Roger C.'s shared items in Google Reader

Lufkin Zoo New Arrivals

2008-07-14T15:10:23Z

One of the better kept secrets in East Texas is the Ellen Trout Zoo in Lufkin. Set in the Piney Woods, this little zoo will surprise you with the breadth of its exhibits.

It is an easy drive from Beaumont (2 hrs), Downtown Houston (2 1/2 hrs), Downtown Dallas (3 1/2 hrs) or Austin (4 hrs) and well worth an overnight stay to see it all. Here are a couple of the new arrivals that you’ll be seeing:

McDonald's On My List

2008-07-11T20:07:00Z

I'm not big on public boycotts, because I think they don't work and they're counterproductive. So when I heard that the American Family Association announced a boycott of McDonald's because the latter donated $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exchange for membership in the NGLCC and a seat on the group's board, I just kinda shrugged my shoulders.

But I will never eat at McDonald's again, having read what the McDonald's spokesman and CEO said in response:

Corporate spokesman Bill Whitman: "Hatred has no place in our culture...That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world ... and we do."

If McDonald's wants to suck up (no pun intended, honest!) to the gay activist community, fine. I can live with that. I cannot, however, abide the impugning of our motives using such inane rhetoric (however misguided a boycott may be). I will write a thoughtful letter to corporate headquarters to that effect.

I don't *ever* want to hear another word about gay "rights" being a justice issue equal to the struggle to end slavery and segregation and what have you. That's patently offensive (as many African-Americans observe), as the gay community as a demographic is flush with cash and almost every major corporation bends over backwards (no pun intended, honest!) to kiss up to them in hopes of securing some of that cash.

Chick-fil-A for me, thanks.

Remembering Operation Vittles

2008-07-04T23:59:00Z

Sixty years ago, this month, West Berlin was facing starvation and eventual capitulation to Soviet forces.

Less than three weeks earlier, on 12 June, the Russians announced that the autobahn leading to the city from western sectors was closed "for repairs." Over the days that followed, rail and barge traffic were also cut off, a blatant violation of the "right of passage" guarantees that had existed since the end of World War II. The strategy to force the allies from Berlin culminated with a final statement, revealing that the Soviet sector would not supply food to the western-occupied sections of the city.

The allies could hardly afford to "surrender" West Berlin and give Moscow a tremendous geopolitical and psychological victory. But there was legitimate debate as to "how far" the west would go in defending the city. Despite the deployment of nuclear-capable B-29s to western Europe, the military defense of Berlin was considered a near-impossibility.

With Soviet forces surrounding the city's western sectors, allied forces in Berlin would be quickly overwhelmed, with the prospect of staggering civilian casualties. Were the western allies willing to risk World War III to defend the city?

The commander of the U.S. occupation zones, General Luicius Clay, believed that conflict would not be necessary. In his estimation, the Soviets were bluffing--they did not want a war over Berlin. He initially proposed sending an armored column down the autobahn toward Berlin, with instructions to fire if it were stopped or attacked. While President Truman rejected that proposal as too risky, he agreed with Clay's assessment that Berlin could not be abandoned.

With surface traffic to Berlin cut off, the Allies began contemplating an airlift. The prospect of resupplying West Berlin by air seemed daunting, but previous events suggested the operation had an outside shot at success. First, the western powers were guaranteed air access to the city, thanks to a 1945 agreement with the Soviets which granted three air corridors into Berlin.

Secondly, a limited airlift to the western sectors was already underway. For several months, the RAF transports had been resupplying the British garrison in Berlin by air. As part of the planning process, the Brits calculated airflift requirements to sustain the entire city. The RAF estimate, based on a 1700-calorie daily diet for Berliners, suggested that an airlift was feasible.

On June 25, 1948, the airlift began, with 32 U.S. C-47 transports hauling food, milk and medicine to the city. The British effort began three days later. By the second week, aircrews were hauling 1,000 tons of supplies a day into Berlin's three major airports. But is was clear that an expanded airlift would be required, to sustain the city during a sustained blockade.

Organizing that effort fell on the shoulders of Lieutenant General William Tunner, one of the legendary "captains" of airpower who forged the Army Air Corps during World War II, and the independent U.S. Air Force that followed in 1947.

But Tunner was something of a rarity; unlike Curtis LeMay, Carl Spaatz and Jimmy Doolittle, who gained fame as bomber commanders, General Tunner was best known as a transport pilot. He organized the "Hump" airlift between India and China during World War II, providing the aerial lifeline that kept Allied forces in the fight, despite the physical barrier of the Himalayan Mountains.

Colleagues describe Tunner as a man who could instantly "bring order out of chaos." That skill was instrumental to the success of the "Hump" operation, which existed at the end of the supply and maintenance chain. Tunner had more resources to work with in the Berlin Airlift, but the geopolitical stakes were infinitely higher.

General Tunner took command of the operation on 27 July 1948, and faced an immediate crisis. Flying to Berlin, he learned that a C-54 had crashed on landing in the city; a second transport blew out its tires trying to avoid the wreck, and a third aircraft ground-looped on an adjacent runway, shutting down the airport.

To prevent a greater calamity, Tunner radioed all aircraft to return to base. In a matter of days, he implemented changes that improved operational efficiency and safety. All missions were flown under instrument flying rules, regardless of actual weather conditions. Pilots got one shot at landing in Berlin; if they botched their approach, the plane and its cargo returned to base.

He also discovered that it took as long to unload a two-engine C-47 as it did the larger C-54. The smaller aircraft were quickly phased out of the airlift. Tunner enlisted German civilians to unload the aircraft, and hired attractive young frauleins to drive the snack trucks that carried refreshments to the crews. That eliminated ground delays, caused by air crews strolling to the terminal for a drink and a sandwich. With crews restricted to their aircraft in Berlin, offloading proceeded much more quickly, allowing more missions to be flown each day.

General Tunner also understood the importance of public relations on a global stage. He liked "Operation Vittles," the nickname given to the operation, and looked for other ways to highlight the airlift's success. When he heard that a young pilot named Gail Halvorsen was dropping candy to children in Berlin, he dubbed the effort "Operation Little Vittles," and made it a part of his publicity effort. Eventually, thousands of American children and candy companies donated more than three tons of sweets to the effort. It was a powerful rebuke to communist claims that the airlift wasn't working.

The winter of 1948-49 posed special challenges. Weather conditions were often bad, and the requirements for more coal pushed daily cargo requirements past 6,000 tons. But Tunner, his staff and the airlift crews met those demands. They hired former Luftwaffe ground crews to service the aircraft and repair the operating surfaces at Templehof and Gatow, the primary airfields in West Berlin. Newly-developed ground approach radar allowed aircraft to operate in weather that would have prevented landings in the past.

By the spring of 1949, the airlift was in high gear. Not even harassment by Soviet fighters and anti-aircraft guns could stop the steady flow of food, coal and medical supplies to Berlin. Over Easter weekend, Tunner pulled out all the stops, delivering over 12,000 tons of coal in a 24-hour period, without a single accident. By the end of that month, the operation was providing more supplies than the city had received by ground before the airlift began.

With the allies able to meet the city's needs by air, the Soviets had a change of heart. Not long after Tunner's Easter spectacular, Moscow signaled that it was willing to end the blockade. An agreement was concluded in only eight days, and road and rail traffic began moving to Berlin once more in mid-May. The U.S. and its partners had won an important, early victory in the Cold War, thanks (in large part) to an air commander who brought order out of chaos.

***

ADDENDUM: General Tunner was later instrumental in organizing airlift operations in Korea, allowing U.N. forces to sustain their resistance during the dark summer of 1950. But, in typical Air Force fashion, Tunner never received his fourth star, and retired in 1960. He died in 1983, secure in his reputation as the father of American airlift, and forces that evolved into the Military Air Transport Service, Military Airlift Command and Air Mobility Command.

Tunner

Tolerance, gay marriage, religious liberty

2008-05-27T22:00:39Z

I keep saying that defining gay marriage as a constitutional right is going to have enormous consequences for religious liberty. David Benkof writes in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that gays and lesbians in California gained nothing substantive in their recent state...

Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless

2008-05-22T04:53:19Z

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:

I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.
We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America's $22 billion of proven reserves.
HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

To comment on this post go here.

Fox-Genovese: Marriage On Trial

2008-05-19T21:21:09Z

Shared by Roger
An excellent article on what's going on in California, written after the decision in Massachusetts. Read the whole thing.

The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination.

Thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto

2008-05-08T05:41:54Z

Yesterday a document was released at the National Press Club entitled An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment, spearheaded by Os Guinness and signed by over 80 evangelical leaders. I would encourage anyone interested in evangelicalism to give it a careful reading, or at the very least, to read Justin Taylor's excellent summation.

Other than the Bible, there are few documents that I agree with word-for-word (and that includes most things that I have written). Still, I found enough to agree with in the manifesto to add my name as one of the additional signatories.

I hope to have more to say about it in the future but for now here are three initial thoughts:

1. This manifesto has bolstered my confidence that I won't be the last person in America to call himself an evangelical. On page 4, they note that the evangelical identity is "powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals."

Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our "true" motives and our "real" agenda.

This is an excellent point that should be acknowledged by the nomenclative cowards who have abandoned the term "evangelical." Too often my fellow former evangelicals think that dumping the term will make them (or to be more generous, The Gospel) more palatable to the outside world.

What they are missing (or simply refuse to admit to themselves) is that it is not the term "evangelical" that the world despises but the beliefs behind the word. Call yourself whatever you want--"post-evangelical is my favorite--but the minute you tell the world that homosexual behavior is sinful, that killing infants in the womb is wrong, and that man has an inherent dignity because we are made in the image of God then you can expect to have that label spat upon too.

How many labels are will willing to abandon before we finally realize it is our identity that we are shirking?

2. In addressing the issue of race and the church, the document notes, "All too often we have gloried in the racial and ethnic diversity of the church around the world, but remained content to be enclaves of separateness here at home." This is a laudatory sentiment. So why were there no African-American pastors or theologians asked to sign the document?

According to the AP, the "Rev. John Huffman, pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, a megachurch in Pasadena, Calif., acknowledged the effort lacks participation from African-Americans and women. But he said the initial signers are merely a beginning and 'anyone can sign on if this resonates with them.'"

While it is true that anyone can sign it now, someone should have noticed the lack of racial diversity when that section was being included.

3. The one major quibble I have is not necessarily with the document but with it's chief drafter. Os Guiness is quoted in USA Today as saying:

"Our problem is not mislabeling by the press or rebranding because we have a bad image," said Os Guinness, an evangelical scholar and a drafter of the document, which was released in Washington. "The problem is reality. Much of evangelicalism is not evangelical."

With all due respect to Guinness, this is foolishness. No doubt much of evangelicalism is not evangelical (or even Christian) but that has little to do with the perception people have about the term "evangelical" being used as a synonym with right-wing politics. That blame can indeed be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media.

Consider that in the same article where Guiness is quoted the reporter says,

"Republicans need to realize that evangelicals care about a lot of things," Green said, "The message to Democrats is similar: Don't ignore us. If you pursue the right issues and have the right platform, there are many evangelicals who will consider voting for you."

The document says liberals share the blame for mingling politics and religion, but most sharply condemns evangelicals, saying many of their problems "are those of our own making."

The document is referring to theological liberalism while the context of the news article uses the term liberal in the political sense.

Indeed, every single news article focused on the political implications rather than on what it really said. Consider these headlines:

AP: Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized

USA Today: Manifesto aims to make 'evangelical' a less-political term

Reuters: US evangelicals call for step back from politics

NPR: 'Evangelical Manifesto' Aims to Depoliticize Religion

The media considers the term "evangelical" to be political rather than theological because of their own willful ignorance. Part of the problem is that they don't know anyone who would consider themselves an evangelical. Even at conservative media outlets you are more likely to an atheist on staff than you are an evangelical Christian.

But another part of the problem is that the elite media simply has no interest in evangelicals except for our political influence. The reason they don't see us as a theological movement is because in their minds "theology" isn't even a real category. For them to speak of theology is akin to talking about fairies and goblins and other such nonsense. Unlike Guinness, they do not believe that "secularism" is a religion or that faith has any place in the public square. This is the reason that his efforts to reach them--and change the perception they give about evangelicals--is bound to fail.

Nevertheless, these are all relatively minor concerns for such a worthy effort. Although I don't think the document will have much impact after it fades from the current news cycle, it will be useful to return to as a point of reference. And who knows, maybe someday we'll not only be able to come to an agreement about what the term "evangelical" means but also share a consensus about why preserving the term is important.

Paul Revere or Chicken Little? (The 25-Year Anniversary of “A Nation at Risk”)

2008-05-02T06:00:58Z

Twenty-five years ago, “A Nation at Risk” reported to the Secretary of Education that the United States could not sustain itself as a world power with the schools it had. Using the memorable phrase, “a rising tide of mediocrity,” the report said that too little was being expected of students, teachers, and schools.

It didn’t spend a huge amount of time and space on the inequities in the American school system, but it did lay out in considerable detail the overall lack of rigor and substance in the standard American school. It focused on the high school level, where few students completed a college preparatory curriculum and even fewer took a rigorous one—very few students, for example, took calculus (6 percent) or even intermediate algebra (31 percent).

In an attempt to alert the general public to the dangers posed by having such a weak educational system, the report said, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

A firestorm of criticism erupted, with many educators considering it to be a direct attack on their work. The National Education Association, the nation’s biggest teachers union, denounced it, as did the various associations of principals, superintendents, and school boards. But one of the famous stories that sticks in my head was of how the executive board of the American Federation of Teachers, the smaller of the teachers unions, sat around a conference table reading the report for the first time. Many on the board were ready to join their voices to the NEA’s and waited for the president, Al Shanker, to finish reading it and denounce it vociferously. He finished the last page, sat there for a moment, and said, “The report is right, and not only that, we should say that before our members.”

What Shanker saw was that “A Nation at Risk” was documenting very real problems that posed a threat to the entire enterprise of public education and ultimately American democracy itself, and that if teachers weren’t part of the solution they would be part of the problem.

Because he embraced the report and its implications that change was needed, we are further along in improving American education than we would have been without him.

Since 1983, many states have raised their requirements for high school graduation and many more students are in what is recognized as a college-preparatory curriculum—that is, four years of English, math, history, and science, and at least two years of a foreign language. More schools are offering a college preparatory curriculum, and many more are offering higher level courses such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate. The federal government has established as a goal that all students will meet their states’ standards of learning, and has required all states to have state standards of learning. There is at least a national goal of closing achievement gaps that persist for low-income students and students of color.

In other words, some of the architecture of reform is in place.

But that doesn’t mean we are anywhere near getting the job done. Although there has been some progress in getting more students proficient in math and some progress in making sure students at least read at the basic level, progress is slow and labored.

Our progress is so slow and labored, in fact, that we are being overtaken not only by the countries “A Nation at Risk” identified—Japan, Korea, and Germany—but by countries that 25 years ago were considered backwaters—Poland and Finland, among others.

Those countries understand—much more, it sometimes seems, than we do—that education is the key to national improvement, and they have pushed hard and fast to move forward.

This is not an economic argument—or, at least, not solely an economic one. It is a political one as well, and “A Nation at Risk” is worth quoting at some length on this subject because what it said in 1983 could just as easily be said today:

“The people of the United States need to know that individuals in our society who do not possess the levels of skill, literacy, and training essential to this new era will be effectively disenfranchised, not simply from the material rewards that accompany competent performance, but also from the chance to participate fully in our national life. A high level of shared education is essential to a free, democratic society and to the fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individual freedom.

“For our country to function, citizens must be able to reach some common understandings on complex issues, often on short notice and on the basis of conflicting or incomplete evidence. Education helps form these common understandings, a point Thomas Jefferson made long ago in his justly famous dictum:

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

“Part of what is at risk is the promise first made on this continent: All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself.”

I really hope that in 25 years we won’t be able to say that “A Nation at Risk” could be written again. Our goal should be to be able to say, “Boy, didn’t we dodge a bullet?”

JERRY POURNELLE: For an exceptional look at what happens to

2008-04-09T12:31:02Z

JERRY POURNELLE:

For an exceptional look at what happens to countries where the overall energy policies are dictated by imbeciles, lackwits, and lawyers (although I may be redundant in listing all three), look to South Africa, formerly an economic and industry powerhouse (pun intended) on the African continent. The country is now in a deepening economic crisis because they let all of the released inmates from the environmental asylum dictate policy, didn't build new power plants or maintain the existing ones appropriately, and so now they can't mine gold, platinum, and palladium at anything near normal production rates. A good part of the recent run ups on those metals' prices is because of the reduced production. There are rotating power outages around the country for everyone, and SA industry is being reined in significantly, obviously reducing the quality of living for the ordinary person.

Okay, the lawyer remark hurts. But lawyers who think they know how to run energy policy probably qualify.

VIDEO SHOT inside a BMW engine. Cool. "They had three complete

2008-04-08T18:28:56Z

VIDEO SHOT inside a BMW engine. Cool. "They had three complete engines shipped out to Belgium, where manifolds were cut, cylinders were shaved and lighting holes were drilled to mount special cameras, lenses and lights. After two weeks of intensive study and preparation, the team took another four, 20-hour days to film what happens inside the 420 hp mill during a single revolution. The completed spot was filmed at 10,000 frames-per-second and doesn't utilize any form of computer-generated effects."

Enrollment of children in Texas state schools surging

2008-04-02T04:14:00Z

An Open Letter to the Religious Right

2008-03-26T04:16:14Z

[Note: This post is an adaptation of an address I recently gave for a conference of pre-law advisors at Regent University Law School which itself was originally based...on a previous blog post.] I'm honored to be able to speak to you today for I am a great admirer of your work. Indeed, it is my opinion that pre-law advisors are significantly undervalued despite the fact that you carry out one of the most important tasks in the legal profession--talking people out of becoming lawyers. While it is true that the bar exam and law school admissions officers perform the same function, though perhaps more brutally, pre-law advisors provide the first line of defense in preventing people like me from stumbling into a career in law. In 1987 I entered the University of North Texas as a freshman with the intention of someday becoming an attorney. The first week I was there I scheduled an appointment with the pre-law advisor, expecting him to tell me that I could choose any major I wanted, as long as what I wanted was to major in political science. Instead, the first words out of his mouth were "Why do why to be a lawyer?" I was so caught off guard that I ended up answering truthfully--telling him that I wanted to be part of a profession that made a lot of money. He then set about ripping my response, explaining why this was a terrible justification. I gave him another lame reason and he shot that one down too. That went on for several minutes before I laid out the dumbest rationale of all. I told him that my friends and family always told me I'd make a good lawyer "because I was good at arguing." He leaned forward in his chair and gave me a pitiable look generally reserved for fools who are about to make a disastrous life choice. "Mr. Carter," he said, "how good could you be at arguing when you can't even make an argument for why should be a lawyer." That day he planted a seed of self-awareness' within me. I realized two things about myself: (1) I really would make a terrible lawyer and (2) I'm really not all that good at arguing. So today I won't even bother trying to argue my case. Instead I'll just throw out a pile of assertions and conjectures and let you sift through it all to see if there is anything of value.***

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was purportedly asked if God was on his side.

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side," said the President, "my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Ironically, though Lincoln is often praised for this remark, it contains three of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that God should be invoked in the political sphere; that God's existence matters, much less that he is always right; and that since He takes sides on certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will be in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, then you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, then you are probably a member of the so-called "religious right."

I embrace them whole-heartedly, which makes me a certified member of the religious right. Although I've often been uncomfortable with that term, I find it fits me more and more, as if I'm growing into it. So be it.

For the past few years I've served in various positions that have allowed me the opportunity to engage with people who express firm religious and political convictions. I work for the nefarious Family Research Council. I've advised the shawdowy Arlington Group. And I worked on the political campaign of the scary Christianist candidate Mike Huckabee. The experience has been was encouraging, funny, provocative, aggravating, frustrating, and, on occasion, downright weird.

But I remain optimistic about the role of politically conservative Christians but there are a number of things that give me pause. I tend to be a "Yes, I agree...but..." kind of guy fellow. While I could talk today about the "Yes, I agree" stuff, I think it's the "...but..." that is far more interesting so I want to use this opportunity to share a few thoughts on that. I have ten "buts" and since I'm still not very good at arguing, I'll simply throw them out as raw assertions in the form of an open letter to my fellow members of the religious right.

One-- As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can't imagine that on the Day of Judgment I'll hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant--you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse." More likely we'll all be asked why we didn't spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the pandemic of AIDS. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put the first things first.

Two -- Being Right doesn't mean we are always right. I know we claim we understand that but it would probably help if we acted like we believed it as well.

Three -- We have ideological enemies (such as Islamo-fascists) and we ideological opponents (such as secular liberals). While our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. That's a crucial distinction that we should always keep in mind. While we have to love them all, we shouldn't lump them all together.

In a classical statement of ecumenicity, St. Augustine once said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics.

Protecting the sanctity of innocent human life and defending the traditional definition of marriage are clearly essentials. Those matters are based on principles that can be clearly derived from the Bible. Other issues, however, are often less opaque. For example, can someone truly be on the "religious right" and not support the war in Iraq?

The fact that question can even be asked shows how we've muddied the waters. While I personally think that, on the whole, the war was morally justified and a necessary humanitarian intervention, I can respect those who disagree. Indeed, the alternate opinion may be as rooted in Biblical and conservative principles as, I believe, is my position. We should be very, very careful where we draw the lines of political heresy.

Four -- I can't make excuses for us on this one anymore: Christians have to take a firm stand against torture. Yes, there is a debate about what exactly is meant by that term. Let's have that debate. Let's define the term in a way that consistent with our belief in human dignity. And then let's hold every politician in the country to that standard. Our silence on this issue has become embarrassing.

Five -- We must keep in mind that term "religious right" encompasses two unique spectrums. Because of our commitment to the faith, we will often find ourselves in agreement with the religious left. And because our conservatism is informed by our religion, we will also find ourselves in disagreement with the secular right.

Our political alliances, therefore, will often be tenuous and shift based on particular issues. For example, two years ago at Family Research Councils Values Voter Summit, the Southern Baptist leader Richard Land said he'd vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he'd vote a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them. The rousing applause he received would be as disturbing to most Republicans as it would to most Democrats.

Six -- It is not enough to simply baptize the conservative agenda; our political beliefs must be derived from our Biblical worldview. Doing that, however, requires developing such a worldview and knowing how to derive political policy prescriptions from the principles. While the difficulty of the task makes it easier to accept off-the-rack conservatism, we need to be able to tailor our policies from the fabric of our faith.

Seven -- Whenever you hear someone say that the religious right is attempting to install a theocracy, simply say "You;re an idiot" and move on. We've wasted too much time on this nonsense already. It's a desperate attempt to create a term that has the affect of "racist" or "sexist" so that when its applied, it automatically paints an opponent as beyond the pale of political discourse. Really, anyone who says that-no matter how much they may try to nuance the word-is an idiot.

Eight -- In the 1950's, William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review led the move to anathematize the John Birch Society from the ranks of respectable conservatism. Today, we religious conservatives need to follow that precedent by purging the most odious hangers-on from our company. I propose that we start with the obnoxious, hate-spewing Ann Coulter.

Why do we justify the vile rants of Coulter and her ilk? Is it excusable because they direct the bile at liberals? We sully our own reputations--and disgrace our Lord--by associating ourselves with such hateful speech. The sooner we shun them the sooner we can return to the path of serious discourse.

Nine -- Our beliefs are often informed by tradition and sacred texts. This does not, as our ideological opponents often claim, make them invalid. But it does make it necessary to ?translate? them when we bring them into the public square. I firmly believe that the Bible is true and authoritative for both the Christian and the non-believer. But premising a political argument on "Because the Bible says so?" is rarely effective or convincing.

Fortunately, God also gives us general revelation-conscience, rationality, empirical observation-which is often more effective in expressing His foundational principles in a way that non-believers can accept and understand. We must use these tools to make obvious the connections that are often overlooked. For instance, we can use logic to show how same-sex marriage affects religious liberty or use empirical research to show how family structure influences poverty. It is not enough to be right. We must also be persuasive.

And finally, number ten -- America is not a "Christian nation", though we should aspire to be a nation of Christians. America is not a "shining city on a hill", though we should let our light of freedom be a shining example for the entire world. America is not the "greatest blessing God gave mankind", though it is a great nation worthy of our conditional adoration. Patriotic sentiment has its place but we mustn't let it expand beyond its acceptable borders. We are citizens of both a country and a Kingdom and must always be careful not to confuse the one for the other.

Trinity United for Hamas

2008-03-21T11:40:11Z

Aaron Klein reports that Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted the Los Angeles Times column by Hamas leader Mousa abu Marzook. The column spouts the usual Hamas propaganda defending terrorism as legitimate resistance. The column was published on the "pastor's page" of the Trinity Church bulletin on July 22, 2007 and posted online here by Bizzyblog yesterday. Perhaps most revealing is the church bulletin's own subhead over the column: "An official of the movement describes its goals for all of Palestine." You know, "all of Palestine," including Israel, whose right to exist Hamas denies and which it seeks to "liberate" for Islam.

To comment on this post, go here.

Flooding the Grand Canyon

2008-03-11T05:30:53Z

Q: What do you do with a long-dammed river whose channel is choked with silt?

A: Flood it.

That is precisely what the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation did during a two-week experiment in the spring of 1996, sending 117 billion gallons of water from Lake Powell roaring through the upper reaches of the Grand Canyon.

The river in question was the Colorado, the dam Glen Canyon, built amid great controversy and inaugurated in 1963. In addition to forcing accumulated sediments downriver—where they would have traveled naturally had the dam not been there—the flood carved out a series of new beaches, providing expanded habitat for area wildlife.

A second flood, in 2004, produced the same results. A third flood, staged from March 5 to March 7 of this year, released 300,000 gallons of water per second from Lake Powell, which forms above Glen Canyon Dam on the Arizona-Utah border.

The Colorado River normally flows at a controlled rate of about 10,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the Canyon. The 1996 flood came down as fast as 45,000 cfs, and stir things up it did. According to the experimental flood’s designers, the release was an unqualified success: an initial Bureau of Reclamation report, released late in May 1996, relates that the flood created more than 55 beaches alongside the river, most within the 62 miles from Glen Canyon Dam to the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers.

Using computer simulations, geologists had modeled comparatively slow changes to the riparian environment in the wake of the flood, but, as the report notes, they were surprised to find that some 80 percent of the new beaches and sandbars formed during the first two days—which makes sense, considering that floods are fast, ephemeral events. The effects were less pronounced downriver, but new beaches, built from nutrient-rich sand that had previously covered the river channel, were still evident far from the dam.

The 1996 and 2004 flooding also provided a surge of nutrients, mostly vegetation torn from the riverbanks during the course of the flooding. All this seems to have given the fish below the dam an uncharacteristically good feed. The 2008 flood brings a fresh feast, as well as a secondary result of the flooding: the formation of backwaters along the riverbank. Existing backwaters in slow-flowing rivers stagnate because the river water often does not reach them; now recharged with fresh water and sediments, these backwaters, the key habitat for many fish species below the dam, appear to be decidedly healthier than before.

Fish are not the only beneficiaries of this revitalization; one field biologist quoted in the 1996 report observes that “peregrines were actively feeding through Marble Canyon on the birds who were feeding on the insects that were hatching due to the high flow stimulus”—a classic example of a food chain at work.

Plans for the 1996 controlled flood began thirteen years before its execution, when the results of unusually heavy flooding in the fall of 1983 alerted scientists to the possibilities of regulating the riparian environment by imitating the course of nature. That year, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, a research group funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, also set about analyzing the effects of hydroelectric power-plant releases into the river, noting the dramatic changes that occurred when those releases surpassed 33,000 cfs.

Of course, before the construction of the dam, the Colorado often reached 90,000 cfs in flood. In that circumstance, and in a time of seemingly permanent drought in the Southwest, some flooding is better than none. As a Glen Canyon Environmental Studies researcher told me after the 1996 flood, “Disturbance is the most important organizing force in riparian habitats in the desert Southwest. Even if we can only introduce a wimpy substitute for natural flooding, I think this is a good thing.”

The 2008 flood promises to be a good thing, too. Stay tuned for the reports.

Endorsements

2008-03-04T03:57:00Z

Endorse: Second; give one's approval to.

In the Republican races, we all back certain candidates for our own (or no) reason. Here are my endorsements for the contested races in our precinct tomorrow.

President: Mike Huckabee. He took a state that was faltering and set it aright. Yes, he raised taxes, but only in order to provide what a state government should.

US Senator: John Cornyn. While I appreciate Larry Kilgore's opinions, I don't think he has the temperament of a Senator. John Cornyn has experience in all three branches of government, and has and will continue to ably represent Texans on the north side of the Capitol.

US Representative, District 3: Sam Johnson. He's a party man. And right now, in the minority, Republicans need to hang together.

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4: Paul Womack. His experience on the highest criminal bench in Texas is a valuable asset. Let's keep him there.

State Representative, District 112: Randy Dunning. With Fred Hill's retirement, we can affect this seat for a long time with the election of a true grassroots conservative like Randy. I know he will do his best to do the right thing in all circumstances.

Criminal District Judge, Court #3: Bill Fay. Endorsed by the Dallas Morning News, Bill Fay will make an able judge in this courtroom.

Sheriff: Lowell Cannaday. As a retired officer, he won't put any department in a bind stepping up to take Lupe Valdez' place.

And on the proposals: Yes on all three. Local governments should not turn aside when they see a violation of federal law. We should know who you are for you to be able to vote. And those we elect should not be able to make for runaway growth without a check on their spending.

See you at the polls!

You Tested This, Right??

2008-03-03T19:34:42Z

I've been a programmer since the 70s. One thing we all eventually learn is that you have to ACTUALLY TEST IN A *REAL* ENVIRONMENT WITH *REAL* USERS... and OBSERVE!

I frequent a really nice golf course that has a nice practice facility. They make improvements every year. The driving range has evolved...

-Pay cash to the attendant & get your bucket.

Texas Independence Day

2008-03-02T12:00:11Z

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.

In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.

It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.

The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.

We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.

Read the entire Texas Declaration of Independence. It’ll make you think about events occurring in our time.

Intellectual death showers

2008-03-01T13:28:00Z

Abusing Amber

The other day... an Amber Alert came in over the

2008-02-29T04:42:00Z

Abusing Amber

The other day... an Amber Alert came in over the weather radio... 4-year old girl abducted... vehicle description... suspect under investigation for 4 counts of child molestation...

My blood boiled.

I kept thinking... if I saw that car... why not just shoot the bastard and consider it a public service?

But there was something else to it... something wasn't quite right. So I listened to the alert again... It was her dad... her "non-custodial" father. Well damn... that doesn't make much sense does it?

Suddenly every conclusion I had jumped to appeared completely wrong.

What about those charges? Well... far be it from a pissed off woman to make up charges about child molestation or rape during a custody fight... I mean.... who ever heard of such a thing? That never happens.

And a pederast is gonna give up a life time of chasing kids for just the one?

Nah... that doesn't make much sense either.

Ya know what does make sense? A desperate father doing something desperate to keep his bitch ex-wife from stealing his kid from him.

Does that mean that's what happened? No. But it does show one thing... it demonstrates what a powerful emotional tool the Amber Alert System is. When its used... everyone assumes someone needs killing.

Here's something for ya...

According to a Scripts Howard study of 233 Amber Alerts... 117 of them were false alarms resulting from custody desputes. The Amber Alert system was designed for kids that were in immediate danger. In fact... on the US Justice Department's recommendations... that's number 2. The kid should be in immediate danger of severe injury or death. Daddy is an hour late to drop of the kids is not a justifiable reason for an Amber Alert... and yet... half of the time... its crap like that.

We've lived in a society where Assault doesn't mean Assault for some time... apparently we now also live in a society where abduction doesn't mean abduction either.

Truly One of the Best Things I've Seen In A Long Time

2008-02-29T03:55:00Z

From BBtv: