Wednesday, December 21, 2005
In Judges We Trust
Recent Intelligent Design Case Reveals What Not To Do
The recent ruling by Judge John E. Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District illustrates how not to engage the culture on the question of competing cosmologies. In a nutshell, the decision struck down a well-intentioned movement of school board members to teach "Intelligent Design", a competing theory to the theory of evolution which allows for the work of a supreme, supernatural being in the creation of the universe.
The issue with this case is, as Chuck Colson points out, is that the program as written required teaching of ID. Says Mr. Colson,
BTW: Hugh Hewitt also discusses the Establishment Clause issues here.
The recent ruling by Judge John E. Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District illustrates how not to engage the culture on the question of competing cosmologies. In a nutshell, the decision struck down a well-intentioned movement of school board members to teach "Intelligent Design", a competing theory to the theory of evolution which allows for the work of a supreme, supernatural being in the creation of the universe.
The issue with this case is, as Chuck Colson points out, is that the program as written required teaching of ID. Says Mr. Colson,
"...I fear, well-intentioned school-board members overplayed their hand: Given the current state of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, there was little chance of the policy, as written, withstanding a constitutional challenge."Permitting ID instruction, not mandating it seems to be the more appropriate approach. Personally, I think all parties involved would be much better served if schools taught the controversy and did not take one theory or other as dogmatic, abasolute truth. Stack up ID vs. the theory of evolution and see how they pan out. Not only would scientific claims and findings be aired and examined, students would also gains skills in dialectical reasoning.
BTW: Hugh Hewitt also discusses the Establishment Clause issues here.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Google: The Whore of Babylon
Company’s Motto is “Don’t Be Evil”; Apparently, Abetting Evil is OK
Friday’s Wall Street Journal carried an article about Google’s foray into China (subscription required). It seems that Google has followed other, US high-tech companies in prostituting themselves to the Chinese Communist Government to have a shot at the growing Chinese market. According to the story,
To be fair, Google is not all bad. I use Google-owned Blogger.com and Google AdSense for my own blog and they work reasonably well. Furthermore, other high-tech firms have also done the Commies’ bidding. The story continues,
What is ironic about this Commie-coddling is that the ChiCom’s capitalist lackeys may be missing out on the larger, long-term opportunity. Interactive technologies are moving much faster than the censors’ ability to keep up with them, like handheld and peer-to-peer technologies. Naturally, people who want unfiltered news are going to gravitate to these other methods. Companies that stake a claim in this space are positioned to be hugely successful when the Great Firewall of China eventually comes tumbling down.
Postscript: A recent post by Lone Star Times’ Matt Bramanti chronicled BuyBlue.org, a website dedicated to highlighting corporations that support and donate to various leftist causes. BuyBlue.org reports that Google CEO Eric Schmidt has donated $71,500 to Democratic candidates and $0 to Republicans.
Friday’s Wall Street Journal carried an article about Google’s foray into China (subscription required). It seems that Google has followed other, US high-tech companies in prostituting themselves to the Chinese Communist Government to have a shot at the growing Chinese market. According to the story,
“…the move into China is giving the country’s censors and security officials greater potential leverage of Google – whose corporate mantra is “Don’t be evil.” Beijing believes that the Internet must be firmly controlled to maintain social stability and, ultimately, the Communist Party’s hold on power. It requires Internet companies operating in China to comply with the country’s stringent censorship and security laws. Already Google has been tailoring part of its service to omit sources blocked by Chinese censors.”It’s one thing to have links that come up in Google searches blocked by the ChiCom thought police. It’s quite another to actively collaborate with the dictatorial regime by doing their censoring for them. It is disappointing to see Google compromise their principles, morally equivocate, and play footsie with habitual human rights violators.
“Asked about choosing between censoring search results and being blocked from China, [Google co-founder, Sergey] Brin responded: ‘There are difficult questions, difficult challenges. Sometimes the ‘Don’t be evil’ policy leads to many discussions about what exactly is evil’.”Well, one example of evil is restricting freedom of speech. Another form of evil is collaborating with evildoers. So where does that put Google in relation to its stated principles?
“…Google launched a version of is news service, which allows Chinese users to search news Web sites. In its results pages for Chinese consumers, the company excluded articles from sources the government deemed subversive – a practice that continues today. Google argues that it would be frustrating to give people links they can’t access anyway.”It would also be frustrating for the Communist government to be seen by its citizens as restricting access to information. Happily for the Communists, Google will do it for them.
To be fair, Google is not all bad. I use Google-owned Blogger.com and Google AdSense for my own blog and they work reasonably well. Furthermore, other high-tech firms have also done the Commies’ bidding. The story continues,
“Human rights activists in recent months have condemned Yahoo…for helping Chinese police identify a Chinese journalist….The journalist, 37-year old Shi Tao, is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.Ah, yes, the old “constructive engagement” ruse. This is the idea that, by giving the Communist regime lots of market opportunity and military-grade technology, the dictators will magically see the light, end their human rights oppression, stop bullying their neighbors and allow truly free and democratic elections. Requiring changed behavior before providing a reward seems to be an unknown concept to many US foreign policy makers or corporate chieftains.
Yahoo defends it actions. “We balance legal requirements against our strong belief that our active involvement in China contributes to the continued modernization of the country.”
What is ironic about this Commie-coddling is that the ChiCom’s capitalist lackeys may be missing out on the larger, long-term opportunity. Interactive technologies are moving much faster than the censors’ ability to keep up with them, like handheld and peer-to-peer technologies. Naturally, people who want unfiltered news are going to gravitate to these other methods. Companies that stake a claim in this space are positioned to be hugely successful when the Great Firewall of China eventually comes tumbling down.
Postscript: A recent post by Lone Star Times’ Matt Bramanti chronicled BuyBlue.org, a website dedicated to highlighting corporations that support and donate to various leftist causes. BuyBlue.org reports that Google CEO Eric Schmidt has donated $71,500 to Democratic candidates and $0 to Republicans.
Patriotism and irresponsible press
There are some things we as the American public just don't get to know for national security reasons. That's the way it is, and people just need to deal with it, including those at the New York Times. In his weekly radio address yesterday (Saturday), which was carried live and on camera, President Bush criticized the Times for releasing security sensitive information regarding surveillance practices approved by the Bush administration. Even the liberal Washington Post, among other media outlets, questions the Times judgment in publishing the story - if not for the actual content of the story, at least for the timing of the publication of the story.
The Times had the story for a year, but delayed publication until it was time for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. I believe the timing and publication of this story was designed not only to affect the vote on the Patriot Act, but also to get back in the good graces of the public given the turmoil and dissatisfaction in the paper's national security coverage over the last few years. The Times coverage has been plagued with flawed reporting and scoops by other major papers. While they claimed the delay in publishing the 'spy' story was for additional investigation and reporting after a request from the White House to not publish the story at all; there was no indication of how or why circumstances changed to warrant publication the night before the vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
It's not unusual for papers to hold stories for a good news peg, but the timing served more than one purpose. The release of this story brings the issue of surveillance policies and national security into the spotlight. I believe this was done not only to affect the vote on the Patriot Act reauthorization, but also as a precursor to the release of a book by James Risen "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration". Risen also happens to be one of the lead reporters on the 'spy' story. While it was, quite honestly, a very shrewd business move in financial terms, it is also a very irresponsible move on the part of the Times that endangers national security. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, in an article on domestic spying in today's (12/18/05) Austin American Statesman is quoted as saying "I think it's a crying shame . . . that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book,"
While we have both the right and responsibility to question the actions of our elected officials, there are also times when we have to trust them to protect us without even if that means that they don't tell us details of what's going on. If the American people do not trust those we've elected, then we need to get off our collective rear-end and vote for those we believe we can trust in future elections.
The media also needs to know that they are accountable for their actions too, for what they print. Journalists have a responsibility to their readers (i.e. the ones who keep them in business), but apparently the editorial board and staff writers at the Times doesn't think that responsible journalism is nearly as important as serving their own individual political and financial interests. The Times should not sacrifice national security for the sake of business and circulation numbers. If they want to sacrifice their own security that's their individual choices. I would appreciate it, however, if they would not sacrifice mine at the same time.
The Times had the story for a year, but delayed publication until it was time for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. I believe the timing and publication of this story was designed not only to affect the vote on the Patriot Act, but also to get back in the good graces of the public given the turmoil and dissatisfaction in the paper's national security coverage over the last few years. The Times coverage has been plagued with flawed reporting and scoops by other major papers. While they claimed the delay in publishing the 'spy' story was for additional investigation and reporting after a request from the White House to not publish the story at all; there was no indication of how or why circumstances changed to warrant publication the night before the vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
It's not unusual for papers to hold stories for a good news peg, but the timing served more than one purpose. The release of this story brings the issue of surveillance policies and national security into the spotlight. I believe this was done not only to affect the vote on the Patriot Act reauthorization, but also as a precursor to the release of a book by James Risen "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration". Risen also happens to be one of the lead reporters on the 'spy' story. While it was, quite honestly, a very shrewd business move in financial terms, it is also a very irresponsible move on the part of the Times that endangers national security. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, in an article on domestic spying in today's (12/18/05) Austin American Statesman is quoted as saying "I think it's a crying shame . . . that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book,"
While we have both the right and responsibility to question the actions of our elected officials, there are also times when we have to trust them to protect us without even if that means that they don't tell us details of what's going on. If the American people do not trust those we've elected, then we need to get off our collective rear-end and vote for those we believe we can trust in future elections.
The media also needs to know that they are accountable for their actions too, for what they print. Journalists have a responsibility to their readers (i.e. the ones who keep them in business), but apparently the editorial board and staff writers at the Times doesn't think that responsible journalism is nearly as important as serving their own individual political and financial interests. The Times should not sacrifice national security for the sake of business and circulation numbers. If they want to sacrifice their own security that's their individual choices. I would appreciate it, however, if they would not sacrifice mine at the same time.
