Shrewd as serpents

The Daily Mail has a lengthy piece today on the beginning of the trial for the gang of British Muslims charged with plotting to blow up as many as 7 airplanes over the Atlantic Ocean. The details are horrifying, both in terms of the sheer carnage that would have occured had the terrorists been successful and also due to the ingenuity of the would-be terrorists.

On the making of the bombs:

Plastic Oasis and Lucozade bottles were to be used by the plotters to make their liquid bombs.

A hypodermic syringe would be inserted into the base to draw out the drink and the bomb mixture would be injected in its place.

A homemade detonator called hexamethylene triperoxide and also known as HMTD would be made from a mixture of household and commercial ingredients and disguised in AA batteries.

Bulbs and wires would connect the bomb mixture with disposable cameras to trigger a charge to set it off.

On getting through security:

A bomb plot "blueprint" scrawled in a diary was seized by police from one of the alleged masterminds, the jury heard.

It set out in chilling detail how mid-air carnage was to be achieved using everyday objects.

And it revealed that the fanatics hoped to hoodwink airport security officers by putting pornographic magazines and condoms in their hand luggage to indicate that they could not be Muslim zealots, the court was told.

As if we needed another reminder, these guys are as shrewd as they are evil. Stories like this inevitably stregthen my occasionally shaky support for McCain. He is wrong on a great many issues (as I was reminded watching CSPAN the other night when a speaker introducing McCain at an event lauded him for his "courage" in enacting campaign-finance reform) but he is right on the biggest issue of the day: The long struggle with terrorists depraved enough to kill thousands of people and crafty enough to do so by fooling airport security with a few dirty magazines.

John McEnroe has got nothing on this guy

Will the GOP shut down the Senate over judicial nominees?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is wondering...his interested is piqued by this report from The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday he has not ruled out the option of shutting down the chamber to put fresh pressure on Democrats to confirm President Bush’s stalled judicial nominees. …

His statement came after Republicans brought a Judiciary Committee meeting to a near-standstill to vent their frustrations with what they said was Democratic foot-dragging to confirm 10 pending nominees to federal appeals courts. They complained that there have been no committee hearings on nominees since last September, and say that at least nine more nominees need to be confirmed by the end of Bush’s term in order to match the 15 judges the Republican-controlled Senate approved in the final two years of the Clinton administration.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters last month that one of the options to force Democratic action is “shutting down the Senate.”

I know that this scuttlebut has been making the rounds in conservative circles in DC for a while now. Many folks long for the pre-2006 days of judicial fights on the Senate floor. Conservatives were riding high then, no doubt about it. Confirming John Roberts, defeating Harriet Miers and then confirming Alito were all huge wins.

But the difference between those fights and the potential fights described above is immense. Appeals court nominees are important for sure. But they will not grab the public's attention in the way that the Supreme Court nominees did. For this reason, I expect this talk of a Senate shut down to be mostly bluster in the end.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for shutting down either house of Congress for whatever reason. Anytime these guys are not legislating, we are usually better off. But the lack of public awareness about the importance of appeals court nominees combined with the fear of Senate GOPers who do not want to be seen as obstructionists will prevent this scenario from unfolding.

Gender binaries are so last semester

The Boston Globe reports on the increasing use of mixed-gender student housing, allowing men and women to room together in the same bedrooms on college campuses. The usual suspects -- feminists, homosexuality advocates, confused, transgendered souls -- are behind the trend. Particularly striking is the rhetoric of mixed housing advocates. Some choice samples follow.

Denise Darrigrand, dean of students at Clark: "It's a new world, and gender has taken on all kinds of new definitions. It's about being more inclusive, and it's about keeping pace with the times."

Gender has new definitions? Does it mean something more than male and female? But as long as we're being inclusive and keeping pace with the times, why bother having bedrooms at all? Why not just throw all the students into a common bunkhouse? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with modern notions of discretion?

James Baumann of the Association of College and University Housing Officers: "Among Millennial students, whether it's race, gender, or nationality, the borders are coming down. The lines just aren't there anymore."

To what borders is he referring and where have they gone? Does he mean "walls"? Those borders? But the walls are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. They now merely separate one set of post-gender roommates from another set of post-gender roommates. Or am I missing something?

Dartmouth housing applicatin form: "[Dartmouth] seeks to provide a living environment welcoming to all gender identities; one not limited by the traditional gender binary."

Jeffrey Chang, Clark student: Separate housing policies "needlessly reinforce an oppressive gender binary"

If gender is no longer binary, what it is? Are there three variants? Eight? One hundred? Does anyone know? Are not even transgendered variations defined relative to the binary models of "male" and "female." But I suppose that's oppressive. Much like the English language. And biology. Why not throw those out, too? No reason to let oppressive and outdated ideas about language and science impede inclusion. We need to keep pace with the times, after all.

You think I'm being facetious? Dartmouth doesn't. Its housing form, according to the Boston Globe, "asks students their personal gender identity and if students have a third-person pronoun they wish to be addressed by." It? Other? Does the student get to make one up?

I know I am not the first (nor the last) to marvel at the pedagogical irresponsibility of America's colleges and universities, but I really do wonder whether students who get to define realty any way they like have any incentive to learn what the world really is.

The courageous Hu

We rightly celebrate acts of physical courage, even as our mainstream media tends to gloss over them. However, since John F. Kennedy wrote his Profiles in Courage, we have tended to harbor a rather derisory understanding of political courage. We tend to think of political courage as going against the grain of popular opinion or sacrificing one's political capital to defend the right. Those choices are barely courageous.

To see true political courage, it is enough to look toward the host nation of the 2008 Olympics, a nation governed by a dictatorial regime. That government has sentenced Hu Jia, one of its citizens, to three and a half years in prison after convicting him of "incitement to subvert state power." What the Chinese government calls subversion of state power we in this nation call free speech. As the consequences for Hu's speech are immensely more grievous than those suffered by any United States Senator for any exercise of First Amendment rights, so Hu's courage is immensely greater, and should be lauded accordingly.

We can thank the Chinese government for its largesse. As a result of its repressive policies it has produced many truly courageous dissidents, to whose example we can aspire.

GOP donors missing

According to Jonathan Martin the donors who supported the Romney and Thompson campaigns are not lining up to write checks for the campaign campaign. Martin also notices this:

The absence of K Street types who backed other candidates during the primary is especially puzzling given the hard truth that McCain is likely the GOP's only real chance at victory. Re-taking the House and Senate almost certainly won't happen, so why wouldn't donors want to get on the good side of the one Republican who has a shot to be running a branch of government next January?

Puzzling indeed. Perhaps they would rather have a Dem than McCain. Team McCain should snip this graph and trumpet it to the world. "K street lobbyists oppose McCain!" In a day and age where the lobbying profession is at an all time low in public opinion polls, this could be a silver lining in the otherwise discouraging news about fund raising.

Hypocrisy charge leveled against McCain

McCain can be called a lot of things, but I think hypocrite is not one of them. Nevertheless, a reporter from National Journal is trying to stir up a hypocrisy controversy that does not exist. We all know that McCain has been the leading critic of pork-barrel spending in Congress. We also all know that while the Dems are tearing themselves apart, he is on his bio-tour reintroducing himself to the American people.

Today National Journal's Hotline Blog smells a hypocrite:

John McCain has railed against earmarks in Washington and on the campaign trail, but tomorrow his week-long bio tour heads to Jacksonville's Naval Air Station Cecil Field, a big-time beneficiary of pork. Between 2001 and 2005, Cecil Field received almost $10M in earmarked funds, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Here's the skinny:

$1M in 2005 for operation and maintenance

$1.2M in 2004 for operation and maintenance

$2.5M in 2003 for operation and maintenance

$2M in 2002 for operation and maintenance

$3M in 2001 for operation and maintenance

$215K in 2001 for an economic development initiative

One assumes that Cecil Field is somehow a part of John McCain's bio, and that -- not the fact that it has been a federal earmark recipient -- is the reason for stopping there. And given McCain's age, Cecil Field would likely not have been receiving federal earmarks at the time because the practice had yet to infect Congress.

Even if Cecil Field has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's past, he did not earmark these funds. Finally, there is hardly a military installation in this country that has not received federal earmarks. Should the would-be Commander in Chief not visit any of these facilities that house those who he wishes to command?

Can McCain reject this endorsement?

The Hills' Heidi Montag is endorsing John McCain for President. If you have never heard of MTV's The Hills or Heidi Montag, consider yourself one of the lucky ones.

No word yet on whether Team McCain can engineer a total coup by securing the support of Montag's boyfriend (ex?) super cool guy Spencer Pratt.

Why the social conservative platform benefits homosexuals

Titus' post below calls to mind a canard commonly traded among homosexuality advocates, academics, and the mainstream media, that those of us who defend conjugal (monogamous, opposite-sex) marriage and oppose special rights for homosexuals are motivated by some anti-gay animus. We here in the Cloakroom have recently expressed our opposition to same-sex marriage (here, here, and here) and to Ted Kennedy's so-called "Employment Non-discrimination Act." It behooves us, I think, to explain why our positions are borne not out of antipathy toward homosexuals but rather out of principles of universally-accessible practical reason.

The case for conjugal marriage and the case against distinguishing homosexuals as a suspect class under the Equal Protection clause and federal employment discrimination laws both begin with the observation that not all sexual acts are equally good. That is to say, not all sexual acts fulfill a basic human good. In fact, only monogamous, conjugal, marital sex draws a person into the two-in-one-flesh communion that integrates the human person. Unless one adopts the view that sex is something less than what it self-evidently is, one cannot argue that all sex acts are equally constitutive of, and fulfilling of, the instrinsic good of marriage.

Sexual acts performed outside the intrinsically-valuable relationship of conjugal monogamy disintegrate the human person by objectifying the human body. This is true of fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual acts. The institution of conjugal marriage promotes the integration of human persons by directing sexuality into the channel in which it instantiates a basic, human good. And it disincentivizes disintegrating, non-marital sex acts.

Homosexuality advocates respond that, while conjugal marriage may be well and good for heterosexuals, homosexuals want no part in it. Homosexuals, they argue, are fulfilled by pursuing their preference for same-sex intimacy. The autonomous choice of same-sex intimacy enables homosexuals to express their true identities.

The fundamental problem with this response is its failure to distinguish between proclivity and choice. As the Vatican has affirmed in recent years, homosexuality is a tendency and not an identity. That a person struggles with homosexual temptation does not entail that he should succumb to that temptation. I have known men (perhaps I have also known women in this category, though they have not so identified themselves to me) overcome the temptation to homosexual acts and lead healthy, fulfilling lives in their victory.

When Gene Robinson, the Episcopal priest who abandoned his wife for a homosexual lover and whom the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire nevertheless elected as Bishop in 2003, called alcoholism a "disease," he was on to something. However, he failed to see the implications of that fitting appellation. The parallels between alcoholism and homosexuality are many. Both disorders stem from a compulsive proclivity. Both take something that is essentially good -- the fruit of the vine in one case, human sexuality in the other -- and pervert the goodness beyond recognition. Both destroy. Though neither proclivity is a sin, both drive people to indulge in unhealthy, disintegrating acts.

Laws creating a special class for homosexuals encourage homosexuals to identify themselves as homosexuals. We would never create a special class in employment discrimination law for alcoholics, because such a classification would encourage people who tend to drink too much to identify themselves as alcoholics. Such a law would cause moral, and perhaps physical and psychological, harm to those persons.

Homosexuality activists claim, dishonestly, that they want equality with heterosexuals. When subjected to the same rules as everyone else -- uniform pre-requisites for marriage, anti-discrimination laws that permit discrimination based upon tendencies -- they demand special treatment. Special treatment means legal approbation for choices that harm. That is why we here in the Cloakroom oppose creation of special classes for homosexuals.

The Christian perspective takes this one step further. If, as Christians like myself believe, all sexual activity outside of monogamous, conjugal marriage disintegrates human persons and relationships, then we are doing homosexuals no favor by giving the approbation of the state to choices that harm them. In fact, we are discriminating against them by denying the same grace -- truth about the sinfulness of their actions and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and forgiveness and restoration to the way God made them -- that we Christians are to extend to all sinners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

On a personal note, I invite anyone who considers me antipathetic to homosexuals or a homophobe to consider these facts. I shared an apartment with a homosexual in college. I have two openly gay cousins. I have other close friends who have struggled with, and overcome, homosexual temptation. I want the best for these friends. That is why I am so firm on these issues.

Kennedy bill to ignite social debate

Ever the progressive darling, Ted Kennedy continues to push his so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate. The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy is jumping into the middle of an uproar within the gay community whose causes he has long championed.

The Massachusetts Democrat is leading a push in the Senate for a federal ban on job bias against gays, lesbians and bisexuals — but not transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance doesn't match their gender at birth.

"We will strongly oppose it," said Roberta Sklar of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Leaving transgender people out makes that a flawed movement."

The House in November approved the bill, written by openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., despite strong protests from many gay rights advocates that it didn't cover transgender workers.

"It was made very clear in the fall that most LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) organizations, the vast majority of LGBT organizations, do not want Congress to shove a civil rights bill down our throat that we don't want," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.

When even your supporters don't support the bill you are indeed headed for defeat. President Bush will veto the bill if it manages to pass the 60 vote Senate threshold, but it is likely that it will not.

This bill would discriminate against religious business owners. It creates special protections for certain people. It would create precedent for future pieces of legislation that would enshrine in statute even more ridiculous requirements for employers. The fact that the LGBT community is not happy with it because it is not expansive enough is evidence aplenty that it is one step on the way to massive regulation of the rights of employers to run their businesses as they see fit.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.

Logging into my gmail account this morning I was amazed to see a new feature. Gmail users can now backdate emails. More than that, one can "make emails look like they've been read all along." Surely Google is not deliberately abetting dishonesty, is it?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes. Here's the pitch line: "Worry less. Forget your finance reports. Forget your anniversary. We'll make it look like you remembered."

Forget Exxon. Forget Haliburton. How about Google's corporate irresponsibility?

UPDATE: One smells a rat. Surely I have fallen prey to an April Fool's joke, no? Google's lawyers would never allow such a thing. The liability alone would be enormous.

UPDATE (Titus): Boy were we fooled! Judging by the Gmail testimonials, this is indeed an April Fool's joke...and a good one.

A Little Late on This...

...but over the weekend the WSJ had a great piece on Bobby Jindal's progress in Louisiana.

Less than a month after taking office Mr. Jindal called a special legislative session to push an ambitious package of reforms aimed at transforming the state's image as an ethical cesspool. Though he encountered some minor resistance, Mr. Jindal managed to pass most of what he wanted, including broad financial disclosure requirements for state legislators and public officials, bans on awarding state contracts to politicians and their family members, and tight restrictions on meals, tickets and other legalized graft used by lobbyists to ply compliant lawmakers.

...

No sooner had the first special session wrapped up than Mr. Jindal announced plans for a second – this one focused on state finances. Contrary to common perception, the years after Hurricane Katrina have been pretty good ones for Louisiana's bank account. The flood of reconstruction money and soaring revenues from oil and gas production have left state coffers bulging. Outgoing Gov. Kathleen Blanco, widely reviled for her administration's bungling of the post-Katrina rebuilding effort – left Mr. Jindal a $1.1 billion budget surplus.

Though he ran as a fiscal conservative, Mr. Jindal saw the one-time surplus as a chance to pump cash into the state's dilapidated infrastructure. To that end, in a manic one-week spending spree, Mr. Jindal doled out $300 million to help fortify crumbling levees and rebuild eroding barrier islands. He allocated more than $500 million to repair the state's roads, bridges, ports and schools. He even found tens-of-millions to seed a biomedical research facility and pay down the state's looming pension obligations.

Mr. Jindal simultaneously succeeded in repealing several corporate taxes long on the business community's hit list, and set up a transportation trust fund to ensure adequate funding for roads and bridges in the future.

This is conservatism at its best, as a sort of insurgency against the liberal status quo. Jindal has been mentioned as a potential VP for McCain, but it's too soon for that. He needs time to continue this good work in Louisiana, and when he's finally on a national ticket it should be as the name on the top.

More on Obama and Babies

Between Two Worlds has a quick run down of Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

IL Senate 2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Voted "no" in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001) (see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
Voted "present" for the bill (March 30, 2001)

IL Senate 2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Voted "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002) (see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
Voted "no" for the bill (April 4, 2002)

IL Senate 2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senator sponsor from adding the federal act's clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.

Feeding time in Congress

Well, that didn't take long:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Get out the trough, it's feeding time. Congress has decided that an election year with recession written all over it is not the time to be giving up those job-producing ``pork'' projects bemoaned by both parties' presidential candidates.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has quietly shelved the idea of a one-year moratorium on so-called earmarks, the $18 billion or so in pet projects that lawmakers sent to their home states this year. Senators in both parties have voted to kill the idea.

The California Democrat earlier had signaled her support for the idea of including no legislative earmarks in next year's budget. She pulled back in the face of resistance by Democratic allies and after the Senate turned a thumbs-down by a resounding 71-29 vote in mid-March.

Status quo reigns.

Great golf ad

I know the feeling all to well...