What sort of utterly depraved parent must you be to allow an 11 year old child to attend a “juvenile nudist camp?”[1] I mean at all much less without a parent. Surely it does not take a rocket scientist to understand just how incredibly stupid that would be.

[1] O’Dell, Larry. “Appeals court reinstates challenge of Virginia law on juvenile nudist camp” The Associated Press, via FindLaw 2005-07-06 http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-06-2005/de470006ef4bf3d1.html

It is nice to see our Church leaders standing up to defend the faith. In Canada, Kingston, Ontario Archbishop Anthony Meagher is warning his flock that the mock ordination of women would result in the same automatic excommunication that it did in France.[1] In Columbia, Bishop Fabian Marlanda defends the right of each child to a father and a mother.[2] In Spain, Sigüenza-Guadalajar Bishop Jose Sanchez Gonzalez explains that the Church’s stance on homosexual “marriage” is not a reflection of discrimination, but of the inherent nature of marriage.[3] He also reiterates that marriage builds society and thus predates the state, and so the state should not be attempting to redefine marriage.[3]

[1] Catholic News Agency. “Canadian Archbishop warns against impending female-ordination ceremony” 2005-07-07 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4319
[2] Catholic News Agency. “Colombian bishops: child’s right to a father and a mother supersede homosexual demands” 2005-07-07 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4320
[3] Catholic News Agency. “Opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’ is not discrimination against homosexuals” 2005-07-07 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4322

Simply comparing the structures of various organisms of differing sophistication without explaining where the more primitive ones came from in the first place, what genetic mutations could practically have resulted in the existence of these more advanced ones, and how each successive organism’s neuro-muscular system knew what to do with this new information to allow for functional survival, would, for most inquiring minds, seem to be inadequate.[1]

In just a few lines of text, Dr. Glicksman neatly sums up what would constitute a rebuttal of Dr. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box or Mr. Glicksman’s own columns. The sort of rebuttal that has not been forthcoming. The kind of explanation described as inadequate here is the type of explanation I tend to call a “just so story,” a phrase that dates to Mr. Kipling’s work, and which I picked up from this use from one of the other ARN authors.

[1] Glicksman, Dr. Howard. “Wired for Much More than Sound Part VIII: Run for your Life Part 1″ Exercise Your Wonder, Access Research Network. 2005-02-01. http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_050201.htm

Just as I post the previous entry, I see a couple of FindLaw articles on President Bush’s ideas for judicial nominees.[1][2] The reports are undoubtedly twisted to reflect the hopes of the liberal media, but they are all I really have to go on here. They are not really good news at all.

While I admire President Bush’s loyalty to his friend, which leads him to request that conservatives “tone down” the “rhetoric,”[3] I tend to agree with Mr. Buchanan[4] that this is not an effective strategy for those of us concerned about this nomination to take. The liberals certainly will not “tone down” their “rhetoric,” why should we? It is said that the squeaky wheel gets the grease after all. If President Bush would like to see attacks on his friend from both sides cease, then he needs to simply make it clear that Mr. Gonzales will not be nominated.

As it stands however, I think that the media may be accurate in thinking that President Bush is holding out to nominate Mr. Gonzales. This coincides well with the news that President Bush will not have a “litmus test” on abortion. While I think this news is meant to reassure the right, in a climate where such “litmus tests” typically mean “do you support Roe v. Wade?”, I am disturbed by it because I want to see a “litmus test” in this case: I want a justice who will vote to end the tragedy of abortion when it next faces the court. I believe that such a vote coincides well with the stance a strict constitutionalist would take, and so I do not see any hypocrisy or paradox here. If I did not think they matched, I would be more conflicted, but would probably end on favoring a strict constitutionalist, without a firm reading of the constitution, no progress can truly happen, but will rather shift with the politics of the court.

[1] Pickler, Nedra. “Bush has revealed a few clues about his ideal candidate for Supreme Court” FindLaw 2005-07-06 http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-05-2005/0c0b002bf32d28dc.html
[2] The Associated Press. “Bush says ‘no litmus test’ on abortion for Supreme Court nominee” FindLaw 2005-07-06 http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-06-2005/4e600002f3f3a316.html
[3] Malkin, Michelle. “NO, YOU ‘TONE IT DOWN’” 2005-07-06. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002922.htm
[4] Buchanan, Pat. “The Judges War: An issue of power” World Net Daily (On-Line). 2005-07-06 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45139

For once Mr. Pat Buchanan has posted an editorial I agree with. Though somewhat disingenuous, blaming the Warren court for every poor Supreme Court decision since, he accurately summarizes what these outrages have been.[1] Like him, I wonder if President Bush understands just how critical it is that he nominate good judges who will follow the constitution rather than attempting to write law, and who will have the courage and moral fortitude to overturn the bad decisions of the past.

[1] Buchanan, Pat. “The Judges War: An issue of power” World Net Daily (On-Line). 2005-07-06 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45139

Along the same lines, a priest in Sudan is quoted reporting the harsh reality that Sudanese Catholics face.[1] This is true not just of Sudan of course, but in many African countries where militant Muslims hold sway.

[1] Catholic News Agency. “In Sudan, ‘Martyrdom is real’, says priest” 2005-07-06 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4308

The Catholic News Agency is reporting that one of the Bishops in China loyal to the Pope has been arrested again.[1] Apparently this is the sixth time in eighteen months.

In better news, they claim there are twelve million Catholics (not fake “Patriotic Catholics”) in China!!

[1] Catholic News Agency. “Chinese Government arrests Vatican faithful bishop for the 6th time” 2005-07-06 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4301

They say that “idle hands are the Devil’s playthings” (and similar), and a court case about paying a bill in pennies proves it.[1] This Texas case is somewhat amusing as a man decides to pay a lawyer in pennies because he “had no respect ‘in any shape, form or fashion’” for him. Unfortunately both the trial judge and the appellate court sided with the lawyer, saying that while the man is not guilty of contempt, he followed the letter of the judge’s instructions after all, he is liable for the time and cost to convert the pennies into a cashier’s check. I personally hope that he does appeal this again, and that he (the person who paid in pennies) wins the case, because if this stands, pennies are no longer legal tender “for all debts public and private,” but only for those debts public or private where the debtee chooses to accept them.

[1] Donald, Mark. “Paid in Pennies, Lawyer Takes Fee Fight to Court” Law.com 2005-07-05. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1120208723965

The National Catholic Register has what may or may not be a unique take on how to take back our society. Rather than denying that there is a right to privacy, they suggest we simply write it.[1] If we were to define a right to privacy in a properly worded amendment, we would arm those justices that care about what the constitution says, as opposed to what they personally desire, a weapon with which to protect the individual’s right to privacy, a right that common sense says must exist, while still resisting the waywardness of the left. It could also be used to restrict the ways in which the left can go wayward, as it is significantly harder to redefine something to suit when it really is written somewhere.

I like this approach because in today’s technology driven society, it is all to easy to fall under surveillance. From companies tracking you and selling personal information, to a true succulence society where every minute you are under cameras, in public at least, we see privacy growing ever more valuable, and ever harder to protect. Society is even starting to recognize this, in the form of laws that specifically penalize identity theft, require greater accountability from credit reporting agencies, and so on. Once it was only from the government that citizens need fear from unreasonable searches. Today, its all to easy to wake up and find out that someone else has run up credit card bills in your name, and that your employer wants to fire you if you smoke on your own time.[2] This is not a time to be stripping away privacy simply because the concept has been abused. Rather, we need to take it back, along with the rest of society.

[1] McDermott, Scott. “The American Pontifex” National Catholic Register, July 3-9, 2005 http://www.ncregister.com/current/0703lead2.htm
[2] Search this journal for entries talking about Weyco.

So apparently last night as we left the Mall to head home from the fireworks (which were AWESOME!!), D.C. officials were testing their evacuation plans. After reading a New York Times article about it,[1] I understand a little more of what they were thinking than I did when my mom first mentioned it yesterday.

At first I was thinking that it was a horridly stupid idea. Why would you test an evacuation plan on the Fourth of July, when we should be celebrating? After several years of small crowds (only some of which can be blamed on the weather, based on twenty some odd years of experience) and high security, I thought that this was the last thing we needed to be doing: causing yet more panic. Fortunately, the people planning this had a little more sense than I was giving them credit for. They didn’t actually simulate a need to evacuate, or even really talk about the fact that an evacuation drill was “happening.” In fact, I doubt anyone on the Mall, who had not heard about it before hand, knew that anything was different. Which is as it should be.

Apparently, they just used the mass exiting that occurs after the fireworks each year to monitor how some basic changes (to traffic light timings and such) will help (or hinder) in the event of a real evacuation. They allowed the closed streets (due to the stupidly high security) and crowds of people walking to cars mimic the actual event for them. I really cannot say how well it simulated an evacuation. I would tend to think that it would do a poor job, as I would think there would at once be fewer people, crowded though it was based on post-9/11 standards, than a true evacuation, and a significantly higher percentage of people from out of area.

Still, if from this they realized (apparently for the first time‽) that the scarcity of bridges and highways leading out of the city on the Virginia side would cause bottlenecks galore, they know it now, and that can only be a good thing. Not that I am really sure what they can or will do about that.

[1] Wingfield, Brian. “Fireworks Crowd in Washington Provides Test of Evacuation Plan” New York Times (On-Line Edition) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/nationalspecial3/05evacuate.html?ex=1278216000&en=d26b0b92bc11d71f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss