Show me the alien!

Can't . . . ignore . . . this . . . asinine . . . story (or the idiots at the center of it). (Denver Post--"Alien video: Puppet or real E.T.?")

According to Alejandro Rojas, "education director of MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network": "If it was a puppet, it would be a very elaborate and sophisticated puppet,[!!!!!]"

It doesn't look "elaborate or sophisticated" to me.

Referring to the guy who recorded the original video, Stan Tiger Romanek, and who claims to have had more than 100 encounters with aliens, and has a website (with photos!!): "I don't believe they have the ability or the motivation to fabricate a hoax."

Whatever you say, Director Rojas.

May I say that you weren't a very good press secretary?

I think Rich Lowry accurately sums up Scott McClellan and his book in this op/ed: (here). From the article:

Likable, but maladroit and plodding, he was the perfect spokesman for the administration of Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, and Al Gonzales. For anyone who doubted that President Bush too often valued loyalty over talent, there was McClellan stumbling through daily briefings to embody the point more eloquently than he ever could have stated it.

McClellan’s book has all the inherent interest of one of his briefings. He tells of an incident that was one of his “favorite moments” from working with then-governor George Bush in Texas. He stumbled upon Bush making sandwiches. McClellan picks up the tale from there: “For the next twenty minutes or so we munched on the sandwiches and talked about a variety of topics, few of which had to do with politics.”

How will the Establishment Media respond?

Via BillHobbs.com, an intriguing article about how BigInk (wink-wink) is responding to the challenge from new media (e.g., bloggers). These paragraphs were particularly insightful, I thought:>bt: Peering into the Psyche of the Establishment Media:

Although there are bloggers who have done excellent first-hand reporting, most bloggers are not equipped to compete with the core competency of large news-gathering organizations. Instead, bloggers tend to function as filters, amplifiers, analyzers and fact-checkers for stories that have been reported (and under-reported) by the establishment media.

To put it not-so-flatteringly, we bloggers are parasitic; we synthesize our product by relying on output from the establishment media. But we’re symbiotic parasites, and our existence benefits the media in numerous ways, not the least of which is by driving traffic (and therefore ad revenue) to media websites.

Unfortunately, as this CJR piece shows, some in the media view bloggers as the enemy, a tormentor that must be defeated. By seeing bloggers as direct competitors, outlets put themselves in a position of competing on their greatest weakness while at the same time undermining their greatest strength.

Instead of competing in the arena of gathered facts, many in the traditional media have responded to the rise of online outlets by deciding that they need more opinion in their product, not less. The problem with that is, the news media has been insisting for decades that they’re “objective.” Personally, I don’t think true media objectivity is even possible, but the claim of objectivity becomes even less credible as the media adds more and more opinion to their product.

Yet under the guise of “news analysis,” “putting things in context,” giving “perspective” and “helping you understand,” the news media insists on wrapping what should be its unique product—hard-to-gather facts—in packaging that makes their product look similar to everything else that’s available online for free.

How can media outlets get themselves out of this predicament? They should either embrace opinion journalism fully and drop the pretense of objectivity, or they should get out of the opinion business altogether if they insist on being seen as objective.

Indeed.

Meanwhile, back at Obama's church . . .

Sorry, but unlike some folks, we don't talk politics at my Evangelical church:

Wright's Trumpet magazine reported last year [Father Michael] Pfleger "manages to weave into the midday homily at Trinity … his deep and abiding dislike for President George W. Bush. And with this mostly African-American congregation, Pfleger is in good company."

According to a profile of Pfleger in Trumpet, the pastor "counts the mighty as close confidants and friends," specifically Wright, Farrakhan and Obama.

And thanks to the reporting of WorldNetDaily we're aware of what they believe at Obama's church.

Coulter on modern-day appeasing

Ann Coulter brings some scathing funny in an op/ed about Obama's plans for dealing with Iran. ("You Can't Appease Everybody"). From the article:

"The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as 'sciatica').

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?"

Soros' credibility gap

Via Knoxviews, ("George Soros is always right . . .Rats!"--you in the back there, stop laughing), this "story" about the Global Godfather of the Left's predictions about the global economy.

George Soros: 'We face the most serious recession of our lifetime' - Telegraph:

"Such apocalypticisms would be less worrying were it not that Soros was among the few prominent experts who warned of the dire consequences facing the American economy years ago, when the housing bubble was still inflating."

Actually, the "apocalypticisms" would be more worrying if they hadn't--then and now, been motivated by rabid anti-Republicanism.

From the "if cleverness only translated into governance" Dept.

I just read over at TennViews that,

"MoveOn.org is organizing a 'Bush-McCain Challenge' in cities across America at noon tomorrow May 28th. People on the street will take a 'Pepsi-Coke' style challenge to see if they can identify who said it - Bush or McCain."

Ha. I was thinking of organizing a similar "taste test" for Dubya v. Most-Democratic-Senators. Of course, seeing as Barack Obama is rated by non-partisan National Journal as Most Liberal U.S. Senator, his comments are likely to be "out there" a bit.

That being said, I thought the Democrats were swearing off of "guilt by association" . . .

Get Obama on the phone . . .

Sharon Stone--who appears to have endorsed Barack Obama, is positing that recent earthquakes in China may be the result of Chinese oppression of Tibetans.

Not exactly the simile that comes to mind . . .

While some of my closest friends are members of Unions . . . this simile--offered by a NASA scientist in an article about America's "Phoenix" Mars Lander (here), seemed to miss the mark:

Mission co-scientist Ray Arvidson of Washington University in St. Louis was pleased with Phoenix's progress so far.

"Like a union worker, it went right to work," he said.

Is this scientist trying to get the Democratic Party nomination for something?

Barack Archuleta Obama?

I don't watch or "follow"

American Idol

, but from the unavoidable buzz over the past few days (about the season finale), am I the only person who sees similarities between what I've heard about the David Archuleta phenomenon and what I know about the Barack Obama phenomenon?

This Entertainment Weekly piece is what made me start thinking this.

D'oh! Environmentalist conundrums

There's a fascinating series of articles in Wired magazine ("Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green" about a myriad of contradictions in modern-day Environmentalism. Hat tip The Corner.

Here are the 10 "Green Heresies":

-Live in Cities
-A/C Is OK
-Organics Are Not the Answer
-Farm the Forests
-China Is the Solution
-Accept Genetic Engineering
-Carbon Trading Doesn't Work
-Embrace Nuclear Power
-Used Cars — Not Hybrids
-Prepare for the Worst--Climate Change is Inevitable

Wilder deserved to lose his "last stand"

Woody Woodruff offers perspective on Wilder's last stand in today's Tennessean. ("Wilder's place in history is secure, but his backing of Tennessee Plan stains it a bit") From the article's opening:

"Larry Daughtrey performed a valuable service for readers of The Tennessean in his column last Sunday about state Sen. John Wilder ('Tennessee will never see another lion king like John Wilder').

His article was a reminder of some of Sen. Wilder's great accomplishments during his decades of public service as Tennessee's lieutenant governor. No doubt, Tennessee is a better place to live because of many of the laws that Sen. Wilder helped to pass. It's sad, however, that the final chapter of his long career was spent in service of a poor cause."

In the remainder of the op/ed, Woodruff demonstrates the kiddie-pool shallowness of Daughtrey's take on the issue.

The AP knows what Republicans want!

I came across this intriguing article (via DrudgeReport) about John McCain's Memorial Day guest list (seeming VP short list). The subject--and some of the facts, were useful, but I'm intrigued by how clueless the writer seems about Republican ideals.

The writer fawns over Charlie Crist, dismisses Bobby Jindal and all-but-ignores Joe Lieberman. From the article:

Crist, 51, provided a major boost to McCain prior to Florida's Jan. 29 primary with a well-timed endorsement.

Elected governor in 2006, Crist has been seen as a moderate Republican. He has championed efforts to curb climate change, and was praised by former President Clinton for his efforts to restore voting rights of felons who have completed their sentences.

He also pushed for a law that requires a paper trail in state elections, a measure that bans the electronic voting machines his predecessor, Gov. Jeb Bush, sought after the 2000 presidential election. That election ended in a hotly contested recount, which President Bush won by 537 votes.

Jindal, 36, son of Indian immigrants, was elected governor of Louisiana in October 2007. He had served as secretary of the state health department.

Among other guests expected were Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., close confidantes of McCain.

D'oh! Forgot to mention that Jindal was a 3-term congressman and atypically (for LA) won a governor's race going away.

Charlie Crist will get all the buzz he is getting for one reason . . . the so-called MSM likes him.

Constitutionality of (what used to be known as) "the Tennessee Plan"

Several blogs have raised the question about the "constitutionality" of "The Tennessee Plan" and the ramifications of it ever being held "unconstitutional." (Bill Hobbs, Kay Brooks, commenters/TN plan apologists). Of course, the constitutionality issue is important in swaying public opinion, but is there a potential for legal mayhem if some court held that judges seated via the Tennessee Plan were holding their seats illegally?

First, in light of several TN SCt holdings that "selection-followed-by-uncontested/ retention-election" equals "election," it is incorrect to state that the Tennessee Plan is unconstitutional--at least unconstitutional in toto. Certain aspects of it have been held "constitutional" but various aspects of it's consistency with our state constitution have not been (more here) so it is fair to argue that aspects of it may not be "constitutional." While as an attorney I have to admit that such holdings qualify as "legal authority" for "merit selection" advocates, I have to note that said authority would also support the conclusion that it would be "constitutional" to pick state legislators and the governor by a system of appointment and uncontested retention referenda . . . so the "authority" is pretty weak, in my estimation.

As a result, could the system by which we have seated our state Supreme Court Justices* since 1994--if found to be "illegal," render all decisions by judges so selected to be "illegal" and therefore reversible? Not likely.

To begin with, it could take a while before our state Supreme Court could bring itself to accede that "the Tennessee Plan" was unconstitutional. Selecting judges by "The Tennessee Plan" since 1994 has pretty effectively ensured a jurisprudentially Liberal majority on our supreme court for decades to come. Without some different "legal authority" on the question of what "election" meant to the framers of Tennessee's constitution in 1852, there will be no controlling authority to which an attorney could appeal. And given that this is an issue of interpreting a state constitution, most Federal courts will defer to the interpretation of the given state's highest court.

Not to mention, I doubt you could find many trial lawyers (although lawyers who litigate the crap out of the Death Penalty could be an exception) who would be willing to argue in an appellate brief or otherwise that the Tennessee Plan is unconstitutional anyway.

In sum, one can argue that the Tennessee Plan is/was "constitutional" and some justices might hold that there is controlling precedent to that effect. In reality, however, it's constitutionality is very suspect, and the TN Plan's house of cards has pretty much collapsed . . . because whether or not the TN Plan is constitutional is insignificant when one considers that it does not enjoy popular support, as evidenced by recent events. Isn't democracy great?








*I left out intermediate appellate judges because there is a fair argument that such judges--having been created long after election of judges was put into our constitution, were therefore not contemplated by the framers of our constitution and operate under different guidelines. I disagree with this argument, but . . .

Now that's progress: "Tennessee Plan" not reauthorized

Sen. John Wilder's effort to revive his Tennessee Plan reauthorization bill failed in the senate just before 8 p.m. this evening. Sen. Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) and Sen. Mike Williams (I-Maynardville) joined all Republican senators in voting not to bypass the Government Operations committee and bring Wilder's bill directly to the floor of the senate.

What this signifies to me is that there is potential for change in our state. Some of you may think, "Merit selection was better . . . it was the best way for us to pick judges . . . and this is a step back for our state."

Perhaps you're right, at least about the best way to pick judges. But this is progress for our state, because despite months of soul force, personality-driven arm-twisting, and teeth-gnashing from the most powerful lobby in the state ("trial lawyers," et al), a majority of state senators did what was right this evening.

Folks, the sky isn't falling. In the coming year we can and will have a debate about what is the best way to select judges in our state. If the "Tennessee Plan" is not reauthorized (newsflash: reauthorization can be achieved by a simple majority vote in both houses), then we'll simply revert to the system we relied upon from the time it was established by Jacksonian Democrats in the mid-1800's until 1994. No biggie.

At the end of the debate, State legislators may conclude that elections are the best way to select judges; but if they conclude otherwise, they need to change the constitution to reflect that preference.

Let the debate begin.

www.tennplandebate.com


From around the state (and beyond):

Terry Frank
VoluntarilyConservative
Dan Pero
Bill Hobbs

Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man--Judicial Selection in TN

If you missed Larry Daughtrey's op/ed in yesterday's Tennessean, I encourage you to give it a read . . . it provides a vignette of the Liberal comfort with "rule of man."

The underlying issue is the so-called "Tennessee Plan"--a blatantly contra-constitutional way of picking judges that (conveniently) has allowed TN Liberals a choke-hold on judicial selection for the past 14 years. Whether you think elections (as required by our constitution) or "merit selection" (as instituted in 1994) is the better way of choosing judges, there's no question which way is mandated in our state constitution. Daughtrey has written off and on about his preference for "merit selection." (He needs to take that up with the ghost of Andrew Jackson).

But in this piece, Daughtrey laments that former "lion king," and Lt. Governor, John Wilder has been reduced to "begging" before an "inconsequential" senate committee when in Wilder's heyday, a "nod or a gesture" would have gotten Wilder whatever he wanted--legislatively speaking.

What a contrast, no? I, for one, am glad that some Tennessee legislators--ones on an "inconsequential" committee (acc. to Daughtrey), are seemingly indifferent to whether John Wilder's feelings might get hurt if they oppose his policy proposals in favor of what our Constitution requires. Daughtrey and his ilk like the present system because they like who is picking the judges . . . and they trust these folks to make the decisions outside the public's view. He may deride opposition to Wilder's pet legislation as veritable elder abuse or actions of a "hard-right breed savor[ing] political power" . . . I'd characterize it as rule of law.

A must-read for any WFB fan

Ross Douthat, writing for The Atlantic, gives a charming, peeking-Tom-ish account of an excursion with William F. Buckley. "We're On Our Way Home Now, Duckie!"

McCain on SNL

Well, John McCain appeared on SNL last evening and his campaign has to be thrilled about the exposure and the message . . .

Here's the first segment, wherein the writers made light of McCain's age (no biggie, when you're making the joke) and his reputation as a fiscal conservative (never a biggie). Though the segment was skimpy on humor--noone would blame that on McCain, and the long spans without a joke only emphasized the frugality message.

Here's the second segment (during "Weekend Update") in which McCain delivers great lines and comes off as a lovable rascal (well, kind of lovable).

I think effective humor typically has some nugget of truth in it. And unlike some other comic appearances by politicians, the nugget of truth in the context of McCain's SNL appearance last evening does not reflect poorly on McCain.

"Sweetiegate" and taffy-like feminism

Nice report about the media's response to Obama's use of "sweetie" in dismissing a female reporter's question (and dismissively addressing various women at campaign events). From the article:

"I don’t think Sweetiegate matters so much for what it says about Barack Obama, whose use of this came precisely as a dismissal to the WXYZ reporter. It says much more about feminist activists and their remarkable flexibility when presuming to know the interior dialogue of the minds of men."

Be sure and watch the SNL sketch linked in the article.

A hit (yellow) dog howls--update

Interesting Mark Steyn op/ed about Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, and offense taken by various Democrats.

Update: speaking of howling (not to mention hit dogs howling), this is a funny op/ed from Ann Coulter on the subject. I especially liked the line about Wal-Mart.

A couple things . . .

. . . about the Democratic Presidential Primary.

I was just reading a Robert Novak article on the Dem race, and several things came to mind:
--Though I disagree that Hillary's WV trouncing of Obama reflects any "momentum" for her campaign, it certainly reflects Obama's general election weaknesses.
--Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) has just announced that he is switching his super delegate vote from Hillary to Obama. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like majorly bad form for someone to pull that maneuver.
--Obama seems prepared (according to a story in Politico and reported by Novak) to proclaim the nomination his after he reaches "the pledged delegate majority not counting Florida or Michigan." It's not clear how Obama will handle such an announcement, but it seems a bit disingenuous for Obama to--in any way, diminish the significance of super delegates in deciding this race. There's no denying that the Democrats have a blatantly elitist system of selecting a candidate for president.

Update: The sympathy vote and how we seat judges in TN

Sorry, but sympathy (for another member's ego) is no basis for supporting a particular policy in the state senate ("Wilder’s judicial plan on rocks as Senate tempers ignite" on Nashville City Paper).

From John Rodgers' report:

One of the signature achievements of former Lt. Gov. John Wilder’s legacy — Tennessee’s method for selecting judges — took another step toward extinction today, causing tempers to flare and accusations of mistreatment to fly.

Wilder (D-Mason), a member of the Senate for 44 years and lieutenant governor and Senate speaker for 36 of those years, is retiring this year from the Senate. The state’s current method for picking judges, called the Tennessee Plan, is one of his top achievements.

. . . .

Tempers flared after the legislation was effectively killed.

Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle of Memphis was seen in a hallway confrontation with Sen. Rusty Crowe (R-Johnson City), a member of the government operations panel.

. . . .

Kyle said the Republicans mistreated the 86-year old Wilder by “essentially making John Wilder beg them to vote for the bill.”

“I thought it was a real sad day to treat a member like that,” Kyle said afterwards. “The manner in which John Wilder was treated today would be inappropriate for any senator, particularly a fellow who’s been here for 40 years.”

Sen. Dewayne Bunch (R-Cleveland), another GOP member of the committee, called Kyle’s accusation “ludicrous.” "

Way to go, senate Republicans.

UPDATE: Ironically, TN Democratic Party is complaining that Republicans are trying to reform our judicial selection process so as to appoint activist judges to the state bench. Yes, Dems, and up is down. Oh, and they're outraged at how Sen. John Wilder was treated, too. Give me a break.



Prior posts on this issue here.

Winning the war, losing a battle

In light of the GOP's loss of a House seat in Mississippi yesterday, Mark Rose points out, Conservatives may be winning the war (of ideas) but losing the battle.

Hypocrisy writ large

I don't know Bernie Ward from Adam, and I am sad for his family (and victims) but this was too rich to pass up. ("Bernie Ward admits to child porn in plea deal") From the article:

Bernie Ward, the most prominent liberal voice on Bay Area talk radio for more than two decades, admitted Thursday to distribution of child pornography by e-mail in a plea deal that will send him to federal prison for at least five years.
. . . .

Ward initially pleaded not guilty and said he had downloaded a few pornographic images over several weeks as research for a book on hypocrisy among Americans who preach morality in public. But he was confronted by a federal law that flatly prohibits possessing, receiving or distributing child pornography - regardless of intent - and requires at least five years in prison for each conviction.

His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005.

The transcripts quote Ward as fantasizing about naked children with no apparent reference to any subject he was researching. Police said he had sent photos to the woman that showed children engaged in sexual activity.
. . . .

After the priesthood, Ward worked as a schoolteacher, served as legislative assistant for then-Rep. Barbara Boxer for three years and was hired by KGO in 1985. As an investigative reporter, he won a national award for a series of stories in the mid-1990s, in partnership with the San Francisco Examiner, that exposed financial and sexual improprieties in the San Francisco Archdiocese.

(emphasis added)


And there's even another level to this story. abc7news.com: Sexual complaints against Bernie Ward date back to priesthood 5/10/08: "Ward's guilty plea brings some comfort to (alleged sexual abuse victim Rosanne) Schwab. She says it's important for people to know that someone who criticized the Catholic church for so long on the radio had his own complaints of misconduct when he was a priest."

Rule of Law on trial in Tennessee

Today's WSJ has a splendid overview of Tennessee's sausage-making scene--the legislature. The struggle is over the scheduled-to-sunset process of placing intermediate appellate court and supreme court judges on the bench. A concern for "rule of law" is a concern for "consistency, transparency and predictability" of the law, and--as the op/ed demonstrates, "rule of law" is at the center of this debate in Tennessee.

And, as the WSJ editorial board hints at but doesn't quite say, the right course--the course that honors rule of law, at this juncture on this issue is to simply do nothing at all.



See also these prior posts (here, here, here and here).

Here's a website (www.tennplandebate.org) with more (pro and con) on the issue of this debate.

Tragic, yet heroic, story from Chicago

I just saw a story about a vehicular homicide (drunk driving) in Chicago. Follow this link for a video report of an heroic father's actions.

Disenfranchising Democrats

While I am rather pleased to see the Democrats take their nomination fight all the way to Denver, here's a little moral support for keeping out the Florida and Michigan primary results. As a Conservative, I listen half-believingly to Democrat cries of "voter disenfranchisement" as we're hearing from the Clinton camp.

That being said, this situation might fit the category of "disenfranchisement" as the voters of these two states had no other choice in the matter and--because of foolish, knowing decisions of their state legislatures, will be denied a vote in the Democratic primary if the DNC stands by its prior pronouncements.

Which highlights another strength of the Clintons' argument, that this is merely a dispute over the internal rules of a political party. As a result, the situation is a little bit different than in Florida2000 and NJ2002 where Dems expediently ignored state statutes to reach a desired end.

Oh well, I guess this post isn't all that supportive of the Obama position . . . Fight on Democrats!!

Get thee to a polling place

Via knoxnews.com | No Silence Here, reports of some nuns making a point (or attempting to) in Indiana:

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters . . . because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway. (emphasis added)

It's interesting stuff, so I encourage you to read the entire article. Interestingly, the nuns contend that it was impossible for them to cast a provisional ballot and then get around to visiting a DMV within the next ten days to get a proper (and free!) photo ID, but they weren't too busy to stage their mini-protest.

Nevertheless, we can all say a prayer of thanks that the world appears not to have ended as a result of Indiana's implementation of the new law. From the article:

Elsewhere across the pivotal state, voting appeared to run smoothly, despite the fears of election experts that the Supreme Court's recent refusal to strike down Indian[a]'s controversial photo identification law could cause confusion at the polls.
A voter hot line set up by the secretary of state's office had no complaints regarding photo IDs as of 3 p.m., said spokeswoman Bethany Derringer. In a primary expected to draw record numbers, most calls concerned precinct locations. (emphasis added)

I guess the nuns didn't have access to telephones? In any event, who needs a telephone and a hotline to the Secretary of State when you've got the MSM to do your bidding?


Here's the AP report.

Evolving standards of dispassionate scientificness

Lately I've been intrigued to observe how the issue of Evolution is deeper than science for Lefties. After seeing Expelled and thereafter having a couple of battles on the subject (here, and here). I started wondering how it is that--despite the Left-of-center stranglehold on the opinion-shapers of public education, Academia and the so-called Mainstream Media--a majority of Americans are still skeptical about Neo-Darwinism.

To begin with, I'm a Neo-Darwinism skeptic; in sum, I do not believe that all living beings have a common descendant.

I won't pretend that I have a deep understanding of science, much less that I'm an expert. However, there are people who do have a deep understanding of science who agree that Neo-Darwinism is shot through with holes.

Nor will I pretend that Evolutionists aren't (typically) well-credentialed and well-armed with impressive-sounding evidence supporting their theories.

Lastly, I won't pretend that my views on this issue aren't deeper than science . . . too bad most Neo-Darwinists aren't willing to acknowledge the same. But the fact that a majority of Americans intuitively disbelieve Neo-Darwinism is worthy of consideration. Here are several reasons I perceive Neo-Darwinists struggle to proselytize.

Neo-Darwinist defensiveness is rather suspicious.
It's often said that the best defense is a good offense, and Neo-Darwinists live by that principle. Challenging the existing presumptions of "science" is what any genuinely altruistic, objective, apolitical, dispassionate scientist does, but Neo-Darwinists are vigilant to shout down those who would raise questions about Neo-Darwinism.

One of the challenges of this debate is that the term "Evolution" is a little ambiguous. Just because someone accepts that--for example, some species go extinct and animals within species change over time--often as adaptations of some sort, doesn't mean that s/he believes in Neo-Darwinism. And that's where a lot of the controversy comes: Neo-Darwinists rely on a fairly broad acceptance of evolutionary principles to inject their views on "Origins" into "science" curricula.

Evolutionary theory is an historical science--we're never going to observe (unless the "scientists" also solve "death") inter-species Evolution. Evolutionary theory offers plausible explanations for some questions about how living things got to be the way they are, but Neo-Darwinism leaves many questions unanswered. Pardon me (us . . . in the majority) if the failure of your theory (to offer plausible explanations for crucial questions) inclines me to disbelieve other tenets of your theory. It hurts your cause even more when you disingenuously ignore the weaknesses of your theory.

And the lengths to which Neo-Darwinists are willing to go in defense of their belief system is well-documented and troubling. Read Survival of the Fakest for some of the more notorious examples. It kind of undermines the "dispassionate scientist" shtick when there is such evidence of deception.

Moreover, given the evidence put forth in the movie Expelled--not to mention the oppressive know-it-all-ism demonstrated by many who call themselves Evolutionists, one can fairly wonder if anything that doesn't comport with secular Neo-Darwinianism could ever get a fair hearing within the scientific community.

(Aside: there's an impressive website that has been put together to bash Expelled, called www.expelledexposed.com. I was intrigued to read all the rebuttal evidence offered to say, "The persons featured in the film were never mistreated, ostracized, unfairly penalized, etc. etc." If you've ever gone up against the HR in a big company it is almost laughable how unquestioningly the apologists accept what appears to be run-of-the-mill corporate or bureaucratic wagon-circling. Butt-covering personnel memos or press releases are hardly compelling evidence of what did or did not happen to an individual who challenged corporate/bureaucratic conventions.)

I guess it comes down to objectivity, and the majority of Americans have real doubts about the objectivity of the "scientific" powers that be. As stated at intelligentdesignnetwork.org

Government and public education Institutions supporting Origins Science should also strive for Objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

Unfortunately, many Institutions of Science and government employ unyielding preconceptions that favor certain explanations of origins over others and thereby take sides in this important controversy. The establishment of an “orthodox” explanation of origins impairs good Science, restricts freedom, disturbs peace and offends laws requiring government to be religiously Neutral.

A majority of us don't agree that intelligent design theory is non-scientific.
In any discussion on Evolution, Neo-Darwinists are quick to assert that Intelligent Design theory is not scientific, and that it (ID) is controversial only because "Creationists" are attempting to teach religion as science. Wrong. Here's a good description--I'd say, of what most Americans think on this issue,

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Questions lead to hypotheses, and there are lots of legitimate questions about Evolutionary Theory. While we cannot "prove" or "disprove" irreducible complexity in a lab, we can--using math and statistical analysis, deduce that the odds of some seemingly irreducibly complex organs or organisms "evolving" or happening by chance mutation are beyond belief. In the face of that assessment, it seems a true scientist would want to keep looking--with an open mind, to find a more plausible explanation . . . that is, unless that scientist has too much vested in the paradigm or over-arching theory already in place.

Interestingly, once you can get a Neo-Darwinist to stop sniffing and start talking, they begin to offer scientific "proofs" or reasons that Intelligent Design, for example, isn't good science. Such "proofs," dear reader, are testable, which makes them scientific, which kind of hurts Neo-Darwinists' argument. That may be part of why they'd rather sniff than talk.

No doubt, there's more to the debate about Evolution than science. If Neo-Darwinists could ever admit that fact, they might have more success at persuading us that they're only "following the science."

Reports of speedy justice in East Nashville

I know I'm late in posting about this, but I had to comment on this story from East Nashville. ("Liquor store customer kills would-be robber"--The Tennessean). From the article:

Two men entered Sinkers Wine & Spirits on Gallatin Road around 10 p.m. and attempted to rob the store with handguns, Capt. David Imhof said. During the robbery, a customer in his early 20s took out a handgun of his own and began a shootout among the three men, Imhof said.

One of the robbery suspects ran off, but the other collapsed outside the store due to his injuries, Imhof said. He was taken to Skyline Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Robber #1 reaped what he sowed. Robber #2 is going to think twice before perpetrating on someone else. The Hero, who reportedly had a right to carry permit and was in his early 20s, "was interviewed and released by police. He has not been charged."

In other Nashville news, too bad this loser couldn't have picked the "wrong" victim. Kudos MNPD.

Even Stevens (agrees on ballot integrity)

Great article (here) about the Supreme Court's Voter ID ruling this week. Here's an article excerpt--related to what could fairly be termed a bi-ideological decision:

Six months before the presidential election, the issue of ballot integrity is already a partisan battleground. The 2005 Indiana law was backed by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, and the decision is widely described as having given the Republicans an election-year victory. "The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls 'voter fraud,' and the Court's ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part," Lyle Denniston on the SCOTUS blog maintained. . . . Fraud is seen as a (misguided) Republican concern, while Democrats are credited with concern about equal electoral access — with the two viewed as mutually exclusive.

If the poor and elderly find it too hard to obtain photo IDs, voting is not their only problem. They can’t take advantage of a cheap airfare when they want to visit a new grandchild; they have no access to their elected representatives in a building with a security check; they are unlikely to get into a Social Security office.

“Democracy was the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday” the New York Times editorialized. Democratic government requires a certain tolerance for fraud, our “paper of record” implies. Somehow, I don’t think so. And neither does Justice Stevens.

Voters--and consequently (in this case) a majority of state legislators strongly support a photo ID requirement . . . the Supreme Court was right to let this law stand.