The Rest of the Story. . .
Spurred on by a columnist -- I believe it was E.J. Dionne, I picked up this Presidential address (relevant excerpts):

Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: "When the dictators. . . are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. . . . They—not we—will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack." [Their] scheme of conquest goes back half a century. It was not merely a policy of seeking living room: it was a plan which included the subjugation of all the peoples in [their region].

The act . . . was intended to stun us—to terrify us to such an extent that we would divert our industrial and military strength to . . . our own continental defense.

The plan has failed in its purpose. We have not been stunned. We have not been terrified or confused. This very reassembling of the . . . Congress today is proof of that; for the mood of quiet, grim resolution which here prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated to murder world peace.

That mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It expresses the will of the American people to make very certain that the world will never so suffer again.

Admittedly, we have been faced with hard choices.

But this adds only to our determination to . . . see to it that the brave people . . . will be rid of . . . imperialism; and will live in freedom, security, and independence.

Powerful and offensive actions must and will be taken in proper time. The consolidation of the United Nations' total war effort against our common enemies is being achieved.

Difficult choices may have to be made in the months to come. We do not shrink from such decisions. We and those united with us will make those decisions with courage and determination.

* * *

They know that victory for us means victory for freedom.

They know that victory for us means victory for the institution of democracy— the ideal of the family, the simple principles of common decency and humanity.

They know that victory for us means victory for religion. And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate "living room" for both [the tyrant] and God.

Our own objectives are clear; the objective of smashing the militarism imposed by war lords upon their enslaved peoples the objective of liberating the subjugated Nations—the objective of establishing and securing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear everywhere in the world.

We shall not stop short of these objectives—nor shall we be satisfied merely to gain them and then call it a day. I know that I speak for the American people- and I have good reason to believe that I speak also for all the other peoples who fight with us—when I say that this time we are determined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the security of the peace that will follow.

But we know that modern methods of warfare make it a task, not only of shooting and fighting, but an even more urgent one of working and producing.

Victory requires the actual weapons of war and the means of transporting them to a dozen points of combat.

It will not be sufficient for us . . . to produce a slightly superior supply of munitions to that of [the enemy].

[Our] superiority of . . . in munitions and ships must be overwhelming—so overwhelming that the [enemy] can never hope to catch up with it. And so, in order to attain this overwhelming superiority the United States must build planes and tanks and guns and ships to the utmost limit of our national capacity. We have the ability and capacity to produce arms not only for our own forces, but also for the armies, navies, and air forces fighting on our side.

And our overwhelming superiority of armament must be adequate to put weapons of war at the proper time into the hands of those men in the conquered Nations who stand ready to seize the first opportunity to revolt against their . . . oppressors, and against the traitors in their own ranks, known by the already infamous name of "Quislings." And I think that it is a fair prophecy to say that, as we get guns to the patriots in those lands, they too will fire shots heard 'round the world.

This production of ours in the United States must be raised far above present levels, even though it will mean the dislocation of the lives and occupations of millions of our own people. We must raise our sights all along the production line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must be done—and we have undertaken to do it.

* * *

Our task is hard- our task is unprecedented—and the time is short.

* * *

War costs money. So far, we have hardly even begun to pay for it.

* * *

Only this all-out scale of production will hasten the ultimate all-out victory. Speed will count. Lost ground can always be regained- lost time never. Speed will save lives; speed will save this Nation which is in peril; speed will save our freedom and our civilization—and slowness has never been an American characteristic.

As the United States goes into its full stride, we must always be on guard against misconceptions which will arise, some of them naturally, or which will be planted among us by our enemies.

We must guard against complacency. We must not underrate the enemy. He is powerful and cunning—and cruel and ruthless. He will stop at nothing that gives him a chance to kill and to destroy. He has trained his people to believe that their highest perfection is achieved by waging war. For many years he has prepared for this very conflict- planning, and plotting, and training, arming, and fighting. We have already tasted defeat. We may suffer further setbacks. We must face the fact of a hard war, a long war, a bloody war, a costly war.

We must, on the other hand, guard against defeatism. That has been one of the chief weapons of [our enemy's] propaganda machine—used time and again with deadly results. It will not be used successfully on the American people.

We must guard against divisions among ourselves and among all the other United Nations. We must be particularly vigilant against racial discrimination in any of its ugly forms. [The dictator] will try again to breed mistrust and suspicion between one individual and another, one group and another, one race and another, one Government and another. He will try to use the same technique of falsehood and rumor-mongering with which he divided France from Britain. He is trying to do this with us even now. But he will find a unity of will and purpose against him, which will persevere until the destruction of all his black designs upon the freedom and safety of the people of the world.

We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against the enemy—we shall hit him and hit him again wherever and whenever we can reach him.

We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to bring this battle to him on his own home grounds.

American armed forces must be used at any place in all the world where it seems advisable to engage the forces of the enemy. In some cases these operations will be defensive, in order to protect key positions. In other cases, these operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the common enemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and eventual total defeat.

American armed forces will operate at many points . . .

* * *

American armed forces will help to protect this hemisphere—and also help to protect bases outside this hemisphere, which could be used for an attack on the Americas.

If any of our enemies . . . attempt long-range raids by "suicide" squadrons of bombing planes, they will do so only in the hope of terrorizing our people and disrupting our morale. Our people are not afraid of that. We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a thousand times worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their desperation, may attempt to do to us- we will say, as the people of [that great city] have said, "We can take it." And what's more we can give it back and we will give it back—with compound interest.

When our enemies challenged our country to stand up and fight, they challenged each and every one of us. And each and every one of us has accepted the challenge—for himself and for his Nation.

* * *

We can well say that our men on the fighting fronts have already proved that Americans today are just as rugged and just as tough as any of the heroes whose exploits we celebrate on the Fourth of July.

Many people ask, "When will this war end?" There is only one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our combined determination to fight through and work through until the end —the end of militarism in [that country of our common foe]. Most certainly we shall not settle for less.

* * *

We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills.

Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy contempt for the human race. We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His own image."

We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage. We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. Those on the other side are striving to destroy this deep belief and to create a world in their own image—a world of tyranny and cruelty and serfdom.

That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives.

No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been—there never can be—successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of tolerance, and decency, and freedom, and faith.

Of course, those of you familiar with your history – the “four freedoms” mentioned above -- already know that this speech was delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was his ninth state of the union address and was delivered on January 6, 1942. For the entire speech, you can read it on-line here.


I was particularly struck by the last few paragraphs – especially these days when there are an irritating group of thumb-suckers whining about George Bush’s “God Talk.” [Should I point out these are the same people who cooed approvingly of Clinton’s use of ministers to provide cover for adultery and perjury? – no, move on.]

I don't think Bush is "using" God like the televangelists do ("God wants you to send me money.") I see Bush doing what FDR did -- seeking to discern what is right and good and to lead the nation in that direction.

--------------------
More on the four freedoms: a link to a .wav file of FDR.

War. I don't know about war. I pray for peace and I pray for justice. A just peace is the preference and sometimes war is necessary to have a just peace. Many of us are praying for justice and peace.

The Difference in Administrations. Example Number 972: Under Clinton, the government destroys religious compounds. Under Bush it destroys brothels.

Kyrie Eleison

Look around you, can you see?
Times are troubled, people grieve.
See the violence, feel the hardness;
All My people, weep with Me.

Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison,
Kyrie eleison.

Walk among them, I'll go with you.
Reach out to them with My hands.
Suffer with Me, and together,
We will serve them, help them stand.

Forgive us, Father; hear our prayer.
We would walk with You anywhere.
Through Your suff'ring, with forgiveness,
Take Your life into the world.

-Jodi Page Clark

Not quite a full-blown hiatus. Thank you for the nice notes received, both in the comments and in e-mail messages. No I'm not really giving up blogging for Lent. Like both Ben and my mother suggested, I'll stick with something else -- chocolate, although that's really not a big deal for me.

Really, I'm just too far behind on everything and therefore it's more of a discipline. This is something that's fun to do -- sit down and write. Unfortunately, I've got letters written, but not addressed; I've got a package that's addressed but not mailed; the same goes for cards and presents. Looking ahead, I've got a lot to do at work -- some trips -- and a lot to do for Joy's school. I'm home-schooling her for 8th grade.

I'll probably have a stray note here from time-to-time, but it will probably be pretty irregular.

Thanks again for all the nice notes.

Unsafe at any speed. Because my middle daughter, Sarah, age 6, was singing with the children's choir at both services this morning, my wife and I drove separate cars today. On the way home I had my oldest daughter, Joy, and Sarah with me. We stopped at traffic light waiting for the arrow to turn. There was a beautiful motorcycle in the lane next to me, so I picked up a thread that I've mentioned to Joy before: "mmm, Maybe I should get a motorcycle. . ." Both Joy and Sarah objected.
Sarah said: "Grandma says that motorcycles are dangerous."
"Oh, Sarah" I replied, "that's just what Grandma says. How are motorcycles dangerous?"
"If you get one, Mom will kill you."

Mags. Newsweek looks interesting -- Bush and God -- why do I suspect it will just be all this stuff from the Interfaith Alliance wringing of hands about Bush? Time, on the other hand, promises to look at life after Saddam.

More -- speaking of the interfaith alliance, how arrogant is this:

President Bush often reminds me of a first year seminary student who, after one course in theology, thinks his particular view of faith answers all of life's most complex problems. As a Baptist minister for over 40 years. . .

blah, blah, blah, blah--Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy.

Oh, sorry Rev. Gaddy (a Ford Foundation Project) -- I guess God only speaks to you?

Well done, Reverend. I was very saddened to get this note that the mighty Rev. E.V. Hill passed away late Monday. I was very blessed to hear him preach once -- at my law school baccalaureate. He preached on "His eye is on the sparrow." This was one of the greatest sermons I ever heard. This man did a lot for the Kingdom of God -- he will be missed here, but he has earned his rest. He was faithful to the call of God and he was truly blessed.

Victory for Speech. Now that it's decided -- announced just minutes ago -- it doesn't seem surprising that abortion protesters can't have RICO ("Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act") penalties imposed on them. The constitution does protect the right of free speech and assembly, right? Not according to Justice Stevens and the rest of the abortion acolytes -- however, even the pro-abortion rights justices will occasionally defer to the constitution, and did so here. (8-1 decision, although Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion.)

I was actually expecting to see the Victor's secret case today and thought this one might wait for a month or so.

More This editorial in the WSJ today notes that when this case was argued in the Circuit Court, it was Larry Tribe, Sarah Weddington, no, that's not right -- it was Miguel Estrada who argued against those nutty abortion protestors. Miguel Estrada -- isn't he the one who is being fillibustered right now by the left-wingers?

BTW, I'm angelic. Since it's getting overloaded, I'm not linking the graphic. If I was, you'd see I'm "not evil in any way, shape or form. In fact, [I am] the opposition of all evil. It's too bad there aren't more people like [me], or this world would be a much better place to live."

Sure my jibe at Glenn, below, was lame, but I do have a point. First, the point is that his little jibe was pretty lame itself. If you think it was witty or insightful, perhaps you've had one too many hits yourself.

Glenn, being like a law professor, should know better. It's pretty basic stuff you learn in elementary school -- the job of the attorney general is to carryout and enforce the law. The job isn't to disregard law enforcement just because you might disagree with the law. If you disagree with the law, the proper thing to do is to get the law changed. And who passes the laws boys and girls? That's right, it's a legislative function.

Lame, Glenn, lame.

Down. Yeah, it looks like Haloscan (comments) is down again. It's either me, blogspot, blogger, or haloscan -- we can't all seem to be going at once.

More agreeance. We are on the precipice of war. The American public is constantly reminded we are under high to very high terror alerts, and Glenn Reynolds is "busy with meetings and classes"?

Idiot Watch. "agreeance?" What the hell is "agreeance" Fred?

Knock Three Times. The Supremes will be taking up a "knock and announce" case next term. According to the AP:

The Supreme Court said Monday that it would consider a government appeal that asks if a SWAT team went too far by breaking down the door of a suspected drug dealer while he took a shower.

An appeals court ruled that authorities acted unreasonably by using a battering ram to knock down Lashawn Lowell Banks' door just 15 to 20 seconds after demanding entrance. The masked officers found Banks naked and soapy, emerging from the bathroom.

A friend of mine -- a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who's gone on some of these raids has told me the procedure he's observed has been /bam-bam/Police-we-have-a-search-warrant/WHAM[down goes door by battering ram].

This case comes out of the infamous Ninth Circuit --

Magazines. I'd probably skip both this weekend. Time's cover story seems to share the shallow thinking of those who are anti-Bush that the President desires a war. "Do You Want This War?" it asks with GWB made up to look like James Montgomery
Flagg's Uncle Sam. Actually, Bush has given me the impression that he doesn't want this war -- unlike Clinton who would bomb a country at the drop of an intern, GWB's reluctance has been agonizing. And that's a good thing in my opinion.

On the other hand, Newsweek goes for a soft news story -- a sociological pieceon Black Women.

. . . and Generals. My parents came up for the weekend to celebrate the birthday of my niblings -- we nervously monitored the rising creek out back -- my father-in-law's basement flooded. I did taxes and fiddled with the computer -- adding memory and starting to network all the home PCs.

I'd hoped to see the new movie, Gods and Generals, but clocking in at almost 4 hours -- it doesn't seem likely. My parents laughed that they haven't gotten Chicago or The Hours, but GnG is opening this weekend in the Outer Banks. I was disappointed to see it got a 9% rating on the Tomatometer and did read Ebert's review panning the movie.

One criticism that seems to be universal among the Hollywood critics is that the movie explains the reason the South would go to war to withdraw from the union. This from the same group that thinks the 9-11 attacks were understandable if you were a Muslim. Those of you who have read this site know I am no fan of the Confederacy, nevertheless, for the period in question -- Bull Run to Fredericksburg -- and the main subject matter -- the leaders -- the Confederate generals clearly should be the focus of the movie. Consider this from Gary Arnold's article on the movie:

Asked about the emphasis on Southern military leaders in "Gods and Generals," Mr. Lang answers that the years 1861 through 1863 pretty much dictate it. "It is hard to do a film about the Virginia theater of war at that time," he argues, "without having Jackson as the focal point. ... He was one of the most famous men in the world. ... Northern mothers used him as a boogeyman to admonish their children. Lee didn't provoke that sort of reaction. Jackson was instrumental in victory after victory. During the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, he acquired this mystical quality of appearing and disappearing."
Warming to the subject, Mr. Lang reflects, "This particular time frame was the high-water mark for the Confederacy. Just look at the generals who commanded the Union Army. Would you make a movie about McClellan? Or Hooker or Meade or Burnside? Seriously.
"Don't forget, there's still one more book. If Ron gets the chance to film 'The Last Full Measure,' the Jeff Shaara book that deals with the final years of the war, the focus will shift back to the Union side. That's where Grant and Sherman enter the picture. And there's the sustaining figure of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Jeff's character. If you take the trilogy as a whole, he'll be the unifying figure."

Carter Doctrine. During the State of the Union Address I recall at one point murmuring to my wife that GWB was invoking the Carter Doctrine with respect to Iraq. Tis a pity that at 79 President Carter appears to have forgotten this doctrine he espoused.

You may recall, that on January 23, 1980, in his State of the Union Address, President Jimmy Carter announced a new American policy that came to be called the Carter Doctrine. Referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Carter stated:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

In the most recent SOTU Address, President Bush explained

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

Has Carter really forgotten what it's like to be President? Has he forgotten his own contribution to foreign affairs?

Of course Carter has a history of conceding -- which brings me to Tip O'Neill's comments (see paragraph titled The 1980 Election) on Carter concerning his 1980 concession speech before the polls closed: "You guys came in like a bunch of pricks, and you're going out the same way"

Blizzard? Just back from shoveling snow -- it appears we got off light -- my wife figures we got 12.5 inches at our house -- although friends in the area are reporting 18 inches (Herdon, Reston). I heard it was 2 feet in Leesburg. Is it a blizzard? Not in this area.

Blizzard is a term of art that includes not just a heavy snowfall but also high winds -- specifically:

Blizzard: The following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer.

Sustained winds or frequent gusts to 35 mph or greater; and,
Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., frequently reducing visibilities to less than 1/4 mile).

What we need is a term for a really big snow.

Update My sister in Ashburn says she got 22 inches. Also I see the Weather Bureau officially decided to call this a Blizzard. So it appears that I was on the Southern end of things -- that it was especially bad from here north to Boston.

JFK Was Right They are jelly dougnuts.

Marines. Last thing -- this really ticked me off:

Several of my fellow Marine wives, however, have experienced verbal and physical abuse in the past few weeks from so-called "peace protesters." One woman was told from another car at a stoplight that her husband was a baby killer, and that they hoped he would die. Another, and her young son, were yelled at and manhandled by a group of protesters as they were passing through the area. Why did this happen? Because the wives either had a Marine Corps sticker on the car or a Marine Corps shirt on.

My mother, a Marine wife, btw, gave me a baseball cap with the Marine Corps emblem, the eagle, globe and anchor, embroidered on it for Christmas. I gave it to my son -- not because I am ashamed of the Marines -- on the contrary, I have so much respect for the Marines, I didn't want to appropriate any of the honor that is due a Marine -- I didn't want anyone to think that I was a Marine or had ever served as one. But if it's coming to this, I'm going to go get that cap and wear it to show support for the Marines and their families.

These creeps never have the guts to tell it to the Marines.

Bishops. As a follow-up to my comment below about apologizing for the Episcopal Bishops, I must note that I have always been fond of the bishop of my own diocese, the diocese of Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee. No, I don't always agree with him -- nor he with me, but that's part of being a Christian -- neither of us is perfect and we need each other in the process of being made into saints. I was particularly pleased to read this statement in our church bulletin about 10 days ago:

Christians have a bias for peace and peace-making. We continue to pray that the nations of the world may find a peaceful way to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. We have many people in our diocese directly working for such an outcome, beginning with the Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, a faithful member of St. John’s Church, McLean. We support them with our prayers.

And we have faithful members of our diocese whose work for peace is to assure the strength of our diplomacy through their active military service. Last Sunday at St. Mary’s, Arlington, I participated in the baptism of a little girl held in the arms of her Marine colonel father just two days before he was deployed.

Please send me the names of those in your congregation on active military duty and I will send them the Armed Forces Prayer Book and the Episcopal Service Cross as signs of our support for their sacrificial service.

We pray for peace. We uphold our leaders and our military in our prayers. And in a fallen world, we understand that one of the responsibilities of international leadership is to name the threats to peace and to participate in removing them, by diplomacy if possible, by measured, necessary force as a last resort.

Pray that we may participate in planting seeds that will grow into an international order that promotes justice, peace and love. Among the risks of taking leadership internationally is that we may fall into the false assumption that American interests are always the interests of others. The President got it right at the conclusion of his address on Tuesday night:

“America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

“Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”

So at a time of international uncertainty, people of faith return to our knees in prayer and set about on our work of aligning ourselves with the God who is spreading seeds of justice, peace and love.

The entire pastoral address may be read here, however, this is the relevant section dealing with Iraq.

BTW, if you do know of anyone stationed overseas who would benefit from a Prayerbook, the details may be found here.

On the Nightstand. Sometimes when it rains, it pours -- but this can be a good thing. I put my name on the list at the library for books and sometime they all come in at once. I had hoped to take Col. Alexander's book on Tarawa (Utmost Savagery) with me on my trip last week -- this was a gift from my father-in-law last year. When I started reading it, I realized with the names it would be a book I'd need to take on an airplane -- a place where I can give it my undivided attention to a long block of time. That book is on the top of my reading stack for the books I own. However, the week before my trip both The Last Jihad and The Demon in the Freezer came up on the reserve list.

So I checked both out and took Jihad with me and left Demon home for my daughter to read. Unfortunately, while I was out, Christopher Buckley's newest book, No Way to Treat a First Lady, became available. I finished Jihad last night -- it was so-so (Tom Clancy doesn't need to worry) -- there were several key features that just don't work which ruined it for me. Since it looks like I might be able to renew Demon, I'm going to put that on the back burner and plunge into the Buckley book.

If you haven't read it, Buckley's White House Mess is the funniest book about US politics I have ever read -- so I'm really looking forward to this Clinton-inpired novel. Premise: after a tryst with a presidential donor the first couple has a horrendous argument and, the next morning, the first lady discovers the Prez dead in the bed. She's charged with the assasination of a President bringing on the "Trial of the Millennium" Buckley is a fun writer who clearly enjoys his craft -- example the first lady's name is "Beth MacMann" -- her nickname in the tabloids is “Lady Bethmac.” Speaking of funny books and politics, the best passage in a book about politics is in Jeff Greenfield's The People's Choice -- there's a scene fairly early on where a candidate throws away the prepared speech to wing it. I was reading this while riding on the train and I literally laughed until I cried. The rest of the book doesn't hold a candle to Buckley (mainly because Greenfield has a little axe to grind), but that passage is sterling.

Dear Diary. I was out of town last week in a part of the country Mark Byron spent some time in. I was auditing legal cases and during the week I was there I reviewed 155 cases -- our whole group did 300 combined -- but then they did interviews whereas I just plowed through paper. What prevented me from blogging was that the hotel charged .10 a minute for phone calls after a standard minimum (yes, even local calls) -- normally I'm on-line all night after dialing up the local UUNET connection.

My oldest daughter is away at Teenpact all week this week -- it's an intensive educational seminar for teen aged students focused on the government of the state. Here's an article from World magazine if you are intrigued. I'm driving down tomorrow to meet with her and give the operation a look over.

Still Out -- everything's fine -- mostly -- I'm just a lot busier with work than I expected -- carrying over to personal time so I might be out another week.

On the go -- back later.

Rest In Peace Thirty-six years and six days after Apollo One. Seventeen years and three days after the Challenger space shuttle. Now these voyagers are joined by Mission Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, Mission Specialist David Brown, Payload Commander Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist Laurel Clark and Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla. May God Bless you and your families. Thank you to all those who "boldly go where no man has gone before." You are aware of the risks and still go.


Well said, Mr. President:

In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

I Feel Your Pain, Frank. Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Frank Griswold indicated that one of the crosses he bears is being an American:

I'd like to be able to go somewhere in the world and not have to apologize for being from the United States.

I know what he means. I'd like to go somewhere in the world where I didn't have to apologize for my nutty bishops.

Programing Notes. Sorry again for the sparcity and the lack of completing things I started -- I've been busy. Thanks to David Janes, I may have RSS feed. (not that I know anything about this -- if the feed ain't listed in chowhound, I don't know about it.)

Shiloh means, so I am told, peace, or messenger, or place of rest. I just received a note from a classy lady, Shiloh Bucher, responding to my brief comments on her blog. Her seventeen-year-old sister, Mellie, was killed in a car accident December 30.

Please say a prayer for this person, this messenger. Pray that she and her family may have peace and a place of rest. There is nothing we can do or say but to pray and ask the Almight to bestow His tender mercies.

Reviews of the big event. The Super Bowl, that is:

Jay Leno:

Congratulations to Tampa Bay! What a game! 48-21. Or as they call that in Hollywood, the second marriage.

Before we talk about that game, if you saw the news from San Diego yesterday you know the whole city was like a giant party. Everywhere you went in San Diego. It was so big, people sneaking over the border from Mexico that day are being asked to bring chips and salsa with them.

I actually watched the Super Bowl in Tijuana with Raiders Center Barret Robbins.

Do you know this story? Robbins went awol on Friday two days before the game. He went to Tijuana on a drinking binge, had his stomach pumped, missed the Super Bowl. Even worse, after that he even missed the toilet bowl.

Not a good day for the Raiders. During the game Oakland used the "no huddle offense”. They did that, then they also used the "no rushing offense” the "no passing offense” and of course the famous "no scoring offense.”

You know what was really pathetic? I saw a lot of Raider fans, they could be seen crying after the game. Well, that was mostly from police teargas. Nothing to do with the game.

You think the Raiders players are too old? Jerry Rice is like 64 now? Gannon is like 51, 52? You know the pirate logo on their helmet? You know why the pirate wears a patch? Glaucoma.

I don’t know if anyone else noticed, but on the back of Rich Gannon’s helmet, did you see that sticker? "Ask me about my grandchildren.”

Well folks the ratings are in – almost a billion people watched the Super Bowl. Apparently, the only ones who weren’t into the game were the Raiders.

I guess you heard about Oakland Center Barrett Robbins missing the Super Bowl. Missed it! But he was in three of the beer commercials.

You know who I feel sorry for, Jerry Rice – to get beat like that in front of your great grandchildren.

Because the game was here in California, Governor Gray Davis called the winner’s locker room. That was embarrassing – because the state is so broke he had to call collect.

and

Craig Kilborn:

Good news! The Oakland Raiders have now gone over 48 hours without giving up a touchdown!

Today when talking to reporters, Raiders Quarterback Rich Gannon got upset with a reporter and threw a pen at him. The pen was then intercepted by another reporter.

Looking on the sunny side: Rich Gannon threw five touchdown passes. Sure, three went to the Bucs, but at least they had swords on the side of their helmets.

I'm not a good loser, so I'll keep it short -- congratulations to Tampa or Tampa Bay or whatever it is you want to be called.

The Raiders got their butts kicked.

Experts Pick. Twelve of the ESPN experts pick the Bucs to win tomorrow, versus 5 who pick the Raiders. Meanwhile, over at SI, the experts back the Raiders 4-1.

Go Raiders. Beat the Bucs.

As a fan, I really wish there was a two week break -- there have been so many stories on my team, and I'm so overloaded right now, I've missed many.

Thankfully, there is Christian Raider fan (hey, watch it -- that's no oxymoron) Darth Freeman's Raider News and Opinion webpage.

We wear the Silver,
We wear the Black
We never retreat,
We always attack.

Master Key Defect -- There's a story in the NYTimes announcing an ATT researcher is publishing a defect in the system of master-keys that would allow someone to easily defeat a lock system on a building that is master-keyed. The paper quotes Marc Weber Tobias, "a locks expert who works as a security consultant to law enforcement agencies" as saying "I view the problem as pretty serious," he said, adding that the technique was so simple, "an idiot could do it." The story also notes that this is known to some locksmiths: "The technique is not news to locksmiths, said Lloyd Seliber, the head instructor of master-key classes for Schlage . . ."

As an idiot and former locksmith, I want to toss in my thoughts. I'm pretty sure I know what the paper is referring to -- it's not expressly laid out -- but it's something that I explored when I was minding the lock and key shop late at night. Actually, I think most locksmiths enjoy puzzling out locks -- figuring out how to defeat them. In the shop, when not repairing locks or servicing customers, you generally practiced picking locks -- it's like some people do crossword puzzles or play computer solitaire.

Locks that are accessible to a master-key are generally easier to pick to begin with -- just because there are more possible solutions than those locks that are not master-keyed. Similarly, there are buildings, like a dorm, where there might be one building-wide master key, as well as separate master-keys that will open a floor of rooms or a suite of offices. The more master keys, the more solutions and the easier it is to solve or pick. What the ATT researcher has discovered is that it is pretty easy to deduce the configuration of a masterkey if you have one existing key -- say a visitor takes a restroom key and makes a quick imprint. By cutting your own master key, you can get into rooms without worrying about picking each door.

[As an aside, there are some locksmiths that are so good with a pick that it's as if they were using a master key -- nothing slows them down. I was not one of those.]

Actually, there's an easy solution -- don't have a master-key.

If you buy a new house, go out and get new locks -- make sure they're keyed to the same key and that there's no master-lock. While Kwikset locks are the most common, they are easy to pick. I like Schlage -- but not because they're any more difficult to pick (although, compared to Kwikset, they are) -- but because they're pretty strong locks.

If you really want security, go with Medeco locks.

Roe and Refs. This is an intermission on my notes on the Roe v. Wade case (sorry, it's been one of those weeks). I was just talking with a friend -- a Giants fan -- about the Super Bowl and we each agreed that the worst scenario -- even worse than losing a blowout -- is losing by a bad call by a referee.

Roe v. Wade was a bad call. Not just because it made abortion -- in my view the killing of babies -- legally permitted. Yes that was bad, but the problem is that there is no reason for the Court to have ruled the way it did. What it did was a lot like if the referee waved off a winning touchdown by saying there was a rule that said you couldn't throw a pass to anyone wearing a jersey number with double digits with less than two minutes left in a game.

Don't take my word for it -- look at this story by law professor Kermit Roosevelt or this one by the strongly pro-abortion reporter Tony Mauro.

Roosevelt writes:

For years now, there has been a serious disconnection between the popular perception of Roe and its standing among constitutional law scholars. It is now time to address that disconnect; it is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.

Mauro quotes Jeffrey Rosen and descibes him thusly,

liberal George Washington University Law School professor and legal affairs editor at The New Republic, likens the ruling to "the mad grandfather in the attic that no one wants to look at. It's a lingering embarrassment." He adds, "The remarkable thing about Roe is that 30 years later, scholars are still trying to find a good rationale for it."

Of course, the gulf between making a mistake on the field and one in the Court is huge -- wider than the gulf between galaxies. If you make a mistake on the field, you can admit it like the NFL did and it aggravates a large number of fans for years. If you make a mistake as a Justice, people die, you destablize the law, the government and society; you politicize the courts for decades; you destroy legitimacy. Oh, and people die -- 40,000,000 in the past 30 years. Who was it, Noonan or Dreher, who wrote in the past week that it's the same as killing off everyone in New York City and California.

Since I've been doing this blog, I've mentioned the Shapiro Conjecture, by USA Today columnist, which, if you haven't read, you really should. This is the best brief explanation of how Roe has distorted the political process in the past 30 years.

This was a profoundly bad decision.

BTW -- since I mentioned the refs and the Super Bowl -- here is a list of the refs and here is an article about the head referee, Mike Carollo.

Who's Birthday? My wife told me that yesterday, the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, my son's first question to her was "Who's birthday is it today?" With a catch in her voice she said "Nobody -- it's nobody's birthday today."

What Did Roe Decide? Part II In his "brief survey [of] the history of abortion," the first thing Blackmun "feels" compelled to do is to knock the blocks out from The Hippocratic Oath, which states, in part, "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." Blackmun determines that "the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion" which slowly became adopted by more and more and then "the emerging teachings of Christianity" embraced it. (page 132). Next, he looks briefly at the common law, the English law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and, last, the American Bar Association.

More to come...

Update [Just realized I never pushed the "publish" button.] See these comments by a doctor who took the Oath a year and a half after the Roe decision and how the Oath was modified:

The ruling had an immediate effect on the practice and ethics of medicine. No longer would my obstetrics professor tell his students that his was a unique specialty, that he always had two patients to consider, mother and child. Now only when the mother wanted the child did we treat two patients. When the mother didn’t want the child, no consideration would be given to the unborn’s humanity. It was no longer a child but a blob of tissue, a “product of conception,” a parasitic entity or whatever the mother chose to call “it.” For the first time, every doctor in every state could legally kill another human being. On my pediatric rotation that year, I helped to resuscitate a child who was born four months prematurely crying aloud, struggling to breathe. She was the result of a failed abortion. She was wizened and burned from the hypertonic saline used to try to kill her on the hospital floor just below the nursery. I can still see her clearly in my mind’s eye.

One and a half years after Roe v. Wade, when I graduated, something else very profound had happened. The Hippocratic Oath we took, that had stood medicine in good stead for 2400 years, had been changed. The part about refusing to give a woman a pessary to induce an abortion had been deleted.

What Did Roe Decide? Part I. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, decided 30 years ago today, was a lengthy. sweeping opinion which addressed a number of issues. I'd like to look at exactly what the Court announced in Roe, and then the Doe v. Bolton case, which accompanied it. I'll break it down into segments, this first dealing with some of the preliminary issues, not related directly to abortion.

According to the Justice Blackmun's opinion, the case was initially filed by Jane Roe, which we now know was the psuedonym for Norma McCorvey (see her story here). McCorvey, represented by Sarah Weddington, sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction restraining the District Attorney in Dallas from enforcing the statutes. Her petition for relief was amended several times, first, to seek class relief. Second, she was joined by a local doctor, James Hubert Hallford, who wanted to perform abortions. Last, to complete the legal strategy, a pseudonymous married couple, John and Mary Doe (not to be confused with the Mary Doe in the companion case from Georgia) were also added.

First the Court had to address a number of issues, namely whether the named parties had standing to challenge the Texas laws and, somewhat related, whether the parties actually had a stake in the controversy. The second issue was a particular problem for Jane Roe who had filed the case in March, 1970, claiming to be pregnant at that time. Since it was over 1,000 days from the filing of the case to the Supreme Court's decision and the normal pregnancy runs about 266 days. Blackmun noted that the birth of a child

makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

Actually, I must admit that I am being kind to the Justice, because he didn't say birth of the child, he wrote "the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term" and then referred to the event we know as birth as "that termination." [I pause here to wonder about Harry's childhood -- did he have a happy termination day, I wonder.]

In any event, the Court held "Jane Roe had standing to undertake this litigation, that she presented a justiciable controversy, and that the termination of her 1970 pregnancy has not rendered her case moot." Interestingly, especially in light of the rest of the opinion, and what would develop, the Court held that the physician and the married couple did not have standing to challenge. Referring to the married couple, Blackmun wrote: "Their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible future unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health."

Next, the Court (or to be honest, Justice Blackmun) devotes 18 pages to what he "feels" is a "desirable brief[ ] survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws." (pp 130-147)

Roe's progeny. What is the result of Roe v. Wade? Peggy Noonan reflects here.

What did the Court really hold in Roe, by the way?

Fans, Part II. There was this, from the S. F. Chronicle, regarding the experience of Titans fans at the HOT (House of Thrills, Oakland Alameda Collesium):

Raiders fans so dominated the Coliseum that Tennessee Titans fans were as scarce as bright spots in Gov. Gray Davis' budget.

Jo Ann and Larry Lawson, who traveled from a small town outside Nashville, were among the few brave souls to wear Titans jerseys, jackets and caps, but they left before the game was over.

"We took a little bit of verbal abuse, but it was all good-natured," said Jo Ann Lawson. "It was nowhere near as bad as we expected. People told us everyone was going to beat us up if you wore Titans apparel. But everyone was as nice as could be."

That, many Raiders fans said, shouldn't be a surprise.

"Not everyone here is convicts and thugs," said Fidel Murga, who was standing in the Black Hole.

Update- On the other hand, consider this from Bill Romanowski: "Honestly, we have the kind of fans that if they were ever allowed on the field, they'd probably dismember people."

White Raiders. The Raiders will wear their white "away" jerseys for the game.

For the record, they are 2-0 in Super Bowl games when wearing white (Minnesota, Philadephia) and 1-1 in black (Washington, Green Bay).

Red Raiders? I spent a little time in DC in the early 1970s and then again in the 1980s, so there's a few things that remind me of the Redskins of those eras. First, the early 1970s was the George Allen years with the "future is now" mentality. Under George Allen, the old veterans were welcome. Also, he brought along so many of his old players, they called his team the 'Ramskin" So to some extent, the Raiders are a throwback or tribute to that mentality. Or maybe the lessons a son learned from his pop?

Second, there's something about Bill Callahan that reminds me of Joe Gibbs -- both were softspoken and cerebral -- each had a seemingly bland personality. But each proved to be winners.

Raider Nation. The fans of the Raider Nation -- One Nation -- are celebrating a hard fought win tonight. It was one of those games that was closer than the final score -- in fact, I was hoping Tennessee would score on their last drive because I didn't want the record books to make it look like anything more than a 10 point win. Steve McNair is incredible.

Okay, Chucky, the Raider Nation is waiting for you.

Starting to Read: Stephen King's From A Buick 8. I've been looking forward to this since he discussed it in passing in his book on writing, (which was titled, "On Writing," if I remember correctly.)

Actually, it came in at the library earlier this week, but it's audiotapes and I couldn't find my tapeplayer for listening to in the car.

BTW, there was a Bob Dylan song by the same name -- knowing King's love of music, I don't doubt this figures in somehow.

Curse Be Gone Oh great, now we have to contend with the SI cover curse.

No, I'm not a believer in jinxes or curses or whatever (knock on wood), it's just like many Raider fans who went through the period 1967-1978 and saw the team play in the Conference Championship game (or League Championship in the days of the AFL) every year but one (the immaculate deception year -- we were knocked off in the playoff game before the championship), but almost always lose, I get pretty gun-shy. During that period we won 2 championship games - then lost in our first Super Bowl and winning the second.

In fact, in 1970, the Super Bowl was to be played on my birthday -- the only time in history, thanks to scheduling changes -- and I just knew my Raiders were going to win it all. That team was 12-1-1 under 33 year old coach John Madden and was coming off a 56-7 thrashing of the Oilers. In the championship game, they played the Chiefs, a team they'd beaten twice that year (in fact, if I remember correctly, only the Raiders beat the Chiefs that year), they lost when Daryl Lamonnica sprained (or broke) his hand and there was an extremely bad call on a long reception by Otis Taylor, who had both feet out of bounds. Losing to a team you'd beaten twice was bad, but for it to be the arch-enemy Chiefs was extremely bitter. Worse was watching them decimate the Vikings on my birthday and knowing it should've been my Raiders...

*Shudder* Okay, enough self-pity. I do think you should know there is a history we Raider fans have when approaching these games. We might not be afraid of the Titans, as much as we are of our history.

Speaking of history, Eddie George has a history of dominating the Raiders. Yes, if you look at the score from the first match-up between the Raiders and Titans (52-25) it looks simple. In some respects it was, namely, coming off our bye week, the Raiders had a 21-0 lead after just taking one snap on offense. And that was with a controversial reversal of an interception by Phillip Buchanon. In that game, although he had four interceptions, Steve McNair threw for 398 yards. In fact, the Titans came back in the second half with three straight touchdowns to make it a 38-25 game. At this point, it should be noted that if it weren't for three different returns for touchdown by the Raiders, three missed conversions (three tries for two points), and a failed fourth down conversion in field-goal territory, the Titans could be ahead 31-17.

Yeah, I believe my Raiders will win this game, but I have reason to be nervous.

More ESPN's Len Pasquarelli has this from Rod Woodson: "What we found out in that first game, and we'll do well to remember this time, is that they never quit." He further notes:

Despite the disparity on the scoreboard, the statistics for the game were very close, with the Raiders owning just slight advantages in first downs (24-23) and total yards (464-430). McNair threw for a career-best 398 yards and four Titans notched 4 receptions or more. Gannon put up 381 yards and 4 touchdown passes, as Jerry Rice and Tim Brown combined for 13 catches and 234 yards.

Earth moving? I don't know if it means anything, but there's been a lot of seismic activity off the coast of Oregon in the past day. (did i really write what I initially wrote?)

Update. Sorry for lack of posting -- I'm doing 15 hr days at work -- start at 6 a.m. (normal time) and home at 9 p.m. (not normal). Should end soon and I'll be back.

Right to Abortion; Pre-Roe. In the Abortion cases, the Supreme Court announced that it had discovered a constitutional right to abortion, striking down at least 21 different state laws regulating abortion (from the Rehnquist dissent at note 2, which only relates to those states which had laws restricting or prohibiting abortion in both 1868 and 1973).

It is interesting to note that on at least two prior occasions, the Court looked at cases involving the prosecution of the performing of abortions without revealing this constitutional right.

In Missouri ex Rel. Hurwitz v. North (271 U.S. 40, 1926), the Justices affirmed the revocation of a license to practice medicine on the ground that the doctor had unlawfully produced an abortion. This was not an "abortion case" as you might think of it -- although the physician in question was found to be performing abortions in violation of the state law -- it was a challenge to the process: the physician was not able to issue subpoenas to compell testimony before the board. (" The due process clause does not guarantee to a citizen of a state any particular form or method of state procedure. Its requirements are satisfied if he has reasonable notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense, due regard being had to the nature of the proceedings and the character of the rights which may be affected by it.")

The second case came immediately before the first Roe argument and was more of a direct challenge to the regulation of abortion. In United States v. Vuitch (Argued January 12, 1971, Decided April 21, 1971, 402 U.S. 62), the U.S. District Court had struck down a D.C. Statute making it a crime to "attempt to produce abortions" saying that the law was vague. The Supremes reversed the lower court finding that the statute was not too vague. This is also part of the line of cases that allow "health" to be stretched to mean mental well being: the "word 'health' in the statute, in accord with general usage and modern understanding, and a recent interpretation of § 22-201 by the federal courts, includes psychological as well as physical wellbeing, and as thus construed is not overly vague." The Court did note:

Appellee has suggested that there are other reasons why the dismissal of the indictments should be affirmed. Essentially, these arguments [402 U.S. 73] are based on this Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Although there was some reference to these arguments in the opinion of the court below, we read it as holding simply that the statute was void for vagueness because it failed in that court's language to "give that certainty which due process of law considers essential in a criminal statute." 305 F.Supp. at 1034. Since that question of vagueness was the only issue passed upon by the District Court it is the only issue we reach here.

Scalia and Religion. Here is a report on Justice Scalia's comments to a gathering with respect to church-state issues. According to the report, Scalia said, among other things, "The establishment clause was once well understood not to exclude God from the public forum and political life."

I agree that the Court seems to have interpreted the Establishment clause to mandate government hostility toward religion, something the clause doesn't do. It clearly prohibits the establishment of a state religion as distinct from allowing the recognition of the role religion plays in the lives of the people of America.

I wish that Justice Scalia felt the same way about the other clause -- the Free Exercise clause. He seems to view this and nothing more than a speed hump in the way of the government -- slow down, but it imposes no limit.

Update. Emma has some comments by James Madison that indicate Justice Scalia is wrong.

Raiders Win -- and I'm elated! My observation, though is that the Jets were never defeated. They are going to be awesome next year.

Bring on Tenessee.

[BTW I see the opening line has the Eagles favored by 3 1/2 and the Raiders favored by 7. FWIW.]

Fans Ben posted a note and I tossed in my comments but it got me thinking about fans and the different ballparks.

I've never been to a Raider game in Oakland. A few years back, my parents gave me tickets to a Raiders game against the Redskins for Christmas (the game was on the 26th). The 'skins needed to win to make the playoffs and the Raiders were out of it. The stadium was rockin' and there was this group of guys who circled the stadium with long puppet hands/fingers and whenever they saw a Raider fan, they'd point these things at him and yell "you,you,you,you,you..." IIRC, the 'skins led most of the game (if not all), but then, at the end, 40+ Vince Evans came in at QB and drove the team down field for the game-winning TD pass with no time left. The place went silent (except for all us Raider fans). It was really, really thrilling.

It turned out the guy next to me was a Raider fan. I'll tell you what though -- no one gave me any grief.

I also remember going to a Monday night game at RFK (the one where Theisman had his leg broken) against the Giants, and the Redskins fans were merciless toward the Giants fans, pouring beer on them was the least of it. I guess since the Raiders weren't rivals, it wasn't so bad for me.

There used to ba a Raider mailing list (SABER - Silver And Black Electronic Report), and when the Raiders played the Ravens in the Championship game two years ago, SABER indicated the only thing the Raider fans did to the purple-clad Ravens fans was to sing "I love you, you love me..." (purple - Barney --).

You see a lot of the grotesque when the Raiders play -- and you hear about the Black Hole and so on. If you think back about 10 years and prior, it wasn't like that. Raider fans never dressed up -- okay there were a few "Darth Raider" things, but they were the exception.

I have been to a few A's games and have found the fans to be pretty mellow. I don't mean to sound snobby, because I still think of myself as being from the West Coast, but I think the East Coast fans rule. When I've gone to Fenway, I've found the Sox fans much more knowledgeble about the game and to be thinking about when to clap, stomp, do the wave (okay, it's been 10 years since I've been to Fenway) etc. Whereas the West coast fans (not only Oakland, but SD, LA and SF) just did these things whenever they got bored.

Anyway, I hear the Philly fans are the worst toward opposing fans, then the Jints fans. But I've never been to those parks. The Raiderfan website had a Raider fans recollection of the game in Foxborough last year in which he doesn't give any horror stories. Thankfully, we haven't gotten to the point where we treat each other like enemies.

As an aside, there are also the 'traveling' fans -- if you go to a Caps-Pens game at MCI, you will find more Pens fans rooting for the visitors -- Similarly I hear that if you go to a Raiders game in SD, there will be more Raiders fans there...

Rolling on the floor. Via the Conspiracy, this is one of the funniest things of the year (and I go all the way back to 1/1/02).

Order of the Phoenix. According to discussion on the Harry Potter Weblog, The Leaky Cauldron, it looks like the fifth book in the series will be out after June -- but that's just a guess. See these entries. No mention; Why not sooner?

Beat Jets. I'll be honest, this is about all I've been thinking about this past week. The Jets terrify me -- part of it is knowing they probably should've won the game against us played earlier this year.

A pretty key play happened in the second half. Background: Raiders had moved down to the Jets 26, but had a penalty, then a sack. Gannon completed a short pass to Brown for 6 yards which made it 3d and 10. But the pass caught was Brown's 1,000th and this brought the game to a halt for the recognition and festivities. More importantly to the course of the game, it allowed Gannon to go to the sidelines to confer with offensive coordinator Marc Trestman -- they constructed what I believe was the key play of the game, a 26 yard TD pass to Jerry Rice that put the Raiders ahead 13-10.

There were other key plays in that game, nearly all went against the Jets (in chronological order):

Santana Moss goes out with an injury, requiring Chad Morton to return punts

Pennington's pass on third down into the endzone goes incomplete and on fourth down,

Jets 34 yard field goal attempt blocked. [At that point the Raiders were ahead 6-0]

The Jets take the lead 7-6 at the 2:00 warning in the first half -- hold the Raiders and receive punt with 39 sec. remaining.

In the 3d Quarter, on a punt, Chad Morton fumbles at the Jets 14 yard-line, the Raiders recover and score a TD four plays later to go ahead 20-10.

On the other hand, these key points for the Jets:

Laveranues Coles, had 10 catches for 158 yards.

217 yards in returns (Morton, had returns of 50 and 58 yards).

These teams have played 3 times in the past 13 months, each game in Oakland, with the Raiders winning two of the three. Also, as I think I outline above, it could easily be the Jets winning two of three. During that time, the Raiders had no turnovers, the Jets had seven. That will be the key to the game. Yes, I know it's always a key, but I believe if the Raiders have more than one turnover, maybe even more than no turnovers, they will lose.

If Garner has a big game, on the other hand, it should mean a Raiders win. Ditto for the other backs, which brings us to--

Weather
If we get a rain like we did against KC, I think the Raiders could win big -- the Raiders lines would overpower the Jets. But the forecast is for light rain or clearing. The field will be a little sloppy -- it always is this time of year -- it's the rainy season and the field is below sea level.

Personhood. We're leading up to the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decisions in the Abortion Cases -- Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (in the early days, these cases were described as The Abortion Cases, like The Civil Rights Cases or The Legal Tender Cases) and there will be a number of articles and essays commemorating it. I'd like to use this space to note some of those articles and give my reactions or other thoughts on the case.

First case in point: Norah Vincent, a self described "libertarian, 'pro-life' lesbian" (I think we're at a point where none of those terms are perjoratives -- I certainly wouldn't mean them as such -- I see them as descriptive, but not limiting), has an essay in today's LA Times challenging the "extremists" on both ends of the spectrum in the abortion debate.

At the heart of her essay, Vincent notes:

Thus, despite what the activists want you to think, the real question on abortion is whether the right to privacy or the right to life should prevail. Which comes down to the real choice on abortion: Is the fetus human?

If the fetus isn't human, then getting an abortion is no different from getting a tattoo or a nose job. It's a victimless procedure that is nobody's business and should be legal.

If the fetus is human, then it deserves all the constitutional protections that you and I enjoy, the most important being the right to life.

If a fetus is human, then the logical conclusion is inescapable: Abortion, by definition, is homicide and should be illegal except when, to save her own life, the mother aborts in self-defense.

Listening to some of the oral arguments from the two arguments in Roe (it was argued and then put over for reargument) last week I was struck by Justice Stewart's questioning on this point and I realized that he was troubled about the "activist" dimension to what would happen if the Court held the fetus was a person -- that is a person for constitutional purposes. Here are a couple of clips from the oral arguments (second argument). First the Court and Sarah Weddington arguing to overturn the state statute:

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN: Well, do I get from this, then, that your case depends primarily on the proposition that the fetus has no constitutional rights?

MRS. WEDDINGTON: It depends on saying that the woman has a fundamental constitutional right and that the State has not proved any compelling interest for regulation in the area.

Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: That's what's involved in this case? Weighing one life against another?

MRS. WEDDINGTON: No, Your Honor. I say that would be what would be involved if the facts were different, and the State could prove that there was a person, for the constitutional right.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, if--if--it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

MRS. WEDDINGTON: I would have a very difficult [*21] case.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: I'm sure you would. So if you had the same kind of thing, you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?

MRS. WEDDINGTON: That's correct. That--

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Could Texas constitutionally--did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart?

Did you want to respond further to him?

MRS. WEDDINGTON: No, Your Honor.

Shortly thereafter Robert Flowers began his argument on behalf of the state of Texas and in favor of the statute:

It is impossible for me to trace, within my allocated time, the development of the fetus from the date of conception to the date of its birth. But it is the position of the State of Texas that upon conception we have a human being, a person within the concept of the Constitution of the United States and that of Texas, also.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Now, how should that question be decided, is it a legal question, a constitutional question, a medical question, a philosophical question, or a religious question, or what is it?

MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, we feel that it could be best decided by a legislature in view of the fact that they can bring before it the medical testimony, the actual people who do the research. But we do have--

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: So then it's basically a medical question?

MR. FLOWERS: From a constitutional standpoint, no, sir. I think it's fairly and squarely before this Court. [*24] We don't envy the Court for having to make this decision.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Do you know of any case anywhere that's held that an unborn fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?

MR. FLOWERS: No, sir, we can only go back to what the framers of our Constitution had in mind.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, these weren't the framers that wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. It came along much later.

MR. FLOWERS: No, sir. I understand. But the Fifth Amendment, under the Fifth Amendment: no one shall be deprived of the right to life, liberty, and property without the due process of law.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Yes, but then the Fourteenth Amendment defines "person" [and it defines person] as somebody who's born, doesn't it?

MR. FLOWERS: I'm not sure about that, sir. I--

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: [Well, it does.] All right. [Alt: words "all right" not spoken.]

Any person born, or naturalized in the United States.

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: It doesn't [Alt: "Doesn’t it"] --[I suppose] that's not the definition of a "person" but that's the definition of a "citizen."

MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, it's our position that the definition of a person is so basic, it's so fundamental that [it is] the framers of the Constitution had not even set out to define. We can only go to what the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.

[*25]

We have numerous listings in the brief by Mr. Joe Witherspoon, a professor at the University of Texas, that tries to trace back what was in their mind when they had the "person" concept when they drew up the Constitution.

He quoted Blackstone in 1765, and he observed, in his Commentaries, that: "Life. This right is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born."

* * *

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Well, if you're correct that the fetus is a person, then I don't suppose you'd have--the State would have great trouble permitting an abortion, would it?

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: In any circumstances?

MR. FLOWERS: It would, yes, sir.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: To save the life of a mother or her health or anything else?

MR. FLOWERS: Well, there would be the balancing of the two lives, and I think that--

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Well, what would you choose? Would you choose to kill the innocent one, or what?

MR. FLOWERS: Well, in our statute the State did choose that way, Your Honor. [*27]

* * *

MR. FLOWERS: . . . Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of a fetus being within the concept of a person, within the framework [*30] of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, is an extremely fundamental thing.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Of course, if you're right about that, you can sit down, you've won your case.

MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor,--

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Except insofar as maybe the Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortions.

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. That's exactly right. We feel that this is the only question, really, that this Court has to answer.

We have a--

MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Do you think the case is over for you? You've lost your case, then, if the fetus or the embryo is not a person, is that it?

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, I would say so.

* * *

MR. FLOWERS: You're entirely right there. But I find no way that I know that any court or any legislature or any doctor anywhere can say that here is the dividing line. Here is not a life; and here is a life, after conception.

Perhaps it would be better left to that legislature. [Alt: "to our legislators."] There they have the facilities to have some type of medical testimony brought before them, and the opinion of the people [*39] who are being governed by it.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, if you're right that an unborn fetus is a person, then you can't leave it to the Legislature to play fast and loose dealing with that person. In other words, if you're correct in your basic submission that an unborn fetus is a person, then abortion laws such as that which New York has are grossly unconstitutional, isn't it?

MR. FLOWERS: That's right, yes.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Allowing the killing of people.

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: A person. [Alt: "--of persons"]

MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, in Massachusetts, I might point out--

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Definitely it isn't up [Alt: "You can’t leave this up"] to the Legislature; it's a constitutional problem, isn't it?

MR. FLOWERS: Well, if there would be any exceptions within this--

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: The basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn't it?

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. And entitled to the constitutional protection.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART: And that's critical to this case, is it not?

MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, it is. [*40]

My emphasis added. As I listened to Justice Stewart it occurred to me that he was really troubled by the apparent conflict -- the apparent judicial activism the Court would have to engage in, he felt, should it declare a fetus to be a person, for constitutional purposes. On the contrary, for example, Justice Marshall seemed to be toying with Mr. Flowers, treating him more like a hostile party -- it was obvious he had already made up his mind.

Personally, I don't think the court needed to determine the fetus was a person -- neither dissenting Justice did that, if I recall correctly. Moreover, I am equally troubled to think that the court can look at a partially born human being -- capable of living outside the womb -- as it did in Carhart and declaring that child is not a person.

Anyway, this is the start of my notes -- more to come.

More -- Norah Vincent's Blog.

An anecdote about the "overturned case" in the Supreme Court from Matt Evans.

The Falsehoods of Abortion by attorney Tom Ashcraft in the Charlotte Observer.

Just to make it clear: I disagreed with the Tuck rule last year -- not the application of it against the Raiders. I think it was (most likely) applied correctly and said so at the time (I also wrote that the Raiders were in control of their destiny, so I couldn't fault the officials). I'm still ticked off about it though -- you would be too. I also agree with all those who said the Giants shouldn't have put themselves in that position. Nevertheless, the referees blew a crucial call and that was something that could've been corrected at the time, but wasn't.

If I were a Giants fan, I'd be in high outrage -- instead, I'm on low simmer. To be honest, I'm wondering if this is some kind of foreshadowing. Please don't blow another call -- even if it goes in favor of my team.

More on our "Risible" Reverends. Awhile back, the good professor remarked that he was tempted to start an Anglican-Clergy risibility watch, but didn't have the time to do it justice. Regretably, I don't think anyone does. Nevertheless, I see that there was a sermon at the National Cathedral on Christmas Sunday, the day after the Feast of the Holy Innocents, in which the Rev. Canon Michael Wyatt, Ph.D, the theologian of the Cathedral compared all of America with King Herod:

The Church celebrated yesterday the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the children Herod ordered slaughtered in an attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews, Jesus. The acknowledged good of a stable dynasty veiled a brutal and reprehensible fact, and for the sake of that perceived possible positive outcome actual flesh was ripped open. The self-indulgence of the indolent is paid for out of the flesh of the innocents of the world, those powerless to defend themselves, except by acts of terror. Our consuming and combative choices hack away at the fabric of life, and we are slashed and burned in return. And if we answer, even sincerely, that we do not know on whose back we ride, that ignorance will not save us, and if we are lucky enough to die before the verdict comes in, that escape does not mean that we are numbered among the holy innocent.

For over a decade, the United States has held to an intensification of the U. N. sanctions on Iraq, blocking with its veto and entangling in debates any attempt to relieve that nation. As part of the “dual-use” considerations of the sanctions, by which items which might conceivably be used for military purposes are kept out, equipment to repair Iraq’s sewage plants have been held up. By 1996, all the sewage treatment plants in Iraq had broken down; 300,000 tons of raw sewage are dumped into Iraqi rivers daily. This, of course, has meant an increase of cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. But the necessary vaccines are also blocked, with the claim that they might be used to make biological weapons—a technically unlikely claim. Thirteen percent of all Iraqi children will die before their fifth birthday of these diseases and related conditions; twenty-five percent of all the children in the southern region live in chronic malnutrition. Is it better not to know about these Holy Innocents? By the grace of God, moments of brutality can become moments in which the powerful are forced into the most horrific knowledge of themselves by seeing their own violence and brought to repentance. We must see how flesh pays for our words if we are to change. The question remains, with whom do you identify?—and if it is Herod, wail.

The whole sermon may be found here -- I did give you the entire risible passage so you can evaluate in context.

Nevertheless, to a certain extent Canon Wyatt is correct -- continuing sanctions are most likely an act of war. Therefore, wouldn't the humane thing be to liberate Iraq, post haste, from its real Herod?

Dick is in, Daschle's out. Could the two be related? I think Daschle's main advantage was his control of the Senate -- he actually still has a degree of control -- that's the way the Senate rules work. Anyway, Daschle announced late this morning.

Another Bad Call. According to ESPN there was pass interference on the last play of the Jints game. I was insisting to my wife last night that at the very worst it was off-setting penalties and there should've been one last play from the line of scrimage. I was somewhat mollified when the announcers said that the ineligible player was the one interfered with, but I had my doubts then. I figured the lineman had reported as an eligible player or else it would've been a different penalty -- and therefore, he was eligible and interfered with downfield.

When I played, I wore an ineligible number -- 51 -- but played end on special teams and always reported in for just such plays -- referred to as "fire" plays (because that's what the kicker or holder yells when the ends are supposed to release and get open for a desparation pass). Fire plays are practiced in every special teams practice.

Personally, I think the 49ers and Jints should reassemble this week -- tomorrow even and redo that play -- same personnel. If they're going to go to videotape to rule on a "tuck" they should correct this. There is precedence for this -- remember the "pine tar" replay?

Here's what the NFL said:

If defensive pass interference had been called, there would have been offsetting penalties (ineligible receiver against the Giants and pass interference against the 49ers), with the down replayed at the original line of scrimmage, the San Francisco 23-yard line. Although time had expired, a game cannot end with offsetting penalties. Thus, the game would have been extended by one untimed down.'

Also, note that the holder could not have spiked the ball (contrary to Chris Collingsworth).

More From the NYTimes and from the NYPost.

And this is a good point:

This is what doesn't add up: the Giants have 15 coaches and no one forcefully made the case that Rich Seubert was an eligible receiver and that the officials had blundered. Someone on Coach Jim Fassel's staff should have insisted that the Giants remain on the field until the referee Ron Winter had clarified the crew's call. Was the call not made because the other officials thought that Seubert was ineligible? Or did he simply feel that Seubert had not been interfered with. But there was never a clarification until yesterday when the N.F.L. released a statement blaming the officials for not making an interference call.

Part of it is attributable to home field advantage -- the fans ran on to the field and the officials departed. If you're an official in Pittsburgh, New England or San Francisco and are called on to make a controversial call -- do you go against the home team? Or let's look at it another way -- if this game were in the Meadowlands, don't you think the officials would have got it right? Unless the teams were reversed and it were the 49ers getting screwed.

From the Hotchpot. Now that its Bowers v. Hardwick and not Roe v. Wade up for overturning, the judicial leftists are trying to develop a rationale for overturning Supreme Court precedents. Here's Kenji Yoshino last month in the NYTimes. Here's the beginning of a three part series (second part here) by the Amar brothers. Here's a critiqueof the Amars by Joanne Mariner.

The Boston Globe publishes a generally fawning piece on Sen. E. M. Kennedy. What is noteable is that the Globe doesn't gloss over Mary Jo Kopechne noting, first "Plutocrats' justice and an implausible (but effective) coverup ensued." The clicher is this admission: "...if his name were Edward Moore, he would have done time."

I was flummoxed to see an interview with Richard Dooling in Christianity Today -- not because the man is not a worthy writer -- he's excellent. In fact, his book Brain Storm should be read by anyone who ever thinks about the notion of "hate crime." Or any lawyer, for that matter. It's just it doesn't seem to be the normal "religous" fare you'd see there -- it'd be like a seeing a discussion on Isaiah in Maxim. Anyway, what really intrigues me is that it mentions he's teaming up with Stephen King on a new show: Kingdom Hospital on ABC.

A few months ago I went to lunch with an attorney in Raleigh -- there was a PETA truck outside. This attorney was planning on having a salad, but seeing the protestors, he decided to have a burger. I think I'm going to go to KFC this week.

My picks for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, from the slate just announced, in order: Marcus Allen, Bob Kuechenberg, James Lofton, Ken Stabler, Art Monk, and Lester Hayes. Hank Stram, nominated by the Seniors committee is a lock. I'm disappointed that Allen is going to go in as a Chief, but I understand his hard feelings toward Al Davis.

Last football thing: what was Giants safety Shaun Williams thinking? The defense is supposed to provoke the offense, not vice versa.

Cover Watch: It's bandwagon time! Both Time and Newsweek gets on the Democratic bandwagon: Kim Jong Il is evil (maybe we shouldn't attack Iraq). Time is overt asking if Kim Jong Il is the Bigger Threat -- Newsweek simply calling him Dr. Evil.