Survey Says! Quite a few years ago now, Sat.Night Live had a skit where "Jeanne Kirkpatrick" was pitted against another contestant on a Jeopardy style show where the host posed a question and "Jeanne" provided the correct answer and her opponent provided an incorrect answer. The host then checked a survey of the audience to determine who was right. It was outrageously funny.

But it's not funny in real life. Howard Bashman has a good piece up on Slate about the Supreme Court using surveys to determine what's constitutional and what's not.

[Update] I blew it -- I misremembered the segment, according to this transcript. Reading over it, I think my misremembered version is funnier. BTW, this looks like a wonderful place. Now I can finally get the words to "Iranians' pains come mainly from Khomeini." as sung by Edwin Newman (another one I have better memories of).

Objections to the Church of Rome. Kevin has a short list of big stumbling blocks that trips him up when looking at the Church of Rome. As he lists them, they are as follows:

- The infallibility of the pope.
- Apostolic succession.
- The Assumption of Mary.
- The Immaculate Conception.
- Purgatory.
- Transubstantiation.
- Canonization of Saints

For me, I only have a couple of problems with some of these -- and really it's only one, interrelated problem.

I'll dispose of the easy things first -- apostolic succession (the link for each main subject will be to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia online) -- this does not seem to be "extra-Biblical." In fact, as I read the New Testament, I see evidence that there was ordination by the apostles and then to those chosen by the followers in succession. Now, then, if you mean that there has to be one human leader of one temporal church on earth who has to have a royal lineage that traces back to one apostle, as is claimed for the Pope, going back to Peter, then I agree.

Transubstantiation -- big doctrine, but ultimately, it's much like that of baptism -- there are good arguments for and against, but nothing conclusive (say beyond a reasonable doubt?). I'll be tricky and say that I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, since that includes both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, IMO. I reject the idea that it's just a symbolic thing as being unbiblical. I find it mortifying to think that someone could go through the rite of communion and then take the consecrated bread and toss it in a toilet. Don't you find that repugnant? The Old Testament is replete with references to consecrated items -- why should this be if post-Jesus these are all abolished? (see also, the Summa).

Purgatory -- we've discussed it before, I go with what Art. 22 of the Anglican Communion: "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." Having reaffirmed my Protestant loyalties, I must add that this doesn't seem to be a big deal for the Catholic Church -- so why should we force them to make it a big deal? See also, C.S. Lewis on purgatory and this book review (via Charles Murtaugh).

Canonization of Saints. Here, consider these words from the article I link to: "the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods." Is there really a problem with that? Isn't there someone in your church who seems to be truly holy or devoted to God -- don't you want to be like them? To have them pray for you? To the extent a church recognizes these people, is it really a problem? Didn't the writer of the letter to the Hebrews do this in chapter 11 when listing the heroes of the faith?

Now having said all this, I've left out the infallibility of the pope, the immculate conception and the assumption of Mary -- all of which are related. Specifically, the Pope has spoken ex cathedra twice in 21 centuries. Here, the Encyclopedia that I've been referring to isn't as much help, since the first exercise, dealing with the IC, occurred in 1854 when the Pope issued Ineffabilis Deus and the second occured after publication of the Encyclopedia.

But the rest is going to have to wait for part 2 -- I need to get back to work.

Pro Football, week by week. [updated with links] Sports Illustrated has it's list of must see games. I agree with most of the list, with these additions:

Week 1. It starts off on a Thursday night -- 49ers at Giants -- nice, since there will be no baseball. Also, if I was to pick one Texan game to watch, it would be this one: Cowboys at Texans, not the return of the Oilers Titans.

Week 4. I can't see picking Cowboys at Rams for the game of the week. Sure, it's a weak week (are Ewoks writing this stuff?). But I'd go with Browns at Steelers or Titans at Raiders.

Similarly, for Week 5, I can see the appeal of the Charger game, but would still have to pick Patriots at Dolphins or Redskins at Titans.

The Packers at Patriots is my pick for Week 6 -- this week we should find out whether the Pack is Back. But SI is holding out for week 7, when the Pack takes on the 'skins.

Now, for week 8, how can you skip over Colts at Redskins? That should be pinball, well, except for coaches Dungy and Lewis.

Huge mistake in picking the Bears at the Rams, an otherwise good game, for week 11. Not when you've got Patriots going into the Black Hole to face the Raiders.

The 13th week is the best on the schedule -- even the mediocre games have attractive reasons for watching: Redskins at Cowboys, Dolphins at Bills, Steelers at Jaguars, Titans at Giants, Broncos at Chargers, Seahawks at 49ers or the one SI picked, Bears at Packers. But none of those beats the Jets at the Raiders -- except for one: Rams at Eagles.

On Week 14, we get a reprise of the game whereby the club with the only undefeated record (1972 Dolphins) defeated the club who fielded the greatest team ever (1985 Bears).

For week 15, they pick the Raiders at the Dolphins -- I'd pick any Raider game, of course. Nevertheless, objectively, I've got to go with the division rivalry between the 'skins at Philly.

Finally, last week of the season, it will go down to the last game -- which will be must win for the 49ers to make the playoffs, only they will be playing the Rams, who will already have the division title. Pick this game or the Sunday night game (Buccaneers at Bears), not the Texans.

Signs of the Impending Apocalypse: Sojourners Magazine -- evangelical Christian and very left wing leads off its current letter quoting P.J. O'Rourke: "Worrying is less work than doing something to fix the worry. Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom with the dishes."

Polyamory. Just in case you missed it, the Unitarians are looking at Polyamory, which is "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity." Uh, yeah.

See David Mills comments[scroll down].

The joke used to be "What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness?
Somebody who comes knocking at your door for no apparent reason." Now I think the joke is just the Unitarians.

But then, polyamory brings up strong negative emotions for me, so I must "gently explore those feelings by talking with someone [I] trust." Any takers?

Strike Three. On top of my trepidations about the Raiders (below), it looks like we've got a great baseball season about to go down the tubes. As of sunrise this morning, there was a virtual three-way tie in the AL West, with Boston just 3.5 games behind for the wild-card.

Raiders. "I have a very bad feeling about this" is of course, the one line that has been present in every Star Wars movie. It's also a good summary of the way I'm approaching the start of opening day for the Raiders. Right now, based on what I'm seeing, I don't expect my beloved Raiders to win more than six games -- and that may be optimistic. Specifically, the Raiders are making way too many mistakes -- they're looking incredibly sloppy and undisciplined. Yeah, you say, hasn't that always been the case. Actually, no. Here's this note I saw awhile back by Dave Casper:

"We probably out-fundamentaled most teams," he said. "We didn't make mistakes. The image that we had, the Raider image, worked to our benefit because people missed the point of how fundamentally sound we were.

"Ultimately, that Raider image caused the team to go away from the fundamentals. I think the Raider image destroyed the Raiders. All of a sudden, the Raider image started to take over, where they were tough first and good second."

He's right -- in those days the Raiders got penalized for agressive behavior, but not for making stupid mistakes.

Yet in both preseason games played thus far, the Raiders are fumbling, stumbling, bumbling, generating penalties, and generally stinking out the joint.

A contrary opinion may be found in the SacBee.

Call it. Fritz, unable to locate the Urim and Thummim, decides by coin-toss.

Bye-bye. Apparently, there's no love lost for Bob Barr -- I've already heard a number of gleeful comments and seen some things on the blogs to that effect. Nevertheless, I'll tell you he did a very effective job in holding some people's feet to the fire. I know he was tough on the place where I work -- and his toughness seemed to be well placed.

And here I'll be frank -- I don't always agree with some of the members of Congress who harass those of us on the Executive side -- but I really am glad they are there -- these members -- especially the effective ones -- perform a vital function.

On a related note, Cynthia McKinney is gone -- she was the antithesis of Barr -- not because she is a black, liberal female. No, she was an ineffective flake. You may think Barr was a flake -- I'll withold judgment there -- nevertheless, he was effective.

Berkowitz. I referenced Peter Berkowitz last week -- on Sunday the WaPo had a book(s) review by him -- on one of his specialties -- Friedrich Nietzsche.

Semper Fi. Speaking of the Marines -- here's an article Dad sent me that demonstates how the Marines take care of their own. This is a very unique group -- I am grateful to have them on our side. I forwarded it to a retired Army friend and his reaction was to take it to his son.

Martial Doings. Tonight the family is heading down to the Mall for a picnic and the Army Band doing the 1812 Concert program (with canons, of course). Actually, my oldest daughter used to go to a daycare right across from the White House, so the kids spent a lot of time down on the Mall at a special tree known as "the climbing tree." It's near the Washington Monument and the Sylvan Theater, so we'll probably let the little ones play on it until the concert.

On Friday night, the Colonel (my Dad) is taking the grandkids to the Evening Parade at 8th and I.

Design, etc. Thanks for the kind notes about the changes to the template. Now that I figured out what my problem was with the comments, I can go ahead and make the changes I've been thinking about for a little while. I should also look at this in a couple other browsers -- I use IE and was really surprised at how different it was on Netscape. Last, there are some links that I need to put in -- please let me know any other suggestions (including links) you might have.

Law School. There has been a small flurry of notes about going to law school lately -- it brings back a lot of memories, but I was going to remain silent. For some reason Bobby Allison-Gallimore is a tipping point for me -- so here are a few note from this ex-law student.

First, get a hold of a copy of James D. Gordon III, How Not to Succeed in Law School, 100 Yale L.J. 1679 (1991). Read it weekly -- or daily even. I wish it were on line, but it's not -- it came out after I finished Law School -- too bad -- it's a riot.

Second, don't ever do anything to bait a professor. Don't argue -- don't brown-nose -- don't flirt -- don't make any large arm movements -- nothing. I made this mistake: In our Civ.Pro. book, there was a chapter titled something like "The Erie Revolution" referring to Erie R. v. Tompkins and I was just learning about law reviews in legal research, so I decided to look up some articles on this case. All that was fine -- the problem was I was sitting in the law library reading one of these when the Civ.Pro. prof walked by and asked what I was reading. I should've said anything but what I did -- naturally I was called on to brief a case -- Erie -- that I did not understand.

Third, despite what I just said, don't ever shy away from a chance to get on your feet and brief a case or go back and forth with your professor. You will get your head handed to you -- but it's better to do it now and get the practice in when you don't have a paying client. All you're losing in lawschool is your dignity -- while you're learning valuable lessons. Remember, you're always wrong, even when you're right.

Fourth, you are about to endure three years of hell. Seriously -- it is such a rough time, you can't imagine it. I recall at the end of it all, we had a class meeting to discuss speakers, hooding ceremony and so on. Someone raised the idea of a class picture and one student, who was a good student said "Look, I understand that some of you have good memories about this and that's fine -- I'll sit for the picture -- don't make me pay for it -- I don't want one -- This has been the worse three years of my life." That about sums it up for me as well.

Coverwatch. It's mid-August -- always the slowest news time of the year. So Time magazine has a coverstory on How To Save The Earth. The picture is pretty, anyway. Newsweek tries to counter with a story attempt at making news -- The War Crimes of Afghanistan. Now, the point of my little cover watch is just to compare covers -- yeah, sometimes I slip into an analysis of the text of the story. But the purpose is just to look at what the editors of these two magazines see as the lead story of the week. Time, at least, seems to be taking on a big issue during a slow news period. Newsweek seems to be trying to make something out of nothing -- when I look at the Newseek cover, I see Jenin.

Attendance. Here are some attendance figures from some events yesterday in the Washington DC area:

Detroit Tigers at Baltimore Orioles - 34,007.
Charlotte Sting v. Washington Mystics (WNBA) 6,038 (okay, that was in Charlotte. Similarly, the Freedom's game with the Philly Charge was played before 6,547, but at Villanova Stadium)
Legg Mason Tennis - unknown [I've tried finding what the official attendance on this was, but have been unable to do so].
"Millions for Reparations March" - "the turnout was low" (Post) "4,000 or so" (Washington Times) "an energetic crowd" (New York Times) and, finally, "Hundreds of blacks" (AP).

So why is this news?

Marriage and Baptism. I'm posting this link and note quickly, because I don't want to forget about it. Ben Domenech asked a question the other day about reconciling difficult theological issues between spouses. Specifically, the issue was infant baptism when one takes more of a reformed position and the other an anabaptist position.

I want to get back to this -- I was hoping to see what others had responded.

In the meantime I'd invite Ben to our church -- our minister was raised a Baptist and ended up becoming an Episcopal minister. :D

The Ultimate Link. Fellow blogger Fritz Schranck got what I consider to be the ultimate link the other day when his counter rebuttal to the Chait article (trashing Delaware) was referenced on the Arts and Letters page. I am insanely jealous.

In fact, I'd rather have that than fall into the "Higher Being" category on the ecosystem rating -- sometimes quality beats quantity (of course, I'm not even mentioned in the ecosystem -- which hasn't been updated since the late Pliocene epoch.

BTW -- I just realized I have a broken link over there for the Arts and Letters Daily page -- I'll fix that and add a couple of other bloggers who I like to visit, but haven't gotten around to adding because I've been too vexed over the whole comments feature. (Am I obsessive or what?)

Testing. Played with the postioning of the comments feature a little. I think I'll try this.

Comments are back! And I'm thrilled by the rapid response of haloscan. If I knew it was that easy, I would've done it sooner. Now, I'll play with the comment feature to get it looking nice, like Ann Salisbury did.

Dog gone it. Whenever I work myself into a state of righteous anger -- I blow it. Right Chris Burgwald? Sigh.

Everyone please wish Dawn a happy birthday.

Homeschooling. Someone named Dawn, who I've never read before and am not likely to read again, had some vapid thoughts about homeschooling. She writes:

My sister is an elementary school teacher with two children. She is currently teaching kindergarten. She has some definite ideas about how education and socialization of children should be implemented. She also entertains the idea of homeschooling her two children, 7 and 3.

Okay -- fair enough -- this could be the David Guterson (author of, inter alia Snow Falling on Cedars) story. When Guterson wrote Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense he was a teacher in the public schools who had decided to homeschool his kids.

But of course, Dawn, who acknowledges she is "prejudice[d] against homeschooling," plunges in with "no looking, no research." Unfortunately, her arguments show that she betrays that she has not thought about this beyond a surface knee-jerk reaction. It is a shame that her sister has to endure this waste of time being offered by this whiny lady. But I guess that's family. In any event, the blogosphere has given Ms. Dawn a thorough and well deserved Fisking, (albeit, much politer than she deserved -- that's the problem with these kids who are homeschooled -- they're too darn polite. I was educated in the public schools, so I don't have that problem -- I'm well socialized) therefore, most anything I add would be superfluous.

I do want to address one point, however, Dawn writes:

I may be prejudiced, but if I saw on a resume that someone was homeschooled, I wouldn't even give him or her an interview: too likely that the person would be socially challenged, and that is a HUGE liability in the work place.

In fact, you would not only be prejudiced, perhaps putting your company at risk in some places in California and Washington, DC, for example, you would also be wrong. Professional Human Resource specialists are coming to realize that individuals who are homeschooled are valuable potential employees. Consider this article in HR [i.e. "Human Resource"] magazine published by the Society for Human Resource Management. The following quote comes at the conclusion of article:

In the final analysis, if you’re hiring, homeschoolers may be a good investment. Cutting through the stereotypes, [Patricia] Lines, who has studied the movement for many years, perhaps says it best. “If I didn’t know anything about someone other than their education background, I’d rather hop into a foxhole with a homeschool kid than one from public school. The homeschool kid will be a little better educated and dependable. It’s just the law of averages.”

That's all -- you can go back to discussing more important matters like green hair and stuff.

Surprise. In the past week, I was talking with an acquaintance of mine and we got to talking about the fall elections. He's a Democrat and works for his party; he said that his personal fear for the election isn't an October surprise involving Iraq or a further terrorist attack -- he doesn't think either would have an impact. He said he does have another fear of an event taking place in October which could have a dramatic impact on the election. I was intrigued. He said he doesn't mean to sound crass and gave all kind of disclaimers -- I understood -- while he gets consumed by things like elections, he's a really decent guy.

So what was it? He said the thing that could swing a large block of undecided or centrist voters against his candidates and party would be if Ronald Reagan passed away after October 15. He quite frankly stated that while he would never vote for Reagan, the guy was a hero and a great President and the nation as a whole understood that. He further said that so many media people and Democratic activists could never understand that and hated Reagan. He thought that their reactions -- which would come across as negative and "mean-spirited" would have slingshot (that wasn't quite the word he used -- I can't recall it now) effect and would actually provoke people into going out and voting for the candidate of Reagan's party or more like Reagan.

He also said to read Peggy Noonan's book on Reagan, that she seemed to comprehend the things that made him so successful and distilled it very well.

Where are you going? --said Hamish to William Wallace in the incomparable movie Braveheart. The response? "I'm going to pick a fight."

Last week, toward the end of a column mostly about Gore and Lieberman, Peggy Noonan wrote:

The most successful conservatives (George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan) have been Lovers. They may carry the sterner message, but they put it forward with a certain joy and moral confidence. Fighting conservatives don't last so long or do so well. (Ask Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich.)

But there's a downside to Lovers. They can get too soft. A few months ago I asked a Republican senator what President Bush should do next. He said, "Veto something." I asked, what? He said, "Anything!" Meaning: Loverboy ought to show some muscle, jab someone, show 'em who's the man.

I agree, to a certain extent -- it's time to pick a fight. George W. Bush needs to show there's iron in his backbone and in his grip. But he must do so wisely. Vetoing anything is not the right way to go about this.

William: I said I have an offer for you.

Lochlan: You disrespect a banner of truce?

William: From his king? Absolutely.

The best fight to pick right now would be to recess every nominee he has made to the judiciary who's nomination has been pending for over a year. As prescedent he can cite presidents from Clinton on back. President Clinton would be noteable since Bush renominated his judges who were recess appointees and they were quickly confirmed by the Senate. On one hand, this is unusual, on another it's not. William Brennan was originally a recess appointee to the Supreme Court, if I remember correctly, who was subsequently confirmed by the Senate. Yes, this is tough, but the Senate has it coming by refusing to hold hearings on these nominees. And Bush can pull out statements from each member of the Judiciary committee indicating that a year is too long to wait for a hearing..

. . . Here are Scotland's terms. Lower your flags, and march straight back to England, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for 100 years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today.

Cheltham: You are outmatched. You have no heavy cavalry. In two centuries no army has won without--.

William: I'm not finished. Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own ass.

Establishments 'R Us. Howard Bashman has a good summary of an interesting case -- does the issuance of construction bonds for a private, religious college violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? The 6th Circuit Court says no. I actually tend to lean to the dissent (I'm no knee-jerk church supporter). Nevertheless, I can see the argument that the economic assistance will provide benefits for the community as a whole and not merely a sectarian institution.

Part of the reason I may lean with the dissent might be that I'm not really in favor of municipalities financing non-government projects, like private schools or stadiums for sports teams.

Anyway, that's my very quick off-the-cuff thought.

Update If you would like to read some good solid analysis, see Sneaking Suspicions by Fritz Schranck.

And while you're there, please be sure to read Fritz's rejoinder to the cover story in TNR bashing Delaware. This is an excellent example of fact checking. After I saw this cover story, I knew I could count on Fritz to respond in a fair manner. What really surprised me was to see how poorly researched Jonathan Chait's piece was on one pretty key point. [If you click through to the TNR story, you'll see it now has a prominent correction at the top -- was Fritz responsible? -- of course, this is on the web-site only.] Especially after the Glass affair, you'd think the editors would do some minimal fact-checking.

Also, since I'm now into fact checking (talk about a run-on post), look at the excellent job Mickey Kaus does on the NYT's Nina Bernstein.

Socializing. We have some guests in from out of town -- had a wonderful dinner together last night. But what this means here is that there probably won't be much blogging for the next day or two. Pity -- I've got some thoughts about homeschooling and one Democrats greatest October surprise fear (hint: it ain't Iraq or war). Maybe in a day or two.

Top Ten Funeral Songs. Just in case you don't click all the way through my links, here are the top ten funeral songs, according to the BBC:

1. Wind Beneath My Wings - Bette Midler
2. My Heart Will Go On - Celine Dion
3. I Will Always Love You - Whitney Houston
4. The Best - Tina Turner
5. Angels - Robbie Williams
6. You'll Never Walk Alone - Gerry And The Pacemakers
7. Candle In The Wind - Elton John
8. Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers
9. Bridge Over Troubled Water - Simon And Garfunkel
10. Time To Say Goodbye - Sarah Brightman

God Speaks. The least gabby member of the Volokh conspiracy, Michelle Boardman, notes a woman who is preparing to clone to have a baby believes the inability to conceive should be interpreted as the voice of God:

KATHY: I think that God really wants us to do this, that it is the next step. I can't imagine any other reason why we haven't had a child, other than this is what we were meant to do.

In fairness, there are Christian ministers who hold pretty similar views on such things.

By the way, I think He must really want me to have a NEW CAR! Otherwise my old one wouldn't keep breaking down.

Updates Two mail messages on this already! First, the title of this post is not meant to confer deity on Ms. Boardman. Second, here is a nice little essay refuting the Scalia-Thomas caricature.

Signs. (Not the movie, this time.) The Episcopal Church, after 55 years has decided to update its signs from the traditional "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" to something it perceives will be more hip (yes, that's the way the elders of the ECUSA think) -- fortunately they haven't gone fully in the direction of abandoning tradition that they normally do -- the new signs read: "The Episcopal Church We're here for you." (get it? those Bishops can be so witty.)

Anyway, I have it on good authority that some of the rejected signs include: "The Episcopal Church: No more Mr Nice Guy"; "The Episcopal Church: Eschewing simplistic theology since 1785"; "The Episcopal Church: Catholic without all those rules"; "The Episcopal Church: No Molesters, Just Druids and Witches"; "The Episcopal Church: We only damn conservatives"; "The Episcopal Church: A Scent-Free Place of Worship"; and "The Episcopal Church: Great Funeral Music, Less Commercials."

Washington Twins. No, the Washington Senators in exile Minnesota Twins are not moving back to Washington D.C. Rather this note is about a phenomenon that is failing to draw comment: David Souter and Ruth Ginsburg are joined at the hip judicial twins -- voting more frequently than any other duo this past term. According to the National Law Journal they voted together 92% of the time and an astounding 100% in criminal cases.

Now when there was a voting pattern like this in the past -- we heard that Antonin Scalia was Clarence Thomas' svengali -- or that Thomas was Scalia's lapdog. So what will the press say about this? Perhaps Ginsburg has fallen sway to Souter's raw masculinity? or that Clinton appointee Ginsburg has seduced Bush appointee Souter? Heh -- don't count on it. In fact, not even this blithering idiot would believe such a preposterous story. Just remember that next time some reporter tries to market the idea that Thomas is subservient to Scalia.

Email. Is now back to normal.

Owen the Activist. In an otherwise pretty fair article, Jeffrey Rosen writes

In the case of Priscilla Owen, a nominee to the federal appeals court in Texas, the Democrats' concerns are arguably justified: even President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, called Owen's attempt to narrow a Texas law allowing minors to have abortions without their parents' consent ''an unconscionable act of judicial activism'' when he was a colleague of Owen's in Texas.

But did Gonzales really label Owen's opinion ''an unconscionable act of judicial activism?''

If you ask that as a yes or no question, I'd say the answer is "no." At best, Rosen's statement is misleading, at worst it's just sloppy re-writing of a press release without reading the opinions.

This issue -- whether Gonzales labeled Owen an activist -- was first raised by the group known as People for the American Way ("PFAW") in a "report" opposing Owen wherein the group wrote: "In fact, even current White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales criticized a dissent joined by Owen in one case as “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.” This charge was then echoed in an essay by Jason Zengerle in The New Republic, when he wrote:

Indeed, one of the nomination's more curious aspects is that while on the Texas court, Owen frequently clashed with Gonzales--who as White House counsel is theoretically in charge of judicial nominations. In one parental- notification case, Gonzales went so far as to blast Owen's position as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."

In response to the PFAW "report," Terry Eastland wrote an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News on July 22, 2002, where he discussed precisely who was being labeled an activist by Gonzales:

The opinions in the case mostly concerned how judges should go about interpreting the notification act. In a concurring opinion, Justice Gonzales felt compelled to respond to "the dissenting justices" who "suggest that exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof." Two of the three dissenting opinions suggested that, and one of the dissenters, Nathan Hecht, got under the majority's skin, accusing it of substituting its own policy views for those of the Texas Legislature--judicial activism, in sum.

Justice Gonzales defended the majority against Justice Hecht, contending that nothing in the language or history of the law shows "the Legislature intended such a narrow construction." Thus, he continued, "to construe [the act] so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the state, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism"--one that he said he couldn't engage in. By implication, the dissenting justices advancing the narrower interpretation stood accused of just that.

But Justice Owen didn't stand so accused for the simple reason that in her opinion she didn't undertake an inquiry into the law's intent. Her concern lay elsewhere--with the majority's treatment of the lower courts.

The majority, she wrote, "has usurped the role of the trial court, reweighed the evidence and drawn its own conclusion"--a practice at odds with "more than 50 years of precedent regarding appellate review of a trial court's factual findings." Under well-settled Texas law, she argued, the court may not disturb a trial judge's findings unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion. And, she explained, a reasonable person could have.

"The question in this case is not," she wrote, "whether this court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard. The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this latter question is yes."

Eastland is more accurate than either Rosen or Zengerle when he notes that Gonzales broadly responded to the "dissenting justices."

Indeed, the entire paragraph in question from Gonzales' opinion demonstrates some ambiguitiy as to who was being labeled:

The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. See ___ S.W.3d at ___. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. See id. at ___ (detailing legislative history). Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.

(emphasis added.)
Yet at the opening of the concurrence, Gonzales indicates his bone of contention was with Justice Hecht, writing:

Only in this, an appeal after remand of the first of four Jane Doe cases, has the Court granted a minor's application to bypass notifying her parents before she consents to an abortion. Yet in each case, the Court has struggled to render the correct decision, and some members of the Court have strongly disagreed. The tenor of the opinions have been unmistakably contentious. It has been suggested that the Court's decisions are motivated by personal ideology. See ___ S.W.3d ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). To the contrary, every member of this Court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature.

Owen's opinion, as noted by Eastland, focuses on the Texas high court's review of the lower court's opinions as opposed to legistlative construction:

I strongly dissent from the methods employed by the Court in rendering that judgment. The Court summarily reversed the lower courts, without an opinion and without the opportunity for considered, substantive deliberations. Now that the Court has, after the fact, issued an opinion, it has obliterated, with the stroke of a pen, more than fifty years of precedent regarding appellate review of a trial court's findings. The Court's actions raise disturbing questions about its commitment to the rule of law and to the process that is fundamental to the public's trust in the judiciary.

This case has a very difficult and contentious history -- by the time of the June ruling in question, there had been at least four separate hearings before the Texas Supreme Court alone in the period of three months. [Links to main opinions from February 25 2002, March 7, 2002, March 13, 2002, March 22, 2002, April 11, 2002, June 22, 2002.]

Look, Rosen's a sharp cookie and he's ususally not one to make a mistake like this. Moreover, although he has an ideology that tend to fall on the left side of things (his ideal justice is David Souter), he generally will play things straight. Given that, I think this is just a simple mistake.

For more on the background of these cases and the Senate's reaction, see Jonathan Groner's Legal Times article (which addresses a more focused concern in any event -- did Owens try to place religious criteria in the idea of being well-informed with respect to the Texas law which required a woman to demonstrate she was "sufficiently well informed" prior to obtaining an abortion? In this article, Groner notes "In discussing the judicial bypass in the Jane Doe I case, it appears that Owen added 'moral and religious' principles to the 'philosophic and social' ones specifically approved by the Supreme Court." Groner includes a contrasting opinion from Owen supporter C. Boyden Gray: "'I don't think that's legislating. I think that's in the spirit of what the Supreme Court has said,' says Gray. 'I don't think anything in the Supreme Court cases excludes religion as a source of philosophy. In my book, philosophy includes the philosophy of religion.'"

I tend to agree with Gray. If anything, it could be that Owen just made a simple mistake in the rush to issue opinions in a rapidly reviewed case -- sort of like the mistake Rosen appears to have made in writing his article.

Peter Berkowitz. The more I read of Peter Berkowitz, the more enchanted I am with him -- not that I agree with him -- just that I find his thinking to be embracing and challenging. Consider, for example, this recent essay in the Jerusalem Post on The Complexities of Cloning, which runs contrary to the conventional wisdom on the Kass Panel. A more contrary (or cynical) person might think this is just a case of log-rolling, since Dr. Kass was a supporter of granting Berkowitz tenure at Harvard. However, based on the argument that Berkowitz sets forth, it is clear that is not the case.

Some other articles by Berkowitz: on school choice, on Tribe's critique of Gore v. Bush, his review of John Rawls, and his look at Peter Singer's ethics, among others.

I still don't understand why Harvard denied him tenure. [Here are some court documents and here is his statement in the Harvard Crimson.] There's something about this that reminds me of the shame of the University of Iowa (my mother's school) where a professor labeled Tennessee Williams "incompetent."

Personal Notes. Sorry about my absence -- the family has just returned from a week in Seattle and I'm have a wonderful time doing diapers and playing in the sprinkler. Today we spent the day at Ft. Hunt park for my 25th anniversary high school reunion. One observation by my wife: at the 10th reunion, everyone talked about jobs -- what were you doing? and so on. By the 25th reunion, no one talked jobs.

Coverwatch. Five Ways to Fix the 401k on the cover of Newsweek -- do only accountants buy magazines in September? Time says no -- and heads for the parents -- with a cover story on "Young and Bipolar" To tell you the truth -- I thought we would see a mosquito on the cover of one of these.

Japanese Suicide Bombers. The idea of using children as human bombers isn't new to the PLO. A new book by Tim Maga shows that Japan considered the idea in WWII. According to this book review, the Japanese were making little bombs disguised as small ceramic pots. They intended to have their children: "offer unsuspecting American GIs these particular gifts, and then trigger the detonator as they accepted. Both the child and the American invader would be killed together."

Denver: Raiders Better. I hope this Denver columnist is right:

The Raiders will win the AFC West, just as they did in 2000 and '01. Oh, it will be a two-team race and all, but the Denver Broncos won't win it. Al Davis will. You might as well deal with it, because it's going down.

It isn't that tough to figure out. The Raiders happen to be better than the Broncos. The post-Elway Broncos have yet to win three straight games with Brian Griese at quarterback. The Raiders? Rich Gannon, a journeyman-turned-MVP candidate, has run off five- and six-game winning streaks in the past two seasons. No coincidence, just fact.

Says here the Raiders would have won the Super Bowl last year if the officials hadn't made up the rules as they went along on that snowy night in New England. The Raiders were very good then, and they're better now. Fact is, it's not even close.

Rednecks of the 17th Century. Anyone missing Ben can catch up on his essay here.

Local Race. There was a local Senate election in my district yesterday -- the incumbent GOP senator was selected by Gov. Mark Warner to be on the ABC. The race was between a former librarian/head of the PTA/school board member (Democrat) and a young patent attorney (GOP). The teachers union came out very strongly for the Democrat who ran on a platform of experience and touted all her endorsements, included the former senator, who, as I said, had been a Republican. The young Republican ran a campaign that emphasised two issues: no new taxes and the need for a pro-life prescence.

To my surprise, the Republican won a decisive victory -- 55 to 45%. In the past, the district has leaned marginally Republican, as it's a pretty middle-class segment of a very wealthy (and Democratic county). For example, while it went for the Republican in the governor's race, it has elected Democrats to the school board, to the General Assembly, and to the Board of Supervisors (it's not quite that easy to pin down the district, since all the districts are overlapping). I sort of figured the unions would get out their people for their candidate (they gave her a ton of money) and kept hearing how the GOP's unwavering pro-life message (he never shied away from this) would alienate the supposed pro-choice district.

I looked around for some commentary elsewhere -- NRO or any of the blogs, but haven't seen anything yet (I'm sure Ruffini will have something soon). I think it's a pretty big GOP victory.

Oh, and his name is Ken Cuccinelli.

Rest in Peace.

From the Daily World

Thomas Blair Jr.

Funeral services for Mr. Thomas Craddock Blair Jr., 75, will be held at 2 p.m. Sunday in Louisiana Memorial United Methodist Church in Opelousas with burial in Bellevue Memorial Park.

The Rev. Dale Hensarling will conduct the services.

Mr. Blair, a resident of Opelousas, died at 8 p.m. Thursday, August 1, 2002, at his residence. He retired from Mobil Oil Corp. after 35 years and was a veteran of the U.S. Army. Mr. Blair was a veteran of World War II having served in Japan. A member of the Gideons International, Treasurer of the Louisiana Memorial United Methodist Church and a graduate of North Texas State University.

Survivors include: his wife, Anita Amy Blair of Opelousas; two sons, David Brian Blair and his wife Jennifer of Victoria, Texas, and Mark Winston Blair and his wife Jenny of Opelousas; a daughter, Connie Blair Savoy and her husband Chris of Church Point; three brothers, Oliver Blair of New Orleans, Joseph Blair of Washington, D.C., and John Blair of Boerne, Texas; two sisters, Nancy Burke of Midland, Texas, and Mitzi Blakeley of Lubbock, Texas; and nine grandchildren, Jared, Aaron and Dylan Blair, Elizabeth and Rebecca Blair, Tyler, Brandon, Christopher and Stephanie Savoy.

Mr. Blair was preceded in death by his parents, Thomas and Elizabeth Blair; and a sister, Margaret Bennett.

The family requests contributions be made to Gideons International, P.O. Box 385, Opelousas, La. 70570.

Visiting hours were observed from 2 to 10 p.m. Saturday and will be observed from 8 a.m. today until time of services.

Lafond-Ardoin Funeral Home on the Old Sunset Hwy. in Opelousas is in charge of arrangements.

Hugo Black and the Wall of Separation. Here's a link to a story in the Washington Times noting that Justice Hugo Black hatred of Catholicism was behind his building of a Wall of Separation, whereby the State could push around religion. I meant to bring it up yesterday -- however, this really isn't a new finding. Black's hatred was well documented years ago -- I was going to cite to some passages in a bio I have of Black, but I can't seem to locate the book. FWIW, the book is by Gerald Dunne -- Hugo Black and the Judicial Revolution.

8 Years. It's been eight years since Steve Taylor released his last album -- and no new album in sight.

For the Children. For the most part, I have been agnostic about Iraq -- should the U.S. attack? I don't know.

However, listening to NPR's All Things Considered tonight while driving home convinced me that it's time to attack and end the Saddam Hussein regime. There were a series of reports -- Republicans dithering (do they do anything else?), the view from Bagdad, and so on. In the course of this pretty one-side brief against taking action against Iraq, there was a clip from someone affiliated with a group called Voices in the Wilderness* talking about the misery and hunger experienced by the average person in Iraq. Listening to this, I knew they were telling the truth, because it sounded so much like the reports from Tokyo and Hiroshima in September of 1945. You may recall I mentioned my wife's uncle passed away last week -- I spent considerable time this weekend listening to interviews with him -- oral history -- of his experiences as one of the first servicemen in Japan after the war. His descriptions of the civilians under Emperor Hirohito and Tojo were echoed in the description of the civilians under Hussein.

Therefore, it seems as though we have three choices: (1) status quo -- do nothing, either attack or end the sanctions, no-fly-zone, etc. (2) do nothing -- completely pull out and let Saddam build up his military and weapons capability again, or (3) commit to ending the Hussein regime by full war with his regime.

Under the first and second do nothing scenarios very little change will occur in Iraq for the average civilian. They will continue in want, starvation, destitution and sickeness. Under the status quo scenario, it is debatable whether Saddam will develop weapons of mass destruction. Under the complete abdication scenario it is certain he will develop and probably unleash these weapons, either directly or through surrogates.

Therefore, the only hope for the average civilian in Iraq is a full scale assault on Hussein -- completely removing him from power -- if he mets the same end as Tojo -- well, so much the better.

It must be realized that the anti-American leftists represented by groups like Voices are right that the cold war currently happening in Iraq is a military effort that is having an impact on the civilians. Therefore, it is time to end this war and get on to peace building. We need to be sending in troops to Iraq just as we did at the end of the Second World War to Japan and Germany to build peace. For the sake of the children, if nothing else.

Post Script. Are you aware that supposed right-wing military general Douglas MacArthur is responsible for bringing such liberal institutions as a free press, land reform (giving the land to those who farmed it), labor unions and women's suffrage to Japan (not to mention national disarmament)? Why not do the same for Iraq?

----
*Is it just me, or does anyone else remember when a Voice in the Wilderness referred to the one who pointed to the Messiah, not to the Butcher of Bagdad.

For Your Consideration. I haven't read this, but it looks promising. A Theologian's Brief: On the Place of the Human Embryo Within the Christian Tradition and the Theological Principles for Evaluating Its Moral Status.

Long Knives and Consent. The long knives are out for Priscilla Owen. The New Republic's Jason Zengerle writes that she should be rejected because she was chosen for having dissented in a parental notification case. FindLaw's Sherry F. Colb argues that Owen should be rejected because she does not believe a judge should rubber-stamp a minor's request for an abortion. (I have to add, Ms. Colb, that you have the dingy-est picture I have seen on the web.)

However, this Houston Chronicle article notes a lawsuit by a minor who obtained an abortion by false pretenses. [Specifically, she went to a store and got a check cashing card which stated she was 18, when she was only 17.]

Frankly, I think those bearing the long knives are really grasping at staws -- do you really want a judge who won't carefully scrutinize the law? This appears to be another distortion of law and politics a la the Shapiro conjecture.

Dates and Places. This is interesting -- this scholar places the appearance of Christianity in China sooner than "modern" Bible scholars believe the Gospel of John was written.

Who Killed Davey Moore? Bob Dylan has an old song based on a fighter, Davey Moore, who died shortly after a title fight on March 21, 1963. You can find Dylan's song on "The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3 [Rare & Unreleased] 1961-1991" from a October 26, 1963, performance at Carnegie Hall. Dylan rounds up the usual suspects, the fans, the gamblers, the referee, his opponent (Ultiminio "Sugar" Ramos, although unnamed in the song). But he leaves out Mrs. Moore from the list of suspects (in fact, he attributes her words "it was God's will" to Ramos.)

Yet, according to this website, it may have been a mistake to leave Mrs. Moore out:

Dr. Ferdie Pacheco came to pay tribute and I must tell you that the man missed his calling. Dr. Pacheco is quite a storyteller, and a very funny man. Actually, he revealed a well kept secret, one that shocked most in attendance, including the champ.

Dr. Pacheco told us that the week prior to the Moore-Ramos duel, Moore's wife who was a very jealous woman, had hit Moore over the head with a baseball bat, following a domestic dispute. Dr. Pacheco feels that this blow was certainly a factor in the events that followed the Ramos fight and the death of Davey Moore. My question is this, why was this never revealed before? I suppose it doesn't really matter, does it?

----

In another web page, there is the following description of the fight from Dr. Pacheco:

The tenth round was pure savagery. Davey finally caved in, he fell over backwards, the back of his head bouncing crazily off the bottom strand, and then, in a kind of sling shot effect, bounced off the canvas. Davey lay there, inert, asleep, unconscious. I looked at him a few feet from me. Was he dead? All of the elation I felt after the victory, left me in a flash. The doctor part of me woke up. Was he dead? As I started to get into the ring he came to. He was sitting up. His eyes were open. He talked. He motioned he was O.K. A great wave of relief flooded over me.

Now we were in the middle of the ring. Luis,the new welterweight champion was on one side, Angelo on the other, lifting Sugar who was smiling his beautiful smile out of his lumpy face. Behind us someone had brought a Cuban flag. What a rare moment of joy. Two championships in one night.

* * *

I went back to our dressing room to a resounding surprise. All had sad, serious faces.

"What is it?" I asked Sharnik.

Mort Sharnik had been in Davey Moore's dressing room. Davey was giving a brief interview when he suddenly held his head,and said to Mort,

"I've got such a headache."

It proved to be the last thing Davey Moore said. He was taken to the hospital where he died. He was a beloved champion, and in each corner of our dressing room grown men were crying.

Water, Bread, Wine and Kids. Mark Byron has some opening comments on baptism, one I'd like to touch on more in relation to communion (or The Lord's Supper or Holy Eucharist as your tradition might refer to it). Dr. B. writes, in part,

The model in Acts has the believer, not a child, being baptized, which raises an issue for believers from child-baptizing churches. I was baptized as a child as a Methodist, but I know that the baptism was initiated by my parents and not myself, and was rebaptized in a Baptist church shortly after I came to the Lord.

My wife Eileen's in a awkward spot, being baptized as a precocious five-year-old in her Presbyterian church. Was her kindergarten faith sufficient to count as a believer's baptism or does she need a redo? Does sprinkling rather than dunking matter? Now that she's hanging out with a beleiver-baptising crowd, it's an open question. I'm letting her make that call, to get baptized when and if she feels moved to do so, rather than be pressured into doing so.

For me, the issue of a child's faith first came up at communion. Our church (Truro Episcopal, if you're curious) invites everyone to the communion table (rail) for prayer during communion and for baptised Christians who would like to parttake, the bread and wine. Our children were all baptised as infants and so around the age of two began to express interest in having communion. This caused some consternation for me -- Paul's Letter to the Corinthians lays out the seriousness and sobriety necessary for partaking in the Lord's Supper (See Chapter 11). For example, verse 28 commands ". . . let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." I objected to my Pastor saying that kids aren't able to do this. "They don't understand the Eucharist."

But what did Jesus say? he asked. What did He say about the children?

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 18:2-4

Now that I am on baby number four and my oldest is 13, I've begun to see that He was right -- children do have a much better understanding of communion than do I. In fact, the older I get, the less I realize I know.

We can talk more about Baptism and things like Believer's Baptism and the Baptism of Infants another day, but I would say to my brothers and sisters to not minimize the profession of faith of a child. I would strongly, yet respectfully, argue against re-baptism of persons.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 4:4-6

Cover Watch. Newsweek on why we need Heaven -- sounds like a Lennonist approach to things. I figure Heaven is there -- it's not a big motivator for me. Time magazine looks at whether the Bush administration considered hitting al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. A moot point. Nevertheless, let's assume it did -- can you imagine the howls of protest from the not-so-loyal opposition? If anyone is to blame for Bush and company holding back it is these folks who from the beginning sought to undermine and delegitimatize his administration.

Tom Blair. My wife's uncle, Thomas Blair passed away on Thursday afternoon. Uncle Tom was a good man and did something pretty unique -- he sent each person in the family a birthday card every year. And I do mean each person. Soon after I married his niece, I began receiving cards. Plus he sent them to each of our kids. He was a gentle man, a wonderful story teller.

Interestingly, he was one of the first Americans into Hiroshima after the war. He was part of the Army invasion force planning for the invasion of Japan. After the dropping of the atomic bombs and the Japanese surrender, his unit was sent to Hiroshima to clean up. As he noted, they weren't given any special equipment or protection because they just didn't know anything about the danger of radiation fall out at the time. He died of cancer which he believed was a result of that exposure to the radiation. Just a month ago we spoke at the family reunion and he said he figured he was done in by the war. If it hadn't been for the atomic bomb, he would've died in the invasion -- this way he just had a life to live and a family to raise before his number came up.

We all will miss him.

Great Movie. Signs is a great movie. I was expecting something in the vein of Sixth Sense based on one of the reviews I read and was trying to guess who was dead or something, but it wasn't like that at all. It has it's very scary moments -- done well. Yet at the same time it was sweet. I'll have more later -- with spoilers, so I'll give warnings, but in the meantime, go see it.

Wonderful movie.

More. Here is Doug LeBlanc's review -- read it after seeing the movie.

Baptism. Kevin Holtsberry kindly replies to my inquiry (in his comments) and Mark Byron responds in the Theology Department. I'll post something tomorrow (promises, promises).

PLO. I'm so fed up with the palestinians -- right now I'd like to have them all appear in a H. Bosch painting.

Hall of Fame. George Allen was overlooked for far too long -- the guy was one of the greatest coaches and motivators around. A truly sharp guy. Sometimes people don't get in because they are controversial or rub people the wrong way. I think this was the case with George Allen. In other instances, men who play positions with little recognition don't make it -- put in a list of offensive linemen here. In other cases, a man might attract media attention and make it at the expense of a lesser media-savy, but far superior teammate. That was the case with Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. John Stallworth finally makes it, but should've gone in long before Swann. For that matter, Cliff Branch deserves to get in the Hall long before Swann (but Swanny is in already).

Here are Dr. Z's comments about who should be in and why. One player he mentions in passing, Bob "Boomer" Brown is long overdue. The guy was an awesome blocker who could flatten anyone with his forearm (at the end of his career, he was traded to the Raiders. His first day of practice he lined up in front of the goal post, charged out of his stance and threw his forearm and brought down the goal post). He's not in because of his mouth -- he was very contentious when he played for the Eagles -- and because he was an offensive tackle.

Also, Z notes he is not enthusiastic about Art Monk, which may tick off my Redskins friends -- I'm on the bubble with Monk -- I like the guy. But is he HOF material? Shrug. In any event, I'd place him there before Swann -- but I think anyone would.

It's sold. This was up for auction at e-bay. Unfortunately, it looks like they're all sold out.

Textbook. One of the texts that my daughter and I will be using for 8th grade this year is Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. As you can see, it looks at Biblical hermeneutics with a particular emphasis on the sticky questions of applying what the Bible says to slavery, homosexuality and the role of women. For example, if the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then why doesn't it say the same thing about slavery? Similarly, if we ordain women, why not gay persons? Or on the flip side, if we don't ordain gays, shouldn't we also withhold ordination from women, especially in light of 1 Tim. 2:12a "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. . . " Or aren't we just really reading our own preferences and prejudices into Scripture?

From what I understand, Webb addresses these issues square on. For a review of this book see this essay by Agnieszka Tennant.

Quote

According to Jesus, by far the most important thing about praying is to keep at it... Be importunate, Jesus says -- not, one assumes, because you have to beat a path to God's door before he'll open it, but because until you beat the path maybe there's no way of getting to your door.
... Frederick Buechner

Not Me

12.5 %

My weblog owns 12.5 % of me.
Does your weblog own you?

Comments May Be Back. I've been watching Ann Salisbury's comment feature and it seems to be working. So I'm putting my toe back in the water and we'll see how it goes.

update I may have put way too much stray code in here. There are a few comments way down at the bottom of the page, but none up here. I'll figure this out or cut it loose entirely.

More. No luck. Not only am I an idiot, but am incompetent as well. Oh, well, this may give me the incentive to strip things down and redo them completely.

The Next Archbishop of Canterbury. The following are the comments of the pastor of my church, Martyn Minns, on Rowan Williams:

The speculation is over and now we know that Rowan Williams will become the next Archbishop of Canterbury. But who exactly is he?

Rowan currently serves as Archbishop of Wales and is one of the youngest men to be appointed. He has never served in a parish, but has instead followed the academic path of ministry. Rowan grew up in Wales, his father was a mining engineer. He studied at the local grammar school before heading off to Cambridge and then to Oxford University. He distinguished himself as a brilliant theologian, he speaks five languages, and is married with two school age children. He served as Bishop of Monmouth before becoming Archbishop of Wales. But none of this info makes for exciting headlines, and so in recent days Rowan has been peace activist, etc., by the British media I first met Rowan Williams at Lambeth in 1998. He was a strong supporter of our Five Talents Initiative and I was impressed by his passion for a gospel which is truly good news for the poor. He is also helping us in the formation of Five Talents (UK).

Rowan is someone who defies simple labels. He is a faithful Christian. He is an academic, but he is also someone who can connect with folks who are not. He does hold to liberal political views, and yet he is passionately pro life. He has published books and articles that are sometimes obscure and difficult to read, yet he holds firm to the classical creeds of our faith. He is a strong supporter of contemporary evangelism initiatives such as ALPHA. He is a complex man and time will tell as to what shape his ministry will take. At the moment he needs our prayers as his new responsibilities are overwhelming. Please join me in praying that he will be God’s anointed servant to lead our Anglican Communion through the next few years.

Confirming the above, it should be noted that Williams is a member of the English pro-life group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ("SPUC"). It would be very interesting to see that a nomination that was rammed through because of perceived support for female bishops and gay clergy turned out to be a pro-life trojan horse for Labour.

Buechner. Frederick Buechner is one of those great living writers who has been overlooked by popular culture and far too many critics. I see that he has a new book coming out soon, I would suggest if you haven't read anything by him, you might want to give this a shot. Here's a review. According to the review, he looks at four writers: Gerard Manley Hopkins, Mark Twain, G.K. Chesterton, and Shakespeare. Coincidentally, I was reading about Hopkins earlier this week in Peter Sean Bradley's blog.

To give you a little idea of how well respected Buechner is, the rock group Daniel Amos has a CD titled Mr. Buechner's Dream [go here for a compendium of reviews of the CD]. If you are a Christian of the Catholic stripe, let me entice you by noting FB, although a Protestant minister, has written a book drawn solely from a book in the Catholic Bible. If you are a Protestant of the liberal persuasion, you will find Sojourner's as one of his boosters. If you worship on the right side of the aisle, you will be glad to note that he has fans at World magazine.

Here is an interview with Buechner by the Door.

*sigh* I always write these things out, but then forget to hit the publish button (what an idiot). In any event, it gives me a chance to revise and extend my remarks. In particular, see the Bros. Judd Good Books site for reviews of Son of Laughter and The Storm.

See Lauren Winner on Why Evangelicals like FB.

Finally, here's a sample, from from Peculiar Treasures, A Biblical Who's Who by Frederick Buechner

Gomer

She was always good company-a little heavy with the lipstick maybe, a little less than choosy about men and booze, a little loud, but great at a party and always good for a laugh. Then the prophet Hosea came along wearing a sandwich board that read "The End Is at Hand" on one side and "Watch Out" on the other.

The first time he asked her to marry him, she thought he was kidding. The second time she knew he was serious but thought he was crazy. The third time she said yes. He wasn't exactly a swinger, but he had a kind face, and he was generous, and he wasn't all that crazier than everybody else. Besides, any fool could see he loved her.

Give or take a little, she even loved him back for a while, and they had three children whom Hosea named with queer names like Not-pitied-for-God-will-no-longer-pity-Israel-now-that-it’s-gone-to-the-dogs so that every time the roll was called at school, Hosea would be scoring a prophetic bullseye in absentia. But everybody could see the marriage wasn’t going to last, and it didn’t.

While Hosea was off hitting the sawdust trail, Gomer took to hitting as many night spots as she could squeeze into a night, and any resemblance between her next batch of children and Hosea was purely coincidental. It almost killed him, of course, Every time he raised a hand to her, he burst into tears. Every time she raised one to him, he was the one who ended up apologizing.

He tried locking her out of the house a few times when she wasn't in by five in the morning, but he always opened the door when she finally showed up and helped get her to bed if she couldn't see straight enough to get there herself. Then one day she didn't show up at all.

He swore that this time he was through with her for keeps, but of course he wasn't. When he finally found her, she was lying passed out in a highly specialized establishment located above an adult bookstore, and he had to pay the management plenty to let her out of her contract. She'd lost her front teeth and picked up some scars you had to see to believe, but Hosea had her back again and that seemed to be all that mattered.

He changed his sandwich board to read "God Is Love" on one side and "There's No End to It" on the other, and when he stood on the street corner belting out:

How can I give you up, O Ephraim!
How can I hand you over, O Israel!
For I am God and not man,
The Holy One in your midst.
(Hosea 11:8-9)

Nobody can say how many converts he made, but one thing that's for sure is that, including Gomer's, there was seldom a dry eye in the house.
(Hosea 1-3, 11)

Peculiar Treasures A Biblical Who’s Who
Copyright 1979, Frederick Buechner Harper Collins

+Peter responds. In response to my concerns about his joining the dissenting letter from the Evangelicals, as raised by Ben and commented on by others, I received this message from the Right Rev. Peter Moore (we generally just abbrev. the title as "+")

Thanks so much for writing me of your concerns, and not just stewing and thinking that we are as far apart as possible on the Middle East. I
unequivocally affirm the right of Israel to exist with secure borders, and I believe that God has a long-term plan for the Jews that somehow includes the territory of Israel. My other concern, however, is for a just resolution to the crisis, and I think that the only way this can happen is if the Bush administration (which I heartily support) knows that the American evangelical community is not so pro-Israel that we can't see injustice when it happens. I am thinking of the continued settlements of Israelis on the West Bank. This only pours gasoline on the fires of hatred. So, please do not assume that I have suddenly switched to the Palestinian side, and am knocking Israel. I am not. But I do think that some Christians are so pro-Israel as not to see when this secular state acts without regard for its very confused, hate-filled, and oppressed neighbor -- the Palestinian people. Hopefully, one day we will have a secure Israel and a secure Palestine -- with Arafat as history! Let's join in prayer for that goal.

Signs. Part of why I'm looking forward to Signs can be seen in this sentence extracted from David Ansen's review: "Widower Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), an Episcopalian minister who has lost his faith after the agonizing death of his wife, tries to keep his family calm in the face of mighty strange occurrences." I dig movies that intelligently examine faith -- faith in transition -- and I've never seen a Mel Gibson movie that trivialized faith.

Beekner. Reminder to myself to write about this.

Ben Domenech does a valuable service in pointing out this minor article in the Post from last weekend (page B9).

In the orginal article there is a quote from "Gary M. Burge, professor of theology at Wheaton College in Illinois" in which he wants "Bush to know that 'Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, just to take two names, do not represent the evangelical voice of America.'" First of all, that's never been the case -- that those guys represent the Evangelical Voice of America (EVoA -- tm pending, I'm sure). Secondly, it goes back to the odd question of what is an evangelical as well -- Robertson, a Pentecostal broadcaster and Falwell, a Fundamentalist (and I use the historical, not perjorative sense) Baptist minister represent a pretty wide spectrum of theological belief. Third, my recollection is that Robertson has been all over the place on the Middle East (perhaps paying more attention to his ponies), but maybe I'm wrong.

Mark Byron added his thoughts, always trenchant (although far too kind to Big Tony Campolo) and Ben posted some more information, including this quote from the letter:

...We urge you to provide the leadership necessary for peacemaking in the Middle East by vigorously opposing injustice, including the continued unlawful and degrading Israeli settlement movement. The theft of Palestinian land and the destruction of Palestinian homes and fields is surely one of the major causes of the strife that has resulted in terrorism and the loss of so many Israeli and Palestinian lives. The continued Israeli military occupation that daily humiliates ordinary Palestinians is also having disastrous effects on the Israeli soul.

Yeah, right. This reminds me of Jonathan Alter reaction to the hand-wringer after 9-11: "Talk about ironic: the same people always urging us to not blame the victim in rape cases are now saying Uncle Sam wore a short skirt and asked for it." So now Prison Fellowship and the are saying Israel has been asking for it? Not a good sign.

Two of the names on the list were very surprising to me: the Very Right Rev. Peter Moore and David Neff (editor of CT). I sent a note to +Moore -- I'll let you know if I get a response. I've been reading Neff for a number of years now -- he's usually a careful writer -- I can't see him subscribing to the aforementioned passage.

Last, I'll take issue with some of the characterizations made by Bobby Allison-Gallimore who writes:

Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California: Rev. Mouw has an extensive number of works published on the Internet. You can read his writings about subjects as varied as: defending polygamy, why being a proud American is idolatrous, the rights of chickens, and what a Biblical scholar President Clinton is.

Actually, if you read the articles he links to, you will see that Mouw (who I don't believe is ordained -- I think he's just an academic) labels polygamy a sin, but says maybe in America we should allow a religious exception to those who want to practice it. Not an unusual postion -- I've heard it from a number of prominent Christian attorneys. Similarly, he doesn't write that being an proud American is idolatrous. He does state

The kind of patriotism that was being espoused struck me as bordering on idolatry. The worship--or near-worship--of the nation is serious problem from a biblical perspective.

Would any true Christian disagree with that statement? In his brief essay he raises concerns about a patriotism that crosses the line (as Christians, we are sojourners and ambassadors living in a strange land). On the rights of chickens -- it's a passage on recognizing that chickens are the creation of the Lord and treating them accordingly (not as possessors of rights). As for that last one -- Clinton the Bible scholar -- well I'm sure that Mouw didn't intend it this way, but when he wrote "President Clinton . . . quoted Scripture with ease." I thought of Jesus' temptations and how Satan was able to quote Scripture with ease.

Of Course.

what movie symbolism are you?

Great Lyrics. Kevin and others have been including some of their favorite lyrics lately. Let me join in -- consider these by Mark Heard (RIP):

ONE OF THE DOMINOES

Heaven help a timid child in a trendy tide
He really doesn't know
That his heart's being taken for a ride
Doing what the world lays down
As a steadfast rule
And changing when the world says to change
Like a steadfast fool

chorus:
Heaven heaven help me
I'm one of the dominoes
Chain reaction coming
Blow by blow

Heaven help a heedless man in a time of need
He can't feel the knife In his back
Or see the blood that he bleeds
Walking 'round blind
To the harm that's being done
He thinks it's alright
'Cause it's happening to everyone
(chorus)

Heaven help a seeker of truth
In an age of lies
Gonna make himself believe
That the truth is whatever he buys
Gonna buy what the world says to buy
In a monotone
Gonna cry when the whole world cries
And the truth is known
(chorus)

From Stop the Dominoes

AL West. The last weekend before the August 1 fan walkout, the Angels take over first, by percentage points, after taking two of three from the M's, including a very thrilling 1-0 game (for all you soccer fans) last night. The A's had a big chance against last place Texas to pick up a lot of ground, but drop 2 of 3 as Texas' pitching remains together for 25 of 27 innings (up 2-1 going into the 8th for a sweep last night, the Rangers surrender 3 in the 8th and 8 in the 9th, as Zito wins his 15th).

Bootlegger Ethics, continued. I know I need to bring back the comments -- it should be back this week. In the meantime, I received a note from Matthew Judd (a relative of the Judd Bros.?) in which he notes:

the one thing I add is, if I start collecting multiple shows from a particular band, I tend to buy some/all of their commercially available stuff; especially if I can get them directly from the band.

This is a good point and it doesn't have to necessarily be an intentional committment -- I sort of think it's a side-effect from getting involved in trading. Someone who has 17 versions of Bob Dylan singing Rainy Day Women (as I have, at least), is willing to buy two more versions on Before the Flood and Unplugged (and I don't even like the song). I think this is why the artists tolerate or even encourage the traders (just not the for-profit bootleggers).

This experience is somewhat similar to the experience of movie producers in the early 1980s when the VCR boomed. At first the producers said that people being able to tape shows would cut down on the dollars going the theaters, but it had the reverse effect, because people became enthusiasts.

In any event, I'm still waiting for a contrary opinion, arguing that the trading of bootlegged CDRs of concerts is immoral.

Cover Watch . The two main newsweeklies go for non-news, entertainment covers. On one hand, you have Time featuring the Boss, on the other, Newsweek, featuring the New Spielberg. Initially, I thought, "tough choice."

But on second thought, easy choice, advantage Newsweek, despite the horrible tag it puts on M. Night Shyamalan. Basically, it comes down to a choice between a cover story on a man who was the "new Bob Dylan" 30 years ago versus the man who may be the brightest star on the moviemaking horizon since, yes, Steven Spielberg (but please don't call him the "new Spielberg"). Given this old versus new distinction, I choose to learn about the new.

Now, I'm a huge Springsteen fan and was even pondering going to Tower tonight at midnight to get the new album. I have copies of the original Time and Newsweek dueling cover stories on Springsteen back in 1975. [Here's a link to the 1975 Time story and here's one to the 1975 Newsweek story]. Back in 1975, Springsteen wasn't the new Dylan or even "the future of Rock and Roll." However, he was a future of rock and roll (why weren't there any cover stories on any of the other futures of rock, say the Ramones, for example?). And yes, he still carries great significance and yet another cover story is not unmerited.

In any event, Shyamalan, is as unique as Springsteen and therefore deserves to be treated on his own terms. I believe that he could be as significant to movie making as Springsteen is to rock and roll.