Antioch Road

I like to grill, but I don't stray too far away from turkey burgers and chicken. I grilled fish for the first time tonight. They were tilapia fillets. Here's what I did, after letting the grill heat up:

1. Put tin foil down on the grill, spraying it with cooking spray.
2. Put the fillets on top.
3. After a couple of minutes, pour some olive oil and seasoning on top.
4. Grill for a total of five minutes on high.

The fillets stuck to the foil a bit, but I was able to get most of it off. They ended up tasting better than the normal way we cook them: on the stove in a frying pan.

Anyone have any other grilled fish suggestions?

My wife and I attended the annual Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators conference this past June 8-9. One of the keynote speakers was Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and of Patrick Henry College. He is promoting a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution called the Parental Rights Amendment. You can learn more about the amendment, and the need for it, here.

The proposed Amendment expressly sets forth the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The United States Supreme Court has in the past ruled that there is implied in the Constitution such a right. However, there are justices on the current Supreme Court who would likely overturn those decisions if given the chance. Additionally, "international law" may one day intefere with our parental rights and duties. For instance, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by just about every country but ours. Courts in other countries have used this treaty to prevent parents from directing the upbringing of their children. A number of the current presidential candidates likely support this treaty. The proposed Amendment would prevent the treaty, if the United States ever ratifies it, from trumping our parental rights and duties.

This amendment will help protect your parental rights whether you send your children to public school or private school or if you homeschool. For instance, there are circuit court of appeals opinions that have held that once you drop your children off at the school house door, the school has absolute control over what your children are taught.

If you are interested in supporting this constitutional amendment, you can sign up to join ParentalRights.org (the dues are $25). Or, you can sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor of the amendment for free, here.

An audience member asked Michael Farris which presidential candidates supported the Parental Rights Amendment. He said that Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback were strongly leaning toward supporting it. No other candidate had made a commitment.

U.S.News & World Report’s Bonnie Erbe has humorously harsh words for the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber case. Erbe’s comments–along with those of the New York Times' Linda Greenhouse; the two appear to have spoken with one another–demonstrate how a relatively simple statutory construction case can turn political.

Ledbetter was a Title VII employment sex discrimination case based on allegedly divergent pay between females and males. As the Supreme Court’s syllabus states, under 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e–2(a)(1), ”An individual wishing to bring a Title VII lawsuit must first file an EEOC charge within, as relevant here, 180 days ‘after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.’” In Ledbetter, the plaintiff did not file her EEOC charge and ultimate lawsuit until years after she allegedly did not receive a raise because of her sex. Her argument was that the effect–her paychecks–of the discriminatory practice–the non-raise–should count to bring the unlawful employment practice within the 180 days of her EEOC claim.

In a footnote, Justice Alito noted the importance of a statutory deadline on claims: In this case, the allegedly discriminatory supervisor had passed away by the time of trial. His testimony thus did not exist to counter the plaintiff’s allegations concerning his conduct.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsberg went to the extraordinary and inappropriate step of urging Congress to change the statute–an explicitly policy-based, rather than judically-based, decision.

Enter Erbe, writing on a blog that is described as “refreshingly non-partisan.” Erbe says that the “majority’s decision to rule as it did was the height of arbitrariness.” That is turning the word arbitrariness on its head. Erbe’s reasoning is that “the law is replete with examples of judges applying ‘equitable tolling’ or ‘equitable estoppel’ to push back deadlines that simply don’t make sense given the facts of a particular case.” Erbe would rather have a judge arbitrarily determining what is “equitable” rather than adhering to Congress’s bright-line 180 day rule.

Moreover, it appears Erbe has not even read the opinion. The tolling of statutes of limitation occurs to allow a claimant time to discover that a wrong has actually been committed. But in Ledbetter, the plaintiff made no argument at all that she had not discovered the wrong committed against her.

Erbe goes on to write that “had retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor still been on the bench, odds are she would have sided with the dissent.” Apparently because she is a woman who faced discrimination after law school. But here is what Justice O’Connor wrote in the 2002 Morgan case: “I agree that Title VII suits based on discrete discriminatory acts are time barred when the plaintiff fails to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the 180- or 300-day time period designated in the statute.” O’Connor then went further, arguing that the time bar applies even in hostile work environment cases.

Erbe’s conclusion is that “the public is clearly tiring of [President Bush’s] archconservative politics and by inference, Alito’s as well. Thus, Alito’s judicial perspective is a remnant of the political past.”

What is she talking about? It is as if she has no idea that conservatives have consistently questioned President Bush’s conservative credentials.

Erbe’s opening paragraph also argued that the Ledbetter opinion ”reifies the concept of the Supreme Court as a lagging indicator of American politics.”

Again, what is she talking about? The Supreme Court is not supposed to be any kind of indicator of American politics.

The Weekly Standard republishes Jonathan Last’s column, which originally appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, attempting to clarify the Catholic Church’s recent report on “limbo.” “Limbo” is the name Catholics have given for the place they theorize (without support from the Bible, for, as Catholics admit, the Bible mentions no such place) that infants who have not been baptized go.

In the column, Last writes something that I wish he would have expounded upon:

The Bible does not explicitly consider the question of what happens to infants who die without having been baptized.

But the New Testament does say a great deal about two important tenets of the faith: (1) the universal salvific will; and (2) the necessity of baptism for overcoming original sin. Early theologians understood that, when it came to babies who died without being baptized, these two precepts were in tension. How could God both desire the salvation of all people and require infants with no control over their fates to become baptized before they could be saved?

The “universal salvific will” Last mentions is supported by, among other passages, II Peter 3:9, which states: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

It is point #2 that needs expansion, for nowhere does the Bible say that water baptism is necessary to overcome original sin, let alone does “the New Testament does say a great deal” about it. Last’s point #2 cannot be in tension with point #1 if point #2 is not true.

Read more...

The Chicago Cubs begin each season with a significant disadvantage in their quest to win the World Series: they play in the National League Central Division, which has six teams. All else being equal (and ignoring the wild card), the Cubs have a 16.7% chance of reaching the postseason at the beginning of the season. The same is true, of course, for every other team in the NL Central. Each team in every other division save the American League West, however, has a 20% of winning its division; the AL West teams have a 25% chance.

Consequently, the Atlanta Braves, for instance, have approximately a 20% greater chance of winning its division than the Cubs have of winning the NL Central. The Texas Rangers have a 50% greater chance.

There is, in my mind, no greater blight on major league baseball than the fundamental unfairness of its divisional alignment. And no one of importance ever says a word about it.

Given the opportunity to ask Bud Selig one question, and have it answered, it would be this: "No other major professional sport places different numbers of teams in its various divisions. They do not do such a thing because it would be uncommonly silly. We would not set up a Little League like that. Why does Major League Baseball?"

He would, I suspect, give me some sort of answer that focuses on regional rivalries. He might even tell me that radical realignment is difficult because the owners would be resistant and the DH issue causes problems. All of which would ignore what fairness dictates.

If we subscribe to the idea that it is fine to have six teams in one division and four in another, then--for us to remain logically consistent--we would also have to be fine with having eight teams in one division and two in another. Any line drawn other than placing the same number of teams in each division is an arbitrary one.

What about the wild card? It certainly increases each team's chance of reaching the postseason. But, again, because of MLB's league alignment, the Toronto Blue Jays, for instance, have a 14% greater chance of making the playoffs as a Wild Card than the Cubs do, simply because MLB has decreed that there shall be fewer teams in the American League than the National League.

What can be done? Simple: put 15 teams in each league. The "problem" with this solution is that it will require that there be an interleague series happening at all times. You cannot very well have one team from each league sitting out the final three days of the season because they do not have anyone within their league to play. You also cannot hand out three day breaks within the middle of the season. Still, an always-present interleague series is much less of a problem than the current situation. Moreover, interleague play is with us for the foreseeable future and this solution would be much less of an issue today than it would have been seven or eight years ago.

Major League Baseball could also expand by two teams, creating four 4-team divisions in each league. That is my preferred solution. Portland, Las Vegas, and San Antonio all might be major league ready, and New York City could easily handle a third team. Pick two of those four.

Whatever the solution, resolve this problem. Now. I shall forthwith harp on it periodically until then.

Read more about the Chicago Cubs at CubsNet.com.