Which Eggheads Won the Campus Outrage Awards?

Proving that crazy and absurd antics of college life are no longer confined to fraternities and sororities but have now expanded into the classroom and administration buildings, the Collegiate Network announces the 10th annual “Campus Outrage Awards.”

“We use these awards to shed light on the most outrageous instances of intolerance and intimidation on the part of college officials and to let conservative students know they are not alone in battling political correctness on America’s campuses,” said Stephen Klugewicz, executive director of the Collegiate Network.

Among the 2007 "winners" of these dubious distinctions were the College of William & Mary (for numerous numskull antics that I've blogged about in previous posts); the University of California at Berkeley (for a special scholarship program awarding $500 coming from students' fees to students with prior drug convictions); Johns Hopkins University (for egregious actions of censorship and a weird double standard regarding suppression of speech); the University of Michigan (for arrogantly refusing to obey state laws prohibiting affirmative action and racial and gender preferences in, among other things, university admissions); and San Francisco State University (for acting upon an unjustifiable animus for a politically-incorrect student organization, repression of conservative values, and that all-too-common double standard when it comes to freedom of speech, association, and assembly.)

Here's more details from Campus Magazine Online.

"The Most Dogged Foe of Unborn Human Life in the U.S. Senate”

Paul Kengor, in this exceptional NRO piece, considers various candidates for the “most dogged foe of unborn human life in the U.S. Senate.” There are plenty of possibilities including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and the two people who are running for the Democrat Party nomination for President.

But Kengor eventually decides that there really isn't that much of a contest after all.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, "for all-around crassness and truly breathtaking statements" in her stubborn (even when irrational) promotion of abortion, wins going away.

Take a look.

Today's Posts

Embryo: A Defense of Human Life Reviewed

Saving the Planet is Al Gore's Job

United Methodists Will Continue to Promote Abortion

Why Doesn't the Vatican Speak Out Against Castro?

Trash Talking

Embryo: A Defense of Human Life Reviewed

Peter Lawler, author, Professor of Government at Georgia's Berry College, and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, has written for City Journal a penetrating review of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen (Doubleday). It is a fine piece, one that does admirably what a book review should do; namely, give an accurate evaluation of the book's theme and quality while also giving insight into the values and opinions of the reviewer.

Lawler likes the book a lot. He writes, "This stunningly able and very important book, I predict, will grow in influence." But he goes further to show just why he likes it: the philosophical penetration into Aristotle and Kant, the sound scientific foundations, the logical reasoning, the measured argument, and the courageous convictions of the authors to apply their conclusions to social policy.

In their bold new book...philosophers Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen defend the proposition that the embryo—the organism that comes into being as the result of fertilization, the union of sperm with oocyte—is in fact a human being. And that means that an embryo has “absolute rights.” An embryo should never be used as a means to pursue someone else’s ends, however laudable or life-saving, they say. Certainly, embryos shouldn’t be killed to assist frustrated parents attempting in vitro fertilization (IVF), or even to further pathbreaking medical research.

The authors stop well short of recommending all of the potential changes in law that would necessarily follow from their argument. All they ask is that scientific research that involves the killing of embryos be outlawed—or, at the very least, that it be denied public funding, and that future IVF procedures be practiced in such a way that they do not produce surplus embryos that are ultimately discarded. The authors oppose what they see as brutality motivated in part by good intentions—brutality they hope to correct with moral reasoning based in scientific knowledge. Open-minded readers should find their case powerful.

There are disagreements between Lawler and the authors of Embryo but they are stated cleanly and without ego. That too is always nice to find in a book review. Again, Dr. Lawler's engaging and very helpful review was published by City Journal and can be read in its entirety right here.

Saving the Planet is Al Gore's Job

Clodagh Hartley, the Consumer Affairs Correspondent for the Sun (U.K.), caught Al Gore for an exclusive interview. Here's a few of the choice bits (with a few of my own comments sprinkled in):

"Al Gore wants to make a sequel to his Oscar-winning documentary on global warming – and despite Earth’s 'rising fever' he is still hopeful for a happy ending." But Gore is an exceptional fellow and he is capable of being very optimistic and very pessimistic in the same interview. For he also believes that "little has changed where it counts and the situation is even more urgent" than when he scored his Nobel Prize.

Doggone it. Though his Prize, his film and his ceaseless harping should have turned things rightside up by now, "Mr Gore – hailed as the world’s leading green campaigner – said recent polls had found that while people rate climate change as a 'serious problem', some ranked it lower than clearing up dog mess."

Gore went on to describe that global warming "can kill you" and yet it isn't getting the attention of the politicians or even the public. That's why he is so important. As Mr. Hartley puts it, Gore "reveals he no longer has his sights set on becoming a political leader. Instead, since losing the race for the White House to George W Bush in 2000, he has found 'a much more important job to do' – saving the planet."

Gore's plan, he tells Hartley, is to create a movement of 10,000,000 to force the United States to go green. Then, he's sure, other governments will follow. Like Great Britain. And China. And India.

China and India?

In Gore's mind, such things as hard science, economic reality, and it seems even history aren't allowed to obstruct his visions. Thus this statement -- “When the U.S. does change on this issue it will have a tremendous impact on the rest of the world. It’s hard to imagine China and India changing their position if the United States does not. Those countries look to the U.S. as an excuse for not acting.” If Japan, Europe and the U.S. are moving in the right direction, “China will have a very difficult time moving in the opposite direction”.

Of course. China is so susceptible to outside influences.

Gore the scaremonger doesn't show up for most of the Sun interview, but there are moments like this one: “I have to say the situation has not improved since I made the movie in 2006. Sure, awareness has grown and more people are concerned since scientists said we had just ten years to take action to halt rising sea levels. But the situation has got worse. The entire North Polar ice cap is melting and could be gone in some areas in as little as five years."

But if the problems is so catastrophic, can an individual's choice of light bulbs make a difference? Sure, because such things then help commit the individual citizens into forcing their governments to make more massive change.

"So if it’s all down to governments, is there any point in people 'going green,'?" Hartley asks. "'Absolutely', [Gore] booms. 'I believe that while it’s important to change lightbulbs, it’s far more important to change laws. The idea that individuals in their own activities are going to change this is wrong. But when they do change they are likely to get behind the movement and that is very important because it is going to be changes in law that will ultimately solve this problem."

Ah!

Big government forcing changes on us. Limits on freedom, initiative, ownership, the pursuit of happiness. This is the scariest element of Gore's grand scheme and why reading this Sun interview was a pretty disturbing piece of my morning.

To his credit, though, Hartley does begin to play the part of adversarial reporter later in the interview as he brings up the issues of hypocrisy and costs. Here is the section:

The man who is now as much part of the Hollywood Establishment as he was a political player with the Democratic Party is very careful not to upset any of his celebrity friends. He wouldn’t dream of suggesting that their lavish jet-setting and gas-guzzling lifestyles could be reined in for the good of the environment.

When we point out that David Beckham has recently been given the dubious title of having the worst carbon footprint in history – clocking up enough air miles to fly to the moon and owning 15 gas-guzzling cars, Mr Gore shifts uncomfortably in his seat.

He knows what is coming next.

When asked what he would say to the football icon – a hero to millions – about his impact on the environment, Mr Gore refuses to be drawn. He gives a huge belly-laugh at the notion that Posh and Becks could invest in an environmentally-friendly hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius. He careful considers his answer before saying: “I don’t think that’s my place. I don’t want to get into personally criticising anyone.”

And, oh yes, about those staggering costs of eco-consumerism? Gore feels for you, pal, but it's gotta' be done. After all, "the main benefit of people going green is that they will join a movement to pressure their governments.”

And that's where Al Gore comes in. For he knows that to achieve these crucial ends, "governments need constant pressure and that is what he will devote his life to."

United Methodists Will Continue to Promote Abortion

United Methodist Bishop Beverly Shamana (San Francisco) serves as the President of the church’s Washington lobby office. She has recently disappointed those few pro-life voices yet remaining in the ultra-liberal denomination by defending the denomination's steadfast membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). The Washington-based United Methodist Board of Church and Society and the New York-based United Methodist Women’s Division both belong to RCRC.

The United Methodist's continuing connection to this radical abortion lobby is one of the most tragic, most shameful examples of its apostasy.

Why Doesn't the Vatican Speak Out Against Castro?

One of the topics that most certainly should have been the focus of last week's discussions between President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI is Cuba. But even if the sad plight of that country was examined, Armando Valladares (photo at left) has some grave concerns about just what solutions the pontiff may have proposed. Valladares knows Cuba -- he suffered for 22 years in Cuban's cruel and unjust political prisons -- and he respectfully challenges the serious errors the Vatican has taken in its response to Castro's oppressive rule.

Last week Valladares wrote a compelling article for the Wall Street Journal, reminding readers of the true nature of the Castro (Fidel or Raul) regime. Among the salient points were these:

The Catholic Church has taken a hardline position against right-wing dictatorships. But in Cuba, the Church has been silent – or worse – ever since 1960, when Fidel Castro expelled hundreds of Catholic priests because they alerted their parishioners of the communist danger surfacing in government circles.

In one especially shameful episode in the 1980s, Ventura, Cipriano and Eugenio García Marín and their mother entered the nunciature in Havana to ask for political asylum. Two days later they saw several priests get out of a black limousine. They were special troops from Castro's political police who entered the Holy See's diplomatic mission with the authorization and complicity of the pope's diplomats in Havana. The three brothers were executed, and their mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Cardinal Tarsicio Bertone's visit to Cuba this February was a different kind of outrage. In statements by the Vatican secretary of state, published by L'Osservatore Romano shortly after the cardinal's visit, the cardinal is quoted saying, contrary to historical fact, that Cuba's Catholic Church is not a "persecuted Church." He also described Cuba's universities as "renowned centers of higher education." In reality, they are sophisticated factories of atheism and apostasy.

The cardinal also said: "As we all know, Cuba's crucial problems are due to the embargo imposed by the U.S. and the economic sanctions of the European Union which slow down its development." The Vatican's chief diplomat appears to have forgotten that for almost 50 years the "crucial problem" of Cuba has been the communist regime...

The Vatican's diplomatic behavior helps prolong the agony of my sisters and brothers in Cuba, and creates a grave problem of conscience for loyal Cuban Catholics who expect better from the pope. It in no way diminishes their veneration to express respectful disappointment and even disagreement with the Vatican.

I pray that future developments will prove wrong the concerns of so many Cuban Catholics on the island and in exile. Both the pope and President Bush have immense responsibilities before God and the Cuban people. It is my most sincere hope that they will not forget Cubans' aspirations for freedom, peace and prosperity.

Armando Valladares is now chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. He has also has served as U.S. Representative before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1987 to 1990. For a bit more on Valladares, check these posts from The Book Den: Viva Cristo Rey! Armando Valladares Recalls the Beginnings of True Faith and Against All Hope: A Quick Assessment. Also, this NewsMax article, "Armando Valladares: Human Rights Hero," is an excellent introduction to the man.

The AP photo at right shows John McCain holding up a copy of Valladres' book Against All Hope. It was given to him by the author last year when McCain was in Miami speaking at the Bay of Pigs Museum.

Trash Talking

Okay, here's how silly (and pernicious) things get when the nanny state turns green.

This BBC report tells of a Cumbrian man given a criminal record and fined £110 for "overfilling" his wheelie dustbin by four inches. That the local trash men had reduced their collections from once a week to only twice a month didn't matter to the police, nor did the fact that the man's household includes 2 adults and four children. And though the family is into recycling, the Council-supplied bins just aren't large enough to hold the non-recyclable trash the family generates.

But the Council won't budge. Indeed, it insists that the new trash limits will be strictly administered...even if it means a forced restriction on citizen consumption.

Today's Posts

Expelled Takes On "Fundamental Egoism" of Secular Scientists

Nebraska Passes Important Drunk Driving Legislation

“I Have Never Learned to Fight for my Freedom. I Was Only Good at Enjoying It.”

Greenpeace Co-Founder: "Why I Left Greenpeace"

Expelled Takes On "Fundamental Egoism" of Secular Scientists

Dave Berg, one of Jay Leno's producers, takes a look at Ben Stein's controversial new flick, Expelled as does highly-acclaimed science philosopher, William Dembski. First, an excerpt from Berg...

...The film’s endeavor is to respond to one simple question: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”

Big science doesn’t like that question because they can’t answer it. Underneath their antagonism toward explanations that suggest an intelligent cause, lies a fundamental egoism. Science wants to deny any evidence of a supreme being precisely because it wants to be a supreme being. Moreover, representatives of big science in the film are unsettlingly snippy, suggesting that they feel threatened by rival opinions, rather than assured of their own.

To make this point, the film introduces teachers and scientists who are shunned, denied tenure, and fired for questioning dogmatic Darwinism. The film’s producers spent two years traveling the world, talking with more than 150 educators and scientists who say they have been persecuted for questioning Darwin’s theory of natural selection....

The rest of Berg's review is here at National Review Online.

And Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, weighs in on Expelled in this engaging Baptist Press article. It's a very interesting piece and it ends with this provocative paragraph:

...Expelled's impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater. The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of "Darwin's Wall," Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.

Nebraska Passes Important Drunk Driving Legislation

Let me take a moment here to commend the Nebraska Unicameral for unanimously passing LB 736 earlier this month, a bill that will require the installation of an alcohol ignition interlock device for both a first and second drunk driving conviction. Such a move is long overdue.

With someone injured (on average) every three hours in Nebraska due to alcohol-related vehicle accidents while there is (on average) someone killed in alcohol-related crashes every four days, the responsibilities of lawmakers to defend their citizens' lives, health and property from drunk drivers couldn't be clearer or more critical.

Therefore, I'm very pleased that Governor Dave Heineman signed this legislation last week.

It is not coincidental that the effort to pass LB 736 was led by pro-life Senators Tony Fulton of Lincoln and Senator Tom Carlson of Holdrege. Excellent job, guys.

Still, there's a very long way to go. Even with similar legislation passed earlier this year in West Virginia and Washington, the new Nebraska law means that only six states in the entire nation require ignition interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders.

The interlock devices mandated by the new law involve a breath analyzer linked to a vehicle's ignition system. When a drunk driver wishes to start the equipped vehicle, the driver must first blow into the device, and the vehicle will not start unless the driver's alcohol level is below the predetermined limit. Studies have shown the devices are up to 90% effective in keeping both first-time and repeat offenders from recommitting the crime.

This approach is of tremendous importance due to the number of criminals whose licenses are revoked because of DUI offenses but still keep driving anyway. Indeed, some analysts argue that up to two-thirds of those whose licenses are suspended for drunk driving continue driving.

"By passing this legislation, Nebraska has taken a major step to implement a proven solution to prevent deaths and injuries due to drunk driving," said Glynn Birch, national president of MADD. "We know the technology works - it can save thousands of lives, but also gives offenders the ability to drive without endangering the public, which allows them to reintegrate into their lives more rapidly and effectively."

“I Have Never Learned to Fight for my Freedom. I Was Only Good at Enjoying It.”

I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: it benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today’s Europe — a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.

A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent’s accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

(Mark Steyn in National Review. Quoted by Gina Dalfonzo at The Point.)

Greenpeace Co-Founder: "Why I Left Greenpeace"

Here's a striking read for your Earth Day consideration -- a Wall Street Journal op/ed piece from Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, explaining why he left the organization.

...The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence...

Today's Posts

What Is Overlooked in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Rick Santorum: Why I'm Supporting John McCain

Bioethics Goes Hollywood

For Abortion (Indeed, for All Sins), There Is a Way of Forgiveness

ISNA Demands John McCain Stop Using Term, "Islamic Terrorists"

Adult Stem Cell Treatments Helping Wounded Soldiers

New Jersey Football Coach Doesn't Have a Prayer with District Court Judges

Is Obama's Candidacy Losing Its Luster?

What Is Overlooked in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Henry Louis Gomez' post, "On Illegal Immigration," presents some of the most relevant, common sense and hopeful ideas you'll find on this critically important matter. It deserves a wide hearing and I'd like to help that along by wholeheartedly recommending it.

A particular strength of his essay (posted on Cuban American Pundits) is his advice to Republicans to denounce racial prejudices and avoid nativist irrationalities. Instead, conservatives must honestly evaluate the history of the United States and learn to appreciate the vast (and ongoing) contributions made by immigrant populations.

Then some far-sightedness about such things as language and party affiliation is called for which will lead, Gomez hopes, to a deeper consideration of the moral and family values of Hispanic immigrants, their desire to learn English, their desire to start businesses, and their natural yearning for freedom and security for their families.

An enlightening, helpful piece.

Rick Santorum: Why I'm Supporting John McCain

Rick Santorum writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer why, despite several differences with John McCain, he is going to vote McCain for President this fall.

Anyone who knows me knows that I don't shy away from offering my two-cents on the issues of the day, particularly in presidential races. And anyone who has heard me talk about the presidential race over the last few months knows that I've had, shall we say, some serious reservations about John McCain's candidacy.

I've disagreed with him on immigration, global warming and federal protection of marriage. I've taken strong exception to his view that the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research. But disagreement on such issues is one of the reasons we have presidential primaries - so each party's voters can sort out the issues and personalities and choose the candidate who best reflects their collective view. Republicans have done that. Now the question for conservatives is whether McCain fits the Reagan Axiom that someone you agree with on 80 percent of the issues is your friend, not your enemy.

Of all the issues confronting the United States today, none is more important than our nation's security. Although these issues don't dominate our news as they once did, we cannot forget that without a safe and secure country, all other issues don't matter.

McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America's enemies. He's served our country honorably - heroically - in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy.

The most important social issue is life. Yes, I often wished McCain would have joined me on the Senate floor in debating Barbara Boxer on issues like the partial-birth-abortion ban. In the end, with the exception of embryonic stem-cell funding, he always voted for life and stood for the culture of life. In short, he's been a reliable vote on life issues, which are critical to conservatives...

Read the rest of Rick Santorum's article right here.

Bioethics Goes Hollywood

After listing several current television series that have undertaken shows dealing with bioethics, Sarah Flashing, the executive director of The Foundation for Women of Faith in Culture, writes, "If the popular culture can be swayed on the issues, the academics who agree with Hollywood have less need for precise, rational arguments their points and our elected representatives have less work to do -- or a lot more, depending on which side they fall on the issues..."

"Religion is alive and well in Hollywood, and the sect that seems to be winning the culture war is the one that denies the inherent value of all life, the one that believes we can use people to meet the wants and whims of others, the one that treats the female reproductive system as a manufacturing plant."

For Abortion (Indeed, for All Sins), There Is a Way of Forgiveness

In this very quick but very profound Mark Earley radio commentary, he reminds listeners about not only the devastating effects of abortion on the mother who undergoes the cruel procedure, but also the free grace of the Lord Jesus available to sinners of all stripes and depths.

Good words, as always, from The Point.

ISNA Demands John McCain Stop Using Term, "Islamic Terrorists"

Muneer Fareed, the secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has told the Washington Times that the ISNA (a coalition of several American Muslim groups) is demanding that John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.

But demands notwithstanding, McCain has no plans to drop the adjective.

McCain media strategist Steve Schmidt says that use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.

"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

Mr. McCain often uses the term "Islamic" to describe terrorist enemies. The two remaining Democrats in the presidential field, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, generally shun such word usage...

As should be expected in responsible press reports, the Washington Times' story goes on to give important background material by which the reader can better understand the issues involved. Here are a couple of those items:

The ISNA promotes itself as a voice of moderation that seeks Muslim-Jewish reconciliation and campaigns against what it calls "Islamophobia."...

Some counterterrorism specialists criticize ISNA for failing to condemn terrorist attacks on Israel. Steven Emerson, who directs the Investigative Project on Terrorism, recently wrote that the silence of ISNA and other Muslim groups after Hamas killed eight Israeli students "shows their unwillingness to condemn the terrorist act and its glorification."

Adult Stem Cell Treatments Helping Wounded Soldiers

Over at Secondhand Smoke, Wesley J. Smith reports on how new adult stem cell treatments are helping American soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.