The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Friday, January 13, 2006
Will Roe Be Overturned? I don't know. I am very reluctantly pro-choice--and that is primarily because especially in the first trimester (the one area where Roe most clearly told the states to butt out), abortion is simply too easy a procedure to perform for a governmental ban to work--especially because there are so many rabid pro-choicers out there who risk jail, and spend their considerable fortunes to fund abortions. The most that a ban will do, unless we do something about the causes of all those pregnancies, is remove those abortionists who are primarily in it for the money. I am sure that there are some in that category--but I would guess that someone who has to wear a bullet-proof vest to go to work on a regular basis is probably motivated by more than just money. If you want first trimester elective abortions to end (as opposed to merely becoming illegal), some of the enormous moral problems of this country are going to have to be worked out first. We are going to have to substantially improve the moral climate in which kids are growing up, so that they are not sexually active so early. That means that you may not be able to watch R or NC-17 rated movies while the kids are up. (When we lived in California, there were a lot of parents who would watch bloody, gory, and sexually explicit movies with their five year olds in the room.) It means that we are going to have to find some way to drain the fever swamp of both broadcast and cable television. I am not quite sure how the government can do much in this area. There's an awful lot of trash on the tube that encourages girls to see themselves primarily as sexual objects--and encourages boys to see girls in that same way. But while vulgar and repulsive, it isn't obscene by any standard that the Supreme Court is going to accept. This means that you, as parents, are going to have to let networks know that you do not approve of this crap being on the tube. It isn't enough, unfortunately, to turn it off in your home. I tried to raise kids in Sonoma County, California, and I began to appreciate the enormous struggle that Orthodox Jews must feel when they move into an overwhelmingly secular community. You can do what you want to be a good example--but your kids are going to go to school with kids coming from majority homes, where Mom doesn't hide the fur-lined handcuffs and porno movies well enough; where drunkenness, marijuana, and crack are common (and in middle class homes). I was reading an older copy of Newsweek in the gym today, and it reported a survey showing that 16% of Americans wanted a complete ban on elective abortions; 21% wanted no restrictions on abortion at all. The vast majority of Americans wanted a lot more restrictions on abortion, but not a complete ban. First of all, I suspect that most Americans don't even know what the current laws of their state are. The reason that some states don't have a ban on third trimester abortions is because the legislature isn't willing to pass one. Idaho Code, Title 18, chapter 6, seems, as I read it, to go right up to the bumpstops of what the federal courts will allow the state to regulate--and the partial-birth abortion ban in section 18-613 probably goes beyond it. Secondly, a lot of Americans are horrified by partial-birth abortion, by abortion for sex selection, and abortion as primary birth control. (I know that for most women, it is not their primary form of birth control--but I pointed a months back to a Los Angeles Times article about an abortion doctor in Arkansas who had adult patients coming in for whom this was their primary birth control method--and some were repeat customers: The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion "is a bummer," she says, "but no big stress."So what happens if Roe v. Wade were to be either gutted or completely overturned by the Supreme Court? The decision would go back to the states--and I would expect that such a decision would be very clear that abortions taking place entirely within a state are a state decision. Congressional action would be limited to abortions in the territories, on federal reservations, and perhaps in medical plans funded by the federal government. Otherwise, each state legislature would have to grapple with the problem. Now, I find it interesting that pro-choice sorts are making arguments that are contradictory--that there is strong majority support for keeping abortion "safe and legal"--and that overturning Roe would be a disaster. Here's one example, from a comment made over at Volokh Conspiracy today: "what's to preclude Congress from passing laws to restrict or outlaw abortion?"Of course, if there was really this vast majority in support of keeping abortion available on something like the current terms, then overturning Roe would only change the situation in a very small number of states. It is precisely because a strong majority wants abortion to be somewhat harder to get than it is today that liberals are so twitterpated about Alito getting on the Court. Now, I am also disappointed to see that liberals are convinced that if the Supreme Court overruled Roe that conservatives would not be content to leave this for the states to handle: That was a joke, right? You really think that conservatives would not support federal legislation to ban abortions because the prior argument was it should be left to the states?I think the problem here may be projection. "That which is not prohibited, is required." Liberals have spent so much time convincing themselves that pro-lifers want every woman barefoot and pregnant--if not being tortured on the rack--that they simply refuse to believe that one of the concerns about Roe was that it was Constitutionally incorrect--and that the federal government's job is not to solve every problem. I've long been concerned that the Supreme Court (or, for that matter, Congress) acting as a superlegislature on state issues is tremendously harmful. I think Oregon's voters made a big mistake with their euthanasia initiatively. I unfortunately assisted in passing California's medical marijuana initiative. (Like a number of Californians, current or former, as I am, I saw the error of my ways within a couple of years.) Still, the primary responsibility for passing laws that affect intrastate matters lies with the voters of that state. If they screw up, without violating the state or federal constitutions, they have it within their power to correct it. I look forward to the day when the U.S. Supreme Court will start doing their job again--deciding whether laws passed by the voters or their elected representatives are constitutional--not whether they are good or bad. The "no rational basis" argument used in Cleburne doubtless made the federal judges involved feel good about themselves, because it does appear that the City of Cleburne had no rational basis for that law. That's a very subjective basis for overturning a law--and it leads to judges as superlegislators. Fifty states as fifty laboratories is an unintended consequence of federalism, and it has worked out generally pretty well. Some states try truly stupid ideas; within a few years, when the idea fails, the legislature can either repeal the law, or its proponents can ask Congress to make the bad idea national in scope (to hide that it failed in one state--as with gun control). Some states try innovative ideas that work--and when they do work, other states copy it (such as non-discretionary concealed weapon permit laws). Labels: abortion Global Warming on Mars The January, 2006 Astronomy has two pictures with the following short article on p. 32: Martian features disappearThe martian year is slightly less than 687 Earth-days, so about 1.88 Earth-years. This means that between 1999 and 2005, Mars has gone through just a bit more than three complete seasonal cycles. I've mentioned before that Mars has been showing evidence of global warming for a number of years. In particular, I mentioned this particular news release from JPL back in September. And there are a variety of articles that I've linked to over the last several years that with slightly different forms of evidence show that global warming is affecting Mars as well--suggesting that if man is part of the problem here, he is only part of the problem. Labels: global warming Religious Fanatic Dragging The World Towards A Wider War I mentioned a few weeks back the speech given by Iran's President at the UN, and his increasing talk of the imminent return of the twelfth imam, or the Mahdi. Think of the Christian expectation of the return of Jesus Christ--and now look at Iran's apparent willingness to go head-to-head with both the U.S. and the European Union over nuclear weapons. And the Madhi isn't coming back to make the lion lie down the lamb: Al Mahdi (the guided one), which will materialize when the believers are severely oppressed in every corner of the world. He will fight the oppressors, unite the Muslims, bring peace and justice to the world, rule over the Arabs, and lead a prayer in Mekkah at which Isa(pbuh) (Jesus) will be present.In much the same way that false Messiahs sometimes led Jews to revolt in classical times, false Madhis have led armed revolts, most notably in the Sudan in the late nineteenth century, with great loss of life. Of course, that false Madhi didn't have nuclear weapons.... Daniel Pipes (who knows a bit about Middle Eastern politics and religion), writes: As mayor of Tehran, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to have in 2004 secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated $17 million for a blue-tiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Tehran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.I found the link over at The Stones Cry Out--which made the point about why Iran isn't showing much interest in coming to a peaceful resolution of the nuclear question. I do wish that the left would get over their hatred of Bush, the Republican Party, and the United States long enough to notice that there is something a lot worse out there to be concerned about--people and ideas that make Jerry Falwell look like an ACLU member, and Pat Robertson look sensible. Labels: terrorism Excuse Me While My Brain Explodes Michelle Malkin has a copy of Jose Padilla's application to join al-Qaeda. While Padilla denies having filled in this application, it appears that U.S. forces recovered a locker full of such applications in Afghanistan in 2001, including what federal prosecutors claim is Padilla's. The form is disturbingly like something you might fill out to join a club--including asking what his hobbies are. The Test For Jewish Blood Professor Volokh points to an article about Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who along with claiming that Condoleeza Rice's problems could be solved by a barracks of soldiers, also claims, "I've had several blood tests and there is no Jewish blood in me, not even 5 per cent." What, pray tell, is the "Jewish blood test"? Or does he see that his doctors keep running the Wasserman test (since his statements suggest the insanity of tertiary syphilis)--and Zhirinovsky sees that Jewish-sounding name, and gets confused? (Actually, the test is named for a "von Wasserman," which tells right there he was from German nobility, and wasn't Jewish.) UPDATE: In spite of the "von," von Wasserman was Jewish, and immigrated to America in 1934, for the obvious reasons. There's A Poll About Same-Sex Marriage Going On... At the Lewiston, Idaho Tribune. There's no direct link, but it is on the front page. Taiwan is the Island of Dr. Moreau? If you haven't read H.G. Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau, you might want to. (I'm not sure how well the movie version followed the book.) I am not one of those fanatics who thinks that scientists shouldn't investigate genetics, and I have no principled opposition to genetic engineering of either plants or animals--although I do think that before we start eating the results of such experiment, I want very high confidence from many generations of lab rats eating the stuff, that we aren't going to get surprised down the road. I do get pretty disturbed when I see scientists blithely talking of putting human brain cells into mice, to see what happens. There's something creepy, in a Frankenstein or Island of Dr. Moreau way about making creatures that might potentially have some brain similarity to us. This story from the BBC apparently involves some genuine scientific research goals, but it still gives me the creeps--although I guess it reduces the chance of running over these critters in the dark! Scientists in Taiwan say they have bred three pigs that "glow in the dark".This is where it starts to creep me out: The scientists will use the transgenic pigs to study human disease. Because the pig's genetic material is green, it is easy to spot.I'm not sure that creating a new subspecies of fluorescent pigs is necessarily dangerous--but I do wish that scientists thought long and hard about this, and asked themselves this question: How sure are we that we really understand all the changes that we have created here? Labels: cross-species breeding Stop The ACLU Coalition I'm not sure that I agree with everything that this group stands for, but they are gathering a collection of news story that remind you that the ACLU, whatever it once was, is no longer primarily a civil liberties organization; instead, they are a leftist political action organization that sometimes actually protects civil liberties. I've added Stop The ACLU Coalition to my blogroll. The ACLU's Specifically Anti-Christian Bias Here's an article from the Anchorage Daily News: WASILLA -- Before each meeting, Wasilla Planning Commission Chairman Stan Tucker calls on one of his fellow commissioners, Greg Koskela, to pray.Now, I agree that it would be in very poor taste to open in prayer that was exclusionary in nature. On those occasions when we have non-Christians over for dinner, grace is sufficiently broad to make sure that no one feels excluded. I would agree that if opening in prayer was consistently Christian, especially in a community with non-Christians represented, it would be very questionable. But the ACLU has gone too far on this, in that it specifically singles out any reference to Jesus Christ, and says this must be excluded from all prayers. I happen to think that opening governmental meetings with prayer is a questionable (although Constitutional practice). What I am irritated with the ACLU about is that it has singled out a particular religious belief--one held by upwards of 80% of the population of this country, for censorship. A Worrisome Development; A Worrisome Coincidence ABC News (of all places) is reporting that federal agents are looking into a burst of bulk purchases of untraceable cell phones (the kind used in the Spain train bombings) in California and Texas by... guess who? The phones -- which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card -- have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.Michelle Malkin has kindly put up a copy of the Midland police report, which indicates that the FBI told Midland PD that some of those arrested were associated with known terrorist cells, and there have been similar bulk purchases by Middle Easterners across the nation. In addition, the travel story told by those arrested didn't match the contents of their car. Michelle Malkin has been doing a good job of gathering pieces of evidence on this, with links to a variety of reactions, including The Astute Blogger, who points out that these purchases came within a week or two of the New York Times breaking the news that the NSA was listening in on people in the U.S. with connections to al-Qaeda suspects: The jihdoterrorists might now each be using a series of phones (each only once or twice) to communicate with other jihadoterrorists who are also using a series of disposable phones - each only once or twice. All they have to do is tell their comrade which cellphone number to use next. NOW HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET WARRANTS ON THAT!? It's impossible. Which is why it's ABOSLUTELY necessary for the POTUS, as CinC, to use his Article II powers during wartime in order to get the foreign intelligence we need to DEFEND OURSELVES.It is a quite interesting coincidence, if the New York Times story wasn't the cause. The left is engaged in treason. Make no mistake about it. I expect the ACLU to step in and demand an end to "racial profiling" about untraceable cell phone purchases, too. Thursday, January 12, 2006
Why The Democrats Are So Upset About NSA Surveillance Because just a few years ago--when it was being for grossly political purposes--they liked it: Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.Is it possible that most of what drives Democratic concerns about the Bush Administration is projection? What Causes ACLU Derangement Syndrome? The positions that the ACLU takes. About twenty years ago, I had a certain admiration for the ACLU. I didn't agree with everything that they did, but for the most part, they were still primarily a civil liberties union--defending individuals from governmental abuse of power. I was disappointed that they pretended the Second Amendment wasn't an individual right, but much of what they did, even on behalf of sleazy clients (such as the Skokie neo-Nazi march) represented clear examples of civil liberties being denied. Now, there are people out there who make claims about the ACLU that turn out to be wrong. I've blogged in the past about claims that float around that don't seem credible--and that no one can provide evidence that shows the ACLU did these things. But the ACLU has clearly lost its way--perhaps because they ran out of traditional civil liberties problems to pursue? Like arguing that behavioral screening--looking for odd behavior, such as "heavy clothes on a hot day, loiterers without luggage, anyone observing security methods" is Constitutionally suspect. Let's see, they can't search based on race--that would be discriminatory. They can't search based on behavior--that might be racist. They fight with every atom of breath to prevent the state from executing those convicted of murder--after a lengthy review of evidence, leaving no stone unturned to look for clear proof of guilt, has been completed--but they are prepared to sue to allow starving someone to death on the word of one person--her husband, who had a financial interest in seeing her die--while other relatives disputed his claim. And complaining that students were boycotting classes to express disapproval. And arguing in court that a provision of the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage is a "bill of attainder" and therefore unconstitutional. Even Professor Volokh, who described me as suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome, agreed that the ACLU's argument was wrong: The court reasons that "Section 29 does not just withhold a benefit; it actually prohibits same-sex relationship couples from working to obtain governmental benefits" ("working" meaning "working effectively through the legislative process" -- obviously they can still work through proposing a constitutional amendment). But all constitutional constraints operate this way.And a radio ad that they ran, attempting to rally opposition to an anti-terrorism data mining program by suggesting that this information would be provided to pizza delivery companies. And the ACLU's concern about privacy? Whoops! It doesn't apply to their actions. And the ACLU gets caught lying by Professor Orin Kerr (another member of the Volokh Conspiracy). And yet another example, again from Professor Kerr, where the ACLU puts out a deceptive press release--and the mainstream media just go ahead and run with it, not bothering to check for factual accuracy. (Gee, Professor Kerr calls the ACLU's statements deceptive at least twice--he must also be suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome.) The ACLU believes in freedom of speech--unless you are a child who gives another child a pencil that says "Jesus loves little children." Here's the decision where a school district prohibited a child from handing out these pencils at a class party. And here's a case where the ACLU stepped in to protect a child from being disciplined for saying that he had two Mommies. Oh, and this kid wore a T-shirt to school calling Bush an international terrorist; the ACLU thinks that's protected free speech (which it is). Some forms of free speech are protected by the ACLU; others are not (and oddly enough, those are the Christians whose speech is not protected). The ACLU used to argue privacy as a basis for striking down sodomy laws. I don't particularly buy the broad definition of "privacy," but that's at least plausible. But then, when the prosecution involves sex in a bookstore (hardly a place with an expectation of privacy), they argue that Lawrence strikes down the law: The indictments issued July 21 followed a three-month investigation of public sodomy and solicitation to commit sodomy at an adult bookstore in Harrisonburg.Oh yeah, it is definitely harassment and intimidation to expect them to go home to have anonymous sex. The ACLU seems to think that there are no limits to freedom of speech--including displaying your penis on television while telling jokes. Ditto for live sex shows in Oregon. The ACLU, for all its concern about "establishment of religion" violations, simply never took any action on something that is more clearly a violation than handing out pencils with Jesus's name on them--but because it benefitted non-Christians--well, that's okay. And here's an example of something that is both a cultural and a religious event in a public school--rather like a creche in front of city hall is both cultural and religious--but you won't find the ACLU pursuing it. It isn't Christian, so it must be okay. Here's another case that the ACLU should have pursued--special tax treatment for members of one church--the Church of Scientology. But they aren't Christians, and they are important in Hollywood, so I guess both the "establishment of religion" and "equal protection" clauses just disappear. Convicted child molesters, for example. The ACLU has fought Megan's Law all over America, arguing that it violates the privacy of registered sex offenders. Cathy Seipp--who Professor Volokh hasn't accused of suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome--points out that the ACLU and its homosexual legislative allies in California have created a Catch-22 for landords: Not only are California landlords banned from using the state's Megan's Law database to decline renting their properties to sex offenders, they're not even allowed to warn other tenants that these paroled criminals are now their neighbors. If they do the first, they can be fined $25,000 for housing discrimination. But if they don't do the second, they can be sued for failing to protect tenants against a known danger.Freedom of conscience? Sorry, but homosexuality is more important. The ACLU filed suit--and won--against a printing company because they declined to print same-sex wedding announcements. And Professor Volokh is how I found out about this outrageous interference in the right of conscience. The ACLU promotes lying--unless, of course, they are representing vampires. The plaintiff alleges injury caused by the sight of a cross: Buono is deeply offended by the cross display on public land in an area that is not open to others to put up whatever symbols they choose. A practicing Roman Catholic, Buono does not find a cross itself objectionable, but stated that the presence of the cross is objectionable to him as a religious symbol because it rests on federal land.While not an ACLU case, it reminds me of the claim of "physical pain" caused by seeing the Ten Commandments in a public park--and the morons that sit on the bench accepted this obvious perjury, and ruled in her favor. I could go on for many more pages. The ACLU's own actions cause "ACLU Derangement Syndrome." Arguing that minors have a "due process liberty interest" in sex with adults--when an adult (with previous convictions for this) was being prosecuted for pursuing sex with a 14 year old who said to stop. Defending NAMBLA in a civil suit by the parents of a little boy who NAMBLA members raped and murdered. These are the reminders of what an evil and hypocritical organization the ACLU--a group with a proud past--has become. Those who defend the ACLU must either be blind to ACLU's dishonesty and evil, or have decided that they can live with it, as long as they the age of consent laws abolished, freedom of association abolished (at least for the Boy Scouts), and detestable groups like NAMBLA free to give detailed instructions on the raping of children. UPDATE: I've replaced a link to Orin Kerr castigating a Slate columnist with another case of the ACLU engaging in deceptive press releases. Just so that those with reading disabilities understand me: there are a number of cases above where the ACLU, if they were still in the civil liberties business, would have at least filed a brief--such as the pencil case. If you want to argue that they don't have the resources to be involved in every case, well, I can believe that. But they have the resources not just to file a brief in the Curley suit against NAMBLA--they are actively defending NAMBLA. The pencil case involved two different protections of the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise. The NAMBLA case involves what is, at best, an extreme edge of legal free speech--and yet ACLU finds the resources for this. Labels: establishment of religion War Powers Discussion In The Morning Alito Circus One of the Democrats (I can't remember which one) was questioning Judge Alito this morning about the Constitutional questions related to the war powers of the president. He was trying to get Alito to agree that the President may only go to war with Congressional approval, except in the case of imminent threat. Alito gave what I thought at first was a weasel-worded response, but on clarification, he was saying, "This is still open to debate." My own reaction (based purely on what I think is a good idea, and without any reading of the arguments or any of the Constitutional Convention discussions) is that the President should have to get Congressional approval to go to war, except for the imminent threat situation. But what I like isn't necessarily what the Constitution requires, and I think Alito's reluctance to commit himself made a lot of sense. It is okay for a legislator to have a strong opinion about this, and to vote for or against a law based on that opinion. I would like for a legislator to look at the Constitutional arguments for and against something like the War Powers Act before deciding how to vote, but this is quite a bit less critical than how a judge looks at it. A judge is not supposed to be a legislator, or a superlegislator. He is supposed to make a decision based not on what he wants, but what the Constitution requires or allows. What disturbed me, however, is that the Democrat who was asking the questions gave a far too specific example: what if the President decided to invade Iran without Congressional approval? I can't imagine Bush taking any aggressive actions against Iran without at least Congressional leadership agreeing. I think it likely, just to spread the blame around, that he would ask for Congressional approval. When I say, "spread the blame around," I mean that if Congress passed an authorization of force, and it went badly, Bush could say, "Look, I didn't do this all by myself. Congress agreed." If Congress refused to pass an authorization of force--and a few months later, Iran nuked Israel, or worse, a nuclear weapon went off in the Port of New York, Bush would be in a position to say, "Look, we knew there was a problem, and Congress refused to act. What did you want me to do? Start a war by myself?" Nonetheless, asking the question with specific reference to Iran strikes me as unnecessarily provocative. Could he not have said, "The President decides to invade Ruritania without Congressional approval"? Lessons From History Dean Barnett makes an interesting analogy between Sherman's March to the Sea and the Israeli response to Munich: NO JUSTICE, NO PEACEIndeed, the largest and wealthiest Southern slave owners had avoided the most direct consequence of the war--the draft. Under what was commonly called the "twenty nigger rule," any slave owner with more than twenty slaves was exempt from the draft--on the grounds that someone needed to stay behind, make sure that the slaves didn't revolt, and otherwise endanger the home front. There were prominent slave owners who went off to war--as officers, where they enjoyed the perquisites and glory of being soldiers, without the profound misery of being a grunt--but these were volunteers. Barnett points out that the Israeli government chose to assassinate leaders of the Palestinian terrorist movement in a way that was analogous to this: But there’s a curious fact about their masters: Few of them opt for “martyrdom missions” themselves. Actually, none of them do. More tellingly, none of their children go the martyr route either. Yasser Arafat’s progeny attend private academies in Paris. While the squalor of Gaza was good enough for his people, it wasn’t good enough for his family.After Germany responded to a hijacking by releasing some of the terrorists, the Israelis correctly perceived that they were on their own: Order an attack on an Israeli, and the world will no longer be safe for you. It wasn’t the three perpetrators of the Munich massacre that Israel really cared about – it was their bosses. Through a series of increasingly audacious assassinations, Israel destroyed its enemy’s operational functionality as well as its will to fight.Well worth reading in full. New Products ScopeRoller has rolled out the Quick Release Toe Saver for the Astro-Physics telescope mounts.  I am pleased that there are enough different products now on the ScopeRoller page that I had to do a little reorganizing. I will be adding at least one more new product in the next few days. Labels: telescopes Boring Question I need to bore out a blind hole about 2.2" diameter and about 1.5" deep in plastic. If I could find a reasonably priced drill bit with a 1/2" shank, I would use that. But such drills (at least where I can find them), are several hundred dollars per bit. It strikes me that a used drill bit, while not sharp enough to cut steel, would probably be sharp enough to cut plastic--in this case, UHMW polyethylene, which is not terribly hard material. Does anyone have a source for such? I could use the boring bit for my lathe, but it is very slow. It is best to hog out the hole first, then use the boring bit for precision and finishing. Any suggestions on other tools that might do the job? Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Modern Artist: What Causes This Sort Of Idiocy? It is like a subplot from a Woody Allen movie--I keep thinking of the moronic artists in Sleeper: A Dutch artist has used a flap of her own skin to make a replica pistol to be shown at an Amsterdam art show next month.How do people this sincerely ignorant of human nature manage to buy bread at the market without assistance? Raise A Generation on Porn... And at the worst, you get young, pretty female school teachers having sex with junior high boys. This incident, while breaking no laws, shows an astonishing lack of judgement: SULTAN, Wash. - A high school cheerleading coach resigned after allegedly teaching her team how to perform certain sex acts.Oh, just to top this all off--at the top of the page where this article appeared is a Victoria's Secrets ad. How appropriate. An Interesting New Blog It is called the Liberty Resource Center, and the style is a bit different than most. It is a group blog, and it has rather high ambitions: …there was no single place that someone who wanted to find out what conservatives or libertarians had to say about an issue or a topic, could find all the links to the hundreds of existing websites which may hold the information he or she sought.Ambitious, no? There's a series of articles about debating style which contain some important points, which I try to follow (and sometimes even do). One point that a lot of people don't realize: I believe that the good conservative debater should always frame his arguments as if they are being read by a sincere, but confused, semi-liberal, who can be won, step by step, over time, by sweet reason supported by debating skills, to become a conservative. This is just a necessary myth, of course. Astonishing Not For What Was Said, But Who Said It I don't think you will be terribly surprised to see this statement being quoted by me: • Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003), wherein the Court invalidates a Texas law prohibiting consensual intercourse between adults of the same-sex.The author describes himself as "a right- of-center, gun-owning, gay Texan." I've never seen much value to such laws, except as some sort of symbolic statement that the people of Texas would prefer homosexuals to move to California. From a practical standpoint, these laws were seldom enforced because there was no victim. (A chain of events so bizarre that I suspect that it might have been a setup led to the arrest in the Lawrence case.) Still, the method above is the right solution--ask the people of Texas to repeal this rarely enforced law--not rewriting history and relying on foreign court precedents so that an unelected majority of the Court could operate as superlegislature. Labels: homosexuality Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Another Crosses Suit This is right up there with the threat to sue Los Angeles County for the cross on the mission on the seal--but what will they do about the name of the city itself? LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The city of Las Cruces' official emblem has three crosses that a federal lawsuit alleges are unconstitutional religious symbols on public property.Obviously defective? It gets worse: The lawsuit alleges the emblem violates the First Amendment by placing religious symbols on public property and spending public money to promote religion.Now, the ACLU wasn't involved in this particular suit: Not the firstYes, a "difficult case." Not, "a case of no importance" or "a case that does not create an establishment of religion." Now, take a look at the logo that is causing Mr. Weinbaum so much grief--and that apparently the ACLU thought was a "difficult case." You can see it here, in an article by Weinbaum at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I had to really look to find those crosses that are causing Mr. Weinbaum so much grief, because it really pretty stylized. The power of the lunatic fringe (which includes, it seems, many law professors), must be broken. On December 21, 2005, the federal judge hearing this case denied most of Weinbaum's motions for immediate victory, a temporary restraining order, and removed from the suit many of the officials who were beng personally sued. Fascinating Turnabout Well, NSA was spying on people believed to be in contact with al-Qaeda. So someone in America is proposing to retaliate by spying on Republicans. Al-Qaeda? No, a group called Democrats.com: The Bush Administration, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement all think it's perfectly ok for Big Brother Bush to spy on Americans.I find this fascinating--Democrats who think that the U.S. government spying on al-Qaeda requires Democrats to spy on Republicans. Democrats=al-Qaeda? Even I wouldn't say that--but Democrats.com does. Big Brother Tactics I'm glad to see that this guy was prepared to eschew the tactics of intimidation: Daniel Morgan has posted several items at his blog attempting to figure out the real life identity of "Mike Gene", a pseudonymous ID advocate who blogs at Telic Thoughts. Mike Gene has been a staple in the evolution/ID debate for many years. He's not really a Discovery Institute-type of ID advocate, he's more of an "ID evolutionist" than an "ID creationist", or at least that is my reading of him which is admittedly not too thorough (unlike many of my Panda's Thumb colleagues, I never took part in the discussion boards at ARN where Mike Gene has been a major figure for a long time debating these issues). Many people over the years have tried to discern his real identity and none have succeeded.Of course, Sternberg really was a martyr to the cause of academic freedom, but I am pleased to see Ed Brayton disapprove of this tactic. What I find interesting, however, is some of the other admissions from Ed Brayton: I say this to you as someone who, many years ago, participated in the outing of a prominent creationist, John Woodmorappe (that is his pseudonym, not his real name). It's something I regret now, though I think the circumstances made it more justified than your actions here (Woodmorappe was, while writing under his fake name, citing articles written under his real name that appeared to contradict his creationist views). Quite frankly, it was mostly a matter of ego for me then, and the desire to stick it to someone I viewed as the enemy.Enemy? There are people with whom I disagree, but enemies I limit to totalitarians, racists, supporters of gun bans, child molesters, and people that make, distribute, or sell child pornography, and those who defend any of these as being good things. (If you are upset that your group isn't included on my enemies' list, too bad.) Look, this whole evolution, Intelligent Design, "Creation Science" dispute is a question about the most effective and honest way to teach science. I am disturbed that Ed Brayton regards people that disagree with him as an "enemy." A little later on that page, Ed Brayton responds to comments by observing: I know for a fact that there are folks on "my side" (and by that I only mean those who advocate for evolution and against ID/creationism) who would make an effort to prevent a junior academic from getting tenure if they were known to be an ID advocate, regardless of any other factor. Do I think they represent the "Darwinian orthodoxy"? Absolutely not. But they do exist and I have no doubt they would agitate by writing letters to MG's bosses if they had proof of who he was, in an attempt to smear him to them.This is the sort of Stalinist/medieval Church stuff that demonstrates the religious fanaticism of some of the folks on Brayton's side (but without Brayton's decency). Labels: intelligent design Yuck I've spent a lot of time in archives and libraries with rare books, but I believe that I have never had this experience: PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Brown University's library boasts an anatomy book that combines form and function in macabre fashion. Its cover -- tanned and polished to a smooth golden brown, like fine leather -- is made of human skin. I'm Sure This Is Just A Coincidence Augusten Burroughs, a gay novelist, has a memoir out titled Dry. A reader notes that: It is pretty vulgar (his parents prostituted him out at age 12), so its not for the young or faint of heart!)Just a coincidence that a little boy gets pimped out at 12, and grows up gay. Just like this coincidence, and this coincidence, and this amazing set of statistical coincidences. It should be obvious by now that the high correlation between childhood sexual abuse and adult homosexuality is at least worthy of serious study--and yet the PC crowd has grabbed onto the idea that homosexuality is completely healthy, in spite of the well-documented evidence of disproportionate rates of substance abuse, child molestation, and sexual problems in the gay community. How long does the elephant have to be in the bathtub before the society stops saying, "What elephant?" Labels: child sexual abuse, homosexuality A Warning For Parents My daughter blogs: I had heard really good things about the 40-year-old Virgin, so I suggested that we rent it. The only version they have at the movie store is the unrated version. It says something like "17 more minutes added." I didn't think of it as a big deal, except several of my husband's coworkers warned him that those extra 16 minutes are just nudity. It makes me so frustrated that several movies now are only available in unrated versions. I watched Road Trip and Euro Trip's unrated versions (they were the only type you could rent) and they were SOOOO raunchy. There was so much unecessary nudity. Monday, January 09, 2006
Suppressing Religious Beliefs An interesting lawsuit in Italy, attempting to prohibit teaching that Jesus Christ was a real person: An Italian court is considering whether the Roman Catholic Church is breaking the law by teaching that Jesus Christ walked the earth 2,000 years ago.Now, I would like to think that the freedom of religion and freedom of the press provisions of the First Amendment would prevent such a suit from going forward in the U.S.--but you never know what cleverness the ACLU will pull out of its bag of magic tricks next. In Britain, a prominent scientist is arguing that religion is a form of child abuse: CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins will assert tomorrow evening that religion is a “virus” that amounts to child abuse.Ah, that's it! The ACLU will argue that children have a right to not be mentally abused by exposure to religion. This was, after all, the policy of the Soviet Union, which prohibited teaching religion to those under 18, and the ACLU's founder was a defender of Soviet practices on civil liberties. I was amused by this article in, of all places, the left-wing Guardian responding to Dawkins: His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on Narnia. By all means, let's have a serious debate about religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence, there's the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the march again. |
