recognize that frenzied podium pounding and the organization of unsanctioned political caucuses are largely ineffective. It is fruitless to willfully ignore the existing political machine – or try to shout it down. The Liberty we seek will not be achieved through mindless anarchy. Revolution must be rooted in reasoned reform and must manifest through the public dissemination of information and the existing electoral process. We must persuade through the intelligent presentation of ideas.
Along these lines, Libertarians must also decide to respect reasonable, traditional socio-political norms and disavow the fringe groups who seem more concerned with their freedom to publicly drink, carouse, use drugs, and advertise their sexuality than with preserving and protecting the basic liberties granted by our Constitution. Every individual has the right to “Party On” if they wish, but those who truly seek to promote a civil agenda for the common good must carry themselves with dignity if they expect to be taken seriously. Good manners and courtesy are part of a civilized debate, and only by behaving well and honorably in public forums can we appeal to the Conscience of the nation.
The Libertarian values of Justice and Liberty are the highest political objectives we can seek. Too much government intervention — whether economic, cultural, or social – stifles freedom and corrupts justice. It must be opposed at every turn. Libertarians and Conservatives must unite and march in the direction of the Old Right which opposed the New Deal and favored political decentralization. We must resist increasing infringements on our daily lives. We must abhor the moralizing busybodies in D.C., adhere to Principle, and resist the tempatation to let minor differences divide and conquer us. It is essential that we come together and convince our fellow citizens that we should not rely on The State to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves. We must persuade our neighbors that our dependence upon the nebulous Government to solve all our problems is a losing (and very expensive) game.
In addition, atheist and anti-religious Libertarians must make peace with people of faith. To scoff and snicker at Judeo-Christian thought and the classical-liberal Greek intellectual traditions upon which this nation was built is foolish. What do these anti-God ranters think will replace a deep respect for the dignity of Man, the Golden Rule, and the Scales of Justice in the hearts and minds of men? The only viable political replacement for the deeply imbedded moral Code to which the faithful willingly adhere is either (1) a socialist State that sloppily engages in privileging or de-privileging its citizens through subjective lawmaking and then lulls them into calling it justice and fairness, or (2) a dictator or despot who arbitrarily rules through raw force. These are the very things Libertarians seek to avoid, diminish, or abolish so let us be sensible and realize that the values of Judeo-Christianity have more in common with the core values of Libertarianism than not. Both are rooted in a belief in the right of men to live and die Free and in an adherence to individual responsibility for one's Fate.
Stand by for a post on how Libertarians and Conservatives must find common ground on the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, policing and surveillance, immigration and border control, and preserving and protecting our political and economic interests around the globe.
Along these lines, Libertarians must also decide to respect reasonable, traditional socio-political norms and disavow the fringe groups who seem more concerned with their freedom to publicly drink, carouse, use drugs, and advertise their sexuality than with preserving and protecting the basic liberties granted by our Constitution. Every individual has the right to “Party On” if they wish, but those who truly seek to promote a civil agenda for the common good must carry themselves with dignity if they expect to be taken seriously. Good manners and courtesy are part of a civilized debate, and only by behaving well and honorably in public forums can we appeal to the Conscience of the nation.
The Libertarian values of Justice and Liberty are the highest political objectives we can seek. Too much government intervention — whether economic, cultural, or social – stifles freedom and corrupts justice. It must be opposed at every turn. Libertarians and Conservatives must unite and march in the direction of the Old Right which opposed the New Deal and favored political decentralization. We must resist increasing infringements on our daily lives. We must abhor the moralizing busybodies in D.C., adhere to Principle, and resist the tempatation to let minor differences divide and conquer us. It is essential that we come together and convince our fellow citizens that we should not rely on The State to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves. We must persuade our neighbors that our dependence upon the nebulous Government to solve all our problems is a losing (and very expensive) game.
In addition, atheist and anti-religious Libertarians must make peace with people of faith. To scoff and snicker at Judeo-Christian thought and the classical-liberal Greek intellectual traditions upon which this nation was built is foolish. What do these anti-God ranters think will replace a deep respect for the dignity of Man, the Golden Rule, and the Scales of Justice in the hearts and minds of men? The only viable political replacement for the deeply imbedded moral Code to which the faithful willingly adhere is either (1) a socialist State that sloppily engages in privileging or de-privileging its citizens through subjective lawmaking and then lulls them into calling it justice and fairness, or (2) a dictator or despot who arbitrarily rules through raw force. These are the very things Libertarians seek to avoid, diminish, or abolish so let us be sensible and realize that the values of Judeo-Christianity have more in common with the core values of Libertarianism than not. Both are rooted in a belief in the right of men to live and die Free and in an adherence to individual responsibility for one's Fate.
Stand by for a post on how Libertarians and Conservatives must find common ground on the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, policing and surveillance, immigration and border control, and preserving and protecting our political and economic interests around the globe.
Christianity and Libertarianism
My learning curve re: Libertarianism continues. Yesterday I found out that some of my new conservative-Libertarian friends are “godless.” Since we agree on issues of excessive taxation, education reform, intelligent energy policy, labor union reform, the decline of the GOP via the erosion of principles of liberty and conservatism, the lack of accountability and transparency in government, and the role a citizen and journalist ought to play in all of it...we shall in all likelihood continue to be agreeable birds in the proverbial nest. And as we join forces to promote truth-telling in civic life, I will continue to explore and entertain those Libertarian principles I think are sound. I really do not know what the political theorists have to say about Christian Libertarianism (is there such a thing?) but this is what I will say for myself, for now:
I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).
The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.
My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.
I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).
The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.
My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.
05 June 2008
The Islamic Law of Apostasy: Murder by Any Other Name
In re: to my recent post on missionaries and Muslims converting to Christianity in the U.K. and elsewhere, Anne of Idaho writes in and asks, "Who is going to be responsible for Islam’s attitude about conversion, i.e., killing apostates?"
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
great comment from OvercomingBias.com
From a post on yesterday's Overcomingbias.com:
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
CNS News: Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims
In re: to my "Evangelism: The New Hate Crime" post, Kevin McCandless @ CNSNews.com (London) reports that with more and more Britons embracing Islam, the Church of England is launching a campaign aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. At the church's General Synod this coming July, clergy and lay members will consider a motion calling for a recognition of the "uniqueness of Christ" and urging the church to proclaim "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone."
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
04 June 2008
Sign Here
According to polls, between 50% and 73% of the American people agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America's coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you agree, click here to sign a petition that will urge Congress to authorize the exploration of domestic energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
03 June 2008
Nevada's Trifecta of Education Failures
In his May 31st Nevada News & Views, Chuck Muth mentioned that four of five of Nevada's "anti-charter school" State Board of Education board members are up for re-election this year. This is notable because the Board has killed (by a vote of 5-5) all recent school choice measures including slapping a moratorium on all new charter school applications as well as voting against the expansion of existing charter schools. (The Board's explanation for denying new school applications? They were "overwhelmed" - with all 11 of them.) Muth has often pointed out that just one vote would make a difference. Happily, four challengers have now been found and have successfully filed to run against the anti-charter board members. Happier still, the four challenged members have now decided NOT to run - and there is apparently serious discussion of a recall effort against the remaining anti-charter member, Anthony Ruggiero. Those hoping for greater school choice may be only one election away from seeing change.
Why does this matter? The answer, according to Matthew Ladner's recent piece over at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (for the whole article go to http://www.npri.org/publications/quality--quantity) is twofold. First, the US Census Bureau has estimated that the number of Nevada children under the age of 18 will nearly double between now and the year 2030. To accommodate this growth, Nevada will have no choice but to build many new schools as well as fix up some old ones. Second, Nevada's quality of education is extremely poor. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests representative samples of students in all 50 states, shows that Nevada's fourth graders rank 46th in the nation in reading skills, while its eighth graders rank 47th. An alarming 43 percent of Nevada fourth graders scored below the basic level on reading on the recent 2007 exams, while 37 percent of eighth graders scored below basic reading levels. Add all this to the above mentioned slap-down of charter schools, and you've got a Trifecta - of failures.
Nevada's apologists for these problems are constantly calling for more money. Unfortunately, our taxpayers have been pursuing spendy policy for decades with little to show for it. Nevada's public school spending in 2003 was between 40 and 60 percent higher than the national average on a per-pupil basis (depending on the spending category) yet our students are testing more poorly than ever. Given our rapid growth, increased costs are unavoidable, but borrowing for new school facilities must eventually be repaid in the form of lower classroom spending - or, as is customary here in the Silver State, higher taxes. Even with tax hikes, Nevada's public school districts continue to take on millions in new debt each year as they strive to keep up with rising enrollment.
School choice - including the addition and expansion of charter schools - can improve public school performance, reduce the need for new debt, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. School choice programs can actually place students in quality private schools for less than the cost to educate the student in the public system. How is this possible? One example Ladner cites comes to us from Florida's corporate scholarship tax credit program, Step Up for Students. He says it "gives a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to corporations that assist non-profits to provide private school scholarships." The result, according to the Collins Center for Public Policy, is that the state saves about $3,800 for each student using a scholarship credit voucher. Sounds like good policy to me.
Why does this matter? The answer, according to Matthew Ladner's recent piece over at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (for the whole article go to http://www.npri.org/publications/quality--quantity) is twofold. First, the US Census Bureau has estimated that the number of Nevada children under the age of 18 will nearly double between now and the year 2030. To accommodate this growth, Nevada will have no choice but to build many new schools as well as fix up some old ones. Second, Nevada's quality of education is extremely poor. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests representative samples of students in all 50 states, shows that Nevada's fourth graders rank 46th in the nation in reading skills, while its eighth graders rank 47th. An alarming 43 percent of Nevada fourth graders scored below the basic level on reading on the recent 2007 exams, while 37 percent of eighth graders scored below basic reading levels. Add all this to the above mentioned slap-down of charter schools, and you've got a Trifecta - of failures.
Nevada's apologists for these problems are constantly calling for more money. Unfortunately, our taxpayers have been pursuing spendy policy for decades with little to show for it. Nevada's public school spending in 2003 was between 40 and 60 percent higher than the national average on a per-pupil basis (depending on the spending category) yet our students are testing more poorly than ever. Given our rapid growth, increased costs are unavoidable, but borrowing for new school facilities must eventually be repaid in the form of lower classroom spending - or, as is customary here in the Silver State, higher taxes. Even with tax hikes, Nevada's public school districts continue to take on millions in new debt each year as they strive to keep up with rising enrollment.
School choice - including the addition and expansion of charter schools - can improve public school performance, reduce the need for new debt, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. School choice programs can actually place students in quality private schools for less than the cost to educate the student in the public system. How is this possible? One example Ladner cites comes to us from Florida's corporate scholarship tax credit program, Step Up for Students. He says it "gives a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to corporations that assist non-profits to provide private school scholarships." The result, according to the Collins Center for Public Policy, is that the state saves about $3,800 for each student using a scholarship credit voucher. Sounds like good policy to me.
02 June 2008
Evangelism: The New Hate Crime
We learn from this story in the Telegraph that two American evangelical ministers living in Great Britain were recently threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime." The nature of their heinous acts? They were handing out gospel leaflets and talking with four Asian youths. Apparently a police community support officer interrupted the conversation and questioned the ministers about their beliefs. He then told them they were "in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread [a] Christian message." He said they were committing a "hate crime" and threatened to take them to the police station. He did not in fact arrest them but did part with these ominous words: "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well, you have been warned."
Will this incident fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns with large Muslim populations, as the Bishop of Rochester claimed in The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year? The outcome of the trial will surely have some bearing. Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, the two full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed on their right to profess their religion.
Will this incident fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns with large Muslim populations, as the Bishop of Rochester claimed in The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year? The outcome of the trial will surely have some bearing. Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, the two full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed on their right to profess their religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
