Prelude to a Hanging. The WaPo has a lengthy profile of Miguel Estrada in today's paper. Although it continues in the tradition of pretending to be a balanced newsreport, it reads like a thinly veiled hit piece. Basically, according to a number of very left-wing Hispanic groups, notably the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund ("PRLDEF"), Estrada isn't Hispanic enough. [Please see also, John Rosenberg's comments here.]

I have a long-time friend who is an attorney and is originally from Honduras, as is Estrada, and I asked if he had read the article. He had -- he was pretty incensed about it. First, he was pretty ticked off about PRLDEF being the arbiter of who is and is not Hispanic. According to the article and the comments of the PRLDEF, it is intimated that if you come from a background that is not a typical "wetback" stereotype -- i.e. an illegal who's back is wet from swiming the Rio Grande -- then you aren't a wetback. My friend points out that Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens, so how do they know what it's like to be an immigrant in the U.S.

Some other claims and statements in the article that are wrong:

---*--- "His father, Jesus Maria Estrada, who died in 1997, was a prominent . . . lawyer. . ." My friend is about a decade older (or more) than Estrada. My friend, whom I will identify as "Juan" (as in John Doe, so this is not his real name) was the son of a Honduran attorney -- in fact, he was the youngest son and his father went blind and brought Juan to work with him as a young boy and brought him to court to be his eyes. Juan said that he never heard of Jesus Estrada -- never heard of Estrada. Later, Juan went to the University in Honduras and then worked for the government in the diplomatic corps and learned the prominent families and said that he never heard of Estrada. Of course, even if Estrada was from a prominent family, would that be a crime or bar to office? It hasn't been in the case of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Rockefeller, et al.

---*--- Estrada attened school at "the San Francisco Institute, an elite Catholic academy in a residential area of Tegucigalpa known as Country Club. . ." Teguciagalpa is the capital of Honduras and is also the area that Juan is from. The San Francisco Institute is a Catholic school run by Franciscans -- an order known for simplicity. He said that the idea this is an elite school is laughable. I should like to add that, as above, if it were an elite school -- should politicians who send their kids to Sidwell Friends, Cathedral, Georgetown Day, etc. go throwing stones? Second -- the appellation "Country Club" is wrong -- he said the school is next to a private community center called the country club, but that all it is is a community swimming pool -- no golf course or bar -- Juan doesn't remember if there are tennis courts there or any other facilities, but he doubts it.

---*--- The article notes that "Paul Bender, a liberal Clinton administration political appointee who served as principal deputy solicitor general" opined that Estrada ". . .lacks the judgment and is too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge," But after making this assertion has not thrown anymore mud. Opps, could it be that the reason for this is that Estrada supervisor Bender actually gave Estrada an "outstanding" recommendation on his performance review.

---*--- Last, and this is an extremely important consideration, the borking of Estrada is a terrible move for the Democrats and their left-wing masters. The WaPo notes

But Democrats must proceed gingerly with Estrada to avoid the risk of offending Hispanic voters themselves. For the Democrats to vote him down on ideological grounds, absent solid evidence he is unfit for the court, "would be a huge mistake -- it'll backfire on them," says Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which has endorsed Estrada.

Juan, normally as calm and courteous a man as you can find (befitting someone from the diplomatic corps) was irate about the Democrat's treatment of Estrada to date. He said that he is fed up with them and this is a final straw for him. The last time I saw Juan this angry was when Pete Wilson was campaigning for a Proposition that Juan and many other moderate Hispanics thought was anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant.

Congratulations to Ben and Caroline on your very recent engagement. One of the coolest things, IMO, that Ben writes about is going to ask his intended's Father for his Daughter's hand in marriage. That is the thing that I regret not doing.

One of the most beautiful things written about marriage is from the opening of a wedding ceremony:

The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God.

I pray for you two that this will be a truly blessed time of preparation.

Speechless. Actually, I just haven't had much to say lately -- been consumed with homeschooling and babies. Some good friends of our just had twins (we're they're children's guardians). Today we stood up for Joshua Richard Andrew Putz as one of his three sets of Godparents. It was a beautiful day.

More Repression. Christianity Today has published its story on-line with respect to the repression and persecution of Christians in Viet Nam. It's clear the Axis of evil runs through this country.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Cover Watch. Newsweek blames America for Saddam, but Time has the confessions of an al-Qaeda terrorist.

Word of God. The Bible is considered by many to be the word of God -- yet it contains many words of men. The Psalms is a book of praise and songs which, at times set forth clearly divine words and at others the full range of human emotions. Psalm 137 is one of those Psalms, especially verses 8-9:

O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

I know exactly how this writer felt -- watching the 911 documentary on CBS last Wednesday after the President's speech, especially hearing the bodies of the jumpers smashing on the roof. These verses percolated up from my gut. . .

Yet, as Christians, we have a duty to love and pray for our enemies. So how does that square? Our natural instincts will still be there -- to deny they exist would be wrong -- dash those babies. Yet to leave it there would be wrong. Therefore, we must affirmatively follow Christ's command to love and pray for our enemies.

The ultimate form of love is to transform our enemies -- which the love of God is able to do. This does not mean that our society -- our state -- must yield to evil -- to capitulate or appease it. No, the State does have a proper role of wielding the sword against those who do evil so "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness"

Hotchpot. I was up late last night, still working on getting things ready for school. We've started already and I have all the broad parameters laid out, but I've got to get all the nitty-gritty stuff ready for my daughter, whom I'm homeschooling in 8th grade. But I can't blame the school stuff for being up so late -- it was the game between the A's and the Angels. What a great game. Yes, my A's lost, but it was still a wonderful game. I don't have ESPN, nor did I listen to it on radio or on the internet -- while I was working on Geometry, I had the ESPN gamecast scrolling across my screen -- each ball and strike, every line-up change, all of it was there and it was a wonderfully exciting game. The Angels' Scott Spiezio, who has been a real killer in this series (which the Angels took 3-1), had a walk-off single in the ninth.

Those of you who stop by regularly have heard me beating the drum for Third World Christianity -- please see this interview with Philip Jenkins in the Atlantic Unbound -- his article in the current Atlantic is sitting on my nightstand and should be on-line within the month.

For once, I actually agree with something that John Dean writes about in this article on federalism and the Seventeenth Amendment.

The noted horse-racing enthusiast and former GOP presidential contender, Pat Robertson endorses the Democratic tax hike in Virginia.

Here is a link to the sermon preached by +George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on 9-11 at Trinity Wall Street in NYC. In this sermon, he pointedly challenged the efforts to protect against further terrorism:

at such times we may be tempted to seek to over-ride others, to lash out in revenge or frustration. That urge may be especially strong when we believe we have not only right but also might on our side. When we have not only the motive but also the means. But surely the test of true greatness for peoples and nations must be that
they are motivated by what should be done not by what could be done?

And here is a link to Rod Dreher's reaction.

And, since I've come around to my own beloved church, here is an essay by +Carey's son regarding, among others, +Bennison: Bishops Behaving Badly.

Let's conclude on a somewhat upbeat note, read An Unlikely Hero.

One More. I knew I'd forget something -- here's an editorial in the WaPo blasting the Leahy Lynch mob for the hit on Priscilla Owen.

Johnny U. Yesterday afternoon, I took my daughter to her second-ever softball practice. My four year-old son tagged along and we brought his Wilson Leather Football (Peewee edition) to toss around. We went out into "the field of dreams" (so-called because it's the area where all four softball fields meet -- a homerun from any field would have to go about 330 feet to hit the center) and tossed the ball around. He didn't like it when I did short underhanded tosses to him -- he was too afraid of the ball. So I sent him long and then threw the ball over his head and let him chase it. He loved this game. At one point, I uncorked a throw that covered about 40 yards (actually getting close to one of the diamonds) in a nice tight spiral (you can do that with a peewee ball) and I yelled "Just like Johnny Unitas!"

Of course, my son didn't know who Johnny U was -- he was first named Player of the Year in 1959, the year I was born. For those in my generation, he was the standard. He was the Quarterback by whom all others were measured. Sure we had Sonny Jurgensen and Bart Starr, but none of them came close to Johnny U.

And now he's gone.

First Ted, now Johnny. . .
the best there ever was.
----

I love this story:

"A guy broke through the line, hit him, pushed his head in the ground. He called the same play, let the guy come through and broke his nose with the football. I said, "That's my hero,' " says Bubba Smith about Johnny Unitas on ESPN Classic's SportsCentury series.

In Memory. Never Forget.

Continuing Crisis. An update on the Bennison attempt at defrocking from London. In addition to having +Carey's support, it's my understanding that Moyer+ also has +R.Williams support.

Also, I acknowledge that I haven't been blithering much lately -- probably won't be until next week, either. School is keeping me busy.

Church Architecture This is more of a note to myself -- the following is an article in today's NYTimes on church architecture in the Catholic Church.

Constitutional Crisis. The Episcopal Church is facing an interesting constitutional crisis right now in Pennsylvania. The Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison, used an unusual procedure to defrock (officially, the term is "depose") a priest in his diocese who has been critical of his leadership. +Bennison did this despite public and private protestations from Bishops and clergy throughout the Anglican communion -- even those who side with +Bennison theologically think this was a very bad move. In taking this step, however, +Bennison has provoked a constitutional crisis, because the priest has effectively been credentialed by the Right Rev. Charles Carey, archbishop of Canterbury and symbolic leader of the worldwide Anglican communion, (prior to the defrocking) and subsequently by the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, bishop of Pittsburgh. As I understand it, neither one had the authority to make such a move.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, but right now +Bennison is coming across as a one-man inquisition.

Here are links from the statement of the priest, the Philly paper, press release from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the statement of the Bishop of Pittsburgh, a statement from 23 ECUSA Bishops rejecting the actions of Bennison, and a report on the order of deposition.

Anti-South Party. Let's see, so far there have been three "controversial" nominees to the federal bench under Bush: Charles W. Pickering, D. Brooks Smith, and Priscilla Owen. The Judiciary Committee passed Smith (12-7), from Pennsylvania, but rejected Pickering and Owen, both from the South (both 10-9, party line). I'd say that the Leahy Lynch Mob has a thing for Southerners.

More For the record, the three Democrats who voted for Smith were Joseph Biden (Del.), John Edwards of North Carolina and Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. NY Times Story

More on the Abortion Clinic fraud story. It seems sort of ironic today, when the 10 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee lynched Judge Owen for upholding a state statute on parental notification, but here's an article about the Texas abortion facility that killed a baby of a girl who presented a patently false identification card so that she could get an abortion.

Third World Church. Yesterday, I tried to thank everyone for the nice comments in response to my "Heretical Church" post -- I'm not sure where my comments went :/ Anyway, in response to Jack, I did want to say that I think that the deliverance of the Anglican Communion will come from the faithful witness of believers in the third world and, in particular, Africa.

In Memoriam. The first killed was 33-year-old wrestling coach Moshe Weinberg, who, at about 5 a.m. on September 5, 1972, opened the door at 31 Connolly St. in the Munich Olympic Village.

Joseph Romano, 32, a weightlifter, was next to die, also that morning.

Killed at the airport were the following Israeli hostages:

Weightlifter David Berger, 26
Weightlifter Zeev Friedman, 28
Weightlifting instructor Yacob Springer, 51
Wrestler Eliezer Halfin, 28
Wrestler Mark Slavin, 18
Wrestling Referee Yosef Gutfreund, 41
Fencing coach Andre Spitzer, 45
Athletics coach Amitzur Shapira, 32
Marksmanship coach Kehat Schorr, 53.

Yes, one one level, you could say it was just another skirmish between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But it was one of many opening shots by the barbarians on Civilization. Why else would the barbarians choose to attack a peaceful sports festival? The path from Munich to 9/11 is clear and unrelenting. Unless these cockroaches are exterminated, it will get worse.

Today's Vote. Today is the day the Leahy gang knots the rope for Priscilla Owen. According to Byron York, who's a pretty sharp vote counter, it doesn't look hopeful. When I look at this situation -- at the downward spiral, I wonder if the Democrats ever think they'll win back the Presidency. They sure are blowing up a lot of bridges they might need in the future.

Update. The lynching is being carried live on the web by CSpan Radio link here. Leahy laid out his case against Owen, which was weak and incredibly distorted. Of course, he doesn't have the facts on his side, so he needs to make things up. Believe it or not, I've been pretty ambivalent on Owen -- I've been ticked to read the distortions and flat out lies of opponents of the written record -- but I don't know much about her. Nevertheless, Leahy's mindless repetition of these lies, like a marionette has pushed me firmly into her corner. I'm actually being charitible by describing Leahy as mindless, I'm giving him some benefit of the doubt to think that he is willfully lying.

Still More. On the other hand, Senator Feinstein is at least honest in implicitly acknowledging that she's employing a litmus test on judicial candidates based solely on what she perceives the nominees views on abortion to be. She fails to make the case that Owen is pro-life (or anti-choice as Feinstein sees it).

What's troubling about the Democratic vote on this is that this is an escalation of the judicial wars. As the Republicans keep noting even the liberal American Bar Association has given Owen the highest rating in a unanimous vote. I'm listening to the Democrats struggling to give a rationale for their vote, but they are all about as rational as the suicide bombers.

Final Update The committee has voted down Owen. Most of the members voting did not even have the decency to show up to do the hanging. Similarly, the motion to have the full Senate vote on the nomination was denied.

20? If it doesn't happen, you can blame it on me for jinxing my team. Right now, after the first inning, the A's are ahead 6-0. I just can't believe we scored 6 earned runs on Paul Byrd in one inning. I'm going to bed confident.

Update. How can a team blow an 11-0 lead after 3 innings? Yes, they finally won the game, but, really.

My Heretical Church. I am an Anglican -- I am an Episcopalian -- something increasingly difficult to do. Some bloggers have noted my denomination's heresies and problems, see, for example, Mark Byron on the problems in Canada (among others, the denial of marriage as an image of the relationship between Christ and His church -- see, for example, this commentary) and Tony Woodlief on the "justice to Jesus" ratio.

In the US, the EC counts Buddha and Mohammad as saints -- no kidding -- see this prayer:

The Saints were not those who were perfect
They were parts of God's creation who struggled and often failed
and yet managed to raise up our faith in God and in one another.
Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Sarah, Hannah,
Joshua, David, Moses, Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Buddha and Mohammad and all the prophets of old.
They led God's people to God's Light.

Not only is it there, but it's carried over to the world-wide Anglican website, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is pissed.

The Bishop of Pennsylvania has written a long rambling essay [here, on page 2, in .pdf] where he describes God as being more like an unrepentant Darth Vader, complete with a dark side, and suggests that we blame God and not "...bin Laden, al-Queda, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, [and] Sharon" for what happened (for the record, I have yet to hear anyone link either the murderous thug Arafat or his enemy Sharon to 9/11).

Why do I stick with it? I don't know. Many of us feel like we're passengers on a good flight and we just want to get to our destination -- we feel like we've been hijacked by crazed anti-Christian religious zealots with names like Spong and Benniston. What's going to happen? I don't know.

Stay tuned, I guess.

Selah. One of those words -- what does it mean?

Read This Awhile back I started to draft a note about the ideal candidate to head that new Department of Homeland Security -- I stopped, because I kept coming back to one person and I couldn't decide if I was building the office around my candidate or not. My candidate was Jim Webb, former combat Marine (Vietnam), former Sec.Nav. (Reagan) former Emmy winning newsman (PBS), attorney, and best-selling writer. He recently wrote a very nuanced book (The Emperor's General) about General Douglas MacArthur and the occupation of Japan and the war-crime trials in Japan. Doing so, he demonstrated he understands the difficulties of occupying a nation, changing a nation and culture, and bringing people to justice. For example, while his novel comes down slightly favorable toward MacArthur, he lays into the unjust hanging of the Tiger of Malaya, Tomoyuki Yamashita.

All this background is really just a long prelude to his op-ed in today's WaPo opposing a strike on Iraq. He presents a very impressive brief that you should read.

Picks. On the eve of the NFL Season, I can at last unveil my picks for the season. I’ll give you the breakdown by Division and a guess at the final record for each team. Disclaimer: the record is a rough figure and I’m sure does not total up to an even number of wins and losses across the league. [Inspiration by the Spudmeister.]

AFC West
1. Denver 13-3
Denver opens with tough games against the Rams and the 49ers, then has an excellent schedule with a bye week smack in the middle, followed by a Monday night game at home against the Raiders. Denver should go 5-1 against the West, but could lose two – I have no doubt that Shanahan will sweep Oakland. Griese may start the season at QB, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see 37 year-old Steve Beuerlein finish it.

2. San Diego 10-6
The Chargers will open 3-0 (Bengals/Texans/Cardinals) and Schottenheimer will ensure a sweep of KC and Oakland.

3. Oakland 8-8
As I’ve indicated previously, Oakland looks like they’re forgotten the discipline it took to get them to the top of the Division the past two years.

4. Kansas City 6-10
Priest Holmes, Willie Roaf, Tony Gonzalez, what more could you want? Defense, for starters.

AFC South
1. Tennessee Titans 10-6
Eddie George will be back.

2. Indianapolis Colts 10-6
Tony Dungy will keep this team at the top. (As an aside, why is this team in the South?)

3. Jacksonville 5-11
The Jags could open 0-6 before they play the Texans

4. Houston 3-13
The opening game in Dallas is a very key game because if they lose it could be a long time before they have another soft spot.

AFC North
1. Pittsburgh 15-1
Actually, this team could go undefeated – not because they’re that great, but because they have a wonderful schedule. The two toughest games are their first, where they go to NE with a lot of incentive to play a team they should have beat in the AFC Championship Game last year. Then the open at home against their historic enemy Raiders. The AFC North plays the AFC and NFC creampuff, err South Division. In the long run however, the schedule works against the Steelers, because they won’t be as battle tested as the other playoff teams.

2. Baltimore 8-8
Ray Lewis and what team?

3. Cleveland 7-9
Obviously, Couch carries the team.

4. Cincinnati 5-11
Another rebuilding year in Cincy.

AFC East

1. Miami 11-5
Dave Wannstedt and Norv Turner – haven’t these guys worked together before? See Ricky run plus Jay Fiedler is a winner.

2. Jets 9-7
This team isn’t quite there, as the Raiders showed in last year’s playoffs. But they’re close. The end of season schedule for the Jets is a killer – December is in Oakland, then home against the Broncos, games in Chicago and NE (at night), closing with the Packers at home in the NY twilight on the 29th – brrr.

3. New England 9-7
You win the Super Bowl, you get a killer schedule – made even tougher when your own division is a killer division. Plus, no one will let you forget that the offense scored only three touchdowns in its three playoff games. The tuck rule won’t save this team this year baby.

4. Buffalo 8-8
Drew will lead the offense. Who leads the Defense?


NFC West
1. San Francisco 12-4
This team has the potential to go 12-4, but a lot of it depends on whether players like Terrell Owens can grow up and serve the good of the team. By predicting that they will finally overtake the Rams, I think they will.

2. St. Louis 11-5
The Rams should’ve/could’ve won the last two Super Bowls; nevertheless, they’re on the wane.

3. Seattle 7-9
Matt Hasselbeck? Knight Rider, Baywatch and now the Seahawks? Listen, I think the world of Shaun Alexander (266 yards rushing against the Raiders on 11/11/01), but in this division, you’re going to need a pass rush and a strong QB.

4. Arizona 4-12
At least it’s a nice climate and playing so many games in the West Coast time zone, no one will notice, unlike playing in the NFC East.

NFC South
1. Tampa Bay 11-5
Jon Gruden has the luxury of moving from an aging playoff team to a younger playoff team in a weak division.

2. Atlanta 8-8
Michael Vick and Warrick Dunn will make this a fun team to watch.

3. New Orleans 6-10
Back to the ‘Aints.

4. Carolina 2-14
And I’m being generous.

NFC North
1. Green Bay 12-4
Everyone should be able to open with a continuation of the pre-season – the Packers get Atlanta, NO, Detroit and Carolina before moving on to Chicago, NE and the ‘skins.

2. Chicago 10-6
Last year was a dream – this year is reality.

3. Minnesota 9-7
Last year was a nightmare – this year will be an improvement. Culpepper to Moss, how could it not?

4. Detroit 2-14
Sorry Lions – you burned me last year – I expected a lot more out of you.

NFC East
1. Philadelphia 12-4
What’s more, they could be hosting the NFC Championship game.

2. Washington 10-6
Finally, this team will get what Snyder’s looking for – plus it will sweep the Cowboys. But the main addition to the team will be Coach Lewis, not Coach Spurrier. The Redskins have the best linebackers since the Giants LT, Harry Carson and Carl Banks.

3. Giants 7-9
A rerun season is the best this depleted team can hope for.

4. Dallas 5-11
The good news is that they’ve got Houston, Detroit, and Carolina on their schedule. Maybe next year they can add Duke and Rice.

On the Run. A few quick notes:

*I used to detest cathedral and large churches, but have come around and now see how they can be built to the glory of God. Nevertheless, the new LA Cathedral, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, described by Cardinal Mahony as an 'anchor for the ages' looks more like a prison building. [link to picture] Basically, there's too much concrete -- and not enough windows or natural stone. The LA Times critic likes it however "Moneo's cathedral echoes the great works of earlier church architects"

*I'm also not fond of the new statue of Mary -- too butch for me. The modern image of Mary that stays with me is Olivia Hussey, but for my wife Hussy will always be Juliet. [link to picture]

*Speaking of LA -- what's with all the [mini-]earthquakes? This after the trio of medium earthquakes off the Oregon coast.

*Spent yesterday building shelves -- built-in -- for our carport. I love Robertson screws.

*The day before we went to Kings Dominion with some old friends -- had a great time discussing Iraq and Just War. See also, Dave Trowbridge's discussion.

*Good note on the Marines OCS.

*Speaking of good notes, please see Stuart Buck's critique of the claim, by Michele Dauber, that it's the Supreme Court, not the Ninth Circuit, that's out of step with the law.

*Finally, "Finding God in Signs."

Refuse to Lose. The Oakland Athletics, again led by Miguel Tejada in the ninth, win their 19th game in a row.
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win
Win

Cover Watch. It's September, a year later. Newsweek goes with a special report on 9/11 a year later -- featuring the three men who raised the flag. Time magazine has a very disjointed cover also promising a special report on 9/11. Due to the clarity of the cover, the advantage clearly goes to Newsweek.

Fun List. Mark Byron put together a first draft of the 100 most important/influential Americans -- but where are the Wright Brothers? :P

True Wimp. Friday night the Colonel took the grandkids (and some chaperones) to the Marine Barracks at 8th and I for the Evening Parade. The weather was wonderful and the Marines were as impressive as ever. The reason I write is that I kept thinking about something I read on Dr. Weevil last week -- he noted some blogger was boasting of his prowess -- that he was 6'5" could bench 300 lbs, etc. -- so full of himself. Yet, he can't bring himself to defend someone else. Contrast this attitude with that of the Marine sargeant who escorted my sister to her seat. My sister stands about 5'3" or 5'4" and this sergeant seemed to have to reach slightly up to offer her his arm. Yet based on his stripes on his sleeve and the hashes -- not to mention the two rows of medals (not just ribbons), I have no doubt who I would want on my side in a fight. You can sit on your butt, Philip Shropshire, the Marines will continue to defend "right and freedom." Your decision to waste your talents and allow evil to proceed shows you may have prowess, yet you are a true wimp.

Dreadfully Busy. Sorry -- work and homeschooling calls.

Homeschoolers seeking college acceptance.

Not where I want to live. I was born in California and went to school there for a number of years. Two of my sisters were born there. It's where my teams are located. I feel a great affinity for the state. Nevertheless, there is much about the place that is scary to me when I return -- namely, it feels like a police state. Everything is barred and locked. What once was a beautiful state is now dirty, smoggy and gray. Plus, there's an overwhelming prescence of government everywhere. The last time I was there my clock radio went off to a commercial to stop smoking -- I was thinking it was an advertisement for a clinic -- but it was for a state run program to get people to quit smoking. A small example, I know, but it was pervasive.

We had some friends over the other night and I noticed how deep the voice of the teenage boy was getting and said something to his Mom. She said that no his voice sounds the same as it always did. I disagreed saying that the change may have been too gradual for her to notice, but since I hadn't talked to him in at least three months, I could tell the difference. I wonder if it's not the same thing in California -- I haven't been back there, except for a two separate brief weekends, for about four or five years. It has gotten much more oppressive.

Here's a link to a cover story in the very right leaning magazine World which has a cover story on how California represents what will happen if them liberals take over. When I read it, my former liberal tendencies come out -- I wince and think that this is just typical right-wing hysteria. But they do have a valid point -- there really has been a change there. This was the first time I'd been back that I came away thinking that California was not a place where I wanted to live. This was after prior visits to, for example SF where I had two solicitations for drugs and one for homosexual sex in a two block walk to the BART, or LA for a walk in Koreatown after the riots.

On the other hand, you can see Ann Salisbury's blog for a list of what she see's as positive changes.

[More]. The World story leads off with the new effort of the State of California to impose itself into homeschooling. Eugene Volokh looks at this story here, noting he supports output measures but not input criteria -- such as the credentialling of parents as teachers. Of course, the outcome measures need to be objective and separate from ideological outcome measures -- it that's a given, I can live with it. If the exam was filled with the type of reactionary liberalism of the NEA, then it's flawed to begin with

More Surveys. See the laughable list of the 100 greatest Brits -- John Lydon, John Lennon, but not Jack Lewis? Robbie Williams but not Wycliffe?

Also, are Scots and the Irish Brits? William Wallace and Bono?

And what about those who were foreign born, but made their life and reputation in England -- I'm thinking of George Frideric Handel?

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.