<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Discovery News</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11</id>
   <updated>2013-05-16T18:00:42Z</updated>
   <subtitle>covers politics, foreign policy, science, technology, media and culture with
an eye toward issues of conflict between worldviews. It reports otherwise
under-represented developments and discovers facts and points of view that
otherwise might be missed in public dialogue. Contributors include former
Discovery News ambassadors and elected officials, public policy fellows and writers
nation-wide.</subtitle>
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 5.12</generator>


<entry>
   <title>&quot;Heck of a Wreck&quot; in Higher Ed</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/heck_of_a_wreck_in_higher_ed072261.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72261</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-16T17:41:02Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-16T18:00:42Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Georgia Tech, in concert with AT&amp;T and a company called Udacity, is offering a master&apos;s degree online in computer science for only $7,000. If you actually go to Georgia Tech&apos;s campus and get your master&apos;s, the fare is $40,000. This...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[Georgia Tech, in concert with AT&T and a company called Udacity, is offering a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2013/05/15/georgia-tech-udacity-shock-higher-ed-with-7000-degree/">master's degree online in computer science for only $7,000</a>. If you actually go to Georgia Tech's campus and get your master's, the fare is $40,000.

This is the next wave of revolution in higher education. The halls of ivy have priced themselves out of the reach of the middle class, and even the upper middle class. Giving more "scholarships" is a way for the most-endowed schools to handle sticker shock, but that usually does not meet the needs of people who just don't want to pay so much for what increasingly is irrelevant, ideologically driven schooling. 

]]>
      <![CDATA[To get a Swarthmore degree, Danielle Charette, a college junior, says in a <em>Wall Street Journal </em>op-ed today, you may soon be <em>required</em> to take certain classes on race, gender, etc.  The pressure for such silliness comes from student groups on that left that disrupt and silence events and speakers they don't like and apparently hold the faculty and senior management in thrall. Well, soon they can have their way. People who don't care to spend a small fortune to get propagandized--and are just too mature, frankly--will have financially agreeable options.

If you want to learn skills for making a living, get an online degree. That's where we're going.  If you want the satisfactions that come from stimulating and civilized learning, join a Great Books club!]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>U.S. Should Quiz Turkish P.M. on Churches</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/us_should_quiz_turkish_pm_on_c072241.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72241</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-15T22:37:18Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-16T01:09:27Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey will be in Washington, D.C. tomorrow to meet with President Obama, the main topic being the future of Syria, Turkey&apos;s embattled neighbor. In that connection, the President should ask him again about the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey will be in Washington, D.C. tomorrow to meet with President Obama, the main topic being the future of Syria, Turkey's embattled neighbor. In that connection, the President should ask him again about the continuing failure of the Turkish government to allow freedom of worship for Christians in Turkey itself. In particular, the Turks should be asked to allow the <a href="<a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/halki-seminary-turkey-orthodox-christians.html"> </a>">reopening of the Eastern Orthodox Halki Seminary</a>.

]]>
      <![CDATA[This topic is not a strange one to raise in connection with Syria. In Syria today Christians are being targeted by the rebels that we and the Turks support. Many Christians in Syria long supported the Assad regime as a bulwark against extremist Muslim persecution. They knew the Baathist dictatorship of Assad, but they also knew that his replacements could be genocidal Islamists. Christian fears of this alternative have been partially realized in many instances--as in Iraq during the civil war there. Thousands of Syrian Christians have been forced to flee for their lives, as have, of course, many other Syrians. The Islamists in the rebel ranks (who may be the dominant group now) are quite eager in some cases to kill them. Certainly the ability of Christians to worship freely is deficient and soon may disappear altogether.

Christians were in Syria for two thousand years, long before the Muslims. The same obviously is true of Turkey. Oddly, Christianity survived in the region in part because the Ottomans provided protection for religious minorities. However, discrimination against Christians in Turkey has been a long neglected issue in the West. Turks furiously resist re-arguing the large scale deaths of Armenian Christians almost a hundred years ago (a "genocide" in most Western accounts), and perhaps that issue indeed should be set aside.  Even now, Christians are seen not just as a religious group but as a potentially hostile ethnic influence, and thus doubly resented. But that is not an adequate explanation, let alone an excuse, for discrimination <em>today</em> in the 21st Century.

In many ways, Turkey has advanced materially under its present government. One of the arguments for the Erdogan regime is that its express Muslim character is more forward-looking than its secular predecessors and more supportive of free enterprise. Peace with the Kurdish (also Sunni) minority has progressed admirably under Erdogan. Turkish cities are growing in cultural as well as economic terms. Turks generally are liked and respected in the world.

Meanwhile, Erdogan supporters in Turkey want the West to cut the government some slack on the issue of headscarves for women in such public places as universities and government offices. Headscarves were banned in secularist days and some commentators believe that their acceptance leads inevitably to intense social pressure on all women to wear them, a return to veiling like that enforced in Iran. What is permitted today will be required tomorrow. And that leads to increasing intolerance of social differences--raising a whole range of issues of civil rights for women and freedom of religion for minority Christians.

Maybe that concern is unduly pessimistic. If so, one way to dispel it is to exhibit  proactive official toleration of Christians in Turkey. As is, they not only cannot open new churches (and couldn't under the secularists, either), let alone proslytize, but they also cannot even operate seminaries to prepare their clergy. 

America has been too slow in confronting Assad. However, before we go further in Syria actions it would be nice to have some understandings with Turkey and other neighbors of Syria about what that country will be like for all minorities once the fighting is over. And it would be nice for Turkey to show some leadership and set a more positive example on the topic of religious freedom in the region.]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>B.C. Election Will Spur U.S. Pipeline</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/bc_election_will_spur_us_pipel072231.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72231</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-15T18:15:00Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-15T19:25:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary> A stunning provincial election surprise in British Columbia Tuesday returns the more free enterprise Liberal Party to power with a larger majority over the left wing New Democrats (NDP). The NDP was expected to win--it was up eight to...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.discoverynews.org/christy-clark-victory-speech.jpg"><img alt="christy-clark-victory-speech.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/assets_c/2013/05/christy-clark-victory-speech-thumb-300x179-23331.jpg" width="300" height="179" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a>

A <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/bc-election/Liberals+pull+stunning+form+majority+government/8385100/story.html">stunning provincial election surprise in British Columbia</a> Tuesday returns the more free enterprise Liberal Party to power with a larger majority over the left wing New Democrats (NDP). The NDP was expected to win--it was up eight to nine points in pre-election surveys--because of supposed voter opposition to gas and oil pipelines to connect Alberta's energy fields to ocean shipment points in B.C. The NDP had pledged to stop the pipelines.

The Liberals will exact environmental protections, but they support the pipeline expansions, especially the controversial  Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline to ship Alberta tar sands crude oil through Burnaby, B.C.  With the oil pipeline and the Enbridge Northern Gateway gas pipeline expansion both likely to get a go-ahead in B.C., Canada's leverage in persuading the Obama Administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline through the central U.S. probably is increased.

Had the New Democrats, who oppose the B.C. pipelines, won yesterday, the national Canadian government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have lost a psychological advantage on the energy issue, as well as a practical alternative to Keystone.  Now Mr. Harper can advise the Americans, either allow Keystone to go through or we will send our added energy supplies to China.

The pipeline controversy was expected to hurt the incumbent government of British Columbian Premier Christy Clark. Instead Liberal Party strategists think it helped. British Columbians apparently were satisfied that the gas pipeline and the extension of an oil pipeline would not hurt the environment and would boost the province's economic future. This sentiment was plainly missed by pollsters going into the election.

<a href="http://www.timescolonist.com/liberals-win-fourth-straight-majority-clark-loses-her-own-seat-ndp-dominate-island-1.178528">Photo Credit
</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Solutions on IRS</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/solutions_on_irs072221.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72221</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-15T05:15:18Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-15T05:17:25Z</updated>
   
   <summary>1) Reduce the size of government. 2) Reduce tax rates. 3) Increase criteria necessary for attaining non-profit (tax free) status....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      1) Reduce the size of government.
2) Reduce tax rates.
3) Increase criteria necessary for attaining non-profit (tax free) status.
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Strange Alliance of Islamists and Left</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/strange_alliance_of_islamists_072211.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72211</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-15T03:10:39Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-15T22:18:20Z</updated>
   
   <summary>It seemed strange at the time, and it continues to seem strange: the radical Left in Europe (and the U.S.) and the Islamists fundamentalists in Iran were in effective alliance at the time of the Iranian revolution. The ramifications are...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[It seemed strange at the time, and it continues to seem strange: the radical Left in Europe (and the U.S.) and the Islamists fundamentalists in Iran were in effective alliance at the time of the Iranian revolution. The ramifications are felt today, for sure.

Nir Boms and Shayan Arya have a <a href="http://www.dantemag.com/2013/04/strange-alliances-a-rumination-on-islam-iran-and-the-left/">useful, if not exhaustive, analysis.</a>

]]>
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.dantemag.com/2013/04/strange-alliances-a-rumination-on-islam-iran-and-the-left/"></a>

Today's news carries stories of progressive outrage that the Obama Administration obtained records of AP phone messages in order to track down a leak about Yemen Islamist terrorists. Conservatives might want to tread carefully. The net cast by DOJ was very wide, raising questions of propriety. On the other hand, does the government have no defense against leakers who endanger national security? Why support the Left in this cause?]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Pressure Cooker Whistle Blows</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/alarm_over_pressure_cooker072131.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72131</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-13T22:18:35Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-13T22:53:14Z</updated>
   
   <summary> A Saudi Arabian has been detained as he entered the US at Detroit carrying a pressure cooker in his luggage. The Tsarnaev brothers&apos; weapon of choice, the pressure cooker apparently can be converted to a bomb following directions online,...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.discoverynews.org/Pressure%20Cooker.jpg"><img alt="Pressure Cooker.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/assets_c/2013/05/Pressure%20Cooker-thumb-300x300-23261.jpg" width="190" height="190" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a>

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-usa-security-detroit-idUSBRE94C0V620130513">A Saudi Arabian has been detained </a>as he entered the US at Detroit carrying a pressure cooker in his luggage. 

The Tsarnaev brothers' weapon of choice, the pressure cooker apparently can be converted to a bomb following directions online, courtesy of al Qaida. 

Will we soon have pressure to ban pressure cookers? Well, some Miami-Dade County students have <a href="http://www.infowars.com/best-and-brightest-college-students-sign-petition-to-ban-pressure-cookers-video/">a petition for just that cause</a>. Williams-Sonoma already <a href="http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/williams-sonoma-pulls-pressure-cookers-shelves-out-respect">has taken pressure cookers off their store shelves.</a> Can Crate&Barrel be far behind?

]]>
      But, if pressure cookers are outlawed, only outlaws will have pressure cookers.
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>More Calls for Reshape or End of EU</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/pressure_builds_for_radical_re072111.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72111</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-13T19:06:53Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-17T23:19:23Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The recent local election successes of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) have shaken everybody up, even the Labour Party. Regarding the EU Prime Minister Cameron wants to mend it rather than end it, and President Obama has given him...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[The recent local election successes of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) have shaken everybody up, even the Labour Party. Regarding the EU Prime Minister Cameron wants to mend it rather than end it, and President <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22506407">Obama has given him his blessing</a>. Cameron also is proposing <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578478652537662348.html">a free trade zone with the U.S. and Britain,</a> which has long made sense. But it is hard to see how that works--unless one of two things happens. 1) Britain exits the Eurozone, or 2) part of "fixing" the EU is to abandon much of the regulatory regime and to make freer trade among free market/democratic countries a stronger standard going forward. The "fix", in that case, means an end to the EU as we know it and a new free trade zone that includes Europe and North America.

]]>
      <![CDATA[The anti-EU sentiment is growing in Germany, too, <a href="http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/alternative-fuer-deutschland-anti-euro-partei-tritt-nicht-in-bayern-an/8192920.html">including large part's of the governing coalition</a>. So pressure for a "fix" is not just coming from the UK.

The EU was a great idea so long as it was a trade zone that harmonized markets. The regulatory and bureaucratic over-reach of Brussels has finally caught up with the project, however, and so has the practical toleration of unsustainable spending by member states like Greece.

One way or another,  "re-form" seems to be coming.]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>A Hard Choice for the Pro-Choice</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/a_choice_for_pro-choice_suppor072051.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72051</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-10T00:14:30Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-13T19:52:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The way to trouble the pro-life advocate is to ask what he or she would do in the case of &quot;rape or incest&quot;. That question tripped up at least two U.S. Senate candidates last fall and led to their defeats....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[The way to trouble the pro-life advocate is to ask what he or she would do in the case of "rape or incest". That question tripped up at least two U.S. Senate candidates last fall and led to their defeats.

In a similar fashion, pro-choice advocates have a terrible problem with a question about late-term abortions. That difficulty has become especially acute now that the Gosnell trial has revealed the existence of <em>after-birth</em> abortions, an idea that literally was only the stuff of satirical invention a couple of decades ago.  But in 1997  "ethicist" Steven Pinker of Harvard more or less defended the practice in an article in the <em>New York Times</em>. That helped break the taboo among some, though hardly all, progressives.

Regarding Gosnell, it is said that the disgusting conditions of his clinic, the insensitive, even cruel treatment of women there and the readiness to "snip" the spinal cords of babies born alive after an abortion attempt shows the need for better facilities under nicer conditions. 

]]>
      <![CDATA[But the pro-choice folks don't seem eager to answer the morality question, what about babies born alive after a failed abortion? There aren't many, but then, there also aren't many babies conceived by rape or incest, either. Furthermore, there is a still larger population of babies ("fetuses", if you insist) who are aborted late in the pregnancy. This isn't theory or hypothesis. 

And then there is another phenomenon coming to attention. The Roe v. Wade case is now 38 years old and we are beginning to meet some people or that age or younger who nearly were aborted--yet, one way or another, survived. They are adults and they have opinions. One is a Congressman from Indiana whose<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/a-close-encounter-with-abortion/"> op-ed appeared in <em>The Washington Times</em></a>.

At Discovery Institute we ask the question (in various contexts), What does it mean to be human? Regarding abortion, for decades it was never about babies already born.Killing infants is what the Molochites did in the ancient Middle East. It has caused people to shudder ever since. But not any more?]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Added Voices Raised on &quot;Benghazi Patsy&quot;</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/more_voices_raised_on_benghazi072031.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.72031</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-09T20:54:03Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-13T22:55:22Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the petty crook and video-maker in Los Angeles who was made the fall guy for the Benghazi killings, was the subject of a discussion with my Discovery colleagues yesterday before I blogged &quot;Free Nakoula&quot;. Was I going...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the petty crook and video-maker in Los Angeles who was made the fall guy for the Benghazi killings, was the subject of a discussion with my Discovery colleagues yesterday before I blogged "Free Nakoula". Was I going out on a limb? Not at all.

Not only has Glenn Reynolds of <em>Instapundit</em> been on this topic for months, but today Rich Lowry, editor of<em> National Review</em>, also has a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101_Page2.html">fine piece on "The Benghazi Patsy" at<em> Politico.com</em>.</a>

Remember, after the killings, Secretary of State <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347830/father-slain-seal-benghazi-'i-knew'-clinton-was-lying-when-she-told-me-it-was-about">Hillary Clinton promised the father of one of those killed </a>that the maker of the video would be "arrested and prosecuted." Indeed, he was. And he is still in jail, though ostensibly for parole violation.


]]>
      <![CDATA[Lowry makes clear, as do I, that Nakoula is not an admirable character. His video was no work of art. But it is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. The question is, did the phony charges made by Clinton and others lead to a <em>de facto</em> violation of the First Amendment by the L.A. judge?

Fall guy, patsy, scape goat. How did Nakoula wind up taking the blame for what in reality was White House and State Department mismanagement of the Benghazi crisis? Why was he given such a long (one year) sentence for a parole violation that was not even related to his original crime? 

I hope you will find others taking up these questions in coming days. 
]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Free Nakoula</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/free_nakoula071991.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71991</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-08T22:57:36Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-11T00:19:11Z</updated>
   
   <summary>America is supposed to be a country that doesn&apos;t have political prisoners. But Nakoula Basseley Nakoula looks increasingly like one, a small time Los Angeles crook made a scape goat to cover up the Obama Administration&apos;s failure in Libya and...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[America is supposed to be a country that doesn't have political prisoners. But Nakoula Basseley Nakoula looks increasingly like one, a small time Los Angeles crook made a scape goat to cover up the Obama Administration's failure in Libya and the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The claim that Nakoula's puerile video against Islam led to a violent "demonstration" in Benghazi was immediately obvious at the time to Gregory Hicks, career diplomat and Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, as a fabrication. <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-survivor-embarrassed-by-susan-rices-tv-appearances/">He has just testified to Congress, "I was stunned. My jaw dropped."</a>

]]>
      <![CDATA[But Nakoula, Coptic from Egypt, was hounded by U.S. government authorities and the media. In no time he was arrested and given a hearing--not directly because he made the supposedly inflammatory video--but for breaking parole on a previous case involving banking fraud.  His parole terms had provided, among other things, that he not use an alias (which he did in the video) or undertake any public activities without approval of his parole office.

Nakoula obviously did break the terms of his parole. But does anyone believe that that is why he wound up in jail for a year and declared "a danger to the community"? If he had made a film, say, besmirching the name of the Mormon Church, do you think he would have been rounded up and given such a long term? That makes about as much sense as the idea that his video provoked the killings in Libya.

Criticizing Islam or any religion may be unseemly and ill-advised. But religions get criticized every day in free countries, don't they? In this country such criticism also is protected speech. That's because bridging objectionable speech threatens the free speech of all.

One was left last fall with the feeling that a convicted criminal was getting the book thrown at him not because of his "parole violations", but because he had stirred up a political hornet's nest.

Now we have hearings on Benghazi that underscore again the truth that the Administration and the media tried to obscure: the attack in Benghazi was the product of terrorism, not of a "demonstration" against some amateurish video. That suggests in turn that local authorities went overboard in punishing Nakoula, much as the anti-Red mood in the early 50s led local courts to excesses back then.

Accordingly, it is simply wrong to leave Nakoula in jail. It is hard on him, undoubtedly, but it is also hard on the First Amendment. The very essence of totalitarianism is a legal system where everyone can be found guilty of something or other once a government decides to go after them. 

I can't get too upset personally about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. The problem is not that he is some kind of martyr, or that he might not break the law again, but that his punishment last fall did not fit the crime. I'm concerned because the other victim of that judicial over-reaction was the First Amendment.  In a sense, that right is one of the collateral victims of Benghazi. 

<a href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2012/10/why_is_nakoula_basseley_nakoul065581.php#more">I wrote about this last fall</a>, and so did others, of course, but nothing has been done to free Nakoula. There's no excuse for keeping him in jail any longer.

]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Politicians Refuse to Learn from Predecessors</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/a_refusal_to_learn_from_the_pa071981.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71981</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-08T22:22:24Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-09T01:23:27Z</updated>
   
   <summary>One of saddest qualities of ego-driven politics is some new office-holders&apos; refusal to learn from their predecessors. I have seen it in local, state and national governments. One would think that the newly elected official would be eager to learn...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      One of saddest qualities of ego-driven politics is some new office-holders&apos; refusal to learn from their predecessors. I have seen it in local, state and national governments. One would think that the newly elected official would be eager to learn all he can from those who went before, especially since there is no longer any threat to his own position. 

Instead some new office-holders think that the people who had a job before couldn&apos;t possibly know as much about the office they just left it as does the newcomer. For example, take the case of Dixy Lee Ray, who followed Daniel J. Evans as governor in Washington state in 1976, a job for which Evans did not seek re-election. The outgoing governor and his staff prepared a file cabinet full of precise status reports on government agencies for his successor. But these reports were contemptuously tossed aside. That was a sign of hubris, not any warranted confidence.


      <![CDATA[The current occupants of the White House had a similar attitude about the Bush Administration. Former Reagan chief speech writer <a href="http://www.hughhewitt.com/question-re-benghazi-does-this-administration-have-any-idea-how-to-handle-a-crisis-what-is-the-protocol-by-clark-s-judge/">Clark Judge comments today</a> on the continuing failure to learn from past administrations--not just W's--how to handle foreign policy crises. Benghazi is the case in the news today, but it is not alone.

"For example, what was going on with President Obama's 'red line' comment about chemical weapons in Syria?  OK, he overstepped his talking points, as we have been told (is this an instance of protecting the boss or blaming him?). But didn't anyone then ask, if Syria now does indeed use chemical weapons, what will our red line be? The failure here was not the comment - or not just the comment.  It was the follow-up.  What was the protocol?

"Again and again the administration appears to have no regular procedures for acting on national security matters or recovering from missteps.

"Take the Fast and Furious scandal.  This wasn't just a Justice Department fiasco.  Whatever Attorney-General Eric Holder and others in his clown car intended, they ended up making a series of significant weapons shipments to the deadliest enemies of the democratic country and ally with which we share our southern border. Since then, it has been all cover up, no follow up.  What did the president and his administration do to make amends to the Mexican government and help them deal with the mess Mr. Holder and company had created?  Where was the protocol?"

The Benghazi story is one of the most spectacular cases, of course. Foolishly, the Obama Administration committed itself to a story line that al Qaida was all but destroyed with the death of Bin Laden. That boast put the White House in the position of having to spin or ignore any new attack that might happen. When, during the presidential campaign, the attack happened in Libya, it had to be represented as the result of a U.S. made video.  The media largely complied with this transparent fiction.

Eventually the truth comes out. By that time, alas, the public has lost interest. That may the real protocol that is in operation.]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>The Usefulness of Controversy</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/the_usefulness_of_controversy071961.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71961</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-07T21:44:26Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-07T22:00:00Z</updated>
   
   <summary>It is an irony that the Reinhart-Rogoff study on national debt&apos;s role in limiting economic growth was not widely known until the left started pummeling it recently. It was ushered into prime time by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC as if...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      It is an irony that the Reinhart-Rogoff study on national debt&apos;s role in limiting economic growth was not widely known until the left started pummeling it recently. It was ushered into prime time by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC as if it were a new Watergate scandal. (Bengazigate gets no such attention.)   Reinhart-Rogoff had omitted some data that changed the nature of their claim that after 90 percent national debt, economies flag. But, after they corrected their data, the validity of their main argument remains.

Our Discovery Senior Fellow Scott Powell finds it all distracting. You don&apos;t need the Reinhart-Rogoff study to know that governments that borrow to much are also borrowing trouble. 

   

      <![CDATA[In any case, Powell, whose <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/21131">letter on debt graced Monday's <em>Wall Street Journal</em> editorial page</a>, had a dry after-thought. The controversy over the Reinhart-Rogoff study has had the useful effect of causing more people to take notice of the debt issue. They'd better. The federal <em>deficit</em> is going down a few hundred million this year ($700 billion, versus $1 trillion last year), but the <em>debt</em> keeps growing!

Says Powell, "One (other) positive that I see in the Reinhart-Rogoff controversy is the reminder that ideas have consequences.  The fact that big spenders and Keynesians of many stripes jumped all over the error to discredit them reveals how important their empirical work has been to this debate.  Prior to this flap,  I figured their work was an academic sideshow.  So it was good to see just how much influence their work has had.  Perhaps a small sign of hope."   ]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>&quot;They&apos;re Out of Sorts..&quot; in the UK</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/theyre_out_of_sorts_in_the_uk071851.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71851</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-03T23:47:28Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-04T00:38:51Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The three major parties in Britain are faced tonight with a huge movement of votes in local elections to the relatively new United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP&apos;s main issue, ironically, is Britain&apos;s place in the European Union. Essentially, the Establishment...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1086321/local-council-elections-ukip-make-big-gains">The three major parties in Britain </a>are faced tonight with a huge movement of votes in local elections to the relatively new United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP's main issue, ironically, is Britain's place in the European Union.

Essentially, the Establishment is out of sorts. The UKIP has been dismissed as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" by Prime Minister Cameron, who now has to explain that, of course, he is not talking about the roughly quarter of the country that voted UKIP. Still, alarm bills are ringing in political party offices and teeth are gnashing in newspaper editorial offices and the BBC.

It reminds me again of the old Noel Coward song, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZCv98XKFs">There Are Bad Times Just Around the Corner</a>."

]]>
      <![CDATA["<em>They're out of sorts in Sunderland
And terribly cross in Kent
They're dull in Hull
And the Isle of Mull
Is seething with discontent</em>"

Mr. Coward was satirizing the left wing defeatism of post-war England, but his ditty also could apply this weekend to the three traditional parties, and especially the Liberals, who took a real beating in the local elections, and the Tories, who are most threatened by the patriotic UKIP and its agenda. The assumption is that the right in Britain is dead or dying and can safely be ignored. That is turning out to be very wrong.

If PM Cameron wants to reverse his fortunes, he might do the logical thing, and steal the UKIP's clothes, as they say--and put the EU subject on a referendum soon.]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>George W&apos;s Decency</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/george_ws_decency071841.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71841</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-03T22:35:41Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-03T22:56:01Z</updated>
   
   <summary> One reason George W. Bush is regaining popularity is that the truth will out, even in this wicked world! In Bush&apos;s case, the truth is flattering. For example, without fanfare the former president entertains wounded vets at his ranch...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.discoverynews.org/Bush%20Dancing.jpg"><img alt="Bush Dancing.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/assets_c/2013/05/Bush%20Dancing-thumb-300x449-23121.jpg" width="300" height="449" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a>

One reason George W. Bush is regaining popularity is that the truth will out, even in this wicked world! In Bush's case, <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/george-w-bush/2012/10/12/dancing-wounded-warrior">the truth is flattering</a>. For example, without fanfare the former president entertains wounded vets at his ranch about once a month. It is his way of showing appreciation and support. Recovery from a serious injury can be very lonely, and having some attention paid by the former Commander in Chief has to help.

Here is a picture of "43" dancing with a female vet. He's informal, he's obviously sincere and gentle. A gentle man.

<a href="http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/GWBUSH-Dance-Warrior.htm#.UYQ_8Y4R6RA">Photo Credit</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Okay to Kill Babies After Birth?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.discoverynews.org/2013/05/okay_to_kill_babies_after_they071821.php" />
   <id>tag:www.discoverynews.org,2013://11.71821</id>
   
   <published>2013-05-02T20:11:13Z</published>
   <updated>2013-05-03T00:49:18Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The uncomfortable subject of infanticide can be obscured by academic rhetoric and by changing the subject, such as to costs to the parent(s), costs to society, legal &quot;rights&quot;, etc. Let&apos;s tut-tut about those. Of course, the same used to happen...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Bruce Chapman</name>
      <uri>http://www.discovery.org/p/7</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.discoverynews.org/">
      The uncomfortable subject of infanticide can be obscured by academic rhetoric and by changing the subject, such as to costs to the parent(s), costs to society, legal &quot;rights&quot;, etc. Let&apos;s tut-tut about those. Of course, the same used to happen when the subject was a black person&apos;s ability to vote or the ante-bellum issue of slavery. There always are excuses; the human imagination is resourceful.


      <![CDATA[Finding excuses and changing the subject are exactly <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/347188/bioethics-hates-light">the responses to our Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith's work </a>on the "bioethics" of killing ("terminating", "precipitating the demise", etc.) of babies after they are born. 

Moral clarity is what Smith brings to the topic. Moral confusion, code words and soothing distractions are what most academic bioethicists provide. No wonder they are attacking him. And notice the ways they do it. Anything but head on.

For the reader's edification, Wesley Smith's funding from Discovery, as he says, comes from our support of what he does. This is not because we have donors eager to get into the field--I wish we did, but we don't. Smith too often is a lonely outpost of ethical sanity in a world of self-righteous degeneracy. ]]>
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
