Wednesday, February 25, 2004
What if He Would Have Been an Atheist?
SOTUS has ruled in Locke vs. Davey, 7-2, that states may disallow scholarship funds, which of course the states have misappropriated from individuals under the guise of altruistic redistribution, from students who wish to study courses in theology.
In one aspect this ruling is sound. Individual states have retained the authority to decide this issue rather than the federal government. But, I think the ruling as a whole is off the mark. The student in this case had declared two majors, business and pastoral ministries, and is currently attending law school.
Two points to consider. First. What if I labeled myself as an atheist, or, as an individual with no religious belief or affiliation, and I wanted to major in a theological field? Would denying a scholarship for studying a religious course of instruction then be sound? Wouldn’t such a course of instruction possibly be beneficial to the individual, and the state, if it enabled such an individual to achieve a greater knowledge which could then be used in secular society to refute religious interference in daily life?
Second. The more important point is this. Though the monies so freely scattered about in the form of scholarships by the state have been misappropriated, the state would have us believe, not think, that they are distributed, solely, based on need and merit. The old blind eye trick. In fact, they are not. Any monies redistributed by the state always have strings attached and in fact turn individuals into mere puppets. If the states would not have misappropriated the monies in the first place, it is quite possible Davey might not have been in need of a scholarship.
One last thing. According to the first linked article in this post, Davey’s lawyers argued for his right to utilize the scholarship on the following basis.
Davey’s lawyers argued that the state violated his constitutional right to worship freely.
If the argument above is what Davey’s lawyers were hanging their hat on, it’s no wonder it fell to the floor and was trampled underfoot. They seemed to have confused attending an institution of higher learning with attending church.
Here is a link to the oral arguments and other resources in regard to this case.
“Not so fast George Bush. You don’t get to decide who our nominee is,” Edwards declared.
Faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and, more ominously, capable of countrywide mind control. Only Kryptonite can stop him, I guess. Cue evil laughter.
Adbusters or Assholes?
David Bernstein and Eugene Volokh note that Adbusters Magazine is asking, in an article, “Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?” Bernstein, to alleviate Adbuster’s concern, is displaying his Juden star. Alongside the article, Adbusters, helpfully, provides a list of Jewish individuals. Just in case you didn’t know I guess. Either that or so you can be prepared for Kristallnacht.
To answer my own question, posed in the title to this post, Adbusters or Assholes? Assholes.
On a personal note, I think it’s a pretty sad state of affairs and shows how far our culture has descended that the definition of marriage is even in question.
Mike Tennant at Strike the Root.
Professional Jobholder Perk
US senators’ personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study.
Just another reason to throw your hat in the ring to benefit the “people.”
Based on a study by Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University.
The entire article, written by Deborah Brewster, can be read at Liberty & Power: Group Blog.
“Your Sure Sign of a Rational Product”
I gotta get me one of those.
Brilliant, Just Brilliant
I tend to watch Crossfire for laughs, but right now I’m livid. Tucker Carlson just asked Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques why, for all the reasons she advances to support gay marriage, polyamorous groupings of three or more men or women shouldn’t be recognized. Her brilliant, principled answer?
“Because I don’t approve of that.”
Via Julian Sanchez at Hit & Run.
Do It Yourself Trepanation
Via J. Orlin Grabbe.
A Math Tsar?
As we have said here before, when they appoint a “tsar”, it means that they have a problem, but no idea how to solve it.
The above is Brian Micklethwait, over at Samizdata, commenting on a Guardian story titled Report finds maths education in need of urgent overhaul. My maths be needin overhaulin two.
On Law and Order, the Show and Reality
In this episode someone had shot up City Council in New York City, killing and injuring two politicians. When the detectives come to the scene of the crime, they see one member of the council dead and ask whether the injured victim, by now taken off to the hospital, is also a member of the council. In response, the investigating officer says, “No, thank God, it was some civilian,” or words to that effect.
Tibor R. Machan in a piece titled Why Honor Politicians?, comments on the above scene and shares his thoughts about his son’s school inviting a politician to speak to the students.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Shouldn’t He Have Let the Police Handle the Situation?
Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Secchia, who happens to be from Grand Rapids, Michigan, has recently been in the news. According to the story, Secchia “walloped” a man who was apparently attempting to abduct his 3 year old grandchild. I say it’s a pity Secchia wasn’t able to be more robust when dealing with this situation.
That’s not the point I want to bring to your attention though. What I do want to bring to your attention are these comments.
“Anybody who’s read the (police) report is going ‘Yeah, go grandpa! That’s the kind of grandpa I want my granddaughter to have,’” Seattle Police Det.Christie-Lynn Bonner said.
“It was very quick thinking. He’s quite a bit older than this person, and yet managed to protect his granddaughter.”
Not a word in that statement is untrue. Secchia did what he should have done. Why do I ask the question posed in the title? Because in most other incidents when individuals act to protect their life, their loved ones lives, or their property, the police always trot out the, “Yes, it worked out okay this time, but you really should have let the police handle it” statement. Not this time.
Not an Idle Analogy
Imagine the local police are looking for a document that is evidence of a possible crime. The Judge gives them a warrant based on probable cause. When they search the file cabinet at that address, they can’t find what they are looking for. So they corden off the entire apartment building and seize all the file cabinets containing all of the personal and business records of everyone living there. They cart those off with total disregard to the impact on lives and businesses. Then they tell everyone their file cabinets will be returned as soon as they’ve made a permanent State copy of their entire contents.
What sort of society would you say you were living in if that happened?
The Narc Reports
Micha Ghertner and Randall McElroy attended a lecture yesterday given by, as McElroy states, “Drug Warrior Extraordinaire” Robert Stutman. McElroy’s post is titled Lessons learned from a drug warrior and Ghertner’s post is titled Lies, Damn Lies and Drug Warrior Statistics. Both posts are worth reading.
The Four Idiots
Many of us have heard of the three tenors. I could name them for you, if I Googled them up, or called my Grandma down in Cinci, but I would prefer to speak about the four idiots. The four, are the mayors Michael R. Bloomberg, Richard M. Daley, James K. Kahn and Scott L. King. These four members of the elite society of professional jobholders, put their collective brain cells together and still could not muster enough rational thought to put down on paper a sound analysis of responsibility in regards to firearms and their use, or misuse. I quote.
By immunizing gun manufacturers against civil liability, the bill would remove much of their legal incentive to behave responsibly.
Most firearms dealers are responsible business people selling to law-abiding customers. But a small minority are not, and their unlawful actions are largely responsible for the gun violence on our cities’ streets.
...Congress proposes basically to immunize the gun industry from efforts to make it act responsibly.
Not a single word of this incoherencey acknowledges that in each and every instance in which someone is tragically killed with a gun, an individual is pointing it and pulling the trigger.
The four idiots.
Read this atrocious op-ed titled Lawyers, Guns and Mayors as published in the New York Times.
The Victims Bones
Though we have been graced with the writings of Solzhenitsyn, the horrors of Socialism have not been crushed in our world. The death of Socialism remains an event to be anticipated. It may be knocked down, but it’s resurgence lies only as deep as the bones in Norilsk. Why is this? The end of this linked article answers the question.
The people who wouldn’t like to remember this past are still alive and still in power.
I would add that these self same people do not want the truth of the past to be revealed as being as evil and calloused as the Nazi’s attempts to eliminate the Jews.
Via Gene Expression.