In the course of this one day Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, who leads a Democratic pro-life group of about 12 House members, was quoted in support of a possible "sidebar" bill to prevent abortion funding, and then, later, minimizing the prospect. This underscores the problem that opponents of Obamacare face. It is only the abortion issue that stands in the way of a narrw majority House vote for the expensive, cumbersome Senate health care bill that President Obama favors.

But all it really will take to reach a successful compromise is a decision by the President and the Senate Democrats to concede this point in language acceptable to Rep. Stupak, either in a "sidebar" bill or in the health care bill itself. That would be painful, and a few House and Senate votes might shift against the bill, but only a very few. In return, Obamacare proponents would get the 12 pro-life Democratic votes for their bill, and with it the prospect of a much bigger government role in health care from now on.

They could and probably would betray Rep. Stupak later on.

Pro-life groups are urging Rep. Stupak to hang tough. The reality is that only when the present legislation is buried can a genuine bi-partisan effort develop that ends some of the bureaucratic sclerosis in the present system, and yet prevents the even worse bureaucratic sclerosis that Obamacare would entail.

From time to time almost everyone at Discovery Institute winds up taking a swipe at scientism, the philosophy that enthrones science as the ultimate arbiter of morals, as well as facts. Scientism--seen in many a news and opinion article--is an arrogant assumption of unearned authority. Wesley J. Smith blogs about it at First Things today.

The trouble is, one may dismiss scientism as folly, and yet be seduced by it in particular circumstances. My chief disappointment these days is not with those snake oil salesmen in the scientific community who try to peddle their views as unimpeachable truth, but the gullible laypeople who, lacking a doctorate in science, think they have to defer to the "experts". This is particularly true of journalists and editorial writers. They wouldn't defer so readily to generals on the subject of the advisability of war, would they? Nor to Wall Street gurus on the wisdom of a given tax policy. But some "study" in which "scientists say" something in a "journal" is treated as Gospel.

Gospel, of course, is not treated as Gospel.

CNN interviewed Winnie Maneda, divorced spouse of Nelson Mendela, today and made the woman who once advocated "necklaces" of burning tires for inadequately motivated revolutionaries in South Africa seem proper and almost prim. But another interview, in the U.K., printed in the Daily Mail, gives a truer sense of the woman and her poisoned perspective.

Invictus, the film starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, did not get much attention at the Oscars show last night, but it deserves to be listed in the pantheon of films of political redemption. Whereas Winnie's hatred pointed in one direction, the suffering and reflection of Nelson Mandela headed him--and South Africa--in another, and history was transformed. It is not perfect, but, still, it is one of the quiet, beautiful triumphs of our time.

Former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully penned a tough review of Wesley J. Smith's book in National Review last week. This week, Wesley took his turn to respond. The latter article appears in the March 22 edition of National Review.

The government expansionists have had their eyes on the Internet ever since Al Gore claims he invented it. Of course, the Feds' DARPA did help birth the Internet, but there is no reason why Washington now should imitate the Iranian mullahs or the Chinese and start restricting access and imposing financial or technical controls.

It is not just because the technology is new that it has made such a huge contribution to our economy; it's also because the new technology has been relatively unfettered by the government.

The whole subject of federal regulation re-emerges in a major way in coming weeks. Watch this space.

Meanwhile, Mark Landsbaum of the Orange County Register (in a column that I missed when it first came out) is among those trying to sound the alarm about losing freedom on the Internet.

Take note before they take it away.

Some German parliamentary members are advancing an idea for their country to to obtain a base on "Mittelmeer"-- at last, after all these centuries, a seaport on the sunny Mediterranean. It is a proposal to the Greeks to help them alleviate their notorious national debt by lightening their real estate.

Bismark would be astonished and delighted. However, since Germans today are mostly pacific (pardon the pun), do not expect them to build a naval base near Athens. Instead, Germany's new possessions probably will sport casinos and resorts where die Frauen can frolic as Nature intended, outside the gaze of formerly native Greeks. (Not that the Greeks have ever minded.)

Would you like a little spanakopita with your Kielbasa, Mein Herr?

Slowly, if in strange fashion, the truth about the fallacies of scientism are being made manifest. You fall for scientism and soon you get censorship, and then you get a halt--of all things--to scientific progress.

Unintentional assistance comes our way today from The New York Times.

On its front page the Times reports that Darwin skeptics have decided on a new strategy--linking doubts about Darwinian evolution to doubts about man-caused global warming. The article by Leslie Kaufman makes the ludicrous assertion that this is some sort of plot hatched by conservative Protestants.

Of course, this is a hoary old Times trope. In the real world, plenty of Catholics, Jews and other people, regardless of religion, question the alarmist view that human beings are largely responsible for global warming (to the extent there is global warming). The same goes for the responsible scientists of various faith backgrounds, and none, who contend that Darwinian science is collapsing in the face of evidence. And even a larger, more diverse crowd worries about the implications of Darwinism for our culture.

But the Times story does at least correctly and helpfully quote John West of Discovery Institute on a way global warming and Darwinism are connected. "'There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,' he said, 'with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.'"

Continue reading "Connect the Dots Between Scientism and Government Spending: Add up the Human and Financial Costs" »

My colleague Jay Richards, writing on the The American blog, was picked up today on Real Clear Politics for this excellent dissection of the logic of Al Gore's Saturday New York Times article on global warming (see my previous post).

I wonder how people who read the New York Times and don't read blogs will get at the hidden assumptions and assertions of the Gore rhetoric. Where on the Times pages will that case be made?

Al Gore wants you to know that global warming is still the consensus scientific truth, even if there have been a couple of trivial mistakes made in the thousands of pages of the IPCC report of 2007. Hey, we're all human!

But Christopher Booker of the London Telegraph tears the whole defense to shreds. There are not just a couple of mistakes and they are not incidental to the global warming case. They are legion and they are integral to the climate warming case, and they bespeak intellectual if not financial corruption.

Read the pieces for yourself.

Reserve used to be a characteristic trait of Canadians. Not patriotic. Defined by what they weren't--that is, not Americans.

No more. Canadians these days can't stop singing, "O, Canada" and painting their faces red and white. They shout and carry on like, well, I can't help noting, Americans.

Tonight they deserve congratulations and thanks. They have staged a magnificent Winter Olympics in the fabulous world city of Vancouver and the superb modern resort of Whistler-Blackcomb. They could have been stumped by the unseasonably warm weather, but they weren't. They could have been undone by the pressure of media and transportation. They weren't. Their guests are flying out of town feeling happy and grateful.

Especial praise goes to our Cascadia ally, British Columbia. What incredible strides the province has made in a generation or so!

Some said that Canadians should feel chagrined that they didn't win as many medals as the U.S., or even the Germans. Nonsense. Canada is a fraction of the population of the U.S. (even if you only count the states that have winter sports), and yet they managed a huge haul, including, of course the men's hockey gold, which was about all they seemed to care about this sunny Sunday afternoon.

Well, let them have it. We, in turn, are fortunate to have such fine, fun neighbors. They are excellent hosts and friends.