Judicial taxation comes to South Carolina? Trial Judge directs General Assembly to spend more dollars on education

Like many states across the country, South Carolina is subject to a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff school districts wherein they allege that the state is not adequately funding education so as to provide students with a minimally adequate education under the state Constitution. A South Carolina trial judge has issued an Order in the Plaintiff's favor. According to the Order:

The Court further concludes that the constitutional requirement of adequate funding is not met by the Defendants as a result of their failure to adequately fund early childhood intervention programs.

Finally, this Court concludes that the students in the Plaintiff Districts are denied the opportunity to receive a minimally adequate education because of the lack of effective and adequately funded early childhood intervention programs designed to address the impact of poverty on their educational abilities and achievements.

I interpret the Order to require the South Carolina General Assembly to appropriate more money (and perhaps raise taxes) to fund early childhood programs. To me, this is a policy choice to be made by our elected representatives. Here, we have a Court dictating what education programs should be funded to provide children with an adequate education. Once again, representative government is set aside so the judiciary can make "important decisions" about policy matters. Unbelievable.

A copy of the Court's Order can be found here.

With the state supreme court’s judicial gloss on the constitution’s aspiration that there be a system of public schools and the order requiring the General Assembly to spend more on pre-kindergarten programs, the people and their elected representatives are excluded from important facets of educational policy. The judiciary has, in effect, handcuffed the people and their representatives in the realm of education. The General Assembly must spend more money on pre-kindergarten programs even if the governor, senate, house, and the people who elect them believe the money would better be spent elsewhere. Because our supreme court is unelected, the people cannot express their displeasure with this result at the ballot box.
This is an unfortunate decision. Judicial restriant dictated that spedning on education is a purely political question. We'll see how the people and their representatives respond.

The Ford Foundation's "Difficult Dialogues" program gets nicely sent up on Opinion Journal today. The author, Charlotte Hays, is the co-author of Being Dead Is No Excuse: The Official Southern Ladies Guide to Hosting the Perfect Funeral. The Weekly Standard's review is here.

Holiday!: Celebrate!

It sure looks like the Fiesta Bowl folks were right to pass over the wildly overrated Oregon Ducks, now doesn't it?

Update: As y'all can probably tell from the number of comments to this rather ordinary post, Blogger is having problems again. That's the bad news. The good news is that we are in the process of leaving Blogger for Wordpress and another hosting company. We hope to be up and running in the near future. Thanks for your patience.

2006 Predictions: Since we're on the verge of a new year, I believe it's about time for some predictions for 2006. I made some last year. Some came true; other's...didn't (Ole Miss not only didn't go to a bowl game, they were beat by Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt!). Maybe I can be more prescient this year, so here goes:

In the federal mid-term elections, the GOP will at worst lost seats but continue to hold the majority and at best a few seats thanks to gerrymandering (for the House) and the complete inanity of Democrats on national defense.

Howard Dean will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans for a little while longer.

Israel will launch a strike against Iran's nuclear program sites. There will be condemnation for Israel from the "international community" for not allowing diplomacy to work.

There will be interdenominational tranquility and harmony at Southern Appeal. This will be accomplished after Feddie summarily boots all Protestant co-bloggers. "After all," Feddie will remark in a post after the purge, "if there are only faithful Catholics here, there can't be that much religious contention at Southern Appeal." Not many people will understand him; however, because the blog will be written entirely in Latin.

New Orleans will not be in much better shape, but the Mississippi Gulf Coast will be well on its way in recovering.

There will be one Supreme Court vacancy if not two.

Fishermen will all want the latest piece of fishing technology: the iRod. (hey, I though it was funny.)

Ole Miss will manage to win two games against SEC opponents.

Trent Lott will run for re-election.

I will make several jokes at the expense of the French. A few SA commenters will lament the French-bashing and scold me for teasing the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

One in Ten Teens Depressed. So says the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

In lieu of an extensive and thought-provoking post about possible motives behind the study and the questionable relevancy of such a statistic, I'll simply ask a smart aleck question and be content to stew in my own cynicism while our brilliant readers comment (hopefully with their own infusions of cynicism).
So, I ask:

This is news?

What? No posts today? Tsk, tsk, tsk...SA Slackers.

Chicago Tribune Says Bush Didn't Mislead on Iraq

I'm pasting in the verbatim analysis from the Chicago Tribune inquest on whether Bush misled the American people about Iraq:

THE ROAD TO WAR: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S NINE ARGUMENTS

Biological and chemical weapons

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.

THE VERDICT

There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.

Iraq rebuffs the world

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

In a speech that left many diplomats visibly squirming in their chairs, President Bush detailed tandem patterns of failure: Saddam Hussein had refused to obey UN Security Council orders that he disclose his weapons programs--and the UN had refused to enforce its demands of Hussein.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Reasonable minds disagree on whether Iraq's flouting of UN resolutions justified the war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the administration gravely understated the chicanery, both in Baghdad and at the UN.

THE VERDICT

Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers to keep the UN from challenging him. In a dozen years the organization mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, all of them toothless. That in turn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal reign and cost untold thousands of Iraqis their lives.

The quest for nukes

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Intelligence agencies warned the Clinton and Bush administrations that Hussein was reconstituting his once-impressive program to create nuclear weapons. In part that intel reflected embarrassment over U.S. failure before the Persian Gulf war to grasp how close Iraq was to building nukes.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that "If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year." Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited.

THE VERDICT

If the White House manipulated or exaggerated the nuclear intelligence before the war in order to paint a more menacing portrait of Hussein, it's difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.

Hussein's rope-a-dope

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

The longer Hussein refuses to obey UN directives to disclose his weapons programs, the greater the risk that he will acquire, or share with terrorists, the weaponry he has used in the past or the even deadlier capabilities his scientists have tried to develop. Thus we need to wage a pre-emptive war.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Hussein didn't have illicit weapons stockpiles to wield or hand to terrorists. Subsequent investigations have concluded he had the means and intent to rekindle those programs as soon as he escaped UN sanctions.

THE VERDICT

Had Hussein not been deposed, would he have reconstituted deadly weaponry or shared it with terror groups? Of the White House's nine arguments for war, the implications of this warning about Iraq's intentions are treacherous to imagine--yet also the least possible to declare true or false.

Waging war on terror

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Iraq was Afghanistan's likely successor as a haven for terror groups. "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror ... " the president said. "And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

The White House echoed four years of intel that said Hussein contemplated the use of terror against the U.S. or its allies. But he evidently had not done so on a broad scale. The assertion that Hussein was "harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror" overstated what we know today.

THE VERDICT

The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.

Reform in the Middle East

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Supplanting Hussein's reign with self-rule would transform governance in a region dominated by dictators, zealots and kings. The administration wanted to convert populations of subjects into citizens. Mideast democracy would channel energy away from resentments that breed terrorism.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

U.S. pressure has stirred reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and imperiled Syria's regime. "I was cynical about Iraq," said Druze Muslim patriarch Walid Jumblatt. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting . . . it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen."

THE VERDICT

The notion that invading Iraq would provoke political tremors in a region long ruled by despots is the Bush administration's most successful prewar prediction to date. A more muscular U.S. diplomacy has advanced democracy and assisted freedom movements in the sclerotic Middle East.

Iraq and Al Qaeda

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

President Bush: "... Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Two government investigative reports indicate that Al Qaeda and Iraq had long-running if sporadic contacts. Several of the prewar intel conclusions likely are true. But the high-ranking Al Qaeda detainee who said Iraq trained Al Qaeda in bombmaking, poisons and gases later recanted.

THE VERDICT

No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.

The Butcher of Baghdad

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: "For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows--intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Human Rights Watch estimates that Hussein exterminated 300,000 people. Chemical weapons killed Iraqi Kurds and Iranians; Iraqi Shiites also were slaughtered. Tortures included amputation, rape, piercing hands with drills, burning some victims alive and lowering others into acid baths.

THE VERDICT

In detailing how Hussein tormented his people--and thus mocked the UN Security Council order that he stop--the White House assessments were accurate. Few if any war opponents have challenged this argument, or suggested that an unmolested Hussein would have eased his repression.

Iraqis liberated

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

President Bush and his surrogates broached a peculiar notion: that the Arab world was ready to embrace representative government. History said otherwise--and it wasn't as if the Arab street was clamoring for Iraq to show the way.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

The most succinct evaluation comes from Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): "Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them."

THE VERDICT

The White House was correct in predicting that long subjugated Iraqis would embrace democracy. And while Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites have major differences to reconcile, a year's worth of predictions that Sunni disaffection could doom self-rule have, so far, proven wrong.

"God loves every embryo, Pope says": Amen.

HAS THE SOUTH DUMBED DOWN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

That is the issue being discussed over at the Corner based on an article by Jeffrey Hart.

ME: Only a snobbish Yankee, or foreigner, would ask such a question in the first place.

Update (by Feddie): Here's the relevant quote from the piece:

Conservatives assume that the Republican Party is by and large conservative. But this party has stood for many and various things in its history. The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture. It is an example of Machiavelli's observation that institutions can retain the same outward name and aspect while transforming their substance entirely.

Update II (also by Feddie): Grim nails it.

Question: Does anyone believe that the Huffington Post would allow this type of vitriol to appear on its blog if the person being lambasted were a prominent Jewish rabbi, Muslim cleric, Civil Rights leader, or Gay Rights spokesperson?

I think not.

(LvAW@OB)

"Unveiling Opus Dei," a fascinating interview with John L. Allen over at Godspy, author of "Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church" (LvRC)

South Carolina Black Caucus threatens law suit over state judicial election process

The leader of the S.C. legislative black caucus is threatening a lawsuit if action isn't taken to change how judges are elected. South Carolina has seven black judges out of 112 total, even though at least 30 percent of the state's population is black.

Under the current process for choosing judges, all candidates are screened by a 10-person Judicial Merit Selection Committee, made up of six lawmakers and four lay people appointed by lawmakers. Only three names are submitted to the legislature as a whole to run as judicial candidates. Many black leaders complain that not enough black candidates make it onto the ballot with this process.

To me, a key to understanding if a problem really exists is an examination of South Carolina law school enrollment and the total number of black lawyers. Blacks make up only about 5 percent of the state's lawyers. The University of South Carolina law school, the only law school in the state until just two years ago, has about 740 students and only 47 of them are black. USC law until earlier this year had a black dean and still has a diversity program whereby it offered generous scholarships to qualified black candidates. Moreover, it is highly likely that in years past, the percentage of blacks attending law school in South Carolina was even lower. Hence, there is not a large number of senior black attorneys in the South Carolina bar.

While one can understand why the caucus is concerned, considering the numbers of black lawyers in the state and the numbers enrolled in law school, 7 judges out of 112 is not out of line with the numbers. I would gather that the lawsuit will argue that the election process is a denial of equal protection because of a disparate impact. Considering the numbers discussed above, such a suit should failed and will probably be used only as a political negotiating chip. The caucus might be better advised to concentrate on education reforms at the local level so more black students will have the qualifications to enter and succeed in law school.

Why Abortion should be a Political Issue

Read Evelyn Nieves' article for the Washington Post, available here at sfgate.com.

In the article Nieves writes that South Dakota has become one of the hardest states - if not the hardest - in which to obtain an abortion. One clinic in Sioux Falls does the deed, and it is staffed one day a week by doctors from Minneapolis. South Dakota doctors who could provide the service refuse to do so because they don't want the stigma of "baby killer". Where political control has been lopped off at the knees by Roe, social pressures in South Dakota have filled the vacuum to accomplish virtually the same result.

So, why not make it official? Make abortion a matter of state law as it should be, and let the states legislate accordingly.

Consider the following:

Notice of the reality on the ground.
Right now in South Dakota it is virtually impossible to easily obtain an abortion despite Roe. According to the article, South Dakota women were surprised to learn that abortions were only available in one town in their state. If you want to eliminiate this element of surprise, what better way than to inform the women up front through well-known legislation.

In a different world, where abortion is regulated by the state, women would be much more likely to know in advance whether abortions are available in their state. I believe a state's abortion law, whatever it may be, would become as known as the fact that you have to be 21 to drink, 16 to drive, or whether your state collects its own income taxes. Further, in states where abortion has been legalized by the vote, the stigma of "baby killer" is probably less threatening to doctors.

Informed homestate shopping.
I choose to keep my home in Florida, in part because I abhor state income tax and because I like Florida's homestead laws. A woman concerned with her right to an abortion could similarly state shop when looking for a home. She could also choose to remain in a state that does not allow abortion with the understanding that if an abortion is desired in the future she will have to go elsewhere. I understand that now the popular belief is "I can get an abortion no matter where I live", but South Dakota seems to prove this not to be the case.

Capacity for change.
The article suggests, ever so delicately, that something must be wrong with South Dakota. How is it, after all, that in a Roe v. Wade world we still have places in this country where people can't get their unwanted unborn babies sucked out with a vacuum and thrown into a medical waste bin?

My question: Who's going to do anything about it? South Dakota's abortion legislation may well be thrown out in the Supreme Court, but you can't legislate away the fear of the social stigma of being a baby killer. South Dakota, as it stands, is not a state hospitable to those who want an abortion, and no Supreme Court decision will change that.

If the power of the vote on the issue is put in South Dakotans' hands now, they probably ban abortion altogether. That same power can be turned on its ear, however, and minds can be changed to pass legislation to allow certain abortions or even allow the practice generally. I know it's a long shot for abortion fans, but if you get abortion legalized through political effort, you will have actually changed the reality in South Dakota. As it stands, Roe means almost nothing there, and likely never will.

Now, I'm not that radical with respect to abortion. I believe it has its place in medicine when a woman's life is in jeopardy, and I cannot fathom the emotional trauma of giving birth to a rapist's or pedophile's child. I do not pass judgment here on some instances of its use. I do strongly disagree with the use of abortion as birth control, primarily because every man and woman with a pulse in this country knows that less lethal means of control are readily available.

I'd probably be most comfortable in some sort of a 'tweener state that opted to preserve medical necessity and abortions in cases of rape while banning outright any other abortions. Other states may choose to go with a total ban, while yet other states might declare open season on the unborn. I am prepared to live with that, so long as the people of that state are making that decision and it's a decision they can revisit as much as they see fit.

As it stands now, we have a farce of a Supreme Court decision of questionable effect creating a false expectation of reality for women through the lens of their "right to choose".

Come on, let me see you shake your tail feathers: Publius has an interesting post on the Federalist Society, which addresses (what he considers to be) the "how and why" certain members of the society advance/rise to prominent legal/political positions (primarily within the Bush Administration).

I'll start with what I think he gets (for the most part) right at the macro level:

What many people don't know about the Federalist Society is that it's far more than a debate club or philosophical society--it's also a networking organization similar to the old Ivy League fraternities or even Tweed-like party machines. Yes, it's true that many people join for the intellectual debates. But many join for career advancement as well.

That's because having 'Federalist Society' on your resume is the legal equivalent of having long tail feathers within the politico-legal complex. It signals to conservatives in power that you are 'fit' for the job. If the federal judge or Senate Chief of Staff or magazine editor wants to be sure that the job goes to someone who shares their political [or legal] views, seeing 'Federalist Society' on an applicant's resume helps assure them that they're making the right pick.

This signaling works because legal conservatives, to their credit, make concerted efforts to provide opportunity for young people. Conservative legal institutions are, for instance, much better than liberal ones about publishing guest columns, providing internships, providing networking opportunities and so on.

It's at the micro level that Publius's analysis gets a bit muddled:

Ok, so that provides part of the story of how individuals rise within legal conservative circles, but not the whole thing. In particular, it doesn't explain why one person with Federalist Society credentials gets 'selected' over another FedSoc member. I think Darwinian signaling explains this as well--that is, it explains in part why certain individuals such as John Yoo or Janice Rogers Brown ascend the ladder and others don't.

For instance, let's assume that the Federalist Society leadership is trying to determine who to select for the federal bench. Or let's assume that some DOJ official is trying to figure out who she should hire for a prestigious OLC position. In both instances, the officials have hordes of highly intelligent, well-qualified, Federalist Society members to choose from.

In these circumstances, there is a competitive (evolutionary) pressure on the applicant to stand out from the bow-tied masses in some way. Accordingly, there are strong (and rational) incentives to make controversial or even extreme arguments in order to get your tail feathers noticed.

Take Janice Rogers Brown. Her extreme speeches about Social Security and our socialist revolution are probably why she was selected by the FedSoc powers-that-be for the bench. Her speeches were controversial enough to catch someone's ear and get her noticed--and the ideological content signaled that she could be trusted not to go liberal. In this sense, her anti-liberal invective was a mating call. Same deal with Yoo. As the Post suggests, Yoo's rise to power can be explained in part by his willingness to make controversial arguments and get noticed. Making these extreme arguments are often how people get selected for promotions within conservative legal circles.

Of course, not just any extreme argument will work--you certainly can't be controversial by challenging Republicans and expect to ascend the ranks. No, you need to make an extreme conservative argument--or more precisely, an extreme pro-Republican or anti-liberal argument.

I don't doubt that there are Federalist Society members who espouse controversial positions solely for the sake of advancement, but if the Miers nomination demonstrated anything it is this: many prominent Federalists (indeed a substantial majority of them) actually believe in originalism and some of the very controversial positions Publius suggests are being made with a tip of the hat to Machiavelli. I also think Publius discounts the serious impact that taking a strong (read: controversial stand) on certain constitutional issues has on an individual's chances at a federal judgeship. Indeed, Judge Janice Rogers Brown had one heck of a time getting confirmed, now didn't she?

Or consider some of the legal positions that I've taken on this blog. Leaving aside for the moment my strong opposition to the Miers nomination (which in and of itself nixed any chance I had at a federal judgeship during the president's second term), there is no question that many within the Bush Administration (some of whom actually read this blog) heartily agree with my "extreme," "stare decisis is fo' suckas" jurisprudence. But let's be honest, does anyone really believe that espousing such views has helped my "candidacy" for the federal bench? I think not. Now, it's true that my originalist jurisprudence might make me an attractive candidate for many prominent legal positions (indeed I've recently been approached about accepting one--which I respectfully declined), but it also hurts me in other respects. And let's be honest, do you know a hard-core Federalist who wouldn't love the chance to be a federal judge? There may be some out there who could care less, but most of the feddies I know would jump at the chance to don an Article III robe.

Anyway those are my thoughts fwtw.

*BTW, I take great exception to Publius's characterization of Federalist Society members as "bow-tied, floppy hair." I simply don't know where such nasty sterotypes originate. :)

Or as my Dad used to say (before his passing), "I resemble that remark." :)

Update: Along these same lines, check out this post by Al over at Cold Fury.

Great video of a man crying about pro wrestling. I don't know if it's real or not, but I really, really want it to be. "It's still real to me..."

When Will It Stop? T.V. Writers and Dumb Statistics

My wife is a big fan of House, M.D., which I agree is an enjoyable program.

I was watching this evening when the physician team was treating an African-American death row inmate played by L.L. Cool J. The docs, of course, had to talk about social justice, the death penalty, racism, etc.. Fine with me. One of the docs said he's against it in principle, but is unbothered when the switch gets pulled. Another, a female doc, said she was against it because it is racially motivated. Her statistical claim was that black murderers are ten times more likely than white killers to get the death penalty.

This is where my eyebrows tilted up. Not quite, lassie. As I recall the cases in law school where the question of racism in death penalty sentencing was considered, the race of the killer turned out to be statistically insignificant. Guess what was signifant? The race of the victim! Killers who murder blacks are less likely to get the death penalty than killers who murder whites. Very interesting. So, if there is racism, it is in the fact that killers of African-American victims should theoretically be less deterred than killers of whites.

Television would be more interesting if writers would take the time to do a little research.

For my part, I kind of agreed with what the African-American doctor character said when confronted with the (as I just established, fallacious) racism charge in death penalty sentencing. If that's true, "we just need to kill more white folks." Of course, the show isn't over and he may be dramatically converted by the end of the episode.

I personally think that is BIG politics for the state of Alabama: I just figure the nation should be aware

The cast: A Republican incumbent who alienated his base with a proposal to raise taxes. A chief justice who lost his job over his Ten Commandments stand. A former governor under indictment. A lieutenant governor who helped her ex-husband run for governor.

The show: Alabama's gubernatorial primaries of 2006.

In a state where George C. Wallace and James E. "Big Jim" Folsom made races for governor a must-watch event on the political stage, the current campaigns may be every bit as memorable.

Me: I'm still a Riley fan despite the disastrous tax-increase proposal. He's done well for the state and at the very least I think he's the best hope for the next four years. That's not to say, however, that I think he's merely the lesser of two (actually, four) evils. He's banned pass-through pork and cut $500 million out of unnecessary gov. departments and programs, shrinking the overall size of the state gov. and IMO causing it to run a bit more efficiently. The education deficit that he inherited has turned into a sizable surplus. He was a saint througout the state's hurrincane woes. And, as probably his greatest accomplishment, in a little over two years he's added over 40,000 jobs to our great state. In short, tax-increase or not, the state's moving forward, full-steam ahead.

Not to mention that Roy Moore is teetering on the edge of theocracy and Don Siegelman, though very possibly innocent, can't possibly detach himself from a federal indictment this late in the political season. If you ask me, the only serious player in this race is Baxley, who, when push comes to shove, isn't going to be able to motivate anyone outside of her base to head to the polls.

I say Riley walks into a second term. The underground word is that Bush is coming down again to help raise a few funds for him and if that's the case, you're looking at a possible push for perhaps $15 million for the campaign coffers. Besides the obvious fact that anything above $8 million is HUGE in an Alabama gubernatorial race, Bush is still a political winner around "these here parts" and will provide a huge boost in morale as Riley heads toward the finish line after crushing Moore in the June primaries.

"Abortions in Spain rise by 72 percent in 10 years": The culture of death marches on.

From the "Where are they now?" files: Jeff Reardon.

An odd little paradox. The longer ago something happened, the easier it is to pin down in a history book. The more recently something has happened, the harder it is to know what actually transpired for the purposes of a history book. So says Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council in this article about the inclusion in newer textbooks of the Clinton impeachment.

Sounds to me like little more than a bare acknowledgment of the influence of spin on history, and that history itself is really just whatever survives the spinning, be it true or false.

That's the way it was: 2005
Click here for the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables from the news media for the past year.

Tennessee fan sells loyalty to Bayou Bengals; the rest of the story
For all you college football fans wondering about the disgruntled Vol who sold his fan loyalty on eBay, the rest of the story is well worth reading.

Post-Christmas technobleg: A few months after taking the plunge and buying a bigscreen HDTV, I'm about to splurge on a home theater. (Christmas money: You've got to love it.) Here's where I want to tap the collective tech minds of SA readers.

I don't want or need a cutting-edge, Spielberg-worthy system, but I do want a good'un. The problem I have is that we put in hardwood floors this summer, which negates the possibility of running wires to rear surround sound speakers. And the wireless systems I've read about haven't blown me away.

So if I went with a regular system, how much would I lose by not having speakers behind me and just in front of me on the entertainment center? We tend not to watch tv with the volume blasting, and we watch more television than DVDs.

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

Obama and Brownback, on Darfur: Policy Adrift on Darfur

For two years the Bush administration has made commendable efforts to improve the lives of people in Darfur. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has become personally invested in the crisis, recently completing his fourth trip to the region in the past seven months. The United States has spent almost $1 billion aiding refugees and displaced persons who might otherwise have died of disease or starvation. And the U.S. military has helped airlift and fund African Union troops stationed in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Yet, despite American engagement, Darfur's humanitarian, security and political conditions are deteriorating. If the United States does not change its approach to Darfur, an already grim situation is likely to spiral out of control.

...The Bush administration has helped reduce suffering in Darfur, but the situation is dangerously adrift. And when the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll.

Me: It's nice to see the good senators putting aside partisanship for the greater cause of providing much-needed solutions for the crisis in Sudan. The rest of the article details a few of the core problems confronting Darfur, and thus this administration, AND gives a few (four, to be exact) recommendations for further action in the region. A must-read for the day.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Posting of Ten Commandments and Kicks ACLU on the Reasonable Observer Standard

A very interesting decision that can be found here. Here is a summary from my good friend and mentor, Fr. J. Scott Houser from the Southern Center for Law and Ethics:

__________
In an interesting decision from the 6th Circuit, the Court did not accept the ACLU's argument that the First Amendment requires separation of Church and State. Specifically, the Court affirmed the posting of the Ten Commandments in the Mercer County Court house. Some quotes of interest:

"Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that . . . the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

"We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff."

Expect the ACLU to seek en banc review and then pursue it to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court whose membership will have by then changed with the additions of Chief Justice Roberts and (presumably) Justice Alito--if not another also. I doubt the Supreme Court will grant cert on this one, so soon after their recent rulings, on which this case relies heavily. If the Court were to grant cert, the ACLU might rue the day they let the Supreme Court affirm the plain-spoken language of this opinion.

If I were an ACLU litigator, I'd be quite torn right now. They probably thought they'd win this, and instead they pulled an unfriendly panel that gave them (from their perspective) some positively awful language. They are almost forced to seek en banc review, and then Supreme Court cert. But unless they are profoundly confident of a victory--and they can't be as good lawyers--they risk at worst having the 6th Circuit's language affirmed, and at best having cert denied, effectively leaving it undisturbed (albeit without any sense of Supreme Court imprimatur--at least formally).

The next few years could be very interesting ones, especially for law and religion issues.
___________________

Cowering Christians: Another Perspective

Over at the American Spectator, Paul Chesser has a piece up in which he argues that some ID proponents are dodging the real fight: proclaiming Christ's dominion over all creation.

Book Review of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

Joe Sobran offers a short review of Tom Bethell's Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.

Listen to an NBC Radio news broadcast from Christmas Day, 1944, by clicking here and scrolling down. (Thank you, Mr. Lileks!)

Bye Bye ABC's Monday Night Football

Tonight is it. Launched 35 years ago, Monday Night Football will end its unprecedented run on network television and move to ESPN. Monday Night Football used to be a special show--a big deal. Prior to cable TV, it was just about the only chance we got to watch sports during the week. Major League Baseball had its game of the week on Saturday and the NFL ruled Sundays. Monday-Friday was bereft of sports except Monday nights during the fall and early winter.

Of course, ABC's ratings have fallen in recent years and the network even threw Dennis Miller in the booth to revive the show. It didn't work. What the executives misunderstood was that Monday Night Football was a creature of the pre-cable age. It meant sports on a week night-- woooo hoooooooooooo! Today, that concept is lost.

I'll tune in tonight. I understand Frank Gifford and some of the old crew will call part of the game. That will be great. (Maybe Frank will even have a stewardess or two in tow). Anyway, tonight marks the passing of an age in sports TV. I, for one, will miss it.

This is Just Awful
This story, virtually identical to many others, makes me sick. A horrible consequence of abortion on demand, to be sure.

By the way, Mr. Williams was convicted.

Vermont Royster's Christmas 1949 editorial for the Wall Street Journal has been reprinted every year since. Royster reminds believer and non-believer alike of the close connections between Christianity and our conceptions of equality and liberty. Click here to read it. The verse at the end is Galatians 5:1.

Merry Christmas, all!

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

An early rocking Christmas present: Courtesy of the Drive-By Truckers. You can download (and share, legally) "February 14," a cut from their forthcoming 2006 CD, "A Blessing and a Curse." Make with the clicky here.

And to all the SA readers, conservative and liberal, Catholic and Protestant, Ford and Chevy, Coke and Pepsi, toilet paper over the roll and toilet paper under the roll, Mac and PC alike, a sincere Merry Christmas from the Dunn household.

Uncontrolled immigration leads to conflict between American blacks and illegal aliens

Over at The American Conservative, Roger McGrath has an article on the strife between American blacks and illegal aliens in City of Angels.

South Carolina to have first black U.S. Attorney since Reconstruction.

Circuit Judge Reginald Lloyd has the supports of Republicans and Democrats. He should sail through the Senate in January. For more about Judge Lloyd and bio material, see this link.

There's a nice profile of eminent domain crusader Susette Kelo on Opinion Journal today.

Since Feddie has offered a few Catholic links, here's a Protestant one to balance Feddie's papist propaganda: SBC.net.

You know that I have to pick at ya, Feddie ;-)

Well, I'm be on the road to tomorrow in order to visit my family, so I want to go ahead and wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Just a reminder for my fellow fish eaters: EWTN is airing Midnight Mass live from St. Peter's Square @ 6:00 p.m. EST

And the newest member of the "I'll say anything to stay elected" club is . . . Senator Rick Santorum.

So very sad.

"A thunderous (but little-noticed) statement from the Vatican": Don't miss this excellent post by Paul J. Cella over at RedState.

Journal Reads: I'm playing catch-up on the news for the past two days as I've been out of town and in doing so came across two good reads from the Wall Street Journal. The first is one of the best articles I've ever read involving oil prices and why they're so high (aside from the simple answer China). The second is a good editorial looking at Judge Alito and the attacks liberals will make in the coming weeks. Enjoy! (The links should work for a while...if not, then let me know and I'll email them to those who would are interested).

Also, here's a good article looking at the ideological split in the Republican party over, among other things, the Patriot Act.

More thought provoking analysis on whether the Bush Administration violated FISA, courtesy of Marty Lederman and Alan (a commenter to the post).

Merry Christmas, everyone! In a reflection upon Tocqueville, Michael Novak offers these beautiful and timely thoughts on America and religion:

What does their religion — almost entirely Jewish and Christian — add to American civic and political life? you might ask. It grounds Americans' sense of personal dignity in the conviction that each woman and each man is made in the image of the Creator, and is loved by that Creator. It also grounds their fundamental right to freedom of conscience in the knowledge that God made human minds free, and chose to be approached by them based upon the evidence of their own minds, and through their own free choice, not through coercion. For such is the nature of the Jewish and Christian God.

These beliefs have always given Americans confidence in the idea that liberty is universal, intended by the Creator for all humans. Their philosophy of natural rights is backed up by their faith in the God Who addresses them in their liberty. In dark and difficult times, this faith is of quiet but irreplaceable assistance. It gives to Americans a sense that the world has a purpose and a direction.

And also a reliable measure for what is better and worse, progress and decline.

Democrats for Life: My kind of dems.

The Angelus: One of the priests at my Church mentioned this painting in his homily last Sunday, and I thought I'd pass along its powerful and lasting imagery to SA's readers, as many of us prepare to celebrate the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.



If only we celebrated the Incarnation more than once a year (as our ancestors did).

Indeed, there's something to be said for Justice Scalia's skepticism of the conventional "wisdom" that "societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot."

[For those of you who are so inclined, you can learn more about the Angelus here.]

I am not sure whether the Bush Administration's actions violated FISA or not, but I think Professor Kerr has about the most thoughtful analysis on the issue (and the comments to his posts are thought provoking as well).

Keep an eye on Professor Kerr. He is, without question, a rising star in the legal academy.

It's nice to have SA back on my Blogger Dashboard. Longtime fans of Southern Appeal probably remember a time when I (under my real name) regularly blogged on these noble virtual pages.

Well folks, I promised you would not be rid of me. Feddie was filled with the Christmas spirit and dropped me an email, and I, filled with spirits, accepted his kind invite to rejoin SA's ranks. I don't know how active I will be, as I'm still learning the ropes of small-town civil practice. I hope, however, that you will all enjoy what I do offer and will indulge my posts from time to time with your attention and thoughts.

In my first official post back, I simply want to wish all of SA's readers a safe, happy, and hopeful holiday season, and Merry Christmas.

(And if you know who I am and connect the dots, please keep that information to yourself. Too many people in my circuit like to "Google" one another...)

Digging our scene: It's nice to know someone appreciates SA's tagline. :)