The AP reports (hat tip to Spirit):

So now the government may make it easier to obtain a drug that can possibly act as an abortifacent.

Speaking in strictly political terms, this will definitely rile up the conservative base for the November election. Still, most people (including me) would much rather see this fail than have it happen simply so we can win this November.

Two stories (here and here) suggest that scientists who claim a link between hurricanes and global warming are probably wrong because they're using bogus historical data. They're worth a read, so check them out.

Once again, Gore and his ilk have been blowing hot air.

Simple answer: yes. In fact, if science provides adequate proof of evolution, Christians should believe in evolution.

Yet, many Christians believe that to believe in evolution is to not believe in the Bible. Witness this post by Jackson Knight on his blog Southern Ramblings:
The problem with this type of mentality is a 100% literal interpretation of every word in the Bible (or so some people claim, more on this later). Of course, to deny that the Bible is not true is un-Christian, but to claim that evolution and the Genesis account of creation are reconcilable is not un-Christian in any sense.

First, why would anyone really believe that every word in the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally? Contrary to the belief of many Biblical literalists, the Bible was not faxed down from heaven. Yes, everything in the Bible is divinely inspired. But the Bible is a compilation of the writings of many men; and these writings were selected by a council of Catholic bishops. The men that wrote these books employed literary devices such as symbolism and metaphors. Why? Because it makes for more effective writing. What clear evidence do we have of this symbolism? Christ, in John's Revelation, is portrayed as a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes. Are we to interpret this literally? Of course not. Christ rose to heaven, body and all.

Second, there is a certain hypocrisy among Biblical literalists. The Bible is to be interpreted literally -- except for passages that point to a Catholic understanding of the text. An excellent example of this is the sixth chapter of The Gospel of John, where it is written:

"Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.'

This passage is often construed by Biblical literalists as symbolic in an effort to undermine the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why? Shouldn't they be consistent in their beliefs?

Regardless, before I get to far off topic, it should be clear that a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible is not only not necessary, but it is not logical. Of course, one cannot deny the creation story in Genesis, as to do so is essentially deny Original Sin. The story is true, and a Christian must believe in Adam and Eve, but belief in Adam and Eve and Original Sin as well as belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Why? Because to claim that they are is to claim that Galileo should have been treated much more harshly than he was (house arrest and being allowed to continue writing are hardly rough punishments, so the Church is not really guilty in this one, much as an atheist might have one believe). Why? Galileo's teaching appeared to contradict passages in the Bible claiming that the Earth did not move. In reality, the job of prophets was not to provide scientific breakthroughs, so such language in the Bible is to be expected. But the literalist must believe that the Earth does not move and the solar system is geocentric.

In the end, all of these problems can be associated to the idea that the Bible is to be read and interpreted by each individual. If the Bible is thought to be a closed system -- that is, it does not depend on any other earthly authority in any way -- then it makes sense that one's beliefs must be entirely dictated by the Bible. In reality, of course, the Bible is thought to be the word of God because the Church of God (the Catholic Church established by Jesus) had the authority to declare canon.

He links to a new report on a study documenting the link between abortion and premature births. Check out his blog.

This short story from the AP is great, it details two competing ballot measures up for consideration in Ohio this November:
Here's the synopsis: SmokeFree is backed by the usual suspects -- the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association. Care to guess who is backing Smoke Less? R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association. Nice.

I've got two things to say about Smoke Less. 1) Kudos to R.J. for the name of that alliance. "Truth" and the whole anti-smoking cabal have long engaged in ridiculously deceptive practices. Smoke Less itself isn't exactly deceptive, but unless a person does a little research, they won't know exactly what Smoke Less stands for. 2) The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association is against SmokeFree's referendum? Goodness, imagine letting private restaurants and bars decide whether or not smoking should be allowed in their establishment. That might even be -- dare I say it -- capitalistic?

The whole anti-smoking cabal is inherently anti-private property. There really is no justification for taking control of one's private property away from an individual and giving it to the government.

What I also don't understand is the moral opposition by some Christians to smoking. Smoking  tobacco is not an inherently sinful act in any regard. The drug in tobacco, nicotine, is comparable to two other drugs that are commonly used by many Christians. First, there is caffeine, a drug that Christians generally have no moral opposition toward. What do these two drugs share in common? They are both addictive. The other drug is alcohol, of course. Alcohol consumption can lead to alcoholism, but it is not addictive in the same way. It is similar to nicotine, however, in the sense that overuse can result in negative consequences for one's health. Alcohol is a bit worse in one regard: short-term effects of overuse include an altering of one's perception of reality. Many Christians do oppose alcohol, but the fact that Jesus sanctions the consumption of alcohol at Cana, and the fact that in all the New Testament there is no ban on alcohol, only a warning against overuse.

So, if nicotine bears qualities (though not all qualities) that other drugs have that Christians either don't oppose or have no good reason to oppose, why should nicotine be opposed by Christians? It shouldn't. The entire Christian religion should be united in opposition to an all-out ban. I can see the logic behind some loose restrictions against smoking and drinking, but, the choice to use should be left to the individual, and efforts to destroy private property rights should cause Christians to shudder (well, at least Catholics, as the Church has repeatedly harped on the necessity of private property protections).

I'm staying here at the Heritage Foundation for the summer, and I found myself with a free Saturday. Most of my friends here decided to head to Pennsylvania to campaign for Rick Santorum. I'm sure it would have been a great trip, and I agree heartily with the cause, but I decided to stay home and catch up some sleep (the group left around 7:30 this morning).

I decided I'd start reading Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death while I smoked a cigar in the park today. What a great decision. I picked up a Punch Rothschild cigar, seen here:



It was a great smoke for a simple Saturday afternnon in the park. I didn't want a long smoke, and the Rothschild was a Robusto, so it only took about 45 mintues to finish, which was perfect. I love full-bodied cigars, but even though the Rothschild was a mild one, it was still a great smoke. It produced lots of smoke, burned evenly the whole time, there were no problems with the construction and even though it got a little hot toward near the end, it did cool down a bit. All in all, a good cigar.

About two-thirds of the way into the cigar, I put the book down and just sat back and admired God's creation. Truly, there is nothing like sitting outdoors in the shade, smoking a cigar, admiring the world and being grateful for the blessings one has received. I would recommend that anyone who hasn't tried a cigar -- and isn't afraid to try one -- pick one up and just sit outside as the day starts to unwind and think.

Funny how this post from Bill at Leaning Right could come to such a different conclusion then I did when using essentially the same example to illustrate our point:

His conclusion is different from the one I came to in this recent post. I said in that post:

No, now I see it. The reason we come to different conclusions is because I actually tried to reproduce the scenario in the Middle East as it happened. Israel has not sent in battalions of soldiers to take out Hezbollah. If they did, I'd be cheering them all the while. However, Israel has simply lobbed bombs into Southern Lebanon, accepting whatever collateral damage comes with killing terrorists this way.

This is something that the United States has chosen not to do in Iraq. Instead of retaliatory bombing against terrorists in Iraq, the U.S. sends soldiers in and accepts the death of our troops as the price we pay for fighting a just war. Israel would do well to learn from us, and blind supporters of Israel would do well to try to objectively examine the current situation in the Middle East.

The pope is leaving the alps and returning to Rome, which is good for me. "Ultramontane" literally means "beyond the mountains," often meaning the Alps (see: Welcome post for definition). So, if the pope isn't beyond the alps, I don't know who it is I'm supposed to be following. Anyway, here's the pope:



He also calls for people to join him in prayer for the situation in Israel and Lebanon:


We all need to pray for lasting peace there and an end to terrorism.

From the Washington Post (hat tip to Drudge):

And his opponents chime in:

Steele is in a Democratic state, so of course it's a liability to be known as a Republican. However, does this put him out of touch with voters in Maryland? I can't answer that, as I don't know how Marylanders think, and I don't know how Steele thinks.

However, Democrats clearly aren't just writing Steele off, as they got ahold of his credit report in violation of privacy laws (the Yahoo link to the story on that blog isn't working). If he's so out of touch, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.

The AP reports (hat tip to Drudge):

Settling lawsuits around the world, the company behind software called "Kazaa" said Thursday it will redesign its pioneering file-sharing program to block customers who try to find and download copyrighted music and movies. It also will offer licensed entertainment for a price, and it agreed to pay more than $115 million in penalties to leading music and movie companies.

Music criminals had a free ride for a while, but this is just another sign that it will be coming to an end. Music piracy will never be completely wiped out, but as anti-piracy measures get fancier, the general pirate populace gets marginalized. It becomes so that only the incredibly tech-savvy can engage in piracy. Good. Copyright law exists for a reason.

The AP reports (hat tip to Drudge):

Clearly, having the chairman of the Democratic Party say this is the best way for the United States to ensure that the new Iraq is an ally. Really, is this man completely stupid? First, al-Maliki has political concerns of his own. Second, Israel's response has been terribly disproportionate. Third, we all know the Democrats want us to lose in Iraq, so this really isn't a surprise.

This article from the UPI is just ridiculously scary (hat tip to Spirit). Essentially, a man was taken to the hospital because of asbestos-caused lung cancer. When he and his family got there, several staff members at the hospital (including an internist that the man's daughter called "Dr. Death") basically started trying to convince the man's family that the man wanted to die and they should let him "die with dignity." Lies.

The story says:

For those of you that don't know, "persistent vegetative state" is essentially a term used by euthanasia advocates looking to dehumanize someone. No one is really comfortable outright killing a person, but if you can be convinced that your loved one is not really a person anymore but a vegetable, suddenly it's not so hard. You're doing them a favor, aren't you? Not really. A person is a person is a person -- their medical condition cannot change what they are.

So, the family was getting pressure from the medical staff to end their father's life. Only when the woman lied and said her atheist father was an Orthodox Jew did the staff finally relent. But this is absurd. Doctors should respect the life and death decisions of family regardless of their religion. If an atheist objects to having their parent killed by a hospital looking to free up a bed and save some money, why should they be overridden.

Here's how it ended:

Imagine. If the family had listened to the doctors, this man would have been dead.

And the article closes with this statement:

Which is probably true. And that's why we cannot allow euthanasia to gain any more legal protection than it already does.

                                            What does that say just above this text?


Found this video game ad at GameFAQS and had to copy this. "Excluding Quebec." Priceless.

*I had to chop the right end of the ad off so that it would not stretch the page.

Pat Buchanan has been taking one hell of a beating from conservatives lately. The worst part about much of the criticism is that much of it consists of ad hominem attacks on Buchanan, instead of logical arguments against his position. For instance, looking through user comments on his last three columns (7/25, 7/21, 7/18) shows that many people are simply flinging the anti-semite accusation at Buchanan.

This is the sort of thing that really worries me. Conservatives love to point out that in so many situations, instead of thoughtfully debating, liberals simply hurl emotional insults at opponents, such as "racist," "sexist," "bigot," etc. Unfortunately, so many neo-conservatives betray their liberal tendencies when they accuse Buchanan of anti-semitism. Generally, liberals pride themselves on "diversity," so long as that doesn't include intelletual and viewpoint diversity, but simply an artificial diversity (based on appearances). Conservatives like to scoff at "diversity" in the liberal sense, but we should pride ourselves on our willingness to tolerate dissenting views within the movement. Buchanan is a dissenting view at the moment and instead of embracing this dissent and arguing with him, the insults start flying. Sad, really.

However, I'm more than pleased to reply to arguments against Buchanan that are not reliant on ad hominem attacks, but instead are intellectually driven. Proverbs 2:2 and SPQR have both blogged about Buchanan's columns, and both have written posts that don't resort to charges of anti-semitism. I applaud them for this, and feel compelled to stick up for Buchanan, as I agree with him for the most part.

Proverbs 2:2 writes:

Buchanan never denies Israel the right to defend itself, but he does point out that Israel's response have unfortunately targeted Lebanese civilians.

SPQR looks to defend the actions taken by Israel against Lebanon:

Ceasing what appears to be indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese civilians would not constitute doing nothing. Israel can (and should) pursue Hezbollah and seek to wipe them out, but doing this does not require Israel to bomb civilian targets. I'm a strong proponent of the theory of just war (as advocated by the Church), and believe that civilian targets should never be targets. Of course, wars have collateral damage. But, collateral damage should come by way of targetting military bases/targets. Excess damage done to civilians is justified so long as it is proportional to the good done by the attack on the enemy.

However, SPQR sees fit to condemn the Lebanese for complacency:

Yes, Hezbollah has a political wing that controls part of the Lebanese parliament. This is what happens with a democracy -- people get to choose who is ruling them. Unfortunately, Lebanon has not been able to disarm Hezbollah. Neither did Israel during their occupation of southern Lebanon. I don't see how a still-in-its-infancy democracy can be condemned for failing to do what Israel itself couldn't.

And I fail to see how innocent Lebanese need to pay the price for the sins of terrorists who reside in their nation and for the government's inability to disarm the terrorists. Here's a scenario, a terrorist group from Canada crosses the U.S. border and kidnaps two soldiers and kills some others. Say also that this terrorist group has a political wing that controls some of the legislature. We would expect Canada to crack down on this, but should the Canadian citizens be bombed simply for existing in a country where terrorists also reside? I don't see how the bombing of innocents works toward anything good. Whereas a strong response against Hezbollah (and only against Hezbollah) probably would have been cheered almost unanimously, an attack against Lebanese citizens only serves to cause the victims to sympathize with Hezbollah. I will immediately be condemend as a weak-kneed pacifist for this statement, but it is true. Kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight does not warrant a response that leaves hundreds of civilians dead. The sympathy of the victims and their families will not go to the attacker. Even though Hezbollah struck first, the citizens see a response from Israel that they will interpret (quite correctly) as disproportionate.

I appreciate the posts by the above mentioned bloggers, as they did not fall into malicious name calling. Nonetheless, I believe them to be wrong. Buchanan may not be 100% right, but for the most part he gets it correctly. Israel needs to scale down their attacks if they want this war to be a just one.

The BBC currently has a story about Bolivian education and the Catholic Church. Not only do they not really provide any background or give the reasoning behind the Catholic position (thereby spinning the story in favor of the Bolivian presidentout to be the good guy), but they end with this quote:

Hmm. A completely unsourced statement at the end of a story. The Inquisition is mentioned, I presume, because of this:

Which Inquisition Morales is referring to is unclear. The Inquisition in most people's minds is the Spanish Inquisition, which was run by the Spanish royalty independent of the Holy See. All told, over the course of hundreds of years, about 3,000 people died in the Spanish Inquisition (which is much, much lower than most people believe).

But, the BBC refers to the Medieval Inquisition of the 12th and 13th century. Why? I'm guessing a few reasons. One, part of it was run by the Church (known as the papal inquisition). Two, it was used to root out heresy. Three, torture was used.

Here's the problem with the BBC's version of things. There were several different but related inquisitions, but the Church never set up something called the Inquisition during this time. Yes, it was used to root out heresy, but the Catholic Church in Bolivia is not seeking to convert heretics but simply to retain their role as educational leader. Third, the torture used during these inquisitions was restricted by the pope to exclude bloodshed, mutiliation and death, making religious torture far, far less extreme than secular torture.

This is just bad journalism on BBC's part. Not only do they assume they know to which "inquisition" Morales is referring (I think they're wrong), they put an unsourced, inaccurate and unneeded statement at the end of the story (if it was truly relevant to the story, it would have appeared closer to the initial Inquisition reference).