Thursday, March 11, 2004

Whispers and Memos. Back in 1969, on my first tour of the U.S. Capitol, the guide took us to a spot in the old chambers, what is now "National Statuary Hall" and demonstrated that through the unique acoustics of the room, a person whispering in one part of the Hall could be overheard by another person in the Hall, quite some distance away. The story, as I recall it, was that John Quincy Adams placed his desk at the "receiving spot" and would use the trick to eavesdrop on the opposition.

I haven't been back to the Hall since 1995, but they were still demonstrating that trick then.

This came back to me when I heard about the kerfluffle involving the Judiciary committee memos. Manuel Miranda and other staffers read memoranda and other documents left on an open computer server.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe there is nothing different in this case and the Adams case, other than the technology is different. The earlier one used the unusual acoustics to access the opposition party's strategy, the later one used everyday computer know-how to access the opposition party's strategy.

Can't you hear JQA chuckling even now?

BTW, speaking of laughter, can you read this WaPo editorial condemning the use of leaked material without giggling?
O Brave. In today's Daily Standard, Wesley J. Smith gives us a peek at the new world ahead:

Futile Care Theory, the bioethical maxim that gives doctors the right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their perception of the quality of their patient's life, has imbedded itself like barbed hook into British medical ethics and law. Indeed, current British Medical Association ethical guidelines permit doctors to stop tube-supplied nutrition and hydration if they believe the patient's quality of life is poor, leading to eventual death. In such cases, patients' or relatives' views on the matter must succumb to the medical and bioethical consensus.
Specifially, Smith notes that a patient in Great Britian is suing for to ensure his doctors do not murder him.

Nonetheless, the doyennes of the blogoshere continue to wring their hands about Leon Kass.

Gen. Telford Taylor in his opening statement in the Doctor's Trial said it best:
We cannot rest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that certain persons committed them. To kill, to maim, and to torture is criminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably cruel tortures.

It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed for the reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a year ago?

The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.

--Gen. Telford Taylor

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Political Pop Quiz. This one is too good to pass up:

Created by counterpunch and hotlinked with permission.
103-100. I read this on the front of the sports section: "'We deserve to be in the [NCAA] tournament,' said [Jamar] Smith..." and thought, yeah, tell it to Tom McMillen and Len Elmore. Then, I flipped the page and there, on the inside was this excellent story on that McMillen/Elmore Maryland team of '74.

Since they opened up the NCAA's to the fifth best team in a conference, the ACC hasn't been the same -- especially not the ACC tournament, where it was do or die to make the NCAA. The late 1960s and early 1970s were an incredible time for basketball. (I was an NC State fan).

Even the Wolfpack's 1983 National Championship came after they first won the ACC tournament.

On the otherhand, you wouldn't have had the classic 1985 Villanova win without dipping deep.

Monday, March 08, 2004

Moore on Tares. Jackson Moore, of North Carolina (if I remember correctly) writes in response to the question of the tares:
Are we to submit to the tares or flee them? Does the answer not depend upon whether the Episcopal Church is the only valid expression of Christianity in the United States?

In the ongoing dialogue between Dr. Ephraim Radner and Bishop FitzSimons Allison, Dr. Radner stated that unity required that clergy and laity remain within the Episcopal Church "as far as possible." Dr. Radner suggests that Holy Scripture requires this unity.

But is this the case?

As Christians we are not accountable to the sect known as the Episcopal Church, but to the Church universal, the head of which is Jesus Christ. (Eph. 5:23-26; Col. 1:18-24). When men fall into apostasy, Christians are commanded to humbly rebuke and urge repentance. (Matt. 18:15-17). If there is repentance Christians win them back in Jesus’ name. If there is no repentance, Christians must remove themselves from the sin, lest the sin poison the whole body. (Matt. 5:29-30; 18:6-11; Mark 9:42-48).

Much of the Anglican Communion has rebuked the leadership of the Episcopal Church and has urged repentance. However, unless as a body it repents and returns to the Lord, the Episcopal Church will be cut off from the Anglican Communion. It has already been separated from much of the rest of Christendom.

Consistent with these Biblical mandates, fleeing apostasy, and not submission to it, is well-recognized in Christian tradition. St. Paul warned Christians not to remain yoked with non-believers. (1 Cor. 10:21-22; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). He urged the people of God to flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11). In Matthew Jesus is recorded as warning the apostles to flee to another town when faced with persecution. (Matt. 10:23). St. Cyprian warned his colleagues that failing to break communion with an apostate bishop could make other bishops share in his sin. Cyprian also urged the laity to flee the ministry of an apostate bishop, should the bishop refuse to relinquish his office. And the first Council of Constantinople held:
They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods of the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in Church - such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before Synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall be deemed worthy, by the Orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions.
Dr. Radner’s arguments do not seem to square with these principles. Staying and protesting does not remove the manifest sin from the Body.

I do agree with Dr. Radner when he states that “[o]ur souls are at stake in the way that we decide how to act in the face of, in this case, ECUSA’s rampant apostasy.” Many of us with young families are faced with a stark choice that transcends the academic nature of the debate between Dr. Radner and Dr. Alison: will we serve the Lord, or the gods of our forefathers? (Joshua 24:14-15).

We can follow Dr. Radner’s “stay and protest” strategy and remain within “ECUSA’s rampant apostasy,” as he describes it, or we can search for a Biblically sound, preferably Anglican alternative. For some, choosing Dr. Radner’s path results in the sacrifice of the Gospel for the sake of unity. And many of us lifelong Episcopalians who worry about raising our children in a Christian home will not, and should not, worship the Episcopal denomination, the “god of our forefathers”, simply to tolerate what is now an unholy and un-Christian unity.

Rather, we will follow the Lord where He leads us, even if it is outside of the Episcopal Church and to the AMiA, or to a continuing Anglican body, or to some non-Anglican expression of Christianity that actually comports with the Bible.

Programing. Busy at work, meaning overtime, busy at home. Blogging gets squeezed for awhile.
I am. . .

Pig Pen
You are Pig Pen!

Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla