In a world with Dan Rather, and as Wired Magazine pulls numerous articles for fake quotes[1], as conservatives are rocked by the scandal of conflicting interests (being paid to write, or being paid for similar things), and numerous similar things, I wonder how John Leo can, with a straight face, tell us that we will lack accountability and verification in the absence of traditional news sources.[2] I am not one to discount the service they provide, though I often do disparage them. After all, how many of my posts would exist without the major news source to back it up? And I am not so foolish as to think Townhall.com could pay all that many of the journalists whose columns make up most of the rest of my posts. Still, time and time again, we have seen a lack of verification happening in the traditional news media, which, to me, says that things could not be worse if we had to categorize our news by how much we trust the source instead of being told we can blindly trust the media. Which reminds me, he seems to share this idea with much of the media “elite” that in the absence of media to tell us what is important, what is true, we would not question it for ourselves. He worries that there would be a higher percentage of gossip and rumor accepted as fact, but we have endured months of speculation over what President Bush’s Social Security plan would be, when he had released no details. Who double checks the media? It was hugely noteworthy when ABC decided to investigate “American Idol,” hugely noteworthy because it so rarely happens that anyone seriously questions the credibility of a major network. Or at least, no one except the populace who, apparently, are choosing to find their news elsewhere.

On a side note, is this barrage of national and international news even good for us? We all know about the international problems, we hear nightly about the latest horrors, but who knows what happened in their own town? Could you tell me who was married in your parish this weekend? I could not, could you tell me who moved out in your neighborhood this week? Who moved in? The barrage of national and international news, the barrage of sensationalism, is depressing, I cannot stand to watch it on the television, and I read it online only out of boredom, I am aware it really is not all that good for me (except to the extent that I do find motivation to write about it and thus exercise my intellect in some minimal way). Perhaps in the absence of the major news sources there would be fewer investigations of Global Warming, perhaps we would be less likely to know of the problems in the Congo. But then too, perhaps we would be less interested in solving everything at a Federal level and more interested in the decisions our Board of Supervisors make. We would be more interested in the programs going on in our parishes. We would be more interested in these things because they are accessible to the unfunded individual, they are immediate to our lives, and so would continue to make its way to our daily intake of news. When the overall volume decreases, the noise to signal ratio simply cannot stay constant, people, with less to wade through, will more quickly learn what to pay attention to.

[1] http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67428,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html [2] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050509.shtml

Phyllis Schlafly reports on the sad, sad story of Federal child support laws in “Federal incentives exist to make children fatherless.”[1] This really needs no commentary. The results stand on their own, in mute testimony against Federal intervention.

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050509.shtml

When I first heard that President Bush had proposed an income indexed Social Security benefit, I knew that his “allies,” the republican journalists, were going to savage him. And at least some of them have.[1] I, on the other hand, thought it brilliant, and George Will seems to agree.[2]

First of all, it is nearly unattackable. This is doing exactly what the indexed income taxes, so loved by the democrats, does, it hurts the rich. Oh, it cuts into middle class benefits also, an aspect I rather dislike, as it will impact me, and it is particularly bad since we in the middle class pay the bulk of the taxes to begin with, but for tax purposes we are rich, so why not for Social Security? Oh, if only the liberals could be effectively called on this one…

Secondly, as Mr. Will points out, as our most influential citizens realize they do not need, and do not benefit from, Social Security, there will begin to be some incentive to disband it entirely, eliminating one program the federal government has no place administering. On the other hand, there will continue to be some incentive to expand it to “help” the richer citizens, but that always exists, and we have resisted it fairly effectively in welfare.

All of which demonstrates why the democrats are so opposed to it, they cannot bear to see this leash around our collective necks loosened. They would have us dependent on the government for everything, so that they can use the threat of cut benefits to enact whatever social policies they see fit to propose. They would leave us trapped in a fairly classic trap between a carrot and a whip.

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/alanreynolds/ar20050505.shtml [2] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050508.shtml

When 70% of ninth graders cannot read at a “proficient” level,[1] it is no wonder that we are failing to have the well educated work force that would prevent our high tech companies from looking elsewhere for labor.

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/England20050505.shtml

Remember the discovery of the “hobbits?” ARN’s web log brings to my attention an interesting development, not far from the location of the find, there is a village of pygmy people.[1] I wonder how different their skeletons look from that of the “hobbit.”

[1]http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2005/05/10/first_hobbits_now_pygmies

The NYTimes is all excited about the findings of a group of Swedish researchers. In a number of different sections of of the times, based on my RSS feeds, they posted an article in which homosexual men responded to a pair of chemicals thought to be pheromones the way normal women do, not the way normal men do.[1] The researchers claim that the data on homosexual women is “too complicated” to publish, which leads me to question this study, how and why could it possibly be “too complicated?” Further, they admit that they cannot, from this study, tell the difference between cause and effect. Which means that they do not know if homosexuality is causing the changed reaction, or if the changed reaction is causing homosexuality. Either way, this does not detract from the idea that homosexuality is, at root, a disease, it just means that it may be a physical disease and not just a mental one.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/science/10smell.html?ei=5088&en=cc4056b5bf851ac9&ex=1273377600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Mrs. Michelle Malkin has posted[1] a remarkable example of the harm that political correctness can do to society. Political correctness is an interesting way to silence dissent and mandate censorship, as no one likes to be called racist, sexist, so on. People will flee these emotionally charged labels so fast that they will often give in rather than attempt to debate the accuracy of the label. Indeed, in today’s atmosphere, an attempt to debate it rather than fleeing tends to exacerbate the harm done in the minds of the listeners, who are unlikely to engage the issue rationally.

[1] http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002394.htm

I really do not know where to start with this Ars article. It is rightly concerned with so much, it is quite obviously biased and wrong about almost as much.

The article starts off more or less correctly, it is a surprise that the REAL ID Act is getting next to no coverage. And it is obvious that it has been attached to this military spending bill because there is no way the Congress, either house, could pass it without backlash (how big a backlash is another question, but there would be backlash) otherwise. For this reason, Mr. Bruce Schneier says that the REAL ID Act is a done deal, that there is no way it will fail.

As to the national id aspect of the bill, Mr. Schneier’s web log entry is rather more informative, accurate, and meaningful than Ars’ is. Either way, it is a significant concern. You do not want this bill to pass if you value your privacy at all. Or, at least, not if you value your privacy and your freedom more than you value your sheep-like security (yes, you can see my bias here). Mrs. Michelle Malkin is likely in favor of this bill, she will see the security concerns without really noting that the proposed solution is not an adequate fix. Others significantly upset about illegal immigration will also likely support this, as they will see its denial of licenses to illegal immigrants. However well or poorly Ars and Mr. Schneier argue on this aspect however, I think they have missed stating the vital point. The argument against this aspect of the bill, the immigration aspect, is the same as that against gun control. Illegal aliens will still drive, they just will not have licenses, and thus will not have even the minimal testing that the various departments of motor vehicles offer. To what extent is that already the case? It is hard to say, but it must be less when you can know someone with a license than when every illegal immigrant lacks one.

Moving on, we get to judicial review. I find it really curious that Ars can quote the relevant section of the Constitution and yet still find that judicial review is yet part of the Constitution. If it is, I do not see it. As best I remember from my history and government courses, judicial review started with Marbury v. Madison, when it first struck down a bill as unconstitutional. This ability itself is not enumerated in the Constitution, but was not challenged at the time, by the men who had written the Constitution, so it may be assumed that they consented to it as being compatible. At least, if they did challenge it, such challenge has not lasted to my ears.

Living as they did in a time when tyranny was primarily imposed by the executive, the governors of the separate colonies disbanding the legislatures, overriding the courts, interfering with them, it is not surprising that rather fewer checks were put on the Courts by our founding fathers than on the executive. Interestingly though, argument has been passed down to us of several early presidents, including Madison, widely held to be the primary author of the Constitution (unlike Jefferson, author of the Declaration, who was not even involved directly), criticizing Congress for passing bills beyond their Constitutional authority, and vetoing said bills. An example being a pension for widows of military officers. If Congress had not the authority to pass a pension for the widows of military officers, where comes the authority for it to pension for us all (Social Security)? Now likely, the Federal pension plans, being as they are passed as part of the compensation due to Federal employees are different, and under such, Congress may then have been able to pass that pension plan, but it did so as an act of humanity, not under its ability to pass laws necessary (I.E. paying government employees) to the exercise of the Government’s function. Returning to my point here, our founding fathers feared many forms of tyranny, they saw the threat of democracy, they saw the abuse of the executive. I think however that they missed the possibly tyranny of the oligarchy, the tyranny that the unchecked judicial power could, and now is, making.

Ars certainly misses this possibility. Concerned that the separation of Church and State, itself not “constitutionally mandated” but rather an erroneous decision of the Warren Court that has been imposed on us by the courts since, might be eroded, Ars is up in arms over the possibility that Congress might use the Article 3 Section 2 clause 2 powers to restrict the scope of the courts.

In part, they are rightly concerned. Such a restriction might now serve good ends, it could be used to limit the damage to society by the decisions of Massachusetts and similar states. It could be used to prevent the ACLU and other rabidly anti-Christian organizations from further erasing our Christian heritage from the collective consciousness. These would be good acts, good ends at least, possibly, but debatably, good means to them. It could also, at some point in the future, be used quite the reverse, it could be used to restrict the Courts from enforcing the freedom of religion, for example. It is a two edged sword, quite capable of cutting both ways, just as the filibuster is (which is why the democrats and republicans have switched sides on the filibuster recently, it is now the democrats wielding the sword, not the republicans). Still, I think that in this case, like in many others, that the Article 3 Section 2 clause 2 powers are simply a tool, a tool that, unlike for example nuclear weapons, have no inherent good or evil content, they are more like a hammer, which can be used for good and evil, so it is the intent of the person, the act for which it is used, that determines the morality of the use (again, unlike nuclear arms, which cannot be legitimately used (except perhaps as a threat? but a threat implies that they might be, and they must not be…messy question)).