Well, the Michael Jackson trial is just beginning, but the American people will be sentenced to endless coverage on the news networks of every single bit of minutia.

"Next on Greta van Susteren: a Jackson lawyer develops a canker sore. Our panel of experts debate how it will be treated and what effect it will have on the trial."

Can't we have an ECOACT-chip (Excessive Coverage of a Celebrity's Trial) in our TVs to help block this mess?

For those of you with way too much freakin' time on your hands, there is a really cool (yet subtle) change to SA's template that no one has yet noticed.

I wonder who will find it first.

Well, he's certainly influential: Father Richard John Neuhaus, one of the 25 people named by Time Magazine as the most influential "evangelicals"; and one of my very favorite writers (LvEO). Here's his Time profile:

Bushism Made Catholic: When Bush met with journalists from religious publications last year, the living authority he cited most often was not a fellow Evangelical but a man he calls Father Richard, who, he explained, "helps me articulate these [religious] things." A senior Administration official confirms that Neuhaus "does have a fair amount of under-the-radar influence" on such policies as abortion, stem-cell research, cloning and the defense-of-marriage amendment.

Neuhaus, 68, is well-prepared for that role. As founder of the religion-and-policy journal First Things, he has for years articulated toughly conservative yet nuanced positions on a wide range of civic issues. A Lutheran turned Catholic priest, he can translate conservative Protestant arguments couched tightly in Scripture into Catholicism's broader language of moral reasoning, more accessible to a general public that does not regard chapter and verse as final proof. And there is one last reason for Bush to cherish Neuhaus, who has worked tirelessly to persuade conservative Catholics and Evangelicals to make common cause. It's called the conservative Catholic vote, and it played a key role last November.

An early nominee for blog post of the year, courtesy of E-spat at the newly-SA-permalinked blog, "Will Work for Favorable Dicta" (LvBTQ).

What happens when you combine Japanese animation with Catholicism?: Super pope!

My Assessment of the Court's Opinion in the Cobb County "Evolution Sticker" Case (FJB)

Published this morning in the Legal Times of D.C., you can read it here.

Fed Society Gets Active: The Washington Times reports, today, that the Federalist Society has hired the media firm Creative Response Concepts (CRC), which was responsible for the ads used by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, to prepare for the battle over the next Supreme Court Justice. CRC will be used to counter Ralph Neas's group, People For the American Way, which has already started preparing for the pending battle.

[CRC] has been hired into the judicial battle by the Federalist Society, the influential conservative judicial organization from which many of Mr. Bush's nominees have been picked.
"This doesn't surprise me," Mr. Neas said of the Federalist Society's hiring of CRC. "It just proves the point I've been making for years: It's a right-wing organization that is very political and very partisan."
Mr. Mueller[, president of CRC,] said the Federalist Society's role in the nomination fight will be to "educate people" about the possible nominees. To that end, the society has created a list of legal analysts to talk to reporters.
"All the people on the list are seasoned legal minds," he said. Many on the list, Mr. Mueller said, are former clerks to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — all conservatives after whom Mr. Bush has said he will model any Supreme Court nominees.

Look, I know most of you don't need this reminder, but those of you who haven't read Lileks today should go do that right now.

On the filibuster feud: Kevin Drum makes some fair points in this opinion piece he penned for WaPo*, but the bottom line is this: Regardless of any past injustices, each and every person nominated by the president to serve on the federal bench deserves an up-or-down vote on the senate floor; or, at the very least, those who wish to filibuster a particular judicial nominee ought to be forced to actually conduct a real "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"-filibuster.

*BTW, my hat is off to Mr. Drum for quoting one of my favorite lines from one my very favorite movies, "A man for all seasons."

In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases: 02-CV-0299

Judge Green has just issued another order in the habeas cases filed by enemy combatants held at Gitmo. At base, the Judge held that the military tribunals used to determine combatant status are unconstitutional because the detainees are denied due process of law. The Judge also held that some of the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Third Geneva Convention. I'll post more once I get through the opinion.

1864 ALL OVER AGAIN?
Andrew C. McCarthy has written an interesting article examining the parallels between the military/political situation in 1864 and today. Read it here. Strange how history has a way of repeating itself.

One Democrat's philosophy summarized: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . . ." says future DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in today's NY Daily News. Would that include yesterday's elections in Iraq, I wonder? (Hat tip: The Corner.)

Wolfe and Monroe: Tom Wolfe, writing in yesterday's New York Times, contends that the Monroe Doctrine, thought to have been dead, is alive and well. Specifically, the Doctrine re-emerged vividly in President Bush's inauguration speech a little more than a week ago. Whether you agree or not, I'd recommend checking it out. (LvAR).

At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM's - soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs - shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush's Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with - what? - nothing but a single sphere ... which is to say, the entire world.

For the mission - the messianic mission! - has never shrunk in the slightest ... which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing ... the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," President Bush said. He added, "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."

David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that "Americanism" is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a "shining city upon a hill." God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush - and Theodore Roosevelt - that it is America's destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.

Democracy for everyone??

What is the minimum requirement for the roots of democracy to take hold in Iraq, or any other foreign land? According to James L. Payne in the most recent issue of the American Conservative, it is a restraint in the use of violence in domestic political affairs. The tolerance of violence differs from culture to culture:

The idea that there are national differences in the disposition to resort to political violence takes some getting used to, for it is politically incorrect to suggest that one group of people might be significantly different from another. We are not, however, speaking of a biological or genetic difference. The inclination to resort to violence is a cultural orientation transmitted from one generation to another and, as the historical record clearly shows, it can be unlearned.

Payne has an excellent discussion on how England went from a high violence society to one of the world's most stable democracies. This transition took much time, and is possible in Iraq. However, he concludes that in the near future the prospects for successful democracy in Iraq are not good:

Saddam Hussein was certainly a nasty dictator. There was no phase of violence he did not engage in, from murdering rivals and massacring minority groups to invading neighboring countries. In the process of taking sides against him, however, many observers were led to suppose that he alone was responsible for the violence in Iraq. This meant that all the other participants--Shi'ites, Kurds, and so on--were seen as blameless and peaceful. From this perspective, removing Saddam could result in a stable, peaceful regime. Unfortunately, the assumption was and is wrong. Iraq is a high-violence society. There are many participants disposed to act in thuggish ways, and their violence makes a democracy virtually untenable.

A longer version of Payne's piece will appear in the Independent Review this spring. It is an article our nation-builders in Washington ought to read. Democracy is not a seed that will grow in any soil. And the Middle East is an arid, inhospitable place in more ways than one.

A rare and powerful use of color at Cox and Forkum. Well worth a look.

Random Thought: You often hear the term "Eastern Seaboard" used to refer to the East Coast. How come you never hear "Western Seaboard" in reference to the West Coast?

IMHO the blogosphere's coverage of the Iraqi elections has been very, very good. One blog in particular to note: Friends of Democracy ("Ground-level election news from the people of Iraq"). If you haven't seen it yet, why not check it out now? (Thanks to Donald Sensing for pointing it out.)

The reaction of the American Left has been, and will be, plenty interesting, as well. For now, I'll just say that I think this comment from Michael Novak is a start on putting this development in its proper historical context.

Also, don't miss Mark Steyn's Sunday column.

A few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (392-1) congratulating Viktor Yushchenko on his victory in the Ukrainian presidential race. The dissenter in that House vote? None other than Ron Paul (R-TX-14th). Paul, being of the libertarian stripe, believes in an "if we ignore the world it will leave us alone" foreign policy philosophy which apparently forbids him from even voting for a non-binding resolution giving props to a man victorious over his liberty-adverse candidate's political machine.

Must Read: I'm sure this book has been mentioned on this site, but if not, here you go. Milbarge has an excellent review of the book Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer, by Warren St. John. After reading the review I happened upon the book, which I've not yet read, last night at a local bookstore. I read the intro and if the book's as great as the intro, and as Milbarge's review proclaims, then whether you say "War Eagle" or "Roll Tide," you'll not be disappointed.

A NEW IMAGE OF FREEDOM.
The raised ink stained finger. For the first time in their lives Iraqis got to decide for themselves the direction their country will take. As President Bush said, "By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins." Regardless of one’s position on the war, we should all wish them well in the exercise of their new found freedom.

More accuracy problems at the NYT: It's not quite Rathergate, but it's still funny to point and laugh. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

THE New York Times is in hot water again. On Jan. 13, the paper ran a story by Larry Rohter on the spread of obesity and illustrated the story with pictures snapped by freelance photographer John Maier on the fabled Ipanema Beach in Brazil.

The only problem, the "fat" Brazilians depicted in the photos weren't Brazilians at all, but were visiting European tourists. At least that's what the Rio de Janeiro daily O Globo was reporting yesterday.

Rohter was reportedly already out of favor with the Brazilian government for a story that discussed the drinking habits of the country's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The government wanted to boot him from the country and yank his press credentials, but were stymied because he is married to a Brazilian. The Brazilian Supreme Court overruled the administration.

The Blogfather: He's Iraq election central, of course. If you haven't checked him out today, you should.

Would you vote if:
You had to walk ten miles without shoes?
Faced the real possiblity of death?
Knew violent men had threatened to kill your children if you voted?

Freedom. It isn't free, although we haven't paid for it in over two hunded years. May God bless and watch over those who risked their lives to vote in Iraq, and those soldiers who continue to risk their lives to free and protect Iraqi's.

Judge William Augustus Bootle's funeral: The AP has this report, which notes (in part):

Retired U.S. District Judge William Augustus Bootle was remembered as a civil rights giant as nearly 200 people braved ice and sleet Saturday to pay tribute to the man who ordered the integration of the University of Georgia in 1961.

And The Macon Telegraph kindly provides the text of Mercer University president Kirby Godsey's eulogy:

We gather together here amidst the stained glass of First Baptist Church to offer a tribute to our friend, our colleague, our mentor, and our counselor, Judge William Augustus Bootle. Words are frail. Language cannot convey the depth of human sentiment that gathers here . . . .

Our souls are yet stirred by the echoes of his strong voice. Gus Bootle affected the destiny of all of our institutions. He was a person whose views were not driven by some grandiose philosophical framework. He was more direct. He was compelled simply to do the right thing. Swayed not by political correctness or theoretical abstractions, he was prepared to set aside a mountain of tradition in the service of doing what was right.

Judge Bootle cared deeply about the law. He cared about the high calling of the courts and all who carry out the systems of justice in our land. In his own manner as well as his thoughtful judgments, he raised our understanding of human responsibility. He provided a higher standard by which to measure right and wrong.

Gus Bootle was a man of faith. From time to time I have been known to teach the Sunday School class of which Judge Bootle was a member. Always inquisitive, always probing the unexpected, Gus Bootle had remarkable insight into human character and the meaning of Christian discipleship. He was devout without dismissing those who followed other traditions of belief. He was pious without being condescending. Gus Bootle was a deeply earnest man of faith . . . .

Judge Bootle spoke regularly each year during the first week of Mercer's orientation of first-year law students. No doubt when this stately gentleman of 90-plus years entered the large tiered classroom, most of these students were prepared courteously and respectfully to endure a recitation of a legal statesman long since out of touch with their concerns. Within minutes each year, these L-1 students were captured motionless by the wisdom, the grace, the insight, and the humor of this statesman of the law. They were one by one lifted from their pedestrian ways, inspired to begin their pursuit of a legal career with a deeper commitment to respect for the law and a more enduring appreciation of the nobility and wonder of the profession they were about to enter . . . .

Gus Bootle was a man who lived his life taking the longer look. He could see farther than most. He lived longer than most. And, in all candor, he embodied more loyalty and integrity than most.

This gathering of family and friends and colleagues is itself a tribute to the life and character of Gus Bootle. He was not an ordinary figure yet he never took himself or his labors to be extraordinary. He was always at ease with himself, carrying his responsibilities without fanfare or trumpets, relating to others with trust and respect, all of which was, of course, a part of what made him extraordinary. With Gus Bootle, there was no shadow of pretense. He was an ordinary man with extraordinary gifts and he helped mold the conscience of a generation.

When someone who is large in our lives and in our histories leaves us, we are inevitably put off balance. Certainly we knew that Judge Bootle, even with all of his strength and wisdom, could not walk among us and touch our lives in person forever. But knowing that in our minds does not compare to the actual experience of his absence.

We feel today profoundly the absence of his spontaneous good humor. We feel the absence of his wise and caring counsel. We feel the absence of his deep, strong, voice advising us, the absence of the insight which he could frame in such poignant ways. His absence leaves a void, making us aware that our history, our personal histories, our social histories, our legal histories, indeed the history of our nation have the indelible imprint of one man who proudly announced that he was born in Round 0, S.C., who walked into the halls of Mercer University and before he left its hallways changed the course of the University, who entered the practice of law and before he laid down the mantle of serving the canons of justice, transformed the nature of our society. There is only one Judge William Augustus Bootle, but in the wisdom of Almighty God, we needed only one.

It has been said that Aristotle was the last man who knew everything. Gus Bootle may be the only person I have known to constitute a serious challenge to that footnote of history. Judge Bootle, it seemed, both knew and could do everything. His talents were so wide-ranging. For example, he was a hunter. Now, I am not hunter enough to hurt. At least when I hunt, the birds have pretty good odds. Nevertheless, on some anniversary of my being president, Judge Griffin Bell and a few other trustees decided that any respectable college president needed a shotgun. So, at the end of the annual meeting, they presented me with this elegant shotgun, broken down in this elaborate case. Judge Bell and David Hudson, both hunters, began to put the gun together and to their slight embarrassment, couldn't manage to get it together.

Judge Bootle, 95 years of age, arose from his chair, walked to the front of the room and promptly snapped the barrel and the stock in place. It only required someone who knew what he was doing. One other story about Judge Bootle as a hunter. He had one of the world's finest shotguns, made in England. It's called a "Purdy." Having determined that the gun was in need of some repair, Judge Bootle sent it to its manufacturer in London. The company promptly acknowledged receipt of the gun and said it was being placed in the queue for repair, though he should expect it to take three years before the repairs might be completed. Judge Bootle wrote them back saying, "in light of the fact of my 95 years, perhaps you should simply return my gun." They wrote him immediately saying, "In the light of your age, your shotgun is being placed at the head of the queue" . . . .

Judge Bootle was once introduced with an abundant fanfare that concluded, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in welcoming a great American, Judge William Augustus Bootle." Judge Bootle told me with gleeful chuckle, that, on the quiet ride home, he turned to Virginia and asked, "Virginia, how many great Americans do you think there are?" She paused and replied, "I don't rightly know, Gus, but probably one less than you may think." Dear Virginia, his true beloved, blues singer and player of jazz, may this once have been wrong. I believe that Gus Bootle may indeed have set the standard and embodied the essence of what it means to be a Great American.

What's Hot: The rosary.

You can check out the fedster's rosary here (click on rosaries, then precious rosaries, and scroll down to "All Silver Beads Rosary." Mrs. Feddie got the "Absolute Silver Rosary" (also in the "precious rosaries" category). Both were blessed by PJPII.

Something for the SA legal minds: Here's an interesting story from Tennessee. I won't even attempt to comment, since this is so far outside my area of expertise (Andy Griffith, "King of the Hill") I can't even see it when I stand on my Ernest T. Bass statue. You legal experts should find plenty of conversation fodder, however.

A Wilson County child-court judge has been ordering foreign-born women to learn English for the good of their children — an action that some regard as unconstitutional.

In a case this week, Judge Barry Tatum insisted that an 18-year-old Mexican woman take language classes and consider using birth control.

Tatum said his admonition didn't come out of malice or the urge to Americanize an immigrant. Instead, the judge said he worried that the woman's 2-year-old daughter would miss out on opportunities because of her mother's inability to communicate in English.

''A parent has the right to raise a child the way they see fit, but government gets involved at some point,'' Tatum said. ''I'm concerned about the civil rights of the child and what will happen to her.'

Senator Kennedy and the Fourteenth Amendment
Senators must take an oath to support the Constitution before serving. The oath states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This oath fulfills the Constitutional mandate, found in Article VI, that the Senators and Representatives "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution[.]"

Following the Civil War, a section of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent former Confederates in Congress from serving again if they had engaged in rebellion. Section Three of that Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

My question is this -- under this Section, can a Senator be expelled for giving a speech that arguably constitutes "aid or comfort" to an enemy of this country?

I thought of this when I heard this speech, delivered by Senator Kennedy two days ago:

We lost our national purpose in Vietnam. We abandoned the truth. We failed our ideals. The words of our leaders could no longer be trusted.

In the name of a misguided cause, we continued the war too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself in Iraq.

We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation.

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What a disgrace. Whatever else this speech is, it surely provides comfort to our enemies in Iraq.

And so I ask -- can Senator Kennedy be held to account for this speech?

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, who decides what is "aid or comfort"? Who decides if the Senator has given comfort to an enemy?

I've never seen this discussed, but Section Three seems to perhaps conflict with Section 5 of Article I, which states:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Did the Fourteenth Amendment, which came some eighty years after Article I, modify the two-thirds requirement, so long as the Senator can be said to have given "aid or comfort" to an enemy? Under this Section, could a majority of the Senate remove Senator Kennedy?

Would I vote to remove him? No - I think one should be allowed to speak their mind. However, if he went much further, I could be persuaded to do so. And I do think the speech is disgraceful, and would certainly vote to censure him.

And I know this is all conjecture and hypothetical, but I really am wondering. Who gets to decide? Do the American people have the right to remove Senator Kennedy (or another Senator who says something similar or worse)? What if a sitting Senator donates money to al qaeda? Or says on the floor of the Senate that he hopes all of our troops are killed by our enemies because the war is unjust? Does the Senate have any power? What is the mechanism for enforcement of this section?

(Cross-posted at We Win, They Lose)

"They're Coming for Your Land!": Check on Tim Sandefur's latest article on eminent domain here.

Let's get ready to rumble!: It's a google fight!

Blogger Patrick Ruffini lays the smacketh down on former NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman who is peddling her new book, "It's My Party, Too"

Scrushy: Taking advantage of a cancelled Civ Pro class this morning, some classmates and I ventured down to the Federal Courthouse to sit in on a portion of the Richard Scrushy trial. After loitering around for a short while, we were finally allowed to take a seat in the empty courtroom, save for the court reporter and other clerical workers walking around. Hoping for some exciting testimony, we had to settle for a nice conversation with Schrushy attorney Jim Parkman, who queried why we had chosen the profession of law over medicine. Nonetheless, things finally got rolling shortly after the Defendant entered the courtroom, to whom I gave a nod of the head to, as if to say, "I've got your back," while he knowingly nodded back (not that I actually do have his back).

I can sum up today's direct testimony, by a forensic accountant who was employed by Pricewaterhouse Coopers, as one which left much to be desired. At one point, testifying about the $2.7 billion in fraud, alleged to have been committed by HealthSouth, he attempted to explain when such acts, cooking the books, occurred. He created a chart breaking down the years from 1996-2002, quarter by quarter, showing the alleged fraud occurring. However, his total was shy of the $2.7b by about $100m, to which he said, "it's out there, we just don't know where." There were other examples, but I'll spare the details. I only wish we could have stayed around for his cross-examination.

Any SA readers friends with Warren Buffett? If so, you might want to hit him up for a loan.

Legendary investor Warren Buffett had nothing but praise Friday for Procter & Gamble Co.'s $57 billion deal to buy Gillette, which helped him make about $645 million -- in one day.

Of course that's only a small part of the profit he's made on his holdings over 16 years he's held the stake in Gillette (Research).

Based on an an initial investment of $600 million by his Berkshire Hathaway (Research) holding company in 1989, the investment has seen a gain of more than $4.4 billion, not counting dividends. That works out to about a 14 percent compounded annual return.

$645 million in one day? Dang, that's almost Steve money.

Is the Iraq War a "just" war?: That is the question posed by Professor Robert K. Vischer over at the excellent Mirror of Justice blawg. Here are the responses generated thus far from MOJ contributors.

Not surprisingly, my thoughts tend to mirror (pun intended) those of Professor Rick Garnett:

Accordingly, it seems plausible to me that our obligations of care toward oppressed neighbors in Iraq could justify an invasion aimed at ousting the regime (obviously, such a conflict would need to satisfy other just-war requirements and prudential considerations having to do with right intention and proportionality).

I would also note my respectful disagreement with the following sentiment expressed by Professor Vischer:

I like Rick's reference to just war as the public dimension of "loving thy neighbor," but that understanding seems fertile ground for justifying a whole range of imperialist motives for warfare. If we substitute our conception (noble as it is) of the citizenry's well-being as a basis for invasion, haven't we fundamentally altered the just war inquiry? Maybe we should start talking openly about the morality of such wars, but it seems a stretch to bring them within the just war tradition as it currently stands.

To that I would say, what's so wrong with imperialism? Indeed, it is not at all clear to me that imperialism and the "just war" doctrine are mutually exclusive concepts.

Consider the following excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (from paragraphs 2302-2317):

[T]he presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility . . . .

Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil . . . .

[I]t sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, "once all peace efforts have failed" . . . .

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition"

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.

Now, keep the foregoing principles in mind while reading this excerpt from "The Case for an American Empire" by H.W. Crocker III (which appeared in the November 2004 issue of Crisis):

Every Catholic should by rights be an imperialist. As Rev. Robert Hugh Benson once wrote, "There were after all, only two logical theories of government: the one, that power comes from below, the other, that power comes from above. The infidel, the Socialist, the materialist, the democrat, these maintained the one [from below]; the Catholic, the Monarchist, the Imperialist maintained the other [from above] . . . . Catholic, monarchist, imperialist. That's our historic platform, and it's odd, to say the least, to find it criticized by those who position themselves as predating regular "conservative" Catholics--as being the true, authentic paleoconservative traditionalists (the eminent Patrick J. Buchanan is the most popular and formidable of these) . . . . But the realities of world politics haven't changed . . . . [T]he world needs "a liberal empire--that is to say, one that not only underwrites the free international exchange of commodities, labor and capital but also creates and upholds the conditions without which markets cannot function--peace and order, the rule of law, noncorrupt administration, stable fiscal and monetary policies--as well as provides public goods, such as transportation infrastructure, hospitals and schools, which would otherwise not exist . . . . There's no reason why we can't do what Britain did a hundred years ago, we have far greater resources at our disposal.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that there is nothing at all improper or immoral about embracing such imperialism. Indeed, IMHO, Crocker's view is wholly consistent with the Church's "just war" teaching. I suspect Professor Vischer's concern that Professor Garnett's defense of the Iraq War under the Just War doctrine would justify a "whole range of imperialist motives for warfare" is grounded in a false premise--i.e., that all cultures or civilizations are to be afforded some amount of diplomatic deference, no matter how morally bankrupt they may be. I say this because Vischer posits in his most recent post that "[i]f we substitute our conception (noble as it is) of the citizenry's well-being as a basis for invasion, haven't we fundamentally altered the just war inquiry?"

I think not.

Whatever flaws the American Republic may have as a result of straying from its Judeo-Christian principles and those articulated in our founding documents, the fact remains that these principles are more than just "noble," they are grounded in truth (as is the Church's "just war" teaching). I realize the United States cannot police the world, but we certainly ought to be willing to lead the charge against tyranny; especially when it results in human horror of this degree.

As President Bush so eloquently noted in his recent inaugural speech:

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

Well said, Mr. President.

Update: Muchas gracias to Professor Vischer for the kind link.

And a major row has broken out over at Amy Wellborn's place re: this issue. Y'all might want to check it out.

Update II: Professor Bradley Lewis has some interesting thoughts on the topic here.

Interesting Article in the Wall Street Journal On the Persecution of Smithsonian Scientist/Editor Who Accepted Intelligent Design Article in Peer-Reviewed Biology Journal

Just saw this in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Entitled "the Branding of a Heretic: Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?," author David Klinghoffer tells the story of "Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington." Sternberg is "the holder of two Ph.D.s in biology" [and] "was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included typical articles on taxonomical topics--e.g., on a new species of hermit crab. It also included an atypical article, `The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.' Here was trouble." The article, which apparently went through peer review, was authored by Stephen C. Meyer, who earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in the history and philosophy of science. Meyer is a research fellow at the Discovery Institute, which supports the study of intelligent design. (I am also a DI fellow, though I am not convinced of some of the ID arguments, especially those in biology; I am, however, much more impressed with the cosmological-type ID arguments and the philosophical case against marterialism as a worldview, which technically do not touch on a Darwinian account of biological evolution). According to Klinghoffer,

In the article, [Meyer] cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID [Intelligent Design], he believes, offers a better explanation.

As a result of publishing this piece, Mr. Sternberg has been viciously attacked and professionally marginalized. He has filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The complaint alleges that Sternberg was discriminated against because of perceived religious beliefs. Klinghoffer writes:

Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues--the museum's No. 2 senior scientist--denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

According to Klinghoffer, "the OSC complaint recounts [that] Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. `I'm going to be straightforward with you,' said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. `Yes, you are being singled out.' Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events." The WSJ article states that Sternberg is shunned by colleagues, many of whom "now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as `unclaimed space.'" He was, however, able to convince a friendly colleague to provide him with alternate space. "Old colleagues at other institutions," writes Klinghoffer, "now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode." Sternberg, by the way, is not an ID advocate.

Regardless of where one may stand on the scientific merits of ID, I can not imagine any decent person countenancing this treatment of another human being, especially one as accomplished as Richard Sternberg. Again, you can read the whole WSJ piece here.

Update [from the fedster]: Here is Meyer's article.

Nick McDonald has died: As I mentioned this past November, I was born the day JFK was shot. (Two tragedies, one day.) So I've always been interested in the JFK assassination, only not in the wild-eyed, Dale Gribble, conspiracy theory way. And a key player in the JFK/Oswald saga has passed away.

Nick McDonald, the police officer who arrested Lee Harvey Oswald at a Dallas movie theater after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, died Thursday. He was 76.

McDonald arrived at Dealey Plaza moments after Kennedy was shot on Nov. 22, 1963. He searched the Texas Theater and helped make the historic arrest, grappling with the man suspected of shooting Kennedy after Oswald pulled a gun.

“He made a fist and bam, hit me right between the eyes,” McDonald recalled years afterward. “Knocked my hat off. I came back and hit him.”

But it was not until later in the day that McDonald realized whom he had captured.

McDonald died at a local hospital of complications from diabetes.

Southern Man: An interesting piece on Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) by Clay Risen of the New Republic, that I am sure will warm Publius's left-leaning, bleeding heart. :)

Confession: My first voting experience was casting a ballot for Phil Bredesen in Nashville's 1987 mayoral race. And yes, Bredesen ran as a dem. But keep in mind folks, that the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent in Nashville at the local level in 1987. Moreover, as a successful businessman, he certainly was the most Republican-sounding candidate in the race. :)

Exit Strategy for Iraq

The Independent Institute has just published a policy paper entitled The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government. The gist of the argument is as follows:

True self-determination by Iraqis would probably yield a loose confederation of local units or a partition of the country into more than one state or a combination of confederation and partition. These alternatives have the best chance of reducing the violence and putting Iraqis on the road to peace, stability, and prosperity.

If the United States allows genuine self-determination, the first step would be to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq relatively quickly. This action would ensure that there was no hint of U.S. coercion to produce a certain political structure. Such a withdrawal would most likely reduce the violence in Iraq because the foreign invader and occupier would be gone. Any temporary multinational force would probably be subjected to less violence because it would avoid the perception of being a potentially permanent neocolonial invader and occupier. The nascent Iraqi police and security forces might also be less of a target because they are no longer perceived as lackeys of the imperial superpower.

As we hear of more bombings and deaths each day, this proposal deserves serious attention.

"Bootle's legacy will always be felt at UGA": A nice editorial by the Athens Banner-Herald on Judge William Augustus Bootle's recent passing (registration required). Here's the heart of the piece:

Bootle was the judge who ordered the university to desegregate. He died peacefully at his home early Tuesday morning at the age of 102, a little more than 44 years after the issuance of that order.

Perhaps underscoring his clear intent that UGA should admit Hunter and Holmes, Bootle's Jan. 6, 1961 ruling ordered the university to desegregate immediately. The order for immediate desegregation surprised opponents, and was, [Hoarce] Ward* said this week, "especially courageous."

Two days after the decision, Bootle was burned in effigy on the campus of Mercer University, which he had attended. Bootle earned both his undergraduate and law degrees at the Macon school.

But the order desegregating UGA was not the only civil rights case in Georgia in which Bootle had a role. He served on the panel that ordered the city of Augusta to integrate its bus system, forced Bibb County to integrate seating on its buses and ordered a number of counties to restore the names of blacks who had been removed from voter rolls. His rulings earned him a steady stream of hate mail and other threats.

"Things got a little rough," Bootle's son, James, said in a 2002 interview. "It was not a popular thing back then."

Born in Walterboro, S.C. in 1902, Bootle moved to Reidsville with his family 15 years later. He became a federal judge in 1954 and retired as senior judge in 1970.

But he continued presiding over federal cases on a part-time basis until 1981. His wife of more than 70 years, Virginia Childs Bootle, died June 24.

A comment Bootle offered on the eve of his 100th birthday ought also to remain a significant part of his legacy.

As reported by The Associated Press, Bootle said then, "Someone asked me the other day, 'Wasn't it hard to make the decision to let blacks in (to UGA)?' I said it wasn't hard at all. Once you decide what is right, the making of it is easy. Right is right."

It seems simple enough when you hear it. But it took a man with Bootle's vision and courage to "turn this state around" and set it in the right direction. For that, he is owed a deep debt of gratitude.

*Horace Ward served as co-counsel on the legal team that fought successfully to get Charlayne Hunter (now Hunter-Gault) and Hamilton Holmes enrolled at UGA in 1961.

Most SA readers would probably be interested in checking out The Conservative Philosopher, a new group blog that includes Professor Beckwith.

Philip Johnson, R.I.P. The most influential exponent of the "international style" of architecture in America was 98. For his firm's website, click here.

Update: Roger Kimball reviews Johnson's life.

NYT on Judge Bootle's passing: You can read the article here. I thought this excerpt was especially good:

"I think Bootle will always go down in the annals of Southern and civil rights history as one of a handful of progressive-minded, courageous judges who were willing to make pivotal decisions at very key times in the 1960's," said Robert A. Pratt, a professor of history at the University of Georgia and the author of "We Shall Not Be Moved" (University of Georgia, 2002), an account of the university's integration.

Good music rebirth: Alabama band The Drive-By Truckers, who are--and I'll brook no argument--the hardest-rocking, flat-out best band in existence, who provide young'uns with one of the few chances to see rock as it was supposed to be presented, have reissued two of their older albums. You can pick up "Pizza Deliverance" and "Gangstabilly" at Amazon or your local music store. Buy both, stack them in constant rotation in your CD player or iPod, and pretend this kind of music isn't scarcer than a W sticker in the NYT staff parking lot.

Today's lesson in obviousness--Former Klansmen shouldn't criticize black politicians: Seems even some Democrats were upset by former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd's comments on Condi Rice. (Kleagle? Really? That's got to be a record for stupidity even in the Klan. Wonder if they had a Klaxon for rousting the troops, or a Kringle in charge of Kristmas.) And let's not pretend that Byrd divorced himself of his racism way back when. Anyway, there's some blowback from Sen. Byrd's comments.

The Dem attack on Rice was "very foolish" and "potentially costly" because it could backfire among blacks, said Democratic pollster Ron Lester, an expert on the African-American vote.

"A lot of African-Americans are watching this and they're wondering why [Democrats] are going after her so hard. She has an exemplary record. She's probably better qualified than most secretaries of state that we have had."

Rice, who was confirmed yesterday as the first black female secretary of state, has a very favorable rating among blacks — 55 percent positive and only 15 percent negative, Lester said.

Another high-profile black Democrat was even more blunt, saying the attacks on Rice — featuring ex-Ku Klux Klan "kleagle" Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) — "made me sick to my stomach."

Hit Job by the New York Times

You know you have made it when the New York Times commissions someone to traduce your book. That is exactly what has happened to my friend Thomas Woods and his The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. For challenges to the NYT "review," which appeared on the editorial page, see Mr. Woods' response and William Anderson's review of the review.

The author of the NYT essay is a former associate of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center. As we all know, the Center has specialized in drumming up fear and dollars from white liberals by smearing anyone to the right of Karl Marx as a racist and/or a klansman. As you will see from the NYT review, this is exactly what Adam Cohen attempts with Mr. Woods' book.

Dubya's Newspeak and Liberty

I have just been through the Second Inaugural Address of Mr. Bush. This was a painful endeavor, which is why it has taken me this long. Of course, I am not talking about the style of the speechwriter, but the content of the address which we must assume accurately reflects the core beliefs of the President as chief executive and the de facto leader of the Republican Party. There are a number of matters I could blog on, but today I want to discuss the concepts of liberty and rights appearing in the address. Here is the President on liberty:

In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty. In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the GI Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.

I can remember a time in the not too distant past when conservatives believed in "negative rights" and abhorred the concept of "positive rights." Under our old written Constitution, the citizen's rights were prohibitions against government interference, i.e., negative rights. With the First Amendment, for instance, the federal government was prohibited from enacting laws restricting our speech. This right of speech could be exercised without restricting the same right of our neighbor or requiring our neighbor to take some positive action to provide us with a platform for speech. Such was the nature of the American understanding of a "right."

A positive right, which is a true oxymoron, requires that the individual's fellow citizens, via the compulsion of the State, take some positive action to provide him with certain benefits. Typically, this positive action constitutes the handing over of wages so that another member of society will be provided with medical care, a government pension, etcetera.

Now, the Left has long sought to expand the notion of r