Happy Independence Day



To quote the great Catholic Brit, GK Chesterton:

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

Can "Sola Scriptura" Protestants Authenticate the Bible?

I'm working on a case right now that looks like it may go to trial, and there is a potential issue regarding the admissibility of a document that I might try to offer as evidence. This issue involves authentication and it got me to thinking a little bit about the "Bible-only" approach to Christianity that many Protestants follow.

Within the lexicon of civil law, to "authenticate" a document during a trial generally means to establish its' claimed source of origin. For instance, any police report allegedly written by Officer Smith is inherently questionable and unreliable unless Officer Smith provides sworn testimony that he in fact wrote the report. Without this sworn testimony, no one can be certain as to whether Officer Smith really wrote the report or if it was just made up by someone out of thin air.

With this in mind, I'm geuninely curious as to how any non-Catholic Christian who subscribes to sola scriptura (i.e., there is no other authority for Christianity except the Bible) is able to authenticate the Bible. (The principle of self-authentication would not appear to be an option, since even that requires recognition of an external authority).

From Our Bulging "Al Gore is Full of It" Files

Al's not a scientist, and he doesn't even play a very good one on TV. The latest reality hit on Gore's globaloney crusade:

Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

Starting Off on the Wrong Foot

According to this story in the Washington ComPost, the number of weddings within the Church in the United States has been steadily declining since 1970. One of the apparent major reasons for this is that marrying Catholics want the ceremony performed "on their own terms." If they can't do this, then they'll have the ceremony at a non-Catholic faith community, or just get hitched at city hall.

With this kind of selfish attitude, is it any surprise that the divorce rate in this country, even among Catholics, is around 50%?

The Always Amusing Bobby Jones U.

Ever wonder which 37 places in America are in most dire need of Fundy Churches? Now you don't have to, thanks to good 'ol BJU.

And, of course, it's just a coincidence that most of these places are "dominated" by Jews and Catholics.

Catholic University Library Unsubscribes from Blabbermouth NY Times

Great move by the University of the Incarnate Word in my opinion. I just wish the dunderheads who don't agree would at least realize that nobody's being banned from or going to jail for bringing or reading their own copy of the Times on campus grounds, and that students can readily access the catbox liner online.

Holy Begeezus!

Praise be to God for the Internet! I'm looking for another job, and my brother tells me he works with someone whose wife is an attorney at a nearby firm that wants to hire a new associate. Even though this firm mostly does family law, which I don't like too much, I figure I'd give my brother's friend's wife a call anyway to see if her boss or bosses might be interested in talking to me. Turns out they did, and I guess the interview went well enough that I was offered a job the next day. (Note: Because he had actually heard of my law school and asked what seemed at the time to me to be sincere questions about how the school integrates, if at all, Christianity and the teaching of law, I had thought the partner who interviewed me might be a Christian with somwhat conservative political leanings. When viewed against the backdrop of the stuff to follow, now I'm not so sure.)

However, since I'm not all that fond of family law, I told this firm that I'd like to think about it a little and that I would get back to them the next week. "Not a problem" they basically responded to me.

Given the salary that was offered, and the fact that this firm is just down the street from the very small firm I'm at right now, I was actually leaning toward accepting the position. That is, until I Googled this firm's name and discovered they just recently represented an openly g@y male couple who made a direct legal challenge to California's Defense of Marriage Act!

Needless to say, I don't think I'm going to be working for these people.

Justice Thomas is the Man

If there is ever one great thing on the domestic front that the first President Bush ever did, it was to nominate Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Exhibit No. 930423842 comes from his dissent in today's SCOTUS ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Justice Thomas' dissent starts on pg. 127 of the PDF document).

An excerpt via Webloggin:

Moreover, the President’s determination that the present conflict dates at least to 1996 is supported by overwhelming evidence. According to the State Department, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. See Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998); Dept. of State Fact Sheet: The Charges against International Terrorist Usama Bin Laden (Dec. 20, 2000); cf. Prize Cases, 2 Black, at 668 (recognizing that a state of war exists even if “the declaration of it be unilateral” (emphasis in original)).

In February 1998, al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. See Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement 2 (Feb. 23, 1998), in Y. Alexander & M. Swetnam, Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network, App. 1B (2001) (“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”). This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. See id., at 1. In response to these incidents, the United States “attack[ed] facilities belonging to Usama bin Ladin’s network” as early as 1998. Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998).

Based on the foregoing, the President’s judgment—that the present conflict substantially predates the AUMF, extending at least as far back as al Qaeda’s 1996 declaration of war on our Nation, and that the theater of war extends at least as far as the localities of al Qaeda’s principal bases of operations—is beyond judicial reproach. And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreign affairs judgments. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 585 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, 333 U. S., at 111).

IRS Vice?

Some, like CNN, are calling it a tax on p!mps and h*okers, but this bill by Senator Grassly, as he himself points out, is more akin to how we finally got Al Capone thrown in prison. I like it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning approved a bill sponsored by committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, authorizing at least $2 million toward the establishment of an office in the IRS criminal investigation unit to prosecute unlawful sex workers for violations of tax laws.

The bill's approval gives the IRS harsh new criminal penalties for use against those in the underground criminal economy. According to Grassley's office, the majority of the victims of sex trafficking -- those who are often smuggled in from other counties and virtually imprisoned in a house set up for prostitution -- are girls ages 13 to 17.

More Slimy Lawyers

Those slimy lawyers that I talked about here were at it again today. They filed a "Reply" to my opposition to their ex parte motion, and within it they blame me, or my client, for not complying with certain local court "meet and confer" rules. What these slimeballs have basically asserted is that I, as plaintiff's attorney, had the responsibility to contact them about meeting to discuss xyz, even though the local rules say no such thing (they basically just say the parties shall do xyz; hence suggesting that if it's not done, all parties are to blame). What a bunch of liars! I'm telling you, it's freakin' scumbags like these which give attorneys a bad name.

Waaaaay Too Much Info Joe

I'm sure his kids, who must be fully grown by now, can't be too happy to have this vision in their heads:

Because he was the first Democrat to step up and say publicly last year that he’s exploring running for president, we can assume that Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) is plenty interested in the office.

But like most other men, apparently there are things that interest him more.

Speaking to a group of 130 twenty- and thirty-something supporters of his leadership PAC last Thursday, Biden indicated that while he thinks he could be an effective chief executive, as far as the job itself goes, he could take it or leave it.

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.

What are the odds Biden picked this line up from somewhere and failed to attribute the source?

Slimy Lawyers

I'm currently going against some from a big law firm here in the OC. The jerks had the nerve late last Thursday to serve me, or my client, with an ex parte motion to dismiss. A "motion" is basically a request that is made to the court. There are usually a set of procedures for making a motion, and they cannot normally be bypassed without special permission. When you ask for special permission to bypass these procedures, you're making an ex parte application.

The basic problem with ex parte motions, which the courts generally recognize, is that they can be made at the drop of dime, and the opposing party has almost no time to make a well thought out or reasoned response. Add to this the fact that the opposing party has to literally drop everything he is doing to address the application, and you can understand why the courts require a party to have a pretty darn good reason for making an ex parte motion.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the attorneys I am going up against don't have a good reason to make an ex parte motion, and I think they know it but are just trying to throw whatever they can against the wall to see if it will stick. Hopefully, what I've filed in opposition to this ex parte motion will be seriously considered by the judge and he will deny the other side's application to bypass the normal motion procedures. Then again, you never know what a judge is going to do. Blech!

Discussion Forums

Just created one here. Check it out and post something. I'm still tweaking the look of it, and at some point, I'll put a permanent link to the forums on the side panel.

Don't Get Married Until After Age 45

Your chances of divorcing seem to decrease then. That's at least my take on the Census Bureau stats referenced in this advice article on prenuptial agreements.

According to the Census Bureau, 50% of first marriages for men under the age of 45 may end in divorce; and between 44% and 52% of first marriages for women in the same age group may end in divorce. As a result of more and more marriages ending in divorce, the number of people who marry for a second and third time is also rising.

Well That's Weird

I don't know why, but for some reason the font size and style for the com-box links aren't entirely consistent. Ah well. If it doesn't baddah you, it doesn't baddah me.

Update: OK, it seems to depend on the browser I'm using. It's all consistent with Explorer but not Firefox.

The Devil Won't Let Me Do It!

That's the excuse put forth by one congressional hopeful in Utah. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that this guy isn't going to win.

Kelo Be Damned!

President Bush issues an Executive Order to prevent the Federal Government from taking private property through eminent domain and giving it to a private developer under the pretext that doing so will increase tax revenues.

Coming to You in 2007

No, not Brokeback Mountain II. Wyoming Catholic College.

How to Get Banned from Catholic Match

Yes, I have been a member of this singles site for a while, which is why I haven't really been posting anything on here on a consistent basis. And actually, the title to this post is a little inaccurate in that it should be "How to Get Banned from the Discussion Forums on Catholic Match." But since that title is a little too long, I went with the above.

Anyhow, there's a discussion forum on Catholic Match devoted to politics, and I naturally posted comments on there quite frequently. Once in a while when I would see a really idiotic or inflammatory post that someone wrote, I'd respond accordingly. Well, that didn't always sit well with the Gestapo administrators at Catholic Match, so I would occasionally get these warnings about being "mean" to people and to cut it out.

I suppose I got enough of these warnings to where I was in someone's sh!t house at Catholic Match, because I was recently banned for life from its discussion forums for using the following two sentences in response to two separate posted comments by the same person:

1. Well, that certainly explains a lot.

2. Spare me your faux indignation and self-righteousness.

That's it. Talk about your hyper-punitive 3-strikes law that results in someone getting 25 years to life for stealing a pizza!!

In any event, my paid membership with Catholic Match is just about up, and this hanging judge decision by the administrators to forever prevent me from having full access to the site has pretty much convinced me not to renew.

Update(6/26): Well, after making an appeal, it seems as though my permanent ban has been lifted. Thanks Dan, and pay no attention to that Gestapo remark above.

Don't Call It a Comeback!

Well, I sort of guess it is. Anyway, expect more consistent updates. Or so I say...