Actually, in totalitarian nations the two groups overlap with independent journalists often becoming political prisoners.
In today's NR Jay Nordlinger gives extensive coverage to independent journalists in Cuba here.
I have always been dismayed by the infatuation many on the left have for Castro and communist Cuba. Castro is an unprincipled lover of his own power who had done hellish things to keep himself on top. I can think of only two explanations for those who applaud him.
1) The Jane Fonda Fallacy: my country is bad, therefore the enemy of my country is good. In international politics the example of the war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia should dispel that muddled thinking. In real life the choice is not between pure and spotless nations and wicked and evil nations. All nations are impure, have spots, and to some degree are evil. But, not all nations are equally bad: some are far, far worse than others. See Augustine of Hippo for a Christian understanding of nations and their relationships.
2) The need to believe the millenium will come. All of us live by hope. For most of humanity hope is personal and limited: we hope to have a better job, or more money, or a nicer house in the future. Those who take a broader view of life also must have hope to live by: someday we will beat our swords into plowshares and the lion will lie down with the lamb. If you have given up on religious hope, how do you keep your secular version of hope alive? By believing that there are signs of the millenium you can point to in the here and now, as many on the left have done with the Soviets, and with Castro's Cuba. The need to believe clouds vision.
Castro and his regime are evil and the Cuban dissidents see this fact clearly.
In today's NR Jay Nordlinger gives extensive coverage to independent journalists in Cuba here.
I have always been dismayed by the infatuation many on the left have for Castro and communist Cuba. Castro is an unprincipled lover of his own power who had done hellish things to keep himself on top. I can think of only two explanations for those who applaud him.
1) The Jane Fonda Fallacy: my country is bad, therefore the enemy of my country is good. In international politics the example of the war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia should dispel that muddled thinking. In real life the choice is not between pure and spotless nations and wicked and evil nations. All nations are impure, have spots, and to some degree are evil. But, not all nations are equally bad: some are far, far worse than others. See Augustine of Hippo for a Christian understanding of nations and their relationships.
2) The need to believe the millenium will come. All of us live by hope. For most of humanity hope is personal and limited: we hope to have a better job, or more money, or a nicer house in the future. Those who take a broader view of life also must have hope to live by: someday we will beat our swords into plowshares and the lion will lie down with the lamb. If you have given up on religious hope, how do you keep your secular version of hope alive? By believing that there are signs of the millenium you can point to in the here and now, as many on the left have done with the Soviets, and with Castro's Cuba. The need to believe clouds vision.
Castro and his regime are evil and the Cuban dissidents see this fact clearly.
05/03: Thomas Eagleton, R.I.P.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Newsmax has this article on the career and death of former Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton.
Nationally, Eagleton probably is best known as George McGovern's first vice-president candidate, dropped after Eagleton's struggles with depression were revealed.
I am a Missouri boy, born and raised. For years Eagleton was one of my U.S. senators. While I often disagreed with his politics--he was a liberal Democrat--I could respect him as a man. I think he believed what he said and acted from the principles he believed in.
A portion from the Newsmax article:
Eagleton was considered liberal, but he criticized busing to achieve school desegregation and, as a practicing Roman Catholic, strongly opposed abortion.
I am not sure there would be a place for him in today's Democrat Party.
Rest in peace Tom.
Nationally, Eagleton probably is best known as George McGovern's first vice-president candidate, dropped after Eagleton's struggles with depression were revealed.
I am a Missouri boy, born and raised. For years Eagleton was one of my U.S. senators. While I often disagreed with his politics--he was a liberal Democrat--I could respect him as a man. I think he believed what he said and acted from the principles he believed in.
A portion from the Newsmax article:
Eagleton was considered liberal, but he criticized busing to achieve school desegregation and, as a practicing Roman Catholic, strongly opposed abortion.
I am not sure there would be a place for him in today's Democrat Party.
Rest in peace Tom.
Many thanks to good friend of the Bosque Boys, Tocqueville, who, in response to my request, offers this incisive primer on the standards of proof and some analysis in re the Scooter Libby trial and the ongoing deliberations.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
There are generally three standards of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The first, and perhaps easiest to satisfy, is proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." This simply means that something is more likely true than not. In layman's terms, this is sometimes described as 51% certainty. This is the standard of proof required for most civil trials (it is, for example, the proof required in a typical personal injury/negligence trial).
The next standard of proof is more difficult to satisfy. It is called proof by "clear and convincing evidence." In order to prove something by "clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the jury that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. In layman's terms, this might be described as 75% certainty. Clear and convincing is rarely used, but it does occasionally crop up in certain affirmative defenses (such as an insanity defense). It is a stricter requirement than proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," but not as rigorous as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal trial.
Shortly before breaking for the weekend, the jury in the Scooter Libby trial asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to clarify the legal definition for "reasonable doubt." When the jurors return to their deliberations on Monday, I expect that Judge Walton will most likely instruct them along the following lines:
"A reasonable doubt is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any possible doubt or proof to an absolute certainty."
Now think about that for a moment. Proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. What are the most important of your affairs? Examples that come to mind include which school to attend, which person to marry, which job to accept, which house to purchase, which doctor to trust, which church to attend, who to leave your children with, and so on.
Now consider some of the statements the jury has heard in this trial. Byron York has done a fantastic job of laying out the case HERE. And now think about the legal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this jury really prepared to convict this man on these witnesses' rapidly-fading memories and conflicting recollections in a politically-charged climate? I hope not.
Monday will mark the jury's ninth day of deliberation--a remarkably long period of time for a case such as this. And every day that the jury stays out deliberating, reasonable doubt has further opportunity to circulate around the jury room, to nest deeply in someone's conscience, and to find a permanent home there. If only one juror clings to that doubt, the judge must declare a mistrial. And a mistrial in this case will be as good as an acquittal for Libby. Fitzgerald lacks both the political capital and the energy to put the country through the expense of another prolonged trial.
One thing is for sure. We will find out this week the fate of Scooter Libby.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
There are generally three standards of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The first, and perhaps easiest to satisfy, is proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." This simply means that something is more likely true than not. In layman's terms, this is sometimes described as 51% certainty. This is the standard of proof required for most civil trials (it is, for example, the proof required in a typical personal injury/negligence trial).
The next standard of proof is more difficult to satisfy. It is called proof by "clear and convincing evidence." In order to prove something by "clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the jury that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. In layman's terms, this might be described as 75% certainty. Clear and convincing is rarely used, but it does occasionally crop up in certain affirmative defenses (such as an insanity defense). It is a stricter requirement than proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," but not as rigorous as proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal trial.
Shortly before breaking for the weekend, the jury in the Scooter Libby trial asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to clarify the legal definition for "reasonable doubt." When the jurors return to their deliberations on Monday, I expect that Judge Walton will most likely instruct them along the following lines:
"A reasonable doubt is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any possible doubt or proof to an absolute certainty."
Now think about that for a moment. Proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. What are the most important of your affairs? Examples that come to mind include which school to attend, which person to marry, which job to accept, which house to purchase, which doctor to trust, which church to attend, who to leave your children with, and so on.
Now consider some of the statements the jury has heard in this trial. Byron York has done a fantastic job of laying out the case HERE. And now think about the legal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this jury really prepared to convict this man on these witnesses' rapidly-fading memories and conflicting recollections in a politically-charged climate? I hope not.
Monday will mark the jury's ninth day of deliberation--a remarkably long period of time for a case such as this. And every day that the jury stays out deliberating, reasonable doubt has further opportunity to circulate around the jury room, to nest deeply in someone's conscience, and to find a permanent home there. If only one juror clings to that doubt, the judge must declare a mistrial. And a mistrial in this case will be as good as an acquittal for Libby. Fitzgerald lacks both the political capital and the energy to put the country through the expense of another prolonged trial.
One thing is for sure. We will find out this week the fate of Scooter Libby.
~~Tocqueville
04/03: Murtha Meets the Press
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Two questions concerning public relations 101 come to my mind right now:
1. Why do organizations concerned with promoting global warming awareness (and alarm) keep scheduling their conferences in places like Upstate New York and Minneapolis in the dead of winter?
2. Why do presumably intelligent Democratic Party leaders keep sending John Murtha out on Sunday talk shows to argue their point?
From Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it [our mission in Iraq] is totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: Tim, I, I believe that we can’t win this militarily. I believe it has to be done diplomatically. That’s why I think redeployment is the first move...So it’s a matter of, you can’t win it militarily. It has to be done internationally; it has to be diplomatically.
MR. RUSSERT: But to the point, why not take the chance, the glimmer of hope? Or do you just think it’s totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: I, I don’t see any chance of us winning this militarily. I think they’re going about it the wrong way. They’re finally starting to change. They’re talking to Iran. That’s what’s going to—going to prevail there. That’s where you’re going to have stability. You’re going to have international communication....
And on it went (full Meet the Press transcript here).
If the Democrats really have overplayed their hand and lost their momentum, Murtha is a big part of that development. Although she is a deft leader in so many ways, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the President and his stalwarts a rich and unexpected political gift with her decision to feature Representative Murtha as the unofficial Secretary of State for the House.
In contrast, Lindsey Graham came on air afterwards and gave his customary flawless performance as a pragmatic voice of reason. Never a sure thing when it comes to support for the President, Graham expertly leverages his reputation as a McCain-like maverick to give credibility to supporting the mission.
SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. [But] He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s [ir]responsible.
So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief.
So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.
1. Why do organizations concerned with promoting global warming awareness (and alarm) keep scheduling their conferences in places like Upstate New York and Minneapolis in the dead of winter?
2. Why do presumably intelligent Democratic Party leaders keep sending John Murtha out on Sunday talk shows to argue their point?
From Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it [our mission in Iraq] is totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: Tim, I, I believe that we can’t win this militarily. I believe it has to be done diplomatically. That’s why I think redeployment is the first move...So it’s a matter of, you can’t win it militarily. It has to be done internationally; it has to be diplomatically.
MR. RUSSERT: But to the point, why not take the chance, the glimmer of hope? Or do you just think it’s totally hopeless?
REP. MURTHA: I, I don’t see any chance of us winning this militarily. I think they’re going about it the wrong way. They’re finally starting to change. They’re talking to Iran. That’s what’s going to—going to prevail there. That’s where you’re going to have stability. You’re going to have international communication....
And on it went (full Meet the Press transcript here).
If the Democrats really have overplayed their hand and lost their momentum, Murtha is a big part of that development. Although she is a deft leader in so many ways, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the President and his stalwarts a rich and unexpected political gift with her decision to feature Representative Murtha as the unofficial Secretary of State for the House.
In contrast, Lindsey Graham came on air afterwards and gave his customary flawless performance as a pragmatic voice of reason. Never a sure thing when it comes to support for the President, Graham expertly leverages his reputation as a McCain-like maverick to give credibility to supporting the mission.
SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. [But] He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s [ir]responsible.
So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief.
So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.
Previously, we have enjoyed enthusiastic debates in re the Civil War and its causes (here and here, for example). I have also promised to facilitate an extended "honest conversation on race." As I am rising to that conversation, I am mindful that our peculiar national history must form the foundation for discussion.
That is, Eric Foner has asserted that whites in America are unified by a common history of fighting to maintain freedom (the American Revolution, of course, is not a war to attain self rule--but a war to maintain the tradition of English liberty). On the other hand, Foner reminds us that the black experience in America is truly a fight to overcome slavery and segregation.
With that in mind, as a starting point, please consider this perceptive description of the antebellum business culture of slavery in America by Bosque Boys reader and contributor, Donald Neal McKay:
Guest Blog: Donald Neal McKay
Re: Slavery - What many who think they know the warp and woof of the ethos of slavery, really don't. For people today to get a true grasp on slavery as it became known over the past 6,000 years, I recommend a reading of Marx' Capital. Volume One should suffice for this purpose. Money paid for a labor commodity converts the laborer into something called property. Seeing men were running the show, the labor commodity (black slave, or a woman or a child) was relegated to the niche called property.
When slavery ignited in the South--post 1793--for most plantation owners, slaves were relegated to the level of property; necessary commodity. Slaves were not human beings. Slaves were three-fifths anthropoids. A slave in good health would average $800 to $1200 when purchased at Charleston. A slave who could shoe a horse and blacksmith as a trade was worth $1800, or higher. We're talking money here.
Some perspective: The Wade Hampton Family - I, II, II, IV - amassed from 3000 - 5000 slaves between the South Carolina and Mississippi plantations.
Plantation owners making an investment in human labor power. If a plantation master needed three more field hands, and happened to have on hand two blacksmiths, then one blacksmith was traded for the three field hands. Or, sold outright. This is business, and business suffers little in the way of human entanglements and emotions. Many of my students cannot get this idea through their natural desire to see a human being... a person... dressed in the ratty clothes of slavery.
Unlike the Wade Hamptons (who actually did treat their slaves as human beings and, when a task was performed ahead of schedule - actually paid them!) who became the wealthiest plantation owners in the United States, and later the Confederacy, most plantation owners had to borrow money to make the initial purchase of their slave power.
Moreover, as the records show, most plantation owners were not good businessmen and fell into the pit of debt. Even the Davis' (Joseph and Jefferson) plantations at Briarwood and Hurricane made money only when the slave family (Ben Montgomery, and sons) ran the place. Joseph Davis, at least, grasped the meaningful idea of rotating his crops. Cotton literally sucks the life from the soil.
Northern investors picked up the tab and lent and invested money into most of the Southern plantations, in some states up to 80-90% were underwritten with massive loans. That is why the 17 January 1861, New York Times front page article I previously cited [which spoke to the intention of South Carolina to default on loans and debts due Northern financiers and stock investors] is so very, very, important to the ignition of the War Between the States. To Northern investors, it sure looked like the Southern plantation owner-debtors were going to default on their debts. Straight forward and simple. Northern businessmen and investors experienced panic in their wallets. And Southern plantation owners did not want to be told by Northerners what to do with their property, even if they really didn't own it totally. After all, I suppose in the case of slaves, possession is nine-tenths of the law.
McKay writes and teaches about the "War Between the States," Reconstruction, the Founding Fathers, Federalists and Whigs, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution and the CSA Constitution.
That is, Eric Foner has asserted that whites in America are unified by a common history of fighting to maintain freedom (the American Revolution, of course, is not a war to attain self rule--but a war to maintain the tradition of English liberty). On the other hand, Foner reminds us that the black experience in America is truly a fight to overcome slavery and segregation.
With that in mind, as a starting point, please consider this perceptive description of the antebellum business culture of slavery in America by Bosque Boys reader and contributor, Donald Neal McKay:
Guest Blog: Donald Neal McKay
Re: Slavery - What many who think they know the warp and woof of the ethos of slavery, really don't. For people today to get a true grasp on slavery as it became known over the past 6,000 years, I recommend a reading of Marx' Capital. Volume One should suffice for this purpose. Money paid for a labor commodity converts the laborer into something called property. Seeing men were running the show, the labor commodity (black slave, or a woman or a child) was relegated to the niche called property.
When slavery ignited in the South--post 1793--for most plantation owners, slaves were relegated to the level of property; necessary commodity. Slaves were not human beings. Slaves were three-fifths anthropoids. A slave in good health would average $800 to $1200 when purchased at Charleston. A slave who could shoe a horse and blacksmith as a trade was worth $1800, or higher. We're talking money here.
Some perspective: The Wade Hampton Family - I, II, II, IV - amassed from 3000 - 5000 slaves between the South Carolina and Mississippi plantations.
Plantation owners making an investment in human labor power. If a plantation master needed three more field hands, and happened to have on hand two blacksmiths, then one blacksmith was traded for the three field hands. Or, sold outright. This is business, and business suffers little in the way of human entanglements and emotions. Many of my students cannot get this idea through their natural desire to see a human being... a person... dressed in the ratty clothes of slavery.
Unlike the Wade Hamptons (who actually did treat their slaves as human beings and, when a task was performed ahead of schedule - actually paid them!) who became the wealthiest plantation owners in the United States, and later the Confederacy, most plantation owners had to borrow money to make the initial purchase of their slave power.
Moreover, as the records show, most plantation owners were not good businessmen and fell into the pit of debt. Even the Davis' (Joseph and Jefferson) plantations at Briarwood and Hurricane made money only when the slave family (Ben Montgomery, and sons) ran the place. Joseph Davis, at least, grasped the meaningful idea of rotating his crops. Cotton literally sucks the life from the soil.
Northern investors picked up the tab and lent and invested money into most of the Southern plantations, in some states up to 80-90% were underwritten with massive loans. That is why the 17 January 1861, New York Times front page article I previously cited [which spoke to the intention of South Carolina to default on loans and debts due Northern financiers and stock investors] is so very, very, important to the ignition of the War Between the States. To Northern investors, it sure looked like the Southern plantation owner-debtors were going to default on their debts. Straight forward and simple. Northern businessmen and investors experienced panic in their wallets. And Southern plantation owners did not want to be told by Northerners what to do with their property, even if they really didn't own it totally. After all, I suppose in the case of slaves, possession is nine-tenths of the law.
~~Donald Neal McKay
McKay writes and teaches about the "War Between the States," Reconstruction, the Founding Fathers, Federalists and Whigs, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution and the CSA Constitution.
03/03: Breakup of Iran?
Once again, Gateway Pundit is on top of the news out of Iran where violence against the government continues.
The fragility of the current regime can be seen in these figures taken from the CIA Factbook;
Unemployment rate: 11.2%
Population below the poverty line: 40%
Inflation rate: 15.8%
Public debt: 25.3% of GDP
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
Median age: total: 24.8 years; male: 24.6 years; female: 25 years
Are we behind the current uptick in violence against the regime? I hope so. The Islamic Republic has been at war with us since 1979.
The fragility of the current regime can be seen in these figures taken from the CIA Factbook;
Unemployment rate: 11.2%
Population below the poverty line: 40%
Inflation rate: 15.8%
Public debt: 25.3% of GDP
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
Median age: total: 24.8 years; male: 24.6 years; female: 25 years
Are we behind the current uptick in violence against the regime? I hope so. The Islamic Republic has been at war with us since 1979.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Good, clear thinking on stem cell research from the Orthodox Bishops.
Here is a portion:
From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, human life begins at conception (meaning fertilization with creation of the single-cell zygote). This conviction is grounded in the Biblical witness (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1ff; Luke 1:41,44), as well as in the scientifically established fact that from conception there exists genetic uniqueness and cellular differentiation that, if the conceptus is allowed to develop normally, will produce a live human being. ( 1 ) Human life is sacred from its very beginning, since from conception it is ensouled existence. As such, it is "personal" existence, created in the image of God and endowed with a sanctity that destines it for eternal life.
. . .
In the first place, debate on this issue has too often overlooked the fact that among the most vocal proponents of embryo research are pro-abortion activists, supported by much of the media. If the government refuses to fund such research, it would thereby tacitly acknowledge that human life begins at conception. This flies in the face of abortion legislation such as Roe v. Wade and would inevitably undermine the view that an embryo is merely a clump of tissue and can therefore be aborted on demand with no moral consequences. The real issue underlying the debate, then, is less the development of potential therapies than the preservation of so-called "abortion rights." ( 3 )
Second, enormous pressures to legalize and federally fund embryonic stem cell research is coming from the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, because of the promise of nearly limitless profits. The "new medicine" based on stem cell therapies is largely driven by the marketplace. As with AIDS medications and other recently developed therapies, market forces will determine who has access to them, and at what cost.
Read the entire letter (it's not too long).
Here is a portion:
From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, human life begins at conception (meaning fertilization with creation of the single-cell zygote). This conviction is grounded in the Biblical witness (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1ff; Luke 1:41,44), as well as in the scientifically established fact that from conception there exists genetic uniqueness and cellular differentiation that, if the conceptus is allowed to develop normally, will produce a live human being. ( 1 ) Human life is sacred from its very beginning, since from conception it is ensouled existence. As such, it is "personal" existence, created in the image of God and endowed with a sanctity that destines it for eternal life.
. . .
In the first place, debate on this issue has too often overlooked the fact that among the most vocal proponents of embryo research are pro-abortion activists, supported by much of the media. If the government refuses to fund such research, it would thereby tacitly acknowledge that human life begins at conception. This flies in the face of abortion legislation such as Roe v. Wade and would inevitably undermine the view that an embryo is merely a clump of tissue and can therefore be aborted on demand with no moral consequences. The real issue underlying the debate, then, is less the development of potential therapies than the preservation of so-called "abortion rights." ( 3 )
Second, enormous pressures to legalize and federally fund embryonic stem cell research is coming from the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, because of the promise of nearly limitless profits. The "new medicine" based on stem cell therapies is largely driven by the marketplace. As with AIDS medications and other recently developed therapies, market forces will determine who has access to them, and at what cost.
Read the entire letter (it's not too long).
02/03: What If ?
From the Washington Post:
Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey resigned today amid a burgeoning scandal over the treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and President Bush ordered a "comprehensive review" of care for the nation's war wounded, as the administration sought to deal with growing anger in Congress and among the public over the issue.
A visibly angry Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the resignation in a brief statement this afternoon, saying he was "disappointed" by the Army's response to disclosures of inadequate outpatient care at Walter Reed and bureaucratic inertia in dealing with wounded soldiers (full story here).
Wow! I had forgotten what a swift and decisive response looked like. Well done, Secretary Gates.
Historians and Presidents cannot afford the indulgence of the counter-factual questions of life; the what-ifs. Having said that, it all makes one wonder what things would be like today, if Gates had been running the war since Day One.
I like and admire George Bush. Perhaps because I am more flawed than most, I have a large degree of patience for the President's shortcomings. I cannot help but see him as a nice guy with a good heart and the best of intentions. One of his most endearing faults may be his obstinate loyalty to team.
There are those who tell the story of the young George Bush, at the helm of one of his doomed energy ventures, holed up in his office making calls to ensure that every one of his employees found a safe landing place as the company disintegrated, even down to the janitor. I don't know if that story is true, but it is in keeping with what people who know George Bush the best say about him when there are no cameras running.
However, that brand of admirable stubbornness is not always indicative of the traits needed to run a large corporation or the United States of America. Sometimes you need to be a cold-hearted SOB. Sometimes you need to discipline or discharge loyal subordinates in order to protect the larger interest of the enterprise and the long-term security of those involved.
In that way, Robert Gates is a breath of fresh air.
Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey resigned today amid a burgeoning scandal over the treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and President Bush ordered a "comprehensive review" of care for the nation's war wounded, as the administration sought to deal with growing anger in Congress and among the public over the issue.
A visibly angry Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the resignation in a brief statement this afternoon, saying he was "disappointed" by the Army's response to disclosures of inadequate outpatient care at Walter Reed and bureaucratic inertia in dealing with wounded soldiers (full story here).
Wow! I had forgotten what a swift and decisive response looked like. Well done, Secretary Gates.
Historians and Presidents cannot afford the indulgence of the counter-factual questions of life; the what-ifs. Having said that, it all makes one wonder what things would be like today, if Gates had been running the war since Day One.
I like and admire George Bush. Perhaps because I am more flawed than most, I have a large degree of patience for the President's shortcomings. I cannot help but see him as a nice guy with a good heart and the best of intentions. One of his most endearing faults may be his obstinate loyalty to team.
There are those who tell the story of the young George Bush, at the helm of one of his doomed energy ventures, holed up in his office making calls to ensure that every one of his employees found a safe landing place as the company disintegrated, even down to the janitor. I don't know if that story is true, but it is in keeping with what people who know George Bush the best say about him when there are no cameras running.
However, that brand of admirable stubbornness is not always indicative of the traits needed to run a large corporation or the United States of America. Sometimes you need to be a cold-hearted SOB. Sometimes you need to discipline or discharge loyal subordinates in order to protect the larger interest of the enterprise and the long-term security of those involved.
In that way, Robert Gates is a breath of fresh air.
02/03: Mainline Update
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Presbyterian Church PCUSA continues its decline as shown by a new round of budget cuts and staff reductions. The Berkley Blog covers and interprets here. Link from The Layman.
Another evangelical church leaves the PCUSA for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). Covenant Presbyterian in Omaha, Nebraska. Article from The Layman here. Covenant Presbyterian's website here.
To paraphrase Ron White, its not that the mainline denominations are losing, its what the mainline denominations are losing. Dynamic congregations that bring energy and growth into a movement.
Another evangelical church leaves the PCUSA for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). Covenant Presbyterian in Omaha, Nebraska. Article from The Layman here. Covenant Presbyterian's website here.
To paraphrase Ron White, its not that the mainline denominations are losing, its what the mainline denominations are losing. Dynamic congregations that bring energy and growth into a movement.
02/03: More on Church & State
In addition to the Okie Gardener's excellent coverage and background in re the Supreme Court and the President's Faith-based Initiatives, please consider this instructive review of Philip Hamburger's 2002 offering, Separation of Church and State, from the Intercollegiate Review (Volume 39, Number 1-2; Fall 2003/Spring 2004), written by friend of the Bosque Boys, Cory Andrews.
Read the review, "The Metaphor as Wrecking Ball," in PDF here.
Read the review, "The Metaphor as Wrecking Ball," in PDF here.
