Keith Burgess-Jackson

I leave you this fine evening with a New York Times story about racist officiating in the National Basketball Association. The obvious solution, since both white and black officials are biased, is to hire only Asian referees. (I am billing the NBA for this advice, unsolicited though it is.) Can you think of other solutions? How about a quota system? Each team must have one white player and four black players on the court at all times. That way, any bias is equalized. Perhaps only mixed-blood referees (people like Tiger Woods or Barack Obama) should be hired. Come to think of it, how is racism even possible, when, according to enlightened progressive thought, there are no races?

Here is an interesting column about intramural atheistic squabbles. Atheists differ in many ways. Some, for example, are friendly, in the sense of conceding that theism can be justified, while others are unfriendly. Some wish to eradicate religion, while others are willing to allow it. Some are respectful of the religious, while others are disrespectful. Some are grateful for their religious heritage, while others resent it. Some are uncivil, while others are civil. In my experience, whether an atheist is civil or uncivil depends on whether he or she is a conservative (like David Hume) or a progressive (like Karl Marx). Conservatives view religion as a civilizing force. Progressives view it as an impediment.

The Act’s ban on abortions that involve partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government’s objectives. No one would dispute that, for many, D&E [which is not prohibited by the Act] is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life. Congress could nonetheless conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act [viz., intact D&E] requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition. Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a “disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant,” Congressional Findings (14)(L), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769, and thus it was concerned with “draw[ing] a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide.” Congressional Findings (14)(G), ibid. The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg found reasonable the State’s “fear that permitting assisted suicide will start it down the path to voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia.” 521 U. S., at 732-735, and n. 23.

(Justice Anthony Kennedy, for the majority, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ___ [2007])

Does religious belief do more harm than good? See here. (Thanks to George Jochnowitz for the link.)

To the Editor:

Re “Limits Sought on ‘Robocalls’ in Campaigns” (front page, April 25):

Your right to speak freely does not convey a requirement for me to listen, especially if you intend to intrude into the privacy of my home to do so. Nobody thinks you have the right to open my front door and drop your newspaper inside without specific prior consent. Neither would any city permit you to ring my doorbell daily after I have filed a nuisance complaint.

And no one should believe that a telephone call is any different.

Only politicians who intend to intrude into my home, and those who are paid to do so, seem to believe that “robocalls” are protected by the First Amendment.

Steve Bowen
Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007

Note from KBJ: Amen.

In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, the editorial board of The New York Times takes President Bush to task for undermining the rule of law. We would honor the rule of law by enforcing this country’s solemnly enacted immigration laws. How about that, editorial board? Or do you want only certain laws enforced?

Here.

Addendum: My gloating ended up hurting the Tigers, who lost the Central Division title to the Twins on the final day of the season. It still rankles me.

This song, from 1990, still blows my mind. Turn it up. If that doesn’t sate your thirst for Adrian Belew, take a copious draft of this.

Here.

There were 44,064 visitors to this blog during the month of April. That’s an average of 1,468.8 visitors per day. The best month ever was this past January, when 46,116 people visited. That’s an average of 1,487.6 visitors per day. I’m honored to have so many visitors. Not everyone who comes here does so in order to read what’s posted, for some people arrive as a result of an image search. But hey, who’s complaining? Maybe some of them stick around to see what I have to say; and if they do, then perhaps they’ll return. By the way, I enjoy (and learn from) the comments you post. I think I upset theists and atheists alike—theists because I think they have a false belief, atheists because I’m friendly toward theists. If I’m upsetting everyone, as Socrates did, then maybe I’m doing something right. Then again, maybe I’m just an equal-opportunity offender.