In Defense of Moses. A day or two after publicly agreeing with Eugene Volokh, I write to disagree (in part). In response to this Fox article, quoted only partially here, Eugene responded.

"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. I think Muhammad set an opposite example," Falwell says in an interview on the CBS program 60 Minutes. [from Fox]

[Eugene:] Hey, I'm no Biblical scholar, but wasn't Moses involved with that whole smiting of the first-born thing, plus of course a wide variety of biological warfare? And weren't there lots of other figures in the Old Testament -- figures who are generally viewed quite positively -- who were also "violent [men], . . . [men] of war"?

Now one can surely argue that their violence and warmaking -- even including the killing of innocent civilians, and not just as collateral damage but as a tool for creating terror (cf. the smiting of the first-born) -- was acceptable, because it was God's will, or because there were special circumstances that made it acceptable. But I take it that Muslims would say the same about Muhammad, no?

I have nothing against religious figures using religiously founded moral arguments, or even theological arguments, in debate about political issues. But this particular religious argument strikes me as highly unpersuasive; and I suspect that it will be unpersuasive to many deeply committed and theologically knowledgeable Christians as well as to secularists like me.

While I'd like to call myself a "deeply committed and theologically knowledgeable Christian," I know that wouldn't be accurate. I do have a mind for trivia and on that basis, I'll challenge what Eugene wrote.

Moses was violent -- it's recorded that he killed an Egyptian early in his life -- then went to live in exile for about 40 years (Moses' life, if I recall, breaks down into three periods of 40 -- the last was that wandering stuff -- better Realtor maybe?).

However, taking the Scriptures at face value, I believe this is the only person Moses killed. The rest of the time he was a messenger or agent of the Lord who did the killing or destruction. To be fair, you could objectively state that Moses was the one who turned the Nile into blood, killing the fish, and was responsible for the boils, among others (I'm not going to go through the whole list). Similarly, you could say that Aaron was responsible for the plague of the frogs or the gnats. But the flies seem to be the Lord's doing.

Ultimately, it is the slaughter of the first born that everyone remembers -- as that is the worst of the plagues. This one is the one that G-d clearly takes responsibility for:

So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. (emphasis added)

In the description of the event it is clear that the Lord is responsible for the killing:

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

In sum, my point is that I don't think you can charge Moses with being a killer of the first born. But as I noted above, Moses was violent, and therefore, Falwell's reliance on him is misplaced.

Where I am in strong agreement with Eugene is when he writes "there lots of other figures in the Old Testament -- figures who are generally viewed quite positively -- who were also 'violent [men], . . . [men] of war'?" The best example is that little shepherd boy, David, about whom there was a popular song that went like this:

"Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his tens of thousands."

David is a guy who would be known as a man after God's own heart. There are better examples of peace in the Scriptures -- perhaps Daniel -- but Moses wasn't necessarily a killer in the David mold.

But maybe I'm just straining at a gnat or trying to remove a speck instead of my own log.

More. In the comments, Kaimi Wenger references the destruction of the 3,000 Israelites who were worshiping the golden calf Aaron had made, Exodus 32:26-28. Last night, that occurred to me, but I remembered it differently. I always thought the ground opened up and swallowed them all up. That must be another passage. This one is very brutal:

Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. (vv 25-29, emphasis added)

Drive My Car. Kevin's looking for the best driving song. Here's my list:

1. Radar Love -- Golden Earring
2. Hot Rod Lincoln -- Commander Cody et al.
3. Autobahn -- Kraftwerk
4. Fun, Fun, Fun -- Beach Boys
5. 60 to Zero (the full 19 minute version -- Neil Young
6. Whipping Post (Live version) -- Allman Brothers (if that isn't 'road-related' -- is that a requirement? -- then perhaps Ramblin' man)
7. Born to Run -- Bruce
8. Jungleland -- Bruce
9. Racing in the Street/Thunder Road (Live from NJ 1978) -- Bruce
10. Dead Man's Curve -- Jan and Dean
11. No Particular Place to Go -- Chuck Berry
12. Wipe Out -- Surfaris
13. Born to Be Wild -- Steppenwolf
14. My Bike -- Ghoti Hook (hey, it's my kids all time favorite driving song -- got to have something for the under-age -- something besides "the wheels on the bus" that is...)
15. Train Kept A Rollin' -- Aerosmith (yeah, but it's not about a train, either...)

Smartypants. Stuart Buck (the nerve of the guy taking a few days off to work at his job!) did leave an excellent article at TCS asking who's the smartest Supreme (I always favored Mary Wilson, but that's another story). Actually, it's more of a cautionary tale -- do we always want the smartest?

And who's to say who is the smartest? Lawrence Tribe is considered to be a pretty smart dude. But quite a few years back in a lengthy WaPo story he admitted that he changed majors when he realized that, although he was smart enough to do higher math (I mean really higher math -- like elliptic curves and modular forms), he would never be in the Andrew Wiles class. This way he could make more money. Smart move.

Meanwhile, Kaimi Wenger tries to backtrack from this off-hand comment:

I don't think Thomas has shown himself to be a particularly good Justice, and if Estrada turns out to be Thomas-like, I think a court would be the worse for it. Even most conservatives don't really like Thomas. (Sure, they tolerate him because he votes right, but don't tell me they wouldn't generally prefer an opinion from Scalia or Kennedy, or maybe Rehnquist.)

I can't disagree more. Thomas has been brilliant -- you may not agree with him -- but his opinions are very thought-provoking, consistent, and well-grounded. In some ways, he reminds me of a conservative John Paul Stevens -- both tend to take a different approach than a linear left-right approach. On the other hand, Kennedy lacks any form of consistency or brilliance. It is this which tends to make the charges that his clerks are the real intellect and not only the drafters of the opinions, but also the masters who cast the vote, not the puppet Kennedy (wasn't that implied in the Nation article?).

So who's the dumbest justice? Probably Kennedy, but that doesn't mean the guy's actually dumb, it's just the others have greater intellect. At least he's above the Charles Whittaker class of justice.

The late Bernard Schwartz writes that Whittaker used to leave the Supreme's conferences crying because Felix Frankfurter "used words in there that I'd never heard of." One time Frankfurter circulated a one page joke opinion in a pornography case. According to Schwartz (I think these are from his book Superchief) Whittaker sent a note advising FF that he was joining his per curiam.

Update. Right author, wrong book. My source for those stories was Inside the Warren Court by Schwartz with Stephan Lesher, 1983, at 137-8. This book is a shorter, more popular version of Superchief, both of which are excellent and worth tracking down, in my opinion.

Intersection. Last night, my daughter and I were discussing Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. At the same time my wife was reading an Aesop's fable to the little ones -- they wanted to know what a Satyr was. Then I picked up "The Transhumanists," the next article on my stack, written by Wesley J. Smith. Strange juxtaposition, huh?

Carnahan Gambit. It's really folly for the Dems to try to vitiate a state law to put a different candidate in place of the Torch. It seems to me the Governor should designate a replacement then the Torch and the replacement should campaign together. The Torch stays on the ballot, like the late Mel Carnahan did in Missouri, with the understanding that, if elected, he will step down and the governor will appoint the replacement. Of course, everyone understands that the real drawback is that the Torch wouldn't step aside if elected.

Update. Eugene Volokh likes this idea -- although he arrived at it separately from me.

Happy Birthday Chief. Today is William Hubbs Rehnquist's birthday. He and James Earl Carter were born on the same day in 1924.

For the record, and in order of seniority on the bench, the other Justices are Stevens (82), O'Connor (72), Scalia (66), Kennedy (66), Souter (63), Thomas (54), Ginsberg (69), and Breyer (65).

Back when Sandra Day O'Connor was first appointed there was a joke going around town:

All the Justices (Brennan, Marshall et al.) went out to dinner together and the waiter took Justice O'Connor's order: "I'll have the steak"
"How would you like it done?"
"Medium"
"And the vegtables?"
"They can order for themselves."

Day of Rest. On Friday there was this story about changes by the SoBaptists with respect to observing "the Lord's Day." I confess that this is the hardest commandment for me to observe, not insofar as worship goes -- I love going to church (although it is not as peaceful and reflective and refreshing as it was before children). My problem is with the injunction to refrain from work.

Last Sunday I spent the afternoon and evening doing work on my laptop -- that is work for my job -- while the TV was on so I could catch the games. Is that work? Earlier this year, I was talking with my Dad on the phone and mentioned that I needed to go mow the lawn. He said, "Aw, Will, on Sunday?" Is it work? I actually like mowing the lawn -- I sit around all day and this is refreshing to my body. But yes, it is work.

Here's an article on the subject that emphasizes the positive aspect of setting aside a day of rest:

We would do well to heed three millennia of Jewish reflection on the Sabbath commandment. Not good are work and commerce and worry. To act as if the world cannot get along without our work for one day in seven is a startling display of pride that denies the sufficiency of our generous Maker. To refrain from working—not every day, but one in seven—opens the temporal space within which glad and grateful relationship with God and peaceful and appreciative relationship with nature and other people can grow. Refraining from work on a regular basis should also teach us not to demand excessive work from others.

Sports. Right now, on the eve of October, all is right in the sports world, from a personal standpoint. My Raiders are undefeated, my A's have clinched the Western Division title and will be playing the Twins in the playoffs starting Tuesday. In college football, I follow Notre Dame and it looks like Ty Willingham has brought them back.

I like the A's chances of making it to the World Series -- but the Twins should not be underestimated -- neither should the Angels. In the senior circuit, it's hard to see anyone overcoming the D'backs dynamic duo. It's hard to believe the Rocket is still pitching -- I mean I saw him pitch to Bo Jax at Fenway back in 1986 -- several lifetimes ago.

Here's an interesting article about how the Raiders game could impact the ALDS.

Barring about 8 field goals from Jason Elam, my Blogger Bowl 2K3 team should finish the weekend undefeated. (This despite the fact that I benched Shaun Alexander -- in the first three weeks he netted me the grand total of 12 points -- the same as my TE Jeremy Shockey.)

Newsweek is young and blue. Time has a headache. Last week's Time cover story is still the better choice: Abraham the Patriarch.

Estrada 24/7. Much of this comes straight from Howard Bashman's incomparable appellate law blog. One of the most important pieces of testimony (not in a legal sense) comes from an e-mail from someone interviewed by the Estrada hit-squad looking for dirt. Please read this.

Law Professor Jeff Cooper would banish Miguel Estrada forwith, sua sponte, ipse dixit, post haste, hocus pocus. Kidding aside, it's a pretty argument for wanting to deny Estrada a seat on the bench. Usually law professors are a bit more erudite -- perhaps it's an off day for him -- he must've been flumoxed by a blonde 1L today and is in a bit of a mental funk. In any event, you need to get out of your coop a bit more, Jeff.

Last, I love Stuart Buck's suggested next Judicial nominee. What a great hearing that would make. I could never be a nominee for anything facing this committee -- It would take me all of, oh about 10 minutes before I was doing a Sam Kinison"Well at least I didn't have to CHEAT in law school you @*$%# moron. I never got DRUNK and KILLED anyone..." etc.

No, they're not all bad -- Senator Feinstein, although having a one-track mind on abortion, would probably be a fine judge -- and, well, there must be someone else on the Democratic side of the aisle who's also temperate and judicious. I just can't think of anyone else.

Hearing Update. Based on the tone of the questions so far, I'd guess that the Leahy gang has decided to tie the knot on this one. The tone of the questioning is markedly different than that of the McConnell hearing -- the committee resumes at 2:00.

I heard the questioning from Schumer, Leahy, Kennedy, and Feinstein and snatches of Kohl (I think). Schumer and Kennedy dwelt on the request for the committee for all attorney work product from the Soliciter General's office. This request has been opposed by every living former Soliciter General going back to Archie Cox under Kennedy. Frankly, this request is really unheard of and I'm surprised to see them pushing it so intently. Listening to the two of them yammer on I could see that this was nothing more than laying a pretextual foundation for rejecting Estrada.

Leahy has focused on Estrada's background, trying to say that he's wealthy, elitest, and speaks English well. Bizarre. Sen. Feinstein (D-Planned Parenthood) spent her period of questioning to extract pledges of fealty to the Most Holy Sacrament of Abortion on Demand. Kohl and Feinstein also spent a little time on the Lopez case -- striking down a federal law as being outside the commerce clause.

Feinstein and another Senator (don't recall) also raised a curious report as to whether Estrada dissuaded a person from seeking to clerk for Justice Kennedy because that person was "too liberal." Estrada denied this. In her questioning, Feinstein identified the source of this claim as coming from the Nation magazine and read the first paragraph aloud:

Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Estrada comes from two lawyers he interviewed for Supreme Court clerkships. Both were unwilling to be identified by name for fear of reprisals. The first told me: "Since I knew Miguel, I went to him to help me get a Supreme Court clerkship. I knew he was screening candidates for Justice Kennedy. Miguel told me, 'No way. You're way too liberal.' I felt he was definitely submitting me to an ideological litmus test, and I am a moderate Democrat. When I asked him why I was being ruled out without even an interview, Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians."

I also interviewed a young law professor and former Justice Department attorney who told me a very similar story. "I was a clerk for an appeals court judge," the professor told me, "and my judge called Justice Kennedy recommending me for a clerkship with him. Justice Kennedy then called me and said I had made the first cut and would soon be called for an interview. I was then interviewed by Miguel Estrada and another lawyer. Estrada asked most of the questions. He asked me a lot of unfair, ideological questions, a lot about the death penalty, which I told him I thought was immoral. I felt I was being subjected to an ideological litmus test. Estrada was being obnoxious. He was acting like it was his job to weed out liberal influences on Justice Kennedy. I was never called back by anyone."

[BTW, the author of this article is Jack Newfield and this passage may be found here.] It should be surprising that two Democratic senators would rely on rank hearsay to smear a nominee -- but the rules have changed, haven't they?

The other interesting moment was when Estrada explained his meeting with three representatives from the PRLDEF -- he indicated that one was trying to get him to commit to prejudging cases in a way that s/he favored -- when Estrada failed to do so this individual said that they decided who was Hispanic enough and that he didn't meet the criteria -- something to which Estrada took offense at and told this person so.

Afternoon Update The hearing started a little late -- Estrada started the session by seeking to clarify his response on the question raised by the Nation article set forth above. It was pretty clear that Schumer and Estrada weren't communicating very clearly -- Estrada was seeking to clarify and Schumer was getting angry with him and has indicated he will come back to this matter on the second round for questioning.

Finally, Senator Hatch is raising the sane suggestion that Estrada be allowed to confront his accuser. Schumer is way out of line on this -- It's interesting that he and his cronies have been raising the issue of fairness of process and intimating that Estrada will not be fair, but yet they are unable to adhere to the basic priniciples of being allowed to confront his accuser. Schumer should be ashamed of running a "Star Chamber" proceeding -- the reference was raised just now by Hatch.

Hearing today. Later this morning, will start the hearings on a slate of Judicial candidates including Miguel Estrada (finally). This will be broadcast over the internet here.

Sports West. Down to the wire, the Jints are gaining on the D'backs and may actually overtake them for the lead. The A's may back into the AL West Division Title, if the Angels keep losing-- and the M's may be the Wild Card. I love Baseball.

Sports Report. The Rams, Jets, and Steelers, all play-off teams last year, are a combined 1-7, having been outscored 129-240. San Diego, Carolina and NO are 6-0, having outscored their opponents 233-115. The top ranked quarterback in the NFL is sitting on the Browns bench (Kelly Holcomb 111) (and is available in the blogger bowl waiver pool -- I cut him yesterday).

The A's magic number is 4.

And very sad news -- Pittsburgh Steelers Center Mike Webster passed away at age 50.

Pass This. It's time to pass the Sudan Peace Act -- sponsored by (from left to right) Sens. Harkin, Feingold, Lincoln, Cleland, Lieberman, Collins, Bunning, DeWine, Grassley, Brownback, Santorum, Sessions, among others. In the House by Sheila Jackson-Lee, Pelosi, Lantos to Armey, Wolf, Chris Smith and J.C. Watts.

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?