The Faith Fault Line
This article discusses a poll which confirms something I have suspected for some time -- Republican voters are far more religious than their Democrat counterparts. Read it, it's quite worthwhile. A sample:

[V]oters who frequently attend religious services tilt 63-37 percent to Bush and those who never attend lean 62-38 percent toward Democrats.

"We now have the widest gap we have ever had between Republicans and Democrats," said Andy Kohut, the director of the Pew survey.

"It's THE most powerful predictor of party ID and partisan voting intention," said Thomas Mann, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution, a center-left Washington research center. "And in a society that values religion as much as (this one), when there are high levels of religious belief and commitment and practice, that's significant."

The article also discusses the views of several candidates, and has this quote from the former Democrat state chairman in South Carolina:

"It is a problem," said Dick Harpootlian, a Democratic strategist and former state party chairman in South Carolina. He said Democrats should be more comfortable talking about religion, particularly as it relates to principles such as tolerance and helping the poor and weak.

"Democrats have a much more Christian, religiously friendly message," he said. "But if you go to a Democratic meeting, they don't open it with a prayer."

Now THIS is funny....
The Democrats in South Carolina may not have enough money to hold their planned February primary. Even funnier than that, neither the DNC or several state Democrats with large campaign surpluses is willing to help out. But wait! That's not all -- the party plans to use paper ballots rather than voting machines in order to keep down costs. What ever happened to the California strategy of "we have to have the finest technology available, else we might have mistakes which (gasp!) disenfranchise people, especially poor blacks and Latinos"? The State newspaper notes:

The Democrats are relying on volunteers and paper ballots, rather than costly voting machines, to keep costs down.

The state party will have to make it on its own. The Democratic National Committee served notice it would not step in to finance the primary despite the embarrassment and humiliation a canceled contest would cause. The DNC wants to avoid the precedent of bailing out one state party, knowing that if it does, others would come calling.

It's also funny that the DNC doesn't want to set a precedent of "bailing out" those in economic trouble, else others would come calling. Ever heard of welfare? Food stamps? Medicaid? Medicare? and on and on and on and on and on and on.........

Billy Graham Praises Mel Gibson's "Passion": Fox News has this report (Thanks to AD for the pointer).

More Bork: Steve's post "Law of the jungle" reminded me to check on the availability of a transcript of Judge Bork's appearance on the PBS program, "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg." Here it is. As these two excerpts show, it is a very literal transcript:

WATTENBERG: Which justices have actually sited foreign law in – in – in their argumentation?
BORK: Well, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy.
WATTENBERG: There’s a whole list. What I find difficult to understand is you were saying that these court rulings are so far out of the mainstream and yet...
BORK: [unintelligible] out of the mainstream; they’re so far removed from the actual constitution. I don’t care about the mainstream, I care about the constitution.
WATTENBERG: Well you – I mean the implication is that you – and I think you – I don’t know whether you use the actual word 'mainstream', - is that they’re acting against the will of the people. And – and – and – and yet – I mean in the last full election we’ve had in the year 2000 it was a fifty/fifty vote in – in effect, so it’s not – I mean it’s not some wacky – wacky ideas.
BORK: Yes, it is. Yes, it is Ben. I don’t – they’re not supposed to act in accordance with the will of the people. They are suppo – because a lot of the constitution puts limits. The real constitution; not the one they made up, but the real constitution puts limits on the will of the people. You cannot establish a church. You cannot ban political speech. I mean, these are limits on what the will of the people might be. And that’s fine. All I’m saying is they should stick to the – to what’s in the actual constitution and not begin making up the constitution.

And, finally, some words to live by:

WATTENBERG: So is – is it just in closing, in a word, is it is it fair to say that Judge Robert Bork remains a pessimist?
BORK: Well, a cheerful pessimist. And it must be remembered that pessimism is not the same thing as passivity. I believe in fighting back and – and, doing everything you can to stop this trend which I regard as illegitimate. the fact that I don’t – that I think we’re probably gonna lose at least in the short term does not effect the way we ought to behave.

Scalia's affirmative action dissent: A self-fulfilling prophecy?: That's the question posed by Michael Dorf in this piece for CNN.

Law of the jungle: From the Washington Times's "Inside Politics" section:

"What is going on here?" Robert H. Bork asks in National Review magazine.

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a recent speech said that decisions of other countries' courts could be persuasive authority in American courts. At a time when 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is internationally derived, she said, 'no institution of government can afford to ignore the rest of the world.'

"She is by no means alone on the Supreme Court. Six of that court's nine members have either written or joined in opinions citing foreign authorities. The most astonishing, or risible, so far was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion arguing that he found 'useful' in interpreting our Constitution decisions by the Privy Council of Jamaica, and the supreme courts of India and Zimbabwe. Jamaica and India are far-fetched enough. But Zimbabwe — the country devastated by the blood-stained dictator Robert Mugabe! We might as well learn our constitutional law from Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Fidel Castro's Cuba," said Mr. Bork, a former federal judge and nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Since the 1950s we have been in a third great period of constitution-making. Unlike the first two (1787 to 1791 and 1865 to 1870), this one is the work of judges, which achieves efficiency by cutting out the middlemen, the American people acting through their state conventions and legislatures. The efficiency gain is clear, but those hung up on technicalities complain of a lack of legitimacy. Justice Scalia commented on one of the Supreme Court's more imaginative improvements on the Founders' work: 'Day by day, case by case, [the court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.'

"Yet even Scalia at his gloomiest probably did not foresee that the new country might be designed bit by bit from European, Asian, and African models."

Womb With A View
Noemie Emery has an excellent article by that name over at the Weekly Standard. In it, she discusses the hysterics of some pro-abortion women (specifically naming Newsweek's Anna Quindlen and the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman) after President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban surrounded by men. "Not a Womb in the House," wrote Quindlen.

Emery has one great line:

They are not fighting the fringe--they are the fringe, camped out in the exurbs of public opinion in a state better known as denial.

Nice. She concludes:

SOME YEARS AGO, the Goodmans and Quindlens assigned to themselves the power of speaking for "women," whom they saw as a movement or bloc. But this bloc (or movement) never existed. They were never speaking for women in general, just for themselves and their friends. They have every right to express their opinions, but not to assign them to millions of strangers, who may or may not share their views.

Thus they rise everyday to defend women from "threats" that most women do not see as threatening or to uphold "rights" that most women don't want. Goodman insists that women who support this ban were conned by a "public relations coup" they were too stupid to see through, and insists at the same time that these very same women, too addled to see through a threat to their interests, are perfectly fit to make sound moral judgments--such as killing a child near term.

They do not explain why Ted Kennedy is allowed to discuss the abortion conundrum, but George W. Bush and his allies are not. (Does Ted have a womb we don't know of?) Nor do they explain why, if having a womb is all that important, pro-life women aren't experts, either.

They aren't experts because the sisters don't want them to be. They are doing in their heads exactly what they accused the White House of doing in that ill-conceived photo, excising an inconvenient reality. There are plenty of wombs in the house, belonging to women not like them. And they choose not to see them at all.

Handicapping the Democrats
Over at CQ, Craig Crawford has his latest odds on the Democrat nomination. Interesting reading.

Pryor seeks dismissal of suit to restore Moore to office: The AP has this report.

Supreme Court to hear church-state case: The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the State of Washington violated Joshua Davey's First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion when it stripped him of his "Promise Scholarship," a state-funded program for high-achieving students of modest means, after he decided to study for the ministry at Northwest College in Kirkland, Washington.

The Washington Constitution bans the use of public money for religious instruction, and the state argues that policy did Davey no harm. Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor disagreed in an amicus brief filed with the Court, noting:

"To defend a practice of state-sponsored religious discrimination is not just ironic in its parallel to erstwhile Southern anti-civil right rhetoric, it is antithetical to the core purpose of the U.S. Constitution"

On OpinionJournal today: Robert George's essay on Goodridge and the proper framing of a responsive Constitutional amendment; Daniel Henninger's review of this week's Democratic "debate" and what the primary season has done to the candidates:

The effect over time has been corrosive. Messrs. Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Clark--serious individuals in private, away from this burlesque--have come to look and sound ridiculous. They make the clowns--Messrs. Kucinich and Sharpton--seem endearing by comparison.

What I'm Thankful For: My personal relationship with Jesus Christ, my family and friends, Steve inviting me to join SA, all the readers at my blog, living in a free nation, being a Southerner, and Ole Miss beating the snot out of Mississippi State today, 31-0.

A recent Ninth Circuit firearms liability decision is critiqued by the Manhattan Institute's Jim Copland, for NRO.

Giving thanks: I am thankful for so many things: having a personal relationship with a loving and merciful God; a beautiful/loving family and wonderful friends; a great job; living in a free and prosperous country led by a president I deeply respect and admire; and yes, the loyal readers who stop by on occasion to read this blog. Thank you very much. I am humbled and honored that y'all find my views, and those of my co-bloggers, worthy of consideration. May God continue to bless you and yours.

Happy Thanksgiving! My family will soon be on the road for the short drive to Auburn, Alabama, and my wife's family. Best wishes for a happy, high calorie day.

Parody or prophesy? Yesterday (7:18 pm) Steve pointed out a smashing post by Matt Evans post on "The Buck Stops Here." Although Evans intended the post as parody, the slippery slope involved in Goodridge and in the arguments of its many supporters is no joke. Short of a constitutional amendment, I can't see how we'll be spared such arguments in the (near?) future. At that point, what will be left but sheer judicial arbitrariness -- that is, yes to gay marriage, no to group marriage, etc? Or maybe yes to all? Sweet mystery of life a la Casey, and all that.

Abortion Clinic Construction Boycott Update
In the past few weeks, I have commented here and here about the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Texas which contractors have refused to help build. Now the group that organized the boycott has their own webiste, as noted by the Sophorist. Click here to visit the site.

I don't agree with Pat Buchanan on a good many things, but I do think that he writes a good, thoughtful essay in response to Charles Krauthammer's essay on the whole Dean Confederate flag flap.

The Real Thanksgiving Story: El Rushbo recounts the actual tale of the first Thanksgiving that involves the triumph of capitalism over socialism.

When conservatives stand up to discrimination. Leftists are finding that it is difficult to claim to be the champions of tolerance and diversity, when you refuse to tolerate dissent or diverse viewpoints on issues, as the Detroit Free Press reports here. It is too bad that more conservatives don't take the left to task for utilizing tactics like those employed by the Pioneer High School administrators and the School's gay/straight alliance.

The Conservative Case for Group and Sibling Marriage: Matt Evans of "The Buck Stops Here" provides us with this brilliant satirical post in the wake of the recent Massachusetts gay marriage ruling.

Marriage Amendment Introduced in Senate
So notes this article from the Washington Times. From the article:

Matt Daniels, president of The Alliance for Marriage, a group at the center of the debate, said, "Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

Well said.

Note to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- it is only the entire society, through its elected representatives, or through convention, that can redefine marriage. Not four idiots in robes.

GOP cheats
We at the Mobile Register had a hard hitting editorial on a topic of rules if not of law, namely how the GOP leaders in the House cheated in order to pass a monstrosity of a Medicare bill. Meanwhile, many others agree, from conservative columnist Deroy Murdock on NRO to the liberal editorialists at the Washington Post: "The House Republicans’ manipulation of the Medicare vote was characteristic of the bullying, win-by-any-means style that has become the congressional norm. More than at any time during their nine years in control, congressional Republicans have been unabashed in their exercise of raw political power. However poisonous relations between the parties were heading into the 108th Congress, this session has witnessed levels of partisanship unhealthy not only for both sides but for the people they’re supposed to represent.
Hardball isn’t new to politics; Democrats happily employed the rules to their advantage when they held power, and, in the Senate, where the minority has greater protections, they still do. Republicans once clamored for fair treatment and railed against their subjugation at Democratic hands. But their use of the rules to impose their will is making the Democrats look benevolent by comparison.... The customary 15-minute limit for voting was stretched to close to three hours, as GOP leaders confronting a loss bludgeoned members to switch their votes. While this was the longest such stretch, it wasn’t an aberration: The majority has kept the vote open about a dozen times in recent years. Adding time to a vote may not seem like a big deal, but when it’s done in contravention of the usual practice and solely for the purpose of achieving the desired outcome, it leaves lasting bitterness.
In 1987, when then-House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, employed a pale version of this practice — keeping the vote open an extra 15 minutes — Republicans denounced this as an outrageous departure from regular order. Then-Rep. Trent Lott, R-Miss., railed against “Jim Wright and his goons.” And a Republican congressman named Dick Cheney denounced the move as “the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I’ve ever seen in the 10 years that I’ve been here.” Funny, but Vice President Cheney doesn’t seem nearly so outraged now."
Then, in the middle, there is scholar Norman Ornstein, who wrote: "One of the most disgraceful moments in American sports came in the 1972 Olympics, when officials gave the Soviet Union’s basketball team three chances to shoot the ball after the clock had apparently run out — allowing it to defeat the U.S. team.
American politics now has its own version of that infamous game. Early last Sunday, starting at about 3 a.m., the House of Representatives began its roll call on the Medicare prescription drug plan — the most significant vote of the year. ... In 1995, soon after the Republicans gained the majority, Speaker Newt Gingrich declared his intention to make sure that votes would consistently be held in the 15-minute time frame. The “regular practice of the House,” he said would be “a policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes.” The policy was reiterated by Speaker Dennis J. Hastert when he assumed the post.
But faced with a series of tough votes and close margins, Republicans have ignored their own standards... Democracy is a fragile web of laws, rules and norms. The norms are just as important to the legitimacy of the system as the rules. Blatant violations of them on a regular basis corrode the system. The ugliness of this one will linger."

Giving Thanks: With tomorrow being Thanksgiving, I would like to take a brief moment and express some things of which I'm thankful for. First, to know Jesus Christ as my personal Savior is something that I could not be more thankful for. Second, I'm blessed with a wonderful family. Additionally, I'm thankful for the men and women of our armed forces who have chosen to serve this great nation, to protect people like myself from terrorists and those who harbor terrorists. Without a doubt, they are making our great nation safe. I'm thankful for our President, who I believe tries to do what he feels is the right thing to do. Lastly, I'm thankful to Steve, for the opportunity to write on his most fine blog.

I'll be enjoying tomorrow with my family, eating way too much turkey and dressing, along with some fine sides and desserts. I can only hope that everyone else has as good a time as I. Weather permitting, I'll be here on Friday, enjoying a nice round of Fall, although this week has felt like Winter, golf. Without a doubt, this is the best time of year to play. Thus, I won't be writing anything till next Monday, as I enjoy some time off spent with friends and family.

For those interested, Will, here's an excellent article on how to set your Thanksgiving dinner table. Once again, I wish all the best!

Giving thanks for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines: A timely suggestion from Karl Zinsmeister on OpinionJournal.

How the US differs from Europe, plus other demographic factoids: In David Brooks's latest NYT column.

Cheating: As the witty Ben Franklin once wrote, "nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes." I think, however, that something else could be added to his comment, and that is cheating among students. The act is probably as old as the institution of education itself. It continues to surprise parents, however, when they find out that little Billy has had a little help in pulling out that miraculous "A." In today's New York Times, we get a look at cheating within a prestigious, Ivy League feeder high school, in Connecticut.

The report looks at the principal's goal of curbing cheating, which first came to light, extensively, last spring when the administrators were forced to deal with two incidents, along with an expose in the school's newspaper. Surprisingly, students have been more than willing to assist principal Brady in uncovering the truth, which was initially doubted by not only parents, of course, but school staff as well.

Meetings with parents, students, and teachers has lead to questions asking what causes these kids to cheat? They're bright, so why must the feel like they need to do this? Is it the parents fault, for setting so high of expectations? According to one student, if you, as a senior, are not attending "Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, you get that look," not from other students but from parents. Another claims that "[e]xpectations are set here externally and internally. In Westport, getting a B is like getting an F. So if you don't feel you can achieve it on your own, you find another way." This explanation follows the premise that it's not only the parents setting high expectations but the students as well, in order to attend a prestigious university.

However, researchers tend to have somewhat differing ideas about why students cheat, especially privileged ones. According to Donald McCabe, a Rutgers University professor,

There is no doubt in my mind that students who come from privileged backgrounds develop a certain entitlement mentality...I don't think this is a generation of moral mutants, [w]hat's changed is parenting. If you catch their kid cheating they threaten a lawsuit.

Now, not to take any responsibility away from the kids, who make the decision to cheat, Dr. McCabe makes an interesting point. In the pursuit of being able to place a "Harvard Parent" sticker on their car, parents are willing to turn a blind eye to cheating, and dare the school to do anything which would result in academic discipline, leading to a "mar[red] transcript."

I, however, try to look at the future optimistically. The good news, from this article, is the fact that the kids are helping to combat this problem. One senior said that the cheating was "illegitimizing what I do." Will cheating stop? No. However, I'd imagine that this generation preparing for college, or already in college, who have dealt with this already, will, hopefully, be unlike their parents and not be blinded by what's actually going on with their children's education.

RE: Return Of The King...Steve, I'm just as anxious as you are for Dec. 17 to arrive. The current edition of Newsweek devotes a cover story to the movie and Peter Jackson.

Proabort "Catholics": I realize that I am relatively new to the Catholic faith, so perhaps someone can explain to me how a person who claims to be a practicing Catholic can, in any manner whatsoever, support a woman's right to "choose" (to kill her own child) and be true to his/her professed faith?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church could not be any clearer on the issue of abortion (footnotes omitted):

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined . . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual . . . .
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.

Now I am certainly not a scholar in this area, but it seems to me that, given the foregoing statement of the Church, it is simply impossible for one to be both Catholic and pro-abortion. Any thoughts?

Update: The great one, the mack daddy of Catholic blogging, Mark Shea, has the answer, which y'all can access here.

The Two Towers DVD (extended version) is most excellent: And others--see here and here--seem to concur.

Aside: Return of the King will be in theaters on December 17th. Oh, and here's one of the first reviews of the movie (which, btw, is quite positive).

Allah is in the House: Excellent blog satire.

Via the Cranky Professor (also a Rice alum), I find pictorial evidence of how gruesome Iraq was.

Note to self: remember this next time Dean implies that Iraq isn't better off without Saddam.

This Cox and Forkum cartoon is spot on.

via The Sophorist

"Americans Coming Together"
That is the name of a new group which Dick Morris believes is a "lifeboat" to continue to provide Bill and Hillary Clinton control over funds once Howard Dean wins the Democrat nomination and fires Terry McAuliffe from the DNC. Says Morris:

"Dean seems destined to win the nomination and with it control of the party," Morris said. "So the Clintons are moving out."

Morris said when that happens, "no longer will its coffers be available to the Clintons to use as their private fund, channeling donations to candidates and causes they favor or that favor them."

So, before the handover, he said, "they are working on stripping the Democratic Party of its central role and giving it to the more pliant Americans Working Together, instead."

The Clintons' attempts to sidetrack Dean have failed, with Wesley Clark's campaign collapsing and John Kerry's campaign staff quitting, Morris said.

Funny that they would choose that name like "coming together" for a group that is further evidence of the Democrat party coming apart.

Lefty propaganda. This is too funny. I noted the following:

1. The use of Nazi symbolism
2. The use of Klan symbolism
3. The prominent use of the word "comrade" in the call to action

Good use of propaganda, if not a little too tilted. I gotta hand it to the Left; they're quite creative.

"Medicare Bill Passes, Holiday Renamed Tranqsgiving" As the Senate approves the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Johnson Administration, where can Americans look for solace other than ScrappleFace?
This is an appropriate time to mention that I saw a new AARP billboard this morning, with a photo of a smiling 20-something woman holding a sign reading:

Protect
Social Security
Now.

Update: Daniel Drezner asks "Will Medicare now cover my depression about domestic politics?" The Heritage graph he reproduces should get your attention. To no avail, of course . . . .

Books for Christmas: Two new books on Friedrich Hayek: Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek, by Bruce Caldwell, has just been published by the U. of Chicago Press. Pete Boettke, of the George Mason U. economics department, gives it a rave review: "As far as economics goes, this book is a page turner. It is nothing short of a brilliant. Congratulations to Bruce Caldwell for writing in my opinion the best book of 2003, and perhaps the best book in Austrian economics in a generation."
I'm currently reading Alan Ebenstein's Hayek's Journey: The Mind of Friedrich Hayek, and can recommend it highly. (Laissez Faire Books offers it at $8 off the cover price.)

Hey big spender. The Republicans are out of control. As something of a fiscal Conservative, I feel genuinely betrayed when I read editorials like this one from Opinion Journal. The GOP is digging a hole for itself with its persistent spending and a President who doesn't know how to say no. Howard Dean may have a shot yet, as scary as it is for me to admit it.

The National Endowment for the Humanities as homeland defense: The current chairman of the NEH, Bruce Cole, explained the connection on OpinionJournal yesterday. Well worth reading. Here's Cole take on "the threat of American amnesia":

Our values, ideas and collective memories are not self-sustaining. Just as free peoples must take responsibility for their own defense, they also must pass on to future generations the knowledge that sustains democracy.
It has been said that the erosion of freedom comes from three sources: from without, from within and from the passing of time. Though not as visible as marching armies, the injuries of time lead to the same outcome: a surrender of American ideals. Abraham Lincoln warned of this "silent artillery"--the fading memory of what we believe as Americans and why. And this loss of American memory has profound implications on our national security.

A related NEH website: We the People.

RE: Off Target...Yesterday, Joel wrote about a town in Kansas passing an ordinance requiring households to own a gun and ammunition. This is par for the course, here in Georgia. The city in which I attend school, Kennesaw, passed a similar ordinance back in 1982. I believe this was done in response to a city, in the Mid-West, that passed an ordinance prohibiting gun ownership, I want to say that it was in Illinois, but I'm not sure [If someone could let me know I'd greatly appreciate it--ed.].

For the most part, the ordinance is merely symbolic...I can't recall hearing of an instance in which it was actually enforced.

The Anniston Star, one of the more liberal editorial pages in the state of Alabama, recently ran three noteworthy pieces on the Roy Moore affair, which you can view here, here, and here. Here's an excerpt from the first article cited:

Thankfully, this time, the rule of law prevailed. There were a handful of heroes who rose up to make sure of it. In voting, unanimously, to have Roy Moore removed, presiding judge Bill Thompson and the state Court of the Judiciary said law was still relevant, that it’s still vital to our daily lives.
America is not used to looking up at Alabama as a defender of the law. But today it can, today Alabama shines because Bill Pryor and his staff made their case, and because nine individuals stayed the course of justice. Their actions have made this state a better, more lawful place. Their courage is the stuff of history, and it should not soon be forgotten.

"Colleges Charge Big for Worthless Curricula" according to this Independent Institute op-ed.

Best Blogs: Courtesy of the good folks at Forbes.

One question though: Where are the categories for best political commentary or legal related blogs?

And no mention of SA? I am shocked. Shocked, indeed. :)

The blame game--Silly lawsuits are misguided defense of chief justice: A solid opinion piece from the B'ham News. Here's a taste:

Considering the example set by former Chief Justice Roy Moore, it's no wonder that his supporters are having a tough time grasping the concept that the rule of law applies to all of us.

Yes, even popular judges have to submit to laws, obey valid court orders and adhere to ethics rules. When they don't, they have to accept the consequences of their actions - even if that means being thrown out of office.

. . . .

But Moore's supporters are now filing lawsuits seeking to have him reinstated, arguing that his ouster violated the rights of voters who elected him.

"We have seen a crushing of the democratic process," said Patrick Mahoney, director of the Washington-based Christian Defense Coalition, which filed one of the suits. "An appointed panel came in and undid an election."

As if being elected somehow shields Moore from paying the price for his actions. That's nonsense. As Attorney General Bill Pryor pointed out, "When an elected official violates the law, his election does not make him unaccountable to the law he is bound to uphold."

. . . .

If Moore had not been chief justice, the Court of the Judiciary would not have had jurisdiction over him. The state canons of judicial ethics would not have applied to him. But by running for and taking the mantle of chief justice, Moore accepted the code of ethics that came with the job. That code required Moore to obey the law and to conduct himself in a way that protected the integrity of the courts and encouraged respect for the judicial system. Moore knew the rules, and he knew he was skirting them by openly defying a federal court order. He knew the penalties involved.

If Alabama voters were done wrong, don't blame the Court of the Judiciary. Blame Moore.

Congrats Toby!: You da man.

Foreign influences. There's a tendency today to think Conservatives are unwilling to consider advice from any country save perhaps Britain. Well, if more world leaders shared views with Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus I know I'd listen. There's something to be said about a leader who will stand up and express his concerns and state his position in a brutally honest manner. I think George Bush aspires to be that kind of leader, although he is as guilty as most of spinning when prudent.

Remembering A Legend

Former Braves pitcher Warren Spahn passed away, yesterday. Baseball's winningest left-handed pitcher was 82. Some brief stats, courtesy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Spahn (363-245) won 20 or more games in 13 seasons and had a lifetime ERA of 3.09. He pitched two no-hitters and was 23-7 with a 2.60 ERA at age 42 in 1963. A feared hitter, he also holds the NL record for home runs by a pitcher with 35.

They don't make them like that anymore.

In Case You Missed It

The Christian Science Monitor provides a list of noteworthy nonfiction books, from this year, along with reviews. Check it out.

John Podhoretz favorably assesses the President's re-election prospects in today's NY Post.

Terry Teachout salutes Warner Brothers cartoons on OpinionJournal this morning.

Bad Morning For Democrats

If you're a Democratic presidential hopeful, you can't be too thankful for the revised 3rd quarter GDP number that came out this morning (They only thought they had it bad before). Initially estimated at 7.2%, the revision puts growth at an 8.2% annual rate. Furthermore, the economy has grown at a rate of 3.5% over the past 12 months.

Though I should've been slogging through law school applications, today I attended Richard Posner's talk on Bush v. Gore at George Mason Law. Here are my notes from the talk, with quotes indicating how I recorded Posner's words:

The first section of Posner's talk (I assume, since I came in late) dealt with the mechanics of counting ballots, and how different counties had different standards. A few nuggets of interest:
-- Posner's study of undervotes leads him to believe that Bush would still have won Florida. In further support of this claim, he cites the newspaper consortium study that found a slight lead for Bush. He notes, however, that the consortium study took 9 months. Who knows what result hurried election officials might have come to?
-- Overvotes are a different story. Posner thinks that overvotes would likely have won Gore Florida. An overvote is when, for example, the voter punches the ballot for Gore, but writes in Lieberman. The ballot is disqualified.
-- Undervoting correlates with race, mostly because race correlates with higher rates of illiteracy.

After this, Posner moved into a discussion of Florida election law, and how it was applied in the recount battle. Because of the vagueness of the Florida election statutes, generally in such a case the law assumes that the executive branch officials have discretion.

The statute offers only that recount deadlines can be extended because of an "error in vote tabulation." Secretary of State Harris took this to mean machine error. Because she didn't see any machine error, she certified the vote after the first recount, when the margin had shrunk to 527 votes.

Gore then filed suit contesting the certification. The Florida Supreme Court upheld Gore's suit based on this phrase from the Florida Bill of Rights: "all political power is inherent in the people." Therefore, the Court ordered election officials to recount and take the intent of the voter into account.

The Supreme Court issued its per curiam opinion requesting further information on what basis the Florida Supreme Court obtained its seemingly absurd opinion. In response, the Florida Supreme Court offers that not just the previously cites "all political power is inherent in the people phrase," but the plain language of the "election code warranted the deadline." Even though, as Posner explains, the plain language said nothing about changing the deadline, but was vague.

Essentially, the Fl. Sup. Ct. said that the vagueness warranted the deadline, and that was their interpretation of Florida's election law. Of course, re-interpreting a state's law is something that the US Supreme Court stays away from, so this seemed like a tactical move by the Florida Supreme Court. This decision Posner terms as "unconventional" and "clearly erroneous."

Posner quickly skipped from there to discussing the Bush v. Gore opinion by the Supreme Court. He posits that Bush v. Gore was decided on the wrong grounds. Instead of issuing a "mistake[n]" opinion based on equal protection grounds, he believes that they ought to have decided it on Article II, Section I, Clause II of the Constitution which reads "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...," where there could be "no accusation" of "going against the grain" on equal protection (because there are only one or two Article II cases, and none which any of the nine justices had taken a public opinion on).

His argument: for the five conservative justice to decide the case on equal protection grounds made little sense because they are "not big fans of equal protection for individual rights." Furthermore, they had to add the disclaimer limiting the scope of Bush v. Gore only to the present circumstances. If they hadn't, then it would have caused a great upheaval in American elections.

On the other hand, Posner thinks it is strongly arguable that the Fl. Sup. Court had usurped the legislature's power. He didn't seem to give much credence to arguments that the state court had a right to interpret its own constitution, arguing that there was a difference between "interpretation" and "going off on its own."

Essentially, Posner was arguing that the Fl. Sup. Court violated the separation of powers dictated under Article II of the US Constitution. If so, that would be a clear reason for the US Supreme Court to step in. However, I see no reason why the Florida Supreme Court's decision clearly oversteps Article II in a way that doesn't interpret their own constitution. I wish he would have addressed this more fully.

It was obvious that Posner was taking a very consequentialist view, and that he believed the Supreme Court was as well. In fact, he offered that he believed that at least some of the majority was taking a consequentialist view, but yet wanted to stay under the auspices of the law.

Here was the crisis as Posner saw it:
1. The recount continues until Gore eventually has more votes than Bush.
2. The Florida Legislature refuses to "take this lying down," and sends a slate of Bush electors.
3. Two sets of electors show up in Washington on January 6 for the electoral college.
4. The House votes for the Bush electors. The Senate, split 50-50 with Gore casting a tiebreaking vote, either deadlocks or votes for the Gore electors.
5. Since Congress deadlocks, no slate of electors is seated from Florida. We have no president.
6. The presidential line of succession is thus: Denny Hastert (who wouldn't take the acting presidency, because then he'd have to permanently resign his House seat and Speakership for only a few days in the Presidency), Strom Thurmond (probably not good for his health), Madeleine Albright (not born in America, ineligible), and Larry Summers (the first Jewish president, under less than pristine circumstances, thus giving anti-Semites a "field day" (I think those were the two words he used)).

So, overall we could have had quite a constitutional crisis, and Posner believes that the Supreme Court was consciously acting to head off this constitutional crisis. He argues that they should have "acknowledged serious practical considerations affecting their decisions," but instead they "pretend to be oblivious to the consequences." Nonetheless, he thinks they were right to do so to avoid destabilization, and with the hindsight that 9/11 would soon occur, stability was particularly important.

Responding to questions, Posner had a few more interesting things to say:
-- The decision perhaps illustrates some of the natural "tug of war" between the three branches of government. Posner thinks it works, but that it is "essential" to provide "unequivocal rules for the succession of officials," and that it is "troubling" that we "failed to anticipate" this succession problem (and notes that this is one of the reasons why the US has been so stable). He also finds it odd that we haven't chosen to rectify the problem of two different slates of electors.
-- Thinks that the outcome was the "least painless," because if the Supreme Court had found for Gore, then we would have had two sets of electors on January 6.
-- Clinton in many ways was the "conservator of the Reagan Revolution."
-- Gore should have been more like Nixon and dropped his challenge. He had several opportunities to do so, yet chose not to.


For the most part, there's the play-by-play. Apologies for the length. I hope it's not too disjointed. If anyone wishes to take issue with my quotations, email me at ricegrad@hotpop.com.

Democrats often wonder why voters are skeptical of their promises not to raise taxes. They shouldn't; voters remember being lied to. The latest example is Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who campaigned in 2001 as a centrist Democrat with a promise not to raise taxes.

So what's happened? He's unveiled a tax reform package that will raise $1,000,000,000 in new revenue.

One billion dollars in tax hikes. Yet Mark Warner is trying to sell this as a "tax reform." It's not. While I may agree with some Southern state tax reforms, this is a tax hike disguised as tax reform. He's breaking his promise. By doing so, he is deepening Virginia taxpayer skepticism of Democrats.

Wesley Clark, liberal:

"I think we need to move forward with this issue. I think people wh