Ding-Dong. (repeat frequently) . From afar the congregation of Truro Church has been watching young love in bloom -- (am I being too corny? -- hang it -- who cares). Specifically, for a number of years, the son of one minister has been dating the daughter of another minister. Sometimes, (speaking for some of the parents at least) we feel less like a congregation and more like those background singers in "The Little Mermaid" (kiss the girl Sha-la-la-la-la-la )

The daughter, Catherine Crocker, was my oldest daughter's small group leader for a number of years. The son, Jamie Brown, has been, among other things, the worship leader for the Saturday Night service at Truro Church.

And Catherine blogs about her life and experiences. So when my daughter, Joy, told me the bare minimum, namely that Catherine had a ring, I turned to her blog (on xanga) to get the details that Joy was too stingy to share.

It's a really sweet story -- I urge all of you to read it. A very romantic day with some very romantic traditions (the ding-dong of the title could be wedding bells, but isn't -- you'll see if you follow her story). Start here, then go here (this is the one with all the details), and go here to see the ring.

Oh and she has lots of great pictures.

(and since Catherine said I had a really big blog that everyone read, I'm hoping her news will get picked up by some of the real biggies, like CANN and Kendall)

Now we're all wondering who will celebrate (or is the proper ecclesiastical word "officiate") the service?

Alternate History and the Constitution. One of my resolutions for the new year has been to read at least one law review article a week. This isn't a discipline, so much as it is a treat -- yeah, it's good for me, but I also love it. I've come across quite a few things I should be sharing. Here are two bits of alternate history.

Both come from Michael Stokes Paulsen's "Captain James T. Kirk And The Enterprise Of Constitutional Interpretation: Some Modest Proposals From The Twenty-Third Century" 59 Alb. L. Rev. 671 (1995), which riffs off from the Star Trek episode The Omega Glory.

The gist of Paulsen's article is that the Constitution is for "WE THE PEOPLE" not just for the high priest known as the Supreme Court. In making his argument, he puts forth a number of hypotheticals and proposals. The first hypo is this one:

Consider another not too far-fetched hypothetical. The year is 1861. Abraham Lincoln has been inaugurated as President and southern states are seceding in droves. Suppose that the same southern-dominated Taney Court that decided Dred Scott ruled that the South could lawfully secede, and that President Lincoln's prosecution of the Civil War was therefore unconstitutional. If Lincoln is persuaded that the decision is wrong, lawless, and immoral, is he nonetheless bound to recall Union troops, vacate the White House, and move the capital of the remaining states in the United States of America somewhere north of the Maryland border? Or suppose instead - quite plausibly, in light of Dred Scott - that the Supreme Court declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional as a taking of property. Should Lincoln acquiesce in a judgment returning freed blacks to slavery?

I say, and Lincoln (by then) certainly would have said, absolutely not.

Notes omitted. Interesting question, no? Is the Supreme Court always right?

Okay, now consider this hypo, which relates to the doctrine of interposition:

As a way of trying to consider this issue afresh, and counteracting out instinctive biases, I ask you to consider the real-life case of Lemmon v. The People, decided by the highest court of the Empire State, the New York Court of Appeals, in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War. Lemmon is, in many ways, the companion piece to Dred Scott.

A Virginia family was travelling to Texas by way of New York City. (That was the most efficient route in those days, because of the efficiency of steamboat travel from New York City to New Orleans.) The Virginians brought their eight slaves into New York State, where they were freed on a writ of habeas corpus. New York was, of course, free soil. Under New York law, Negro slaves brought by their owners voluntarily into New York immediately became free. (Runaways were governed by the Fugitive Slave Cause and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.) The New York courts chose to apply their own state's law, rather than the law of Virginia, to this choice-of-law situation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' holding that these were free men and women.

Suppose now that history had played out slightly differently in 1860 and 1861: Either Vice President John Breckenridge or Senator Stephen Douglas is elected President in 1860, rather than Lincoln, and the South stays in the Union. Lemmon goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. The Taney Court reverses the New York Court of Appeals, on the authority of Dred Scott's recognition of the right to hold slaves as property and a determination that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects a slaveholder's right to keep that property when he travels to another state.

This was a foreseeable, even an expected result, noted by Lincoln and a good many others in the aftermath of Dred Scott. Lemmon would be simply the next logical step from Scott. And, as a consequence, it would require that slavery be tolerated in the North, confirming Lincoln's prophecy that the Nation could not survive half slave and half free. Lemmon would make slavery the law of the land. There could be no such thing as a "free" state.

Suppose now that you are the Governor of New York. The pro-slavery Taney Court has held that former slaves freed under the laws of New York must be returned to their Virginia masters. Indeed, anyone may move to New York from the South and keep their slaves. Moreover, it follows that native New Yorkers can start holding slaves too. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, which you firmly believe is both wrong under the Constitution and wrong as a matter of morality, New York harbor is about to become the largest slave-trading port in the world. What do you do? May you refuse to obey the Supreme Court's decision, refuse to return the freed slaves, and resist the Douglas or Breckenridge administration's attempted enforcement of the Lemmon decree?

I am inclined to say yes, yes, and yes. State government officials - governors, legislators, judges - also swear an oath to support the federal Constitution. Fidelity to that oath, I should think, requires resisting violations of the Constitution by the federal government with all the powers at your disposal as a state, including, perhaps, calling forth the militia. I have to tell you that, under this scenario, I would expect (or hope) that Governor Paulsen would be leading the Yankees into armed rebellion against the lawful government of the Union, rather than acquiescing in the extension of slavery to free soil and the sending of freed men back to bondage.

Now this should be disturbing. For, in a sense, this is Governor George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse doors to resist integration. My point here is simply that interposition can be used for good or for ill, and its legitimacy should not turn on the historical accident that it has been most regularly invoked for ill.

Again, note omitted.

Girl Scout Cookies. Ever feel like eating a whole box of Girl Scout cookies? Want to know what will do the most damage? My wife, the troop cookie Mom, has figured this out.

Calories per box

Trefoils . . . . . . . 1430
Cafe Cookies . . .1410
Thin Mints . . . . . 1330
Do-si-dos . . . . . .1320
All Abouts . . . . . 1200
Samoas . . . . . . . 1125
Tagalongs . . . . . .975
Lemon Coolers . . 858

Sorry, no internet sales allowed.

Of Partial-Birth Abortions and Heart Attacks. Okay, why does our beloved media feel compelled to refer to partial birth abortion in scare quotes or with other qualifiers? See, for example, this WaPo Story from yesterday, which began,

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a 2003 federal ban on the procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional . . .

The justification ususally given is that this is a term that pro-lifers came up with or that it's not medically accurate (or both).

Of course, I would reply that it doesn't matter who came up with it and that it is accurate.

In any event, why can't our beloved media get the story of Harry Whittington's heart irregularity correct? So far, I've only seen one story, by the LA Times, surprisingly enough, describe it correctly. It wasn't a "heart attack."

The rest of the media keep referring to it as a "heart attack." See, for example, this story by ABC, also posted yesterday:

Whittington, 78, was struck by up to 200 shotgun pellets in the right torso, neck and face. He sustained a mild heart attack caused by a pellet lodged at his heart three days after the shooting but was released from a Corpus Christi hospital Friday.

As explained in the Best of the Web,

A physician who reads this column writes:

Calling the pellet-induced arrhythmia a "heart attack" is a little sensationalist. A "heart attack" is not an official medical term, and is generally taken as meaning a blockage of a significant cardiac artery and resultant damage to the heart. Calling the pellet-induced heart damage a "heart attack" is like calling a bruise a "tissue infarction." The pellet presumably irritated a small area of heart tissue or obstructed a tiny blood vessel.

If the media can go through all its pains when it comes to partial birth abortion (or what journalists call "a procedure critics call 'partial-birth abortion.") why can't they get Whittington's heart irregularity correct?

Admittedly, I've had way too many arguments about this in the past, but this is one of those things that will not go away...

Which Sci-Fi crew would you fit best in? Hmmm....

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)

created with QuizFarm.com

I'm afraid of this one.

What do you get? An ambiguous Derrida mug with no top and no bottom?

Hurricane Names, 2006. My name is on there -- is yours? Is this the year your name becomes mud? We have two friends named Katrina -- both have told us they always loved their name until this year.

Alberto
Beryl
Chris
Debby
Ernesto
Florence
Gordon
Helene
Isaac
Joyce
Kirk
Leslie
Michael
Nadine
Oscar
Patty
Rafael
Sandy
Tony
Valerie
William

I predict the one to watch out for is Nadine.

The Pacific names (including "Bud" -- how can anyone evacuate when faced with a Hurricane Bud?) and future names are here.

Test: Keys to the Heart.
(Valentine's Day Edition)

The Keys to Your Heart

You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free. In love, you feel the most alive when things are straight-forward, and you're told that you're loved. You'd like to your lover to think you are loyal and faithful... that you'll never change. You would be forced to break up with someone who was emotional, moody, and difficult to please. Your ideal relationship is open. Both of you can talk about everything... no secrets. Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. You think of marriage as something precious. You'll treasure marriage and treat it as sacred. In this moment, you think of love as commitment. Love only works when both people are totally devoted.

What Are The Keys To Your Heart?

Global Warming. I had hoped to get back to the subject of global warming, but the "Blizzard of '06" took up too much of my time this past weekend. (No, I'm not trying to be snarky there -- although the juxtaposition is definitely difficult for those making the global warming comments. [When I was a boy living in DC from 1969-71, we had one big snow and at least one winter with no snow. These days we get more frequent snowfalls and also heavier snows.]) I had some time yesterday to go on-line, but couldn't get through to my dial-up, so I did taxes instead. And shovelled a lot of snow...

I hope to come back to this in a day or two.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article about the political developments regarding global warming in the US: Academy to Referee Climate-Change Fight from the free section of the WSJ last Friday, regarding the National Acadamy of Sciences.

And a big hello to Bruce Geerdes a gentleman I truly want to recommend.

I met Bruce through the Daniel Amos Discussion List and its various Off-Topic lists he established. Bruce is a very thoughtful person -- I especially recommend him to those of you who are bloggers on the Right side of the political spectrum. Bruce is faithful to Christ and brings a perspective that will make you think twice about your political beliefs.

Go forth and be challenged.

Truth as a Defense. I've read a couple of things since the funeral. As Howard Kurtz notes, in the WaPo,

Whether you think it was appropriate or galling for Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery to use a funeral to take partisan shots at a president who was sitting behind them, this was news.

As I indicated, just below, I thought this was crass -- but others, including conservative commentators James Taranto and Mark Byron didn't find it so bad.

Lee Harris, on the other hand, aptly describes the situation,

This week, at the funeral for the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, two of the speakers, Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery, might have opened their remarks by saying that they came not to bury Coretta Scott King, but to bash Bush, which is exactly what they proceeded to do. They exploited a solemn occasion in order to take cheap pot shots at the President, keenly aware that their remarks would be broadcast around the world, and into many American classrooms.

Of course, both Carter and Lowery were also aware that the target of their attack, George W. Bush, was sitting right behind them. Had he not been present on the occasion, their Bush-bashing would have only been an affront to good taste. But because Bush had come there to honor the memory of Coretta Scott King, and not to engage in a debate with his political opponents, the attacks on him crossed the boundaries of mere bad taste, and became low blows. They were deliberately attacking a man who they knew could not, under the circumstances, defend himself against their assault. Their aim was quite obvious -- to embarrass and humiliate Bush in the full knowledge that there was not a thing Bush could decently do about it.

I've listened to the defenders of Rev. Joseph Lowery (and Carter although, as I indicated, by that point in the funeral, I was gone -- I had to get to work) to understand their point. As best I understand it, their defense is truth. Even Mark Byron set out this defense:

I wasn't appreciating the digs that folks were getting in at Dubya's expense, but it was within their character, speaking what they saw as the truth to the power in front of them.

In his initial response (and a comment to my posting below) UCC Seminarian Chuck Currie used this defense. Now his response is a modification of that -- it's the Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" response. Anyone who disagrees is a "right winger" who "Just Hates Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mrs. Coretta Scott King." (I'm glad to see the spirit of moderateness and temperance still lives in the UCC.)

As an aside, before I proceed, not all the commenters agreed with Currie -- there was a moderate spirit there trying to persuade him to the contrary. I particularly liked this:

While I may agree with what was said, there is no one on this earth that could make me believe that Mrs. King would have wanted an invited guest to be embarrassed. There is a time and a place for everything and I think what Rev. Lowery and President Carter did today was terrible. A funeral is not the place for partisan politics. It was to lift up Mrs. King - not the time for digs at a President.

No, truth is not a defense to charges of gracelessness or crassness. It never has been.

Let's try an experiment. Imagine if President Bush had stood up and said something that included the following lines:

• On October 10, 1963, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephones, and then hotel rooms. He did this even though Dr. King was not a terrorist, always preached and lived a life of non-violence. He did this even though Dr. King was a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S.
  
• The tapes were played for the President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat, who enjoyed the salacious details.
  
• The government of the United States even delivered a copy of the tapes to Coretta exposing her to the sordid details of his infidelity. An infidelity that whet beyond the '?lusts of the heart'? in the words of one former president and were more akin to the exploits of another president....
  
• Yes, Dr. King was not always with his wife, but at least none of his lovers drowned while he was driving...
  
• Why the President of the United States, Democrat Lyndon Johnson couldnÂ?t even find the time to attend the funeral of Martin Luther KingÂ?.

Yuck . . . I can'?t go on. All I'?ve written above it "?true"? yet, it'?s disgusting -? it'?s beyond crass. We'd all be condemning him. (Except, maybe the right-wingers, which sort of proves my point about people like Currie.)

In short, like what Lowery did, it doesn't belong at a funeral.

Let Her In. I'm alive today because of a private bill of Congress -- it's a long story -- another time.

Kim-Hoan Thi Nguyen, Mother of Binh N. Le, USMC, needs a private bill to get to the floor of the Congress in order to be permitted to stay in the U.S.

So she can leave flowers on the grave of her son, who gave his life for our country.

It's time Congress -- let her in.

On-Line. It's weird the things you can find on-line. When I was 15 and fresh off the plane in Hawai'i, I swam in the Waikiki Roughwater Swim. It's 2 and a half miles in the sea, outside the reef, from Diamond Head to the beach by the Hilton. I see now my results are on-line -- I did it in 1:05:43. I see now I placed 65th overall and 15th within my age-group. Not bad, but not spectacular. However, little Dickie Walter, age 10, swam it in 59:52 and placed 34th overall (and first in his age group).

It's the closest I'll ever get to a marathon.

And I'll never do it again. (But I would love to do the Maui Channel Relay...)

Earth Day (early) - According to the NYT, today is evangelical earth day -- specifically a number of evangelicals (86 according to the NYT, "more than 85" according to its website) held a press conference this morning in DC to announce a new initiative: the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The publicist for this group is Jim Jewell of Rooftop MediaWorks. The group is funded by the Hewlett Foundation ($475,000), among others -- it is not clear whether this is a grass-roots organization or an astroturf organization.

I hope it is an organiztion which is genuinely concerned about doing well and truth -- I am concerned, however, that the emphasis is on "global warming." According to their FAQ's:

What is Climate Change or Global Warming?

Climate change, also called global warming, is an urgent problem that can and must be solved. The problem is caused primarily by human activities that produce heat-trapping or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, artificially warming the planet and thereby changing the climate. Serious consequences include dryer droughts, fiercer floods, and harsher hurricanes. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas or global warming pollutant, is released when fossil fuels such as oil, gas, or coal are burned in our vehicles, by power plants, and by industry. The good news is that there are plenty of cost-effective solutions that will create jobs, clean up our environment, and enhance national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, thereby creating a safe and healthy future for our children.

Why is global warming an urgent problem?

There are three basic reasons for urgency: (1) Global warming is happening now. Impacts are already starting to be felt, e.g., a 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed approximately 20,000 people. (2) The oceans warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Many of the impacts from climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create today will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. (3) As individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions each day that determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 10-20 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy. We need to start solving global warming now to make it easier and less expensive for our children to deal with in the future.

Recently, I was reading The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time by John Kelly and came across this passage:

Sometime between 750 and 800, Europe entered the Little Optimum [note omitted] a period of global warming. Across the continent, temperatures in-[45]creased by an average of more than 1 degree Celsius, but rather than producing catastrophe, as many current theorists of global warming predict, the warm weather produced abundance.* England and Poland became wine-growing countries, and even the inhabitants of Greenland began experimenting with vineyards. More important, the warm weather turned marginal farmland into decent farmland, and decent farmland into good farmland. In the final centuries of Roman rule, crop yields had fallen two and three to one – a yield represents the amount of seed harvested to the amount planted: a return so meager, the Roman agricultural writer Columella feared that the land had grown old. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as winters became milder and summers warmer and drier, European farms began to produce yields of five and six to one, unprecedented by medieval standards.

*Says Dr. Phillip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, “What has been forgotten in all the discussion of global warming is a proper sense of history... During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer than even today and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.” (Phillip Stott, interview, Daily Telegraph, 4/6/2003.)

From pages 44-45. (I include two links in Kelly's footnote so you can critique Stott yourself.)

This seems to make sense to me. First, I am not sure that "global warming" exists; second, I'm not sure, if it does, that it is human-created; third, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if it did exist.

Actually, there are two notes in the FAQ I find more troubling:

Does addressing climate change mean we're becoming liberals?

No. We believe that creating a better future for our children and grandchildren by fulfilling out biblical call to stewardship and love of neighbor through reducing pollution is simply being a good biblical Christian. Climate change is not a liberal issue. It is a profound problem for people Jesus loves, people Jesus died to save.

Are we working with environmentalists?

No. While we are not working with environmentalists, and are critical of some of their views and approaches, we also feel that once we have established our own voice on this issue we should use this as an opportunity to share the gospel with those who care about "environmental" issues. We also appreciate all environmentalists have done to protect God's creation. Finally, we do not rule out working with environmentalists and anyone else of goodwill in the future.

Umm, excuse me -- who really cares if "we're becomming liberals?" Nothing's wrong with that, is there? Second, what's wrong with working with environmentalists?

I'm sorry, but there's a lot in this whole "initiative" which rubs me the wrong way...

More

See also these two excellent posts by Mark Byron: 1. Christians and the Environment-Part I-The Purpose-Driven EPA? and 2. Christians and the Environment-Part II-Who's in the ECI?. Then there's this in GetReligion and this on the CTwebsite.

Mary Magdalene. One of my wife's friend's called her last night looking for information on Mary Magdalene. I know the basics -- she was a follower of Jesus, she was not a hooker, nor was she ever married to Jesus. Beyond that, I don't have a lot of recall. I handed her this book by Ben Witherington, III (I didn't know until just now that he has a blog...) and she read aloud an extensive passage.

Anyway, today I see there's a long piece on MM in the New Yorker. It's not bad -- I don't agree with a lot of the spin (definitely not evangelical) and the ending's weak -- but there's a few things I hadn't seen before.

Class and Crass. I watched/listened to a good portion of the Corretta Scott King funeral today at lunch and found myself very moved by President Bush's speech. You might say, "well, you're a Bush supporter." Yeah, that's been true in the past, but I haven't been too happy with him lately -- and not blogging enough to set forth the reasons why. But that will wait for another day. His address, which is available here, was very moving -- it nearly brought me to tears. One of the attorneys I work with said she thought the President sounded more like a minister than a politician.

He touched on the details of her life -- including the ministry at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, addressed her family heritage ("the Scotts were strong, and righteous, and brave in the face of wrong"), noting it wasn't just "vicious words," but also having her house firebombed. And he addressed the spirit which made Coretta great, concluding:

But some had to leave before their time -- and Dr. King left behind a grieving widow and little children. Rarely has so much been asked of a pastor's wife, and rarely has so much been taken away. Years later, Mrs. King recalled, "I would wake up in the morning, have my cry, then go in to them. The children saw me going forward." Martin Luther King, Jr. had preached that unmerited suffering could have redemptive power.

Little did he know that this great truth would be proven in the life of the person he loved the most. Others could cause her sorrow, but no one could make her bitter. By going forward with a strong and forgiving heart, Coretta Scott King not only secured her husband's legacy, she built her own. Having loved a leader, she became a leader. And when she spoke, America listened closely, because her voice carried the wisdom and goodness of a life well lived.

In that life, Coretta Scott King knew danger. She knew injustice. She knew sudden and terrible grief. She also knew that her Redeemer lives. She trusted in the name above every name. And today we trust that our sister Coretta is on the other shore -- at peace, at rest, at home.

I listened up to, and through, the address of Rev. Joseph Lowery, which I found very disappointing. He seemed to forget why they were there and just wanted to make points at the expense of Bush. He seemed to think it was a time for "vicious words," not the loving, forgiving, healing words of Jesus. He seemed to want to be a politician, not a minister.

Sad.

But I guess he got what he wanted.

More

Here's a sample of a funeral address by Dr. King, the Eulogy for the Young Victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing, delivered at Sixth Avenue Baptist Church:

And so my friends, they did not die in vain. (Yeah) God still has a way of wringing good out of evil. (Oh yes) And history has proven over and over again that unmerited suffering is redemptive. The innocent blood of these little girls may well serve as a redemptive force (Yeah) that will bring new light to this dark city. (Yeah) The holy Scripture says, "A little child shall lead them." (Oh yeah) The death of these little children may lead our whole Southland (Yeah) from the low road of man's inhumanity to man to the high road of peace and brotherhood. (Yeah, Yes) These tragic deaths may lead our nation to substitute an aristocracy of character for an aristocracy of color. The spilled blood of these innocent girls may cause the whole citizenry of Birmingham (Yeah) to transform the negative extremes of a dark past into the positive extremes of a bright future. Indeed this tragic event may cause the white South to come to terms with its conscience. (Yeah)

And so I stand here to say this afternoon to all assembled here, that in spite of the darkness of this hour (Yeah Well), we must not despair. (Yeah, Well) We must not become bitter (Yeah, That’s right), nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. No, we must not lose faith in our white brothers. (Yeah, Yes) Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.

Here is the heart of Rev. Lowery's address:

She secured his seed, nurtured his nobility she declared humanity's worth, invented their vision, his and hers, for peace in all the Earth. She opposed discrimination based on race, she frowned on homophobia and gender bias, she rejected on its face. She summoned the nations to study war no more. She embraced the wonders of a human family from shoulder to shoulder. Excuse me, Maya.

She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.

The words of a politician, not a minister.

The Liberal Supreme Court. In an essay, still not on-line (except to subscribers), WaPo editorialist Benjamin Wittes observes,

In the past few years alone the Court has upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, struck down state laws banning partial-birth abortion, upheld the sweeping new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law, affirmed federal power to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and struck down the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for those who committed their crimes as juveniles. It has dealt two body blows to the so-called property-rights movement - last term holding that localities could seize private property for economic- development purposes if they paid appropriate compensation, and a few years ago rejecting an attack on the power of state governments to restrict development around Lake Tahoe. It has curtailed it earlier experiment with carving out broad immunity for state governments from lawsuits seeking money damages. It has asserted jurisdiction over military detentions at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba. And it has entirely rewritten federal law relating to criminal sentencing, requiring that juries, not judges, make the key factual findings that determine how much prison time a convict may receive.

Benjamin Wittes, The Atlantic Monthly (January/February 2006) at 48.

It sounds like something I've mentioned before...

Prediction: Steelers win 48-6. Jerome Bettis passes for a touchdown to Marvel Smith; runs for 3 more. Troy Polamalu has an INT return for a TD.

More

I was wrong on all counts -- the Seahawks made a much better game of this than I expected. Nevertheless, neither team played to its potential -- if the Steelers had played this poorly against Indy, they wouldn't be here. Take away 3 plays and Seattle wins 10-0?

The zebras really stung Seattle -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule that call on Roethlisberger's TD -- yet, there wasn't any evidence that he had scored to begin with. The holding call on Sean Locklear was very weak. I don't have a big problem with the offensive pass interference call on DJax, but I wouldn't have a big problem if it wasn't called. And what was the deal with Hasselbeck getting called for a below the legs block when he makes a tackle?

But the refs didn't take the game from Seattle -- if anything it was the Ike Taylor interception that did that.

In any event, a fun game to watch.

[click]

. . . I got you to hold me tight
I got you, I won't let go
I got you to love me so
I got you babe

I got you babe, I got you babe
I got you babe, I got you babe

Sorry, I always wanted to do that. I wonder how many radio stations play that song starting at 5:58 a.m.?

more

from Roger Ebert:

"Groundhog Day" is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.

Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase This is like "Groundhog Day" to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something.

This is the way I feel about the movie -- at the time, I liked it, but didn't think it would hang around like it has. It should be February's answer to "It's a Wonderful Life" -- some network should show it on every 2/2.

SciFive. Via Peter Sean Bradley, here's one SciFi top five list and here's mine:

1. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
2. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
3. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451; Martian Chronicles, Illustrated Man.
4. The Stand by Stephen King
5. ...

Since I cheated with choice number 3, I'm not picking a 5th. (If I were, it would probably be Nineteen Eighty-Four.*)

Discussion

Prologue

To answer this question, one first must address what is Science Fiction? Here is a page which collects the definitions from a number of SciFi writers. I pick one from Robert A. Heinlein:

Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.
from: Ray Guns And Spaceships, in Expanded Universe, Ace, 1981

Accordingly, to me, the best science fiction is an extended meditation on the nature of man that begins with a premise: "What if...?" In some ways, it's like the economist who begins with "assume full employment." Assume that a plague has decimated the human race..., assume that a man can harness electricity and re-animate a dead human body... and so on.

My List

• Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. Some call this the first Science Fiction novel (although there is a good argument that the first SciFi story was Shakespeare's The Tempest [via Eric Rabkin lecture]). Others say it's a Gothic, still others say it's pure horror. Nonsense, it's science fiction. First of all, the novel is different from the classic movie. Dr. Frankenstein's creation is (or becomes) quite eloquent, yet without a conscience. It explores the relationship of man and his attempts to become like God and what it means for all of us. This novel, especially when set in the context of the literature of the time, is incredibly revolutionary. Notes
  

• The title of the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley is taken from Miranda's dialogue in Shakespeare's The Tempest, mentioned above:

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't! (V.i.181-4)

It appears that in the future, we have achieved utopia -- we're all healthy and well-ordered Poverty and war are no more. We're all equal and happy (Soma). Okay, so we had to get rid of a few small things: God, family, literature, art, and philosophy, to name a few... Plus, we don't have to worry about pregnancy -- just take that magic pill (who needs Humanae Vitae?). Who needs love?**

• Bradbury. I have always loved Ray Bradbury -- he was my stepstone (thanks Mom!) into the world of Science Fiction (if you don't count the Danny Dunn books). And I can't pick just one! F451 is a dystopia consistent with the first two mentioned above. Yet, Bradbury is so poetic and lyrical in his descriptions -- I'd probably pick this just based on the title alone ("the temperature at which book-paper catches fire and burns ..."). Both the Martian Chronicles and the Illustrated Man are loose collections of short stories with common themes. In part, I like Bradbury because he writes anti-science fiction. In part, because he is a wonderful writer. In part, because he forecast the future so well. The iPod, the Wall-to-Wall, hidef TV, microwave ovens, the smart house, and others I am forgetting now, all appeared in these stories, back in the 1940s.
  

• The Stand. This comes in two version - the original release and the director's, err, author's uncut version. Essentially biological warfare preparation goes bad and a superbug, Captain Trips, is released killing 99.4% of the world's population. The book looks at three distinct events -- the release and decimation of society; the eventual gathering; and a showdown between the forces of light and of dark.
  

-------------------

*So why Brave New World and not 1984? In the foreword of Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986), Neil Postman compared the two worlds:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

While I think we need to guard against the abuses Orwell feared, I think Huxley's view is more likely.

** "Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such."
Who wrote that? Huxley? No, Benny16

Deus Est Caritas (2006) via PSB

It's over. Steelers Win. 24-19. No word whether Mick and the cardiac-kids made it through the half-time show.