Friday, September 20, 2002
From the Diamond. My number two daughter played in her first softball game last night. It was a game under the lights and she was the lead off batter. She got a hit her first time up (well, in this league, nearly everyone gets a hit -- or at least makes contact -- no strike-outs). She played second and had a great time.
Try Homeschooling. The NY Times has a whiny piece by CNBC producer William Sorensen asking if he is a Dad or a tutor? Specifically, he's ticked off that he has to actually be involved with his kids' schoolwork. It's not fair, "[o]ur parents never helped with homework. They sipped gimlets or watched Walter Cronkite while we toiled away in our bedrooms, conjugating verbs."
He's wrong about that -- my parents and the parents of almost all my friends always helped with homework. [Now, before you think that was just an isolated community, please be advised that I went to nine different schools my last 10 years of schooling.] Like it or not, Mr. Sorensen, the parents of any child are that child's primary educators. Anyway, if you don't like what the school is doing, start your own. Homeschooling isn't less difficult than helping with homework, but it can be much more focused and directed than the busy-work that passes for homework.
See also, this note regarding IM writing.
He's wrong about that -- my parents and the parents of almost all my friends always helped with homework. [Now, before you think that was just an isolated community, please be advised that I went to nine different schools my last 10 years of schooling.] Like it or not, Mr. Sorensen, the parents of any child are that child's primary educators. Anyway, if you don't like what the school is doing, start your own. Homeschooling isn't less difficult than helping with homework, but it can be much more focused and directed than the busy-work that passes for homework.
See also, this note regarding IM writing.
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Vigil. Here is a link for the Vigil for Sudan. My daughter is actively participating in a worship dance team that has been preparing a dance of prayer for the vigil -- very moving. If you can't participate in the Vigil in DC, please spend sometime praying for Sudan and consider working with your local fellowship for special prayer.
Here is a good explanation of why the Body is holding this vigil at this time.
Here is a good explanation of why the Body is holding this vigil at this time.
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
2-0. It's a good week, both my Raiders and my fantasy team the Asylum (Ohio) Idiots are undefeated. Frankly, I should've been squashed like a bug -- starting Marcus Robinson at WR (0 catches). I was fortunate to bet on Drew Bledsoe who devoured the Minnesota secondary, giving me 36 points. Actually, my inspired pick of the day was a move I made late Friday night. I have Pittsburgh as my starting D and I realized I just didn't need anymore conflicting loyalties (my fantasy opponent had both Tim Brown and SeaBass), so I went looking for another Defense. Carolina was available, had just held the Ravens to 7 and was playing the Lie-downs. In the end, they scored a TD off an interception giving me 20 points. Those two alone gave me more than the Commish's Pirates. Of course, the other reason I won my last game was that Priest Holmes had an off day -- all of which allowed me a one point squeaker.
I'm coming after you baggy slims.
I'm coming after you baggy slims.
Valedictory. This past week, the outgoing bishop of Canterbury gave his final address -- sort of a "state of the Anglican union" speech -- and what a wonderful speech it is. He looks for inspiration from the Roman Catholics, quoting from Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World, and from the great Baptist missionary William Carey.
Of particular interest, the Bishop notes the possibility (probability, in my opinion) of schism in the Anglican Communion:
All-in-all, it's a very thoughtful, very earnest message from a man who obviously is committed to following his Lord and Saviour. I will be sorry to see him go.
Of particular interest, the Bishop notes the possibility (probability, in my opinion) of schism in the Anglican Communion:
In short, my concern is that our Communion is being steadily undermined by dioceses and individual bishops taking unilateral action, usually (but not always) in matters to do with sexuality; and as a result steadily driving us towards serious fragmentation and the real possibility of two (or, more likely, many more) distinct Anglican bodies emerging. This erosion of communion through the adoption of 'local options' has been going for some thirty years but in my opinion is reaching crisis proportions today.He addresses a number of particular situation, ranging from the Third World Missionary bishops operating in the US to New Westminster and the deposition of Fr. Moyer.
All-in-all, it's a very thoughtful, very earnest message from a man who obviously is committed to following his Lord and Saviour. I will be sorry to see him go.
Monday, September 16, 2002
Are you ready for a hanging? On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, the Leahy Lynch mob has it's next "hearing" set. It will be doing University of Utah law professor Michael W. McConnell. Yes, that's right "doing" as in "we do process 'em." All the usual assasins are out, stoking up the lynch mob: Nan Aron, president of the left wing Alliance for Justice ("his extensive writings show a hostility to firmly established constitutional rights, such as the right to choose"), Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way ("McConnell may be the most dangerous Bush administration judicial nominee yet"), NARAL, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Unlike Owen or some of the other nominees, I do know McConnell quite well (that is, I am familiar with his work and career) and I believe he may be one of the brightest lights on the horizon -- despite the fact that he is regarded as conservative-leaning, he possesses such intellect and integrity so that he should not be opposed by anyone. The fact that those four aforementioned groups do so show that they are truly out of the mainstream of the legal culture. In fact, this shows that they are not only out of the mainstream, they're out of the riverbank, out of the valley, over the mountain, off the continent, off terra firma, dwelling on the dark-side of the moon.
In fact, McConnell does have a lot of support from collegues who know him, yet find themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Among those supporting McConnell are Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, University of Chicago's Cass R. Sunstein, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, and Walter E. Dellinger, III, a former Clinton administration lawyer and Duke law professor. Indeed, you can access a letter signed by over 300 law professors supporting McConnell here.
The Los Angeles Times has note about what it calls "Perhaps the most remarkable letter of support" from Elena Kagan, another Harvard law professor.
You know, it seems to me that that is really the bottom line -- the acid test for a judicial nominee. Will the nominee bend the law to get a political result? When I listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on Pricilla Owen, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang, but no substance as to why the senators specifically opposed Owen. We heard Schumer saying she was a right-winger, but where was the evidence? We heard Feinstein give rank hearsay testimony as her justification for rejection:
More. From Catholic University Dean Douglas W. Kmiec an essay in Tuesday's LA Times.
Unlike Owen or some of the other nominees, I do know McConnell quite well (that is, I am familiar with his work and career) and I believe he may be one of the brightest lights on the horizon -- despite the fact that he is regarded as conservative-leaning, he possesses such intellect and integrity so that he should not be opposed by anyone. The fact that those four aforementioned groups do so show that they are truly out of the mainstream of the legal culture. In fact, this shows that they are not only out of the mainstream, they're out of the riverbank, out of the valley, over the mountain, off the continent, off terra firma, dwelling on the dark-side of the moon.
In fact, McConnell does have a lot of support from collegues who know him, yet find themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Among those supporting McConnell are Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, University of Chicago's Cass R. Sunstein, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, and Walter E. Dellinger, III, a former Clinton administration lawyer and Duke law professor. Indeed, you can access a letter signed by over 300 law professors supporting McConnell here.
The Los Angeles Times has note about what it calls "Perhaps the most remarkable letter of support" from Elena Kagan, another Harvard law professor.
Clinton nominated her in 1999 to the U.S. appeals court in Washington, but Senate Republicans killed her nomination without even giving her a hearing.
In a Sept. 10 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), she urged that McConnell, a former colleague at the University of Chicago Law School, be confirmed.
"I never knew Michael to be anything other than thoughtful, open-minded and even-handed in his approach to legal questions," she wrote. "There is no part of Michael that is activist or extremist. I do not believe he ever would bend the law to get a political result."
You know, it seems to me that that is really the bottom line -- the acid test for a judicial nominee. Will the nominee bend the law to get a political result? When I listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on Pricilla Owen, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang, but no substance as to why the senators specifically opposed Owen. We heard Schumer saying she was a right-winger, but where was the evidence? We heard Feinstein give rank hearsay testimony as her justification for rejection:
"I have never voted against a woman before. I have met Priscilla Owen, and I like her very much. But a consumer attorney from Texas told me that there is not a single consumer-rights attorney in the state who feels he'd get a fair shake in her courtroom."[for a great smackdown of DiFi with respect to this vapid statement, see this by the law student who writes "a mad tea-party".]Under the advise and consent role, the Senate has a duty -- make that each individual Senator who refuses to consent to a nominee has a duty to advise the President why he or she is withholding his or her consent. The burden is on the Leahy Lynch mob to show why McConnell should not be confirmed. Can they meet this burden -- no. There is no reason why Michael McConnell should not be confirmed to sit on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
More. From Catholic University Dean Douglas W. Kmiec an essay in Tuesday's LA Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)