Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

MANY myths and half-truths about the Vietnam War whipped up by the communist propaganda machine have been allowed to persist unchecked in discourse about Iraq. Today, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, perhaps some lessons can be learned from this painful chapter in history.

A point of view held by the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s and still taken as fact by some people today is that the Vietnam War was a civil war, not one fomented or directed by the communist north, which, in turn, was being instructed by China.

With that belief, the anti-Vietnam War movement denounced US involvement in Vietnam as an act of interference. The Vietnamese Communist Party's official biography on leader Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese Communist Party confirms that the communists in the north received instruction from China and were supported by the rest of the communist bloc with aid to foment the war and to spread Marxist-Leninist ideology.

The Vietnam War should thus be seen, rightly, as a fight to preserve freedom and democracy by the people of South Vietnam against communist invasion.

The anti-war movement supported the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Vietcong) portrayed by communist sympathisers in the West as independent from Hanoi. Party documents now reveal it was a product of the north.

As such, members of the anti-Vietnam War movement let themselves be deceived by the communists. Some influential people in the West, wittingly or not, abetted the communists in their deception.
...
Following their victory in 1975, the communists, hailed as liberators by their sympathisers, put more than 1million people in concentration camps, appropriated property, nationalised all means of production, evicted people from their homes and stripped people of their savings. Before the end of the war, South Vietnam was at par with other developing countries in the region. Now, after 30 years of "liberation", Vietnam ranks with the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world.

After 30 years of peace, intellectuals, artists, Buddhist monks, Catholic priests, tribal people, even communist war heroes, are subject to arrest, torture, harassment and imprisonment for peacefully demanding freedom and democracy.

What is occurring in Vietnam sparks protests from human rights organisations around the world. Amid all of these voices of protest, the deadening silence from the anti-war camp is telling. Those who supported the communists still refuse to see the stark evidence.

It was the pressure from the anti-war elite that forced the US administration to pull troops out of Vietnam. The hasty US retreat made South Vietnam prey to a ruthless enemy still fat with Soviet largesse and left behind it a trail of indescribable human suffering culminating in the boat people tragedy.

Had last year's team staggered through three different three-game losing streaks this early, "there would have been a lot of grouchy faces," Lieberthal said. But Manuel is a man who doesn't believe in "worrying about the day-to-day wins and losses." He preaches relaxation, happiness, confidence.

His predecessor's idea of fun was 162-0. Manuel, on the other hand, says: "Playing the game right means enjoying the game, being happy. ... When you put that 'you-have-to' on a player, they fail."

"The biggest thing I've noticed," Lieberthal said, "is in the dugout, when things go wrong – say, if you have a bad at-bat – there's still always somebody there to pick you up. Or even if I just did nothing more [behind the plate] than catch five pitches for three outs, I'll come back and hear, 'Attaway, Lieby,' from all the coaches."

Manuel and Dubee have given Lieberthal and the pitchers more freedom than they had under Bowa and Kerrigan – so "there's really been no second-guessing," Lieberthal said. "I'm able to go to the mound more, where before, I was reluctant. I'd just wait for the pitching coach. Now I can enjoy the game a lot more when I'm behind the plate."

But let's be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.

This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree. When I was the Senate Republican leader, President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench - H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett - whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer "advice and consent" by voting against his nomination.

When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition.

To be fair, the Democrats have previously refrained from resorting to the filibuster even when confronted with controversial judicial nominees like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Although these men were treated poorly, they were at least given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. At the time, filibustering their nominations was not considered a legitimate option by my Democratic colleagues - if it had been, Justice Thomas might not be on the Supreme Court today, since his nomination was approved with only 52 votes, eight short of the 60 votes needed to close debate.

That's why the current obstruction effort of the Democratic leadership is so extraordinary.

Q. 4. In your article for The Times Magazine, you cited Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, and Mark McGuire as three of the four players who have had the most dramatic mid-career power increase. Who's the fourth?
- Dan Kaminski, New York, N.Y.

A. Sammy Sosa.

The grim outlook for Bolton constitutes a major victory for the adversarial style practiced by Senate Democrats, with Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut taking the lead. Bolton's undeniable conservative ideology has antagonized the State Department's liberal cadre and its senatorial defenders. His hard line on Fidel Castro has alienated Dodd, whose long-term goal has been normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. Yet, Dodd on Tuesday made the astounding statement that his opposition to Bolton "has nothing to do with substantive disagreements," only his personal characteristics.

Dodd, in demanding a postponement of a vote on Bolton, claimed during Tuesday's session that Bolton's management performance "ought to be indictable." He claimed it was "rare indeed for me to express objection to a nominee."

In truth, Dodd has been a serial objector to Republican nominees over the years. He has voted against Martin Feldstein (Council of Economic Advisers), James Watt (interior secretary), James Edwards (energy secretary), Raymond Donovan (labor secretary), William Clark (deputy secretary of state and interior secretary), Rex Lee (solicitor general), C. Everett Koop (surgeon general), Kenneth Adelman (arms control director), Edwin Meese (attorney general), Robert Gates (CIA director), Ted Olson (solicitor general), Porter Goss (CIA director), Alberto Gonzales (attorney general), and Supreme Court nominees William Rehnquist, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. He also opposed Bolton for his current under secretary of state position and kept the nomination of anti-Castroite Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state from even reaching the Senate floor.

In March of 2000, Dr. Mohler said, 'I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel. And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office.'"

Salazar called on Dobson to "repudiate" Mohler's comments and to distance himself from those who "serve to divide the world's Christian churches against one another." At a news conference Salazar also called Focus on the Family's tactics "un-Christian." Focus has run advertisements pressuring senators -- including Salazar -- to stop filibustering nominees.

"It certainly shouldn’t come as a surprise that Protestants and Catholics have significant theological differences that date back to the Reformation," Dobson said. "However, it should also be clear that Focus has expressed deep appreciation to the Catholic church for its unwavering defense of the sanctity of human life, the institution of traditional marriage, and other fundamental moral issues, and that we will continue to do so. That hardly qualifies us as 'an un-Christian movement' that would 'defend immorality,' as you alleged in your news conference."

In a statement April 22 Mohler said his views mirror the facts of church history. Mohler serves as president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

"My statements reflect nothing more than classic evangelical theology," Mohler said. "Anyone who is shocked that evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics disagree on fundamental theological doctrines is simply unaware of four centuries-plus of church history. I can’t really believe that Senator Salazar is completely ignorant of the fact that evangelicals and Roman Catholics hold such disagreements.

"Not only do evangelicals hold concerns about the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church, even in writings by the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI, make the same point clear from the other side."

Mohler added that he and millions of other evangelicals agree with the Catholic Church on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the integrity of marriage.

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi. In short, while Scandinavians are constantly told how much better they have it than Americans, Timbro's statistics suggest otherwise. So did a paper by a Swedish economics writer, Johan Norberg. Contrasting "the American dream" with "the European daydream," Mr. Norberg described the difference: "Economic growth in the last 25 years has been 3 percent per annum in the U.S., compared to 2.2 percent in the E.U. That means that the American economy has almost doubled, whereas the E.U. economy has grown by slightly more than half. The purchasing power in the U.S. is $36,100 per capita, and in the E.U. $26,000 - and the gap is constantly widening." The one detail in Timbro's study that didn't feel right to me was the placement of Scandinavian countries near the top of the list and Spain near the bottom. My own sense of things is that Spaniards live far better than Scandinavians.
...
In late March, another study, this one from KPMG, the international accounting and consulting firm, cast light on this paradox. It indicated that when disposable income was adjusted for cost of living, Scandinavians were the poorest people in Western Europe. Danes had the lowest adjusted income, Norwegians the second lowest, Swedes the third. Spain and Portugal, with two of Europe's least regulated economies, led the list.

Implicit in compassionate conservatism was an epochal paradigm shift that is now all but explicit. Taken together, compassionate conservatism’s elements added up to a sweeping rejection of liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half-century’s worth of experience had discredited. If you want to help the poor, compassionate conservatives argued, liberate them from dependency through welfare reform, free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing, give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable, and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly or not at all. For the worst off—those hampered by addiction or alcohol or faulty socialization—let the government pay private organizations, especially religious ones, to help. Such people need a change of heart to solve their problems, the president himself deeply believed; and while a clergyman or a therapist might help them, a bureaucrat couldn’t.

In fact, a welfare-department worker might do harm even beyond providing money to fuel self-destructive behavior. Rather than understanding that an inner transformation is what such a person needs, the welfare worker might well try to convince him that his plight stems from an unjust economy, which provides him insufficient opportunity, or even purposely keeps a fraction of the population unemployed, so as to hold down the wages of those who are working. His problem thus is the result of vast, impersonal forces of which he is the victim (and doubly the victim if he is black in supposedly racist America). In other words—and this is the theory that undergirded the War on Poverty and has persisted to this day on the political Left, from Barbara Ehrenreich to John Edwards—capitalism is inherently defective and unjust, and therefore we need a welfare state to mitigate its harshness.

"Look, we won't always be in the majority," Mr. McCain told MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews Thursday night. "I say to my conservative friends, someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?"

So it is time to assert some distinctions. Senator Cornyn’s speculation strikes us, first, as simply untrue: We do not believe that the assorted maniacs and criminals who have assaulted judges (and their families) are motivated in any part by a concern that judges have claimed powers that properly belong to legislatures. If it were true, it would be irrelevant to the questions of what powers judges should exercise and what other governmental actors should do when they exceed those powers: The resolution of these questions should not be swayed by violent intimidation. We’re sure Senator Cornyn sincerely regrets his passing remark.

Congressman DeLay’s view that impeaching activist judges is desirable, on the other hand, is longstanding. An interesting academic debate could be had about whether there are circumstances in which a judge could rightly be impeached for making lawless rulings. But impeachment makes no sense as a remedy for the defects of the modern judiciary. If we had only a few bad apples in a generally sound judiciary — and a legal culture that regarded them as such — then it would perhaps be possible and salutary to impeach the miscreants. Instead we have a legal culture that celebrates freewheeling judicial activism. Either DeLay can try impeaching five or six members of the Supreme Court, or he can go after a few judges who have made decisions that particularly offend him. The first course would be mad. The second would change the character of the conservative campaign against judicial overreach from an attempt to rebalance the structure of American government to a vindictive crusade against specific people. Alas, the tenor of his remarks suggests that he does not appreciate the difference.
...
But the existence of these disagreements does not alter our conclusion that it is profoundly unhealthy for the republic to have a judiciary that effectively defines the limits of its own power and a political class that regards the rule of judges as the rule of law. On that underlying contention, Congressman DeLay and Senator Cornyn are correct. And we are for all intelligent, deliberate, and constitutional exertions to rectify the situation. Political leaders cannot subscribe to a definition of judicial “independence” that allows for no meaningful political checks on judicial power. The result of that view is, almost as a matter of necessity, judicial independence from the Constitution.

For good or ill — and I certainly think for ill — the days of decorum are over for the foreseeable future. Judges are unilateral legislators, unchecked by democratic accountability. Liberal judges have held sway for so long that any conservative judge who tries to undo what has been done will inevitably look "activist" in his own right. And let's be honest, some conservative judges are perfectly happy with an imperial judiciary, so long as it's a right-wing imperial judiciary.

As the battle over the judiciary escalates, the media continue to describe Supreme Court rulings in the binary liberal-versus-conservative lexicon of American politics — i.e., as victories or losses for liberals or conservatives. But this results-oriented political lexicon obscures the deeper question of American political philosophy at stake: whether the unconstrained role that the Supreme Court has defined for itself in creating new constitutional rights can be reconciled with the core tenets of our constitutional republic. This is, of course, a question that the Left, as the overwhelming beneficiary of the Supreme Court's rights-invention, is not eager to highlight. Evidently acting on the premise that the best defense is a good offense, legal academics and their allies in the media have instead attacked and caricatured "originalism" — the traditional, common-sense understanding that the current meaning of the Constitution and of other laws is to be determined in accordance with their meaning at the time that they were promulgated.

"Although proponents of originalism claim that it is a politically neutral method, in Scalia's hands it usually leads to conservative results — at least on social issues like abortion, capital punishment, and gay rights."

What Talbot evidently does not comprehend is that on each of these "social issues" Justice Scalia's understanding of the Constitution binds him as a jurist to defer to whatever laws the people might adopt — including, for example, fully funded abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, the abolition of capital punishment, and the redefinition of marriage to encompass same-sex couples.

Stated somewhat differently, if Justice Scalia were in fact to read into the Constitution his own (presumed) substantive views on abortion, he would conclude that permissive abortion laws were themselves unconstitutional. Likewise, he would conclude that legislators could not abolish capital punishment and could not create same-sex marriage. His clear rejection of these positions demonstrates that on these issues Justice Scalia's originalism is in fact politically neutral. In other words, originalism will lead to "conservative results" on these issues only if, and to the extent that, elected legislators enact conservative positions into law. Conversely, originalism will lead to liberal results when elected legislators enact liberal laws. And, of course, the free play that originalism gives to the political process on these issues will allow the electorate the flexibility to change its collective position over time.

Seems to me that this morning's front-page attack on Tom DeLay by the Washington Post isn't a story about Tom DeLay at all. The story makes clear that DeLay did nothing wrong. In 1997, he took a trip to Russia paid for (as far as he had any reason to be aware) by the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington D.C. The Center's president, Amy Ridenour, even came along for the trip.

The Post describes DeLay's activities on the trip thus: "During his six days in Moscow, he played golf, met with Russian church leaders and talked to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin ...." As if DeLay flew to Moscow in order to hit the links. In fact, the United States had some heavy decisions to make about aid to Russia in 1997 and 1998, and it's not surprising that the then number-three man in the House of Representatives would want to see the situation for himself.

It now turns out that the Center defrayed the cost with some doubtful donations from lobbyists, including Jack Abramoff, now the central figure in a major federal investigation of corruption and influence-peddling. Abramoff was representing Russian oil and gas interests with a special interest in influencing US policy toward Russia. Abramoff also joined DeLay and Ridenour on the mission.
...
But while we're on the topic of doubtful practices, can we notice this, please? The Times story is sourced to - and is packed full of quotations from - a series of groups whistled up by George Soros for almost the exclusive purpose of attacking DeLay. (You can read some of the details here.) Maybe the Times should be alerting its readers to the true identity of those sources of these shocked-and-appalled quotations? Or even balancing this bought-and-paid-for expertise with comments from some genuinely disinterested and impartial observers?

A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of “activist
judges.” Generally, the definition of an “activist judge” is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people —
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
The court is duty-bound to question at anytime in a proceeding the bona fides of its jurisdiction. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 831, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 2307 (1999); National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n v. Alabama Dep’t of Env’t Mgmt., 924 F.2d 1001, 1002 (11th Cir. 1991). Given the rapid developments and sensitivities in this case, the need for deliberative study necessitated the delay in my questioning our jurisdiction.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district and circuit courts lack jurisdiction to review the final judgments of state courts. The doctrine applies where “(1) the party in federal court is the same as the party in state
court; (2) the prior state court ruling was a final or conclusive judgment on the merits; (3) the party seeking relief in federal court had a reasonable opportunity to raise its federal claims in the state court proceeding; and (4) the issue before the federal court was either adjudicated by the state court or was inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment.” Amos v. Glynn
County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1265 n.11 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

We are mindful that there exists an exception to Rooker-Feldman when a federal
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (“the Act”) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
...
Against these most elementary of constitutional principles, Section 1 of Pub.
L. 109-3—which states that the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear a suit regarding alleged violations of rights held by Mrs. Schiavo “under the Constitution or laws of the United States”—is not facially unconstitutional. If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court
proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies
available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because
these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should
exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the
province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle. An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power “in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III.”

Judge Birch now argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case due to constitutional infirmities in the legislation enabling federal review of this case. In particular, he identifies four provisions of the act that “constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions.” I believe that it is fully within Congress’s power to dictate standards of review and to waive in specific cases nonconstitutional abstention doctrines.
Indeed, if Congress cannot do so, the fate of hundreds of federal statutes would be called into serious question. (itallics mine) I wish to dispel any questions about our jurisdiction in this case.

Under Article III, Congress has the power both to establish federal courts
and, except as to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to make
exceptions and regulations as to their jurisdiction. U.S. Const. art. III. The
Supreme Court has recognized, at least in some contexts, that Congress also has
the power to require federal courts to entertain causes of action they would not
otherwise have entertained for prudential reasons. Cf. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S.
811, 820 n.3 (1997) (“It is settled that Congress cannot erase Article III’s standing
requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not
otherwise have standing. . . . We acknowledge, though, that Congress’ decision to
grant a particular plaintiff the right to challenge an Act’s constitutionality . . .
eliminates any prudential standing limitations and significantly lessens the risk of
unwanted conflict with the Legislative Branch when that plaintiff brings suit.”
(citation omitted)).

This is not a case, to use separation-of-powers parlance, of Congress
“arrogating” power to itself, nor is it a case in which one branch of government
has “impair[ed] another in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Loving v.
United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996) (emphasis added). Instead, Congress has
prescribed a particular approach to a particular problem in the general domain of
federal jurisdiction, without presuming to dictate—in any respect—our
performance of a court’s essential function: “to say what the law is.” Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.). It is in this domain that
the Supreme Court has jealously guarded our power against intrusion by Congress.
See, e.g., Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432 (2000) (“We hold that
Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect
overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves.
We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and
federal courts.”).

Here, Congress has attempted only what has long been established to be
within its power to dictate: our standard of review, the effect of a prior state court judgment on that review, the application of prudential abstention doctrines, and the effect of exhaustion requirements. I know of no case barring Congress from
so dictating, and Judge Birch does not cite any. Indeed, quite to the contrary,
Judge Birch cites cases establishing that both our abstention and exhaustion
doctrines are prudential. If none of these dictates by itself goes beyond Congress’s power to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts, I know of no doctrine that could convert their aggregation into a separation-of-powers violation.

The Rev. Tom Wray, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Kensington, said he voted in favor, both because he "trusts the committee process" and is "ambivalent about evangelizing Jews to save them."

Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between Christianity and the Jewish people, while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God's covenant with the Jewish people. He was a man of God in every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed.

The cold hard reality is that our carnal man wants to take hold of God as much as Ted Nugent wants to soul kiss Janet Reno. As believers, we naturally will go from bad to worse. And as the church goes, there goes the culture. Therefore, it’s incumbent for the believer to be busting his hump to make certain his love toward God, man and that which is holy, just and good never, ever, becomes tepid and tame.

Mama mia! Talk about a case of mixed messages. Although Domino's was the sponsor and taskmaster on Thursday's "The Apprentice," in which both the Net Worth and Magna teams created and sold meatball-topped pizzas, it was a meticulous and well-timed ad for a Spicy Meatball Pizza from competitors Papa John's that caught the attention of viewers in several markets.

"When we learned about Domino's being featured, we thought it would be a fun opportunity to tell our `better ingredient, better pizza' story while the nation was focused on pizza," Papa John's Vice President Chris Sternberg told The Associated Press Friday. "In a cluttered marketplace, we always look for unique ways to get the consumer's attention."

After reading a press release about Domino's involvement with the NBC reality show last week, Kentucky-based Papa John's quickly launched their Spicy Meatball Pizza on Monday and filmed an ad featuring founder and chairman John Schnatter in a boardroom setting asking, "Why eat a pizza made by apprentices when you can call the pros at Papa John's?"

The commission studying the intelligence failures that produced disastrously flawed estimates of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities has finally produced its report, and it's devastating. Not just for U.S. intelligence, which is portrayed as hapless and bungling, but for Bush critics who have vested so much in the argument that Bush officials pressured intelligence agencies to support the case for war.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is the epitome of this school of thought. The very morning the report was released she wrote that "political pressure was the father of conveniently botched intelligence," and fingered Dick Cheney as the lead culprit. Cut to Page 50 of the WMD report: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs."
...
In its recommendations, the WMD commission makes some nods toward decentralization. This after Congress rushed to "reform" intelligence last year by centralizing it. If we undo that reform and pass another, will intelligence be doubly effective because it will have been "reformed" twice? Bureaucratic shuffling is beside the point. What is most important — and the WMD report usefully emphasizes this — is that we get more agents on the ground and that the people running U.S. intelligence be more imaginative and risk-taking.

The concept of "aged" beer itself flies in the face of conventional wisdom that beer is meant to be drunk within a few weeks of its production (and almost all beer is). But aged beers -- many of them brewed with lots of hops and high-alcohol levels, both acting as preservatives -- have become a staple of what might be called the high-end beer market.

To understand how we got to $25 beer in the first place, some background on the '80s microbrew revolution is in order. Back then, a clutch of brewers, weary that virtually all beer made in the U.S. was cold-fermented lager of a style popularized by Budweiser, began bringing back beers fermented at warm temperature -- called ales -- that were like the beers they'd sampled on trips, notably to the ale capitals of England and Belgium. Ale, with its earthy flavors and aromas and sometimes cloudy appearance, was in fact America's founding beer. But by the late 1800s, ale had lost out in the mass-taste test to the clean, crisp flavor of cold lager.

The Reformers viewed the pope as an anti-Christ, because he took authority that properly belonged to Christ alone. (using the more common meaning of anti-Christ) Before you get too shocked at the statement, I would read "Pope" Gregory I's comments below. I would like to submit for your consideration that the papacy is one of the main causes of disunity. Furthermore, the papacy was not present in the primitive church.

Cyprian (200-258): Neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himslef can judge another. (Seventh Council of Carthage, paragraph 1)

Gregory I, bishop of Rome (540-604): None of my predecssors ever wished to use this profane word. For clearly if one patriarch is called "universal," then the name "patriarch" is taken away from the rest....To consent to this wicked word is nothing less than to destroy the faith....It is one thing that we should preserve unity of faith; another, that we ought to repress self-exaltation. But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself "universal bishop," or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist's precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. (Epistle 18, emphasis mine)

There is a "thinkable" and an "unthinkable" in every era. One era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is acceptable. Yet another era decides that these "certainties" are unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice. On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as the years move on.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said DeLay, R-Texas.

But a leading Democratic senator said DeLay's comments were "irresponsible and reprehensible." Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said DeLay should make sure that people know he is not advocating violence against judges.
...
DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."