1. Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.
2. Top 50 Biblical Studies Blogs (HT: Pseudo-Polymath)
3. Scott Adams: "At this point, the so-called government does little more than provide content for news channels and blogs." (HT: In the Agora)
4. The French riots of 2005 inspired photographer Denis Darzacq to "capture an entire generation in freefall with no one to catch them." Although the concept is a bit too literal, too…French, and gets in the way of the art, the pictures themselves are affecting. (Click photo to enlarge. Others can be found here.)
5. Wired has a gallery of the Lamest Technology Mascots Ever. Microsoft's "Clippy" is definitely the most annoying. (HT: MIT Advertising Lab)
6. Rev. William Whitehead, pastor of First Baptist Church of Rahway, New Jersey, talks about the prevalence of "sheep stealing":
In seminary, we were such dreamers. We pledged that we would be honourable when dealing with people from other churches. If they crossed our doorway we would talk to them and try to convince them to return to their home church. But once I entered the real world, with budgets and volunteer needs, I forgot all about honour among thieves. When someone walks into my church and says ‘I am unhappy with my home church’, I sign them right up. I draw the line at going out and stealing people right out of the pews, but encouraging them to check out what we have to offer isn’t totally out of the question. Thank God I have a modicum of integrity left.
7. In the latest issue of Salvo, my friend John Coleman has an informative but frightening article on pornography. (PDF) Some of the statistics he cites: In Western Europe, cell phone pornography is a $1.5 billion industry. More than 90 percent of 8 to 16-year-olds have viewed pornography online, and 80 percent of 15 to 17-year-olds have had multiple exposures to hardcore pornography.
8. How the war in France changed football forever
For it is well known how [German General] Heinz Guderian revolutionized land warfare with the panzer-led Blitzkrieg that brought about the fall of France in the spring of 1940. But it is not well known-- or known at all--how Shaughnessy transferred Guderian's ideas from a European battlefield to American football, revolutionizing the sport.
(HT: Donald Bosch)
9. Top Secret Recipes (HT: Dumb Little Man)
10. William Saletan on the effect of ultrasound on the abortion debates:
Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their "love affair with the fetus." But science hasn't cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.
[…]
Critics complain that these bills seek to "bias," "coerce," and "guilt-trip" women. Come on. Women aren't too weak to face the truth. If you don't want to look at the video, you don't have to. But you should look at it, and so should the guy who got you pregnant, because the decision you're about to make is as grave as it gets.
Saletan also links to this short clip of 4-D sonography from the BBC.
11. The candy industry is trying to get the FDA to redefine chocolate so that they can substitute cocoa butter for an ingredient that tastes similar. Gene Veith notes this is an example of postmodern thinking:
The meaning would thus lie in the perceiver, rather than in the objective reality. Chocolate-substitute tastes like chocolate; therefore, it should be considered chocolate. "I like it" takes priority over truth. And then, we can replace that truth by constructing an alternative paradigm. This is the recipe for postmodern candy of every type, including morality and religion.
12. The Global Incident Map: A Global Display of Terrorism and Other Suspicious Events.
13. Phillip Johnson on the intelligent design movement:
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction. Whether or not it is successful, the IDM has made a contribution to a better understanding of reality. It tries to raise the fundamental question of creation, by visibly making evolutionary naturalism the subject of critical investigation based on evidence, rather than allowing it to rule by default as the unquestioned philosophical position to which science must by definition adhere. For now the mandarins who speak for science have the support of the courts and the media in their campaign of excluding any challenge to their basic premise from public education and from scientific consideration.
(HT: Mere Orthodoxy)
14. How to Win at Rock-Paper-Scissors (HT: Dumb Little Man)
15. Do we still need to fight a war on terror? Victor Davis Hanson believes we are getting complacent and forgetting the level of damage our enemies are capable of inflicting:
[H]ave we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
16. Michael Spencer has an excellent post on a perennial urban conundrum: “Should I give money to people on the street who ask for it?”
17. If you hear someone whispering, "Do you ever think about murder?", it may not be the voices in your head but rather a creepy new marketing tool:
"Court TV recently installed the audio spotlight in ceilings of bookstores to promote the network's new murder-mystery show. A voice, whispering, "Hey, you, can you hear me? Do you ever think about murder?" was beamed toward customers as they browsed the mystery section in several independent bookstores in New York."
(HT: MIT Advertising Lab)
18. How to Be a Godblogger Who Matters…
19. I don't often find myself in agreement with The New Republic but I think Noam Scheiber is onto something in his article on the political appeal of phony populism:
[S]uppose most working-class voters want something entirely different from what liberals assume. Suppose they don't want to be slightly better off than they are today. Suppose they want to be rich. And the way they evaluate candidates, who are frequently rich themselves, is by wondering: Is this the kind of rich person I'd like to be? Now ask yourself: If you were a working-class voter in Middle America, what kind of rich person would you want to be? Would you want to be the kind of rich person who eats at pricey French restaurants, plays classical guitar, and vacations among the cognescenti in Sun Valley, Idaho? Or would you want to be the kind of rich person who noshes on peanut butter and jelly, reads Sports Illustrated, and kicks back at a ranch in the middle of nowhere?
20. Stephen B. Presser, commenting on Justice Clarence Thomas's reading of the First Amendment:
[R]ecent work of legal historians, including my own, has shown that the religion clause's real purpose was likely to protect the state establishments of religion that still existed in 1791 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and probably also the religious restrictions for voting or for holding public office that 11 states had on the books at the time. Endorsing this view, Thomas—alone on the Court—wrote in his concurrence in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) that "the text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments." As he bluntly put it, "the Constitution left religion to the States."
It appears that Thomas has actually read the First Amendment and noticed that it applies to the federal level (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) and does not necessarily apply to the states. Of course I believe such language should bind the states. But I would prefer to have that done by the states including similar language in their own constitutions, rather than simply expanding the federal Constitution's original boundaries.
21. Justice Clarence Thomas on "Judging":
In my mind, impartiality is the very essence of judging and of being a judge. A judge does not look to his or her sex or racial, social, or religious background when deciding a case. It is exactly these factors that a judge must push to one side in order to render a fair, reasoned judgment on the meaning of the law. In order to be a judge, a person must attempt to exorcise himself or herself of the passions, thoughts, and emotions that fill any frail human being. He must become almost pure, in the way that fire purifies metal, before he can decide a case. Otherwise, he is not a judge, but a legislator.
(From a 1996 speech to the University of Kansas School of Law)
22. Church Times' list of the top 50 religious films (PDF) (HT: Justin Taylor)
23. Contronymns are words that are their own antonyms (e.g., Sanction: to prohibit; to allow). Peter Klein has a short list of examples.
24. News for New Parents: New research shows toddlers find photos easier to learn from than drawings. “If the goal of using a particular book is for very young children to learn something from it, parents and teachers would do better by choosing books with highly realistic pictures” says researcher Gabrielle Simcock.
25. Charles Murray says too many Americans are going to college:
A reality about the job market must eventually begin to affect the valuation of a college education: The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason--the list goes on and on--is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?
(HT: WORLD blog)
26. Fred Thompson on federalism:
Adhering to the principles of federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else - who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.
(HT: In the Agora)
To save tax money, for a while Tennessee reduced it's police force to just Fred Thompson armed with a claw hammer. During that time, there was no crime in Tennessee or any contiguous state.
Fred Thompson often fills in for Paul Harvey and Batman.
The myth about the twelve labors of Hercules is loosely based on Fred Thompson Boy Scout career.
While he is opposed to gay marriage, Fred Thompson is very compassionate towards gays since, in comparison to him, every man is a flaming homosexual.
The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.
28. . Ryan Anderson writes in First Things about the foolishness of the RED campaign in spending $100 million in advertising to raise a mere $18 million for Africa:
Just sign our petition! Just call President Bush! Wear our wristband! That’s all it takes to make poverty history! You don’t even need to give a dime!
What a bizarre method. Why not appeal to our consciences directly and ask every American to donate 1 percent of our personal budget to the poverty-fighting charity of our choice? The ONE Campaign made significant inroads with the religious communities—having them demand more from the government. Why not ask for a tithe? Why not call for personal contributions instead of political noise-making?
But that would require sacrifice. And that wouldn’t sell. Nor would it be trendy. It’s so much easier to say we can fight AIDS by buying Armani and Gap. It’s so much easier to say we’ll end world poverty by telling Congress to do something about it. My “good-looking” “fine self” sleeps so much better at night knowing that my (RED) purchase has bought pills for someone in Africa, that my signature on the ONE declaration means I’ve done my part.
(HT: Justin Taylor)
29. Is inequality in wages inherently unjust? Paul Graham explains why that's not the case:
When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid, what are we really saying? In a free market, prices are determined by what buyers want. People like baseball more than poetry, so baseball players make more than poets. To say that a certain kind of work is underpaid is thus identical with saying that people want the wrong things.Well, of course people want the wrong things. It seems odd to be surprised by that. And it seems even odder to say that it's unjust that certain kinds of work are underpaid. Then you're saying that it's unjust that people want the wrong things. It's lamentable that people prefer reality TV and corndogs to Shakespeare and steamed vegetables, but unjust? That seems like saying that blue is heavy, or that up is circular.
(HT: In the Agora)
30. One out of three sexually active older adults infected with HIV has unprotected sex, according to a study by Ohio University researchers. AIDs cases among the over-50 crowd reached 90,000 in 2003. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they will account for half of all HIV/AIDS cases in the United States by 2015 because medical intervention has extended the lifespan of those infected with HIV. Additionally, drugs such as Viagra have made it possible for older adults to remain sexually active longer.
31. Steve Landsburg on how to fix one of the problems with our republican democracy:
So if I could make just one change in the American political system, it would be to give each voter two votes in every congressional election. You'd get one vote to cast in your own district and another to cast in the district of your choice. When a congressman from West Virginia funnels taxpayers' money from fifty states to his home district, I want him to face the prospect that taxpayers from fifty states will share their feelings with him on election day.
32. Parents-to-be might soon don 3-D glasses in the ultrasound lab to see their developing fetuses in the womb "in living 3-D, just like at the IMAX movies," according to researchers at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering. The new imaging capability can improve the early diagnosis of certain kinds of birth defects of the face and skull and improve surgeons' depth perception during ultrasound-guided medical procedures, including tumor biopsies and robot-assisted surgeries done through tiny "keyhole" incisions.
33. "Never again will I make fun of U.S. Army recruiting commercials," says Sharon Weinberger. "It just wouldn't be fair now that I've seen ads for the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force."
Well, blue is certainly heavier than red, and there is no up any more, it's outbound. Likewise down is now inbound. So in a manner of speaking, outbound is globular which is similar to circular, but 3 dimensional instead of 2 dimensional.
Joe,
Thanks for the nod. I pray my post blesses your readers.
Since you mentioned "Intelligent" Design as #13 and since people are praying in the comments then I pray that this nonsense with ID dies down soon. The only good thing that has come out of that movement is that science has done a better job of reaching out and explaining to people what science really is and I hope they keep up that good work.
The article from Ryan Anderson is on the RED campaign, not on the ONE campaign. there is a difference.
Re: 31.
That's a silly and clearly unworkable solution. On the other hand, repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way to repairing the federal aspect of our federal republic. A senate that is beholden only to state interests would be more apt to quash earmarks and special interest spending.
The article from Ryan Anderson is on the RED campaign, not on the ONE campaign. there is a difference.
Yes, that's worthy of an edit.
7. In the latest issue of Salvo, my friend John Coleman has an informative but frightening article on pornography. (PDF) Some of the statistics he cites: In Western Europe, cell phone pornography is a $1.5 billion industry. More than 90 percent of 8 to 16-year-olds have viewed pornography online, and 80 percent of 15 to 17-year-olds have had multiple exposures to hardcore pornography.
This seems to be a favorite tactic of Joe and others. It's really easy, just take the total revenue and declare that an 'industry' with the implication that it is either huge and/or wields extraordinary weight.
Take the above $1.5B 'industry'. According to http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/05/06/western_europe_a_cell_phone_in_everyones_hand/ Western Europe has almost as many cell phones as people. From Wikipedia that would be a population of about 185M people and cell phones.
That's about $8 per cell phone per year. Considering that your typical cell phone probably costs $40-$50 per year that totals around $540 per cell phone per year in revenue. In terms of perspective $1.5B in revenue here is rather pathetic....especially if we compared it to total revenue from other pay services on cell phones such as ring tones, text messaging, and assorted downloading.
A while ago we had the same exercise with pay per view adult movies on cable channels. While Joe provided an impressive figure in the billions implying our homes were becoming 'virtual Gomorrahs', when you actualy figured it out the 'typical American' struggled to get through one such movie every four years. I suggested that perhaps instead of banning such services the gov't would be better off airlifting viagra to the impacted areas!
I'm not raising this to debate whether or not the gov't should censor the 'industry' I'd just like to point out the rhetorical trick employed here. Play up the numbers by aggregating all the revenue (which, of course, will be more than any of us will make in a year so we will be impressed) to make it sound like we are dealing with a massive industry here. When seen in perspective a better headline might be "Why have adult cell phone services failed to make it in Europe where cell phones are so popular?"
It appears that Thomas has actually read the First Amendment and noticed that it applies to the federal level (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) and does not necessarily apply to the states. Of course I believe such language should bind the states. But I would prefer to have that done by the states including similar language in their own constitutions, rather than simply expanding the federal Constitution's original boundaries.
Joe, the topic you want to read up on is incorporation after the Civil War.
Brief summary that won't get you an A in law school but gets the point. After the Civil War they passed amendments requiring the states to respect everyone's liberty. The debate then turned on what that was. One side said the entire Bill of Rights represented liberties the states were required to respect. Another side said only the 'essential' rights in the Bill of Rights.
The 'essential' side won however most of the important stuff in the Bill of Rights was found to be 'essential' so the other side more or less got their way. There are a few rights in the Bill of Rights that don't apply to the states. I don't think the states are required to give you a trial by jury, for example. So while Thomas may be right he is only right in a trivial sense. He is right about the original Constitution (maybe) but that has little relevance to the Constitution today which must be read with both its original text and its amendments.
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction.
A lie that has been exposed here numerous times. Science does not rule out a 'creator' hypothetis from the beginning. One only have to look at the thousands of posts about ID here to see that the problem with the ID movement is that they refuse to do science and insist on doing public relations, punditry, politics and philosophy and demanding everyone else call it science.
"...the problem with the ID movement is that they refuse to do science and insist on doing public relations, punditry, politics and philosophy and demanding everyone else call it science."
Precisely! Well said. And, as the linked article shows, there are some Christians who get this and worry that the willingness of many Christians to ally themselves with purveyors of falsehoods (young-earth creationists, evolution deniers, etc.) discredits the faith in the eyes of many.
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706
Re 31:
A better solution would be to take the number of representatives a state has and give that many votes to each voter. Voters could cast all their votes for one candidate or divide up as they wish but representatives would be elected state-wide...not by district. If they win votes by pandering to 'special interests' they would at least be state wide interests rather than individual small districts.
Voters who feel passionately on certain issues could use their proportional voting power to express that view more forcefully under such a system.
So while Thomas may be right he is only right in a trivial sense. He is right about the original Constitution (maybe) but that has little relevance to the Constitution today which must be read with both its original text and its amendments.
Boonton, have you read the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? No where in the text does any of the amendments say that the Bill of Rights now applies to the state. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. The 14th amendment confers citizenship all all persons born in the US or naturalized and entitles them to due process, discusses Congressional apportionment, deals with high federal officials who left to serve the Confederacy, and deals with Confederate debt. The 15th bans race based voting conditions. Court decisions have used the 14th amendment to apply certain of the Bill of Rights to the states, but there is nothing in the text that mandates it. In short, Thomas is more than trivially right. I suspect you are trying to marginalize him because your world-view doesn't allow for honest, intelligent, black conservatives. To you and your ilk, they are either sellouts, "Uncle Toms", or "Stepin Fechits".
The 14th amendment confers citizenship all all persons born in the US or naturalized and entitles them to due process, discusses Congressional apportionment, deals with high federal officials who left to serve the Confederacy, and deals with Confederate debt. The 15th bans race based voting conditions. Court decisions have used the 14th amendment to apply certain of the Bill of Rights to the states, but there is nothing in the text that mandates it.
I suggest you read section 1:
The authors of the amendment felt that the 'privileges or immunities' of a citizen of the US included the Bill of Rights...therefore while before states were not required to follow the Bill of Rights they were after the 14th Amendment. The authors were not thinking in a vaccum. They were fearful that the southern states would try to revive slavery by passing laws discriminating against blacks. They were only partially successful in preventing that but the groundwork was laid.
Actual incorporation happened mostly through the 'due process' clause leaving some rights not incorporated (jury trial, quartering soldiers in private homes, right to bear arms are all unincorporated). See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29).
Yes the 14th doesn't just come out and say "The BoR now applies to the states" but priviliges and immunities AND due process means something and quite frankly it was understood when written to mean that the states had to respect 'fundamental rights' of citizens. Why would it be sensible to assume fundamental rights are not represented in the Bill of Rights? If they aren't what are they and where can we find them????
In short, Thomas is more than trivially right. I suspect you are trying to marginalize him because your world-view doesn't allow for honest, intelligent, black conservatives. To you and your ilk, they are either sellouts, "Uncle Toms", or "Stepin Fechits".
Even Robert Bork has conceded incorporation. The only people who seriously argue against it are people like Joe who pick up the First Amendment, see 'Congress shall...' and think they have discovered a massive loophole that has somehow been missed by hundreds of lawyers trying to defend state and local gov'ts against lawsuits by the ACLU. I didn't bring Thomas's race into this, you did. Take note here that you felt the need to play the race card, which is unfortunate. There are people in this world who think Thomas isn't a great Justice but not because he is a "Uncle Tom". Can you handle it?
The only people who seriously argue against it are people like Joe
And apparently Clarence Thomas, who unlike Robert Bork (whom I greatly respect), actually made it on to the Supreme Court.
I didn't bring Thomas's race into this, you did. Take note here that you felt the need to play the race card, which is unfortunate.
Oh, please. Folks on your side have been calling Thomas (and other black conservatives) a "house ni**er", an "Oreo", an "Uncle Tom, etc. since he was nominated to the Supreme Court. So, let's dispense with the faux outrage; it's laughable.
ucfengr:
Oh, please. Folks on your side have been calling Thomas (and other black conservatives) a "house ni**er", an "Oreo", an "Uncle Tom, etc. since he was nominated to the Supreme Court. So, let's dispense with the faux outrage; it's laughable.
In your previous comment, you specifically attributed that opinion to Boonton:
"I suspect you are trying to marginalize him because your world-view doesn't allow for honest, intelligent, black conservatives. To you and your ilk, they are either sellouts, "Uncle Toms", or "Stepin Fechits".
Do you have any evidence that Boonton holds that opinion, or are you just attempting use guilt by association to slime him?
And apparently Clarence Thomas, who unlike Robert Bork (whom I greatly respect), actually made it on to the Supreme Court.
Ahhh yes, dusting off the old 'argument from authority' fallacy. Does Joe let you borrow the fallacies or does he charge you rent?
Oh, please. Folks on your side have been calling Thomas (and other black conservatives) a "house ni**er", an "Oreo", an "Uncle Tom, etc. since he was nominated to the Supreme Court. So, let's dispense with the faux outrage; it's laughable.
OK, yea some people did say ugly things like that when he was nominated. How many years have to go by before I'm allowed to publically disagree with Thomas then? Some on 'you're side' said ugly things about Hillary Clinton too, does she also get a few decades of exemption from criticism as a reward? Do I get any credit for never saying those things? I'm not outraged that you guys play the victimization card as much as any advocate of affirmative action.
Ohhh and...
And apparently Clarence Thomas, who unlike Robert Bork (whom I greatly respect), actually made it on to the Supreme Court.
Just about everyone but Thomas who made it onto the Supreme Court agrees with incorporation to some degree.
Boonton, do you really think that there would be any distance between Bork and Thomas on rulings were Bork on the Supreme Court? Though, I must admit I do find it funny that you would cite Bork as an authority; wasn't he the guy who wanted an America where "blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."?
Probably not, since incorporation is pretty much settled law I'd be surprised if the court even choose to accept a case that challenged it. I cited Bork to demonstrate how far off the mark Thomas is on this (and I'm not even sure he would disagree...the passage cited talks about the original Constitution...has he even addressed how he would apply the 14th Amendment to the question?)
I cited Bork to demonstrate how far off the mark Thomas is on this
It would be nice if you could quote Bork as disagreeing with Thomas, even generally. It would also be nice if you could cite the authors of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments saying that they meant for them to mandate the BoR to the states. At least if you are going to "argue from authority", you could, you know, cite the authorities instead of just making general and unsupported assertions. I also find your support for "original intent" surprising; how does that square with your support for Roe v. Wade?
Probably not, since incorporation is pretty much settled law I'd be surprised if the court even choose to accept a case that challenged it.
Settled law is only settled until it isn't. Plessy was settled law for 50+ years. What you are arguing is that it was the original intent of the writers of the post-bellum amendments that the they be used to apply the BoR to the states. You've given no evidence that this is the case.
True about Plessy but overturning incorporation would be pretty stunning in terms of Constitutional law, Plessy would pale in terms of drama.
In essence, Plessy said you could have seperate as long as they were equal. Brown didn't disagree in theory, it just said experience had demonstrated seperate was inherently unequal therefore in violation of the 14th. There are areas where experience does not show seperate is inherently unequal...therefore having mens and womens bathrooms does not violate the 14th while having white and black does.
At least if you are going to "argue from authority", you could, you know, cite the authorities instead of just making general and unsupported assertions. I also find your support for "original intent" surprising; how does that square with your support for Roe v. Wade?
For intent I cited the wikipedia article (you can follow its sources backwards if you wish). For evidence I cited the text itself. It clearly states that the states are prohibited from violating "privileges or immunities" and cannot deny "life, liberty or property" without due process.
What liberty are the states prohibited from denying? What are the "privileges and immunities" of US citizenship? These are obviously something and a logical starting point would be the BoR. If not then what? As far as "original intent" goes I think you're going to have trouble finding evidence that the authors of the BoR did not think they were enshrining the essential elements of liberty.
I'm not a fan of original intent. I think it can be a useful tool for Constitution intrepretation but that's it. If you take it seriously, you would have to not only figure out what the author meant (assuming you can even narrow it down to a single author) but what everyone who voted on it meant. For most issues this is an impossible task and you are left with a historically biased record (the one guy who bothered to write his feelings in a diary and save it will have more say than the ten people who never bothered to write down what they intended).
Original intent gets worse. Not only do you have to figure out what the writers meant but try to apply it to changing circumstances. How would you figure out what Hamilton would have thought of the antitrust case against Microsoft? You need to first figure out how Hamiliton would have reacted to the rise of huge corporations & their legal status. How would he have reacted to the idea of being able to patent a computer program? And so on.... Can you really convince us that such an analysis wouldn't be simply guessing by the historian colored by his personal biases?
Roe.v.Wade:
I've talked about this before. Roe is a consquence of the finding that the Constitution protects privacy. Is that possible? Certainly, the Constitution actually says (in the 10th) that there are rights not mentioned that belong to either the people or the states.
In other words you can't assume there is no Constitutional right to privacy just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It clearly says there are liberties that are protected but not listed!
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction. Whether or not it is successful, the IDM has made a contribution to a better understanding of reality. It tries to raise the fundamental question of creation, by visibly making evolutionary naturalism the subject of critical investigation based on evidence, rather than allowing it to rule by default as the unquestioned philosophical position to which science must by definition adhere. For now the mandarins who speak for science have the support of the courts and the media in their campaign of excluding any challenge to their basic premise from public education and from scientific consideration.
Funny how Johnson never mentions the goal of actually, you know, doing science.
One study is not enough to offer convincing evidence. Also, without examining the statistical process, the results may or may not be significant.
http://truthfulhero.blogspot.com
I believe (and have done statistical studies indicating) that pornography is the greatest threat to our lives and freedoms in the history of the United States, and must be fought and defeated if we are to survive as a nation. How are we to defeat this scourge?
I believe that in war, one of the most important maxims is to know your enemy. Know your enemy better than he knows himself. Know him so well that you will anticipate his next action before he thinks of it himself, so that you can thwart him at every turn.
That is why, in order to defeat pornography, we must understand it. I believe that it is absolutely essential for everyone who can, to do a thorough, comprehensive study of the whole range of pornography that is disseminated around the world, devoting years to this study if need be. I've heard stories that a number of evangelicals have taken up this study, but for some reason many of them seem to be furtive about it. I believe that any kind of furtiveness or concealment is counterproductive, as it impairs the efficiency of our study. We should bring our study out into the open, talk about it freely, and consult with one another as we continue on the study and analysis necessary to defeat this awful scourge.
Yes he did. He proposed that the real scientists actually do some science rather than being blinded by the Darwinian Creed.
No! Roe v Wade is a consequence of assuming that murdering unborn children is one of those unenumerated unmentioned rights. When will you people quit perverting the Constitution?
Yes he did. He proposed that the real scientists actually do some science rather than being blinded by the Darwinian Creed.
Strange, I see plenty of real science done all the time. Journals are full of articles about real science being done. Hundreds of big companies have huge labs where real science is being done. Yet despite all this real science you don't see it from the creationist crowd. Even when pro-science types propose experiments that creationists can do they are ignored or explained away without even trying.
Now exactly what experiments can prove Darwin's theory of evolution is right? As far as I know, nobody's got the time to wait around for a couple of hundred millenia for the outcome. Mind you, I don't care if people label me as an unscientific bumpkin, but I'm not a creationist in the sense that I believe absolutely that God created the Universe, Earth, and all creatures that occupy it in 144 hours. It's certainly possible, and I'm not ruling it out, but he also might have used directed or guided evolution over millions of years as a tool.
Now exactly what experiments can prove Darwin's theory of evolution is right? As far as I know, nobody's got the time to wait around for a couple of hundred millenia for the outcome.
1. Thousands of experiments and observations have confirmed or generated modifications to the theory of evolution.
2. No theory is ever considered 'proven' as you imply. They are always considered provisionally proven until a better theory can be presented.
3. No theory could ever meet the test you present. That is because you are trying to hold historical theories to experimental standards. Even if we could build a mini-earth in a bottle and could fast forward time back and forth inside it AND it turned out we observed life evolving inside it that wouldn't prove it happened exactly that way on our earth.
I'm no scientist, so confirming a theory is pretty much the same as proving a theory in my book. So describe one that confirms Darwin's theory, if you can. Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, describe at least one experiment that confirms that Intelligent Design is not true.
Confirming simply means the observation is in accord with predictions. When you toss a ball up and it slows, then falls back down that is in accord with Newton's theory. If you could measure it's speed at various points with accuracy then you have another chance to see if it is still in accord. If you can measure its mass, dimensions and whether time on the ball passes faster or slower than time on the ground you would discover it is not in accord with Newton's theory but it is in accord with relativity.
Plenty of observations confirm Darwin's theory. We have thousands of fossils that display the intermediate forms it predicts should exist. We have assorted measures of mutation under different conditions such as when a sub-population is isolated etc. (I'm fudging a bit here, what you would probably call Darwin's theory is actually a mix of Darwin's theory plus the modifications and additions that have been made since Darwin...that in itself disproves your contention that scientists are unwilling to see anything that challenges 'Darwinian orthodoxy'...fact is they've been more than happy to change the orthodoxy several times over as the need arose).
So here's an observation that confirms his theory; viruses and bacteria develop resistance. Here's another one, whales have anatomical structures that are similiar to land dwelling mammels. Something that would be predicted by theory if their ancestors were land dwelling animals.
By your standards, though, I don't think these wo uld 'prove the theory'. But then the ball experiment doesn't prove Newton's theory. Yes Newton's theory may work on the ball but how do I know it applies to the moon, the planets, a skydiver, a plane and so on? The only way to know is to see if the theory is confirmed when making those additional observations. After some time we see we have thousands of observations that appear to confirm Newton was right (leaving out those areas where relativity is more right). You can't say, though, "show me one that confirms it"....there's thousands of them and you need thousands.
Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, describe at least one experiment that confirms that Intelligent Design is not true.
A tough question not because ID has a good point but because ID likes to fudge matters so much. When the fortune teller says her gifts will not work if there's anyone around who has even the slightest doubt it will be difficult for a scientist to set up an experiment. Any failure on her part will be explained away by contamination by the doubting scientist...but here it goes:
ID asserts that if we are given something complicated we can determine if it was created by an intelligent or non-intelligent process. The examples, though, are almost always of things whose origins we already know. (A clock, a plane, a sculpture etc.). Show us how to apply ID to a system whose origins is unknown and tell us if it was designed by an intelligence or by non-intelligent processes.
No! Roe v Wade is a consequence of assuming that murdering unborn children is one of those unenumerated unmentioned rights. When will you people quit perverting the Constitution?
As usual this is simply asserted out of the blue without even bothering to acknowledge context. Why is this so? Perhaps it is protected by the Constitution and those advocating a 'human life amendment' are correct. You certainly cannot assert that the Constitution must be free of all error as the Catholic Church asserts about the teachings of the Pope! After all we know the Constitution suffered one gapping moral failure from the moment it was written, its explicit recognition and protection of slavery (even those who assert the Bill of Rights truely banned slavery the fact is the original Constitution explicitly prevented Congress from acting on any ban of slavery for (I think) ten years or so). So if the Constitution could be wrong on slavery why couldn't it be wrong (in your eyes) on abortion?
How exactly do we know this is a pervision? The fact is we don't unless we want to commit the fallacy of accepting an argument simply from authority. And even assuming we are willing to do that what makes you think YOU should be the authority? Certainly your posts here do little to qualify you for the job in my opinion!
How's this for context... those unborn children are being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in writing to everybody else. But through the perversion of an unenumerated right not acknowledged or even hinted at previously to Roe v Wade, the rights of those unborn children get trumped without acknowledgement. Oh, and we get people telling us that the original Constitution explicitly recognized and protected slavery and suffered a gaping moral failure because of it yet are seemingly unconcerned about the gaping moral failure wrought by the outcome of Roe v Wade. Not only that, but it looks as if you'd prefer that nobody who recognizes that gaping moral failure have anything to do with interpreting the Constitution.
Applying the 14th to abortion in a pro-life manner has some problems.
1. The gov't isn't denying anyone anything as it does not perform abortions and forces no woman to have one.
2. Even if you assume the 14th defines unborn babies as persons, women are persons too. Either way you cut it you are going to have an unequal application of the laws since nearly 100% of the burden of bringing the baby into the world falls on the woman. This is why I've used the kidney transplant analogy previously. Even though there's no debate that the person receiving the kidney is a person as you are, the gov't cannot force you to donate it.
3. A more interesting implication of using the 14th to make a pro-life stance is that you have to admit the law was fundamentally flawed long before Roe. If unborn babies are persons under the law then they have to be included fully in the statues against murder and manslaughter. That means the states have no decision making power on abortion (except to the degree they decide what their overall murder laws will be).
#3 is important because never in the history of the US has abortion been treated as murder. Even when it was outlawed, even when pro-life advocates propose laws to outlaw it, it was treated as a crime with a fraction of the penalties that would apply to murdering a born child. Even you exercise this double standard. In cases where a mother kills her born children, such as Susan Smith a few years ago, society breathes contempt for her. Just to give her a fair trial requires an uphill battle.
Yet even you have peddled various excuses for abortion such as pressure from boyfriends or doctors trying to make a buck. No one would even think of trying to excuse Smith by saying something like "maybe it was her boyfriend who didn't want kids who pressured her into doing it!"
Now if you want to still go with #3 then go ahead but let's not hear anymore complaints about the left perverting the Constitution or making things up. The fact is there is no way you can show the authors of the 14th Amendment or those voting for it thought they were saying anything about abortion or equating it with murder. If you want to go there that's fine but you've shown that you're as happy to 'make it up' when it happens to suit your agenda....No more false praise for 'original intent'.
Not only that, but it looks as if you'd prefer that nobody who recognizes that gaping moral failure have anything to do with interpreting the Constitution.
I have no problem with you contributing to interpreting the Constitution. If I did I would be writing Joe emails saying "Look, SMM is going on again about the Constitution. Please shut him down and don't let him post about it on your blog!"
That's a two way street, though. I'm going to tell you why I think your reading is lacking and I expect you will do the same with me.
BTW, still interested in continuing to discuss ID as in post 32?
So you tried that but were unsuccessful, eh?
Actually no I haven't tried that yet. Careful though, you might just tempt me yet to violate my better nature.
You have a better nature? Wow. Does that mean I'm suppose to worry about your not so better nature being displayed? How will I know the difference?
No need to worry, I have an exceptional amount of patience so it is unlikely I'll get nasty even despite your best efforts. So are we wrapping this up or did you want to hit on ID one last time?
Then why did you tell me to be careful?
Well, I'm sure you would like to hit on it again. Maybe you get a kick out of beating on it like you do all the strawmen you create. I couldn't care less if ID is scientifically verifiable or not. I just get a kick out of rattling the cages of the arrogant birds who get their feathers ruffled by it because they deem it unacceptable that a challenge to the theory of evolution is coming from the unscientific unwashed masses, as if anybody that wasn't thoroughly trained and indoctrinated would be able to recognize holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
I just get a kick out of rattling the cages of the arrogant birds who get their feathers ruffled by it because they deem it unacceptable that a challenge to the theory of evolution is coming from the unscientific unwashed masses, as if anybody that wasn't thoroughly trained and indoctrinated would be able to recognize holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
No one said you couldn't challenge orthodoxy, the problem here is that you seem to think you challenged orthodoxy when you haven't really done a thing. You make vague accusations about elites refusing to recognize 'holes' in their thoeory but you're unable to articulate anything beyond that. You're not that unlike a wannabe radical who says things like 'obviously capitalism doesn't work' but is stumped when asked to explain exactly why it doesn't work, how do we know it doesn't work etc and retreats to the pose of the poor radical who is being squashed by the elite orthodoxy..
Maybe this gives you a kick but perhaps you should consider the possibility that you're just wasting your time (and other's here...and wasting Joe's bandwidth too...not that its all that expensive but you know what I mean).
I wouldn't exactly call Darwin's theory of evolution orthodoxy. The only people who seem to are the ones that get huffy and defensive against I.D., like you.
Wrong again. I accuse the poor, poor embattled elitists of refusing to recognize holes in their pet theory, Darwinism. The people who get huffy and defensive of it can't articulate what is wrong with I.D. either, so instead they level the charge of it being non-science, like you do. Instead of approaching the challenge from a position of strength and offering evidence that I.D. is incorrect, they offer only put-downs, like you do.
If so, it is my time to waste, and I'll thank you to leave that consideration to me alone.
I wouldn't exactly call Darwin's theory of evolution orthodoxy. The only people who seem to are the ones that get huffy and defensive against I.D., like you.
Post 26 my friend.
Wrong again. I accuse the poor, poor embattled elitists of refusing to recognize holes in their pet theory, Darwinism. The people who get huffy and defensive of it can't articulate what is wrong with I.D. either,...
Errr, I did articulate what is wrong with ID. They refuse to make statements that can be scientifically tested, instead they employ every tool in the box except science. That includes rhetorical tricks, appleals to popularity, as well as some high end sounding philosophy.
one cards credit
one cards credit
debtfree consolidation
debtfree consolidation