In the year 1215, England instituted the Magna Carta, and thus began the process which would eventually lead to the rule of constitutional law in most developed countries.  Magna Carta was perhaps the single most important influence on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately, that great tradition is in danger in the very nation that gave it birth.

In Chuck Colson's radio address yesterday, he explained what is happening:

        In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on 
        Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it 
        illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual 
        conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations 
        are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals. . . . 

        The committee explicitly said that no exemption should be made 
        for Christian schools.

Well, you might be thinking, it's one thing for a committee to make such a recommendation.  Surely the whole Parliament would not be foolish enough to pass regulations like these.  If that's what you were thinking, you'd be wrong.  Tony Blair's administration is apparently determined to pass them, preferably with no debate in either house.

        Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide 
        on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the 
        Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of 
        Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, 
        the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The 
        regulations were upheld.

        Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through 
        both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize.

The vote was to be held today.  I have not yet heard the results, but Colson believed it would take a miracle to prevent this law from passing.  And if rights as basic as freedom of speech and freedom of religion can be so restricted in the United Kingdom, where they originated, we must be even more vigilant here, lest the same thing happen to us.

In an article on WashingtonPost.com today, William Branigan highlights Harry Reid's binding resolution to set a date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans today brought that resolution down to a humiliating defeat in which the resolution didn't even win a majority - in spite of the fact that it had 41 other cosponsors including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

After the vote on Reid's resolution, the Senate took up two other bills that were probably good ones:

        After defeating the resolution, which was introduced by Senate 
        Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), senators overwhelmingly 
        passed a nonbinding resolution sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray 
        (D-Wash.) that calls for ensuring the safety of U.S. troops by pro-
        viding the necessary funding, training and equipment. It also states 
        an obligation to ensure medical care for returning troops and veterans.

        The resolution passed 96 to 2. Two Republican senators, Bob Corker 
        (Tenn.) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), voted against it.

        The Senate then took up a nonbinding resolution sponsored by Sen. 
        Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that prohibits cuts in funding for U.S. troops in the 
        field. It was approved82-16.

        Murray said of her resolution, "We want to make sure we go on 
        record that we support our troops from the time they go to battle 
        until the time they come home." She added in a floor speech, "Support 
        of our troops extends far beyond their mission in the field" and should 
        continue when service members wounded in the wars in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other facilities.

        Gregg said his resolution bars Congress from taking "any action that 
        will endanger United States military forces in the field," including the 
        elimination or reduction of funds for those troops.

In light of the current situation in the Congress of the United States, it seems to me a positive development that we are committing to care for our military, and not to cut off funding for them in midstream.

Hugh Hewitt quoted from Mitch McConnell's statement on the Townhall.com blog this evening.  There's much more there - it's well worth reading this post from beginning to end - but here's a sample.

        Today, Senate Republicans will agree to move to a debate on 
        an important question, and that question is this: Should a majority 
        of Senators direct the activity of the War in Iraq?

        Republicans are eager to engage in this debate on the Reid 
        Resolution because it’s different in kind from any previous 
        Democratic proposal.

        It is unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to the Congress 
        in a time of war; it is a clear statement of retreat from the support that 
        the Senate only recently gave to General David Petraeus; and its 
        passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.  Previous 
        resolutions proposed by the Democrats were a mere statement of 
        opinion, or sentiment. This one has a binding quality. It would interfere 
        with the President and General Petraeus’ operational authority to conduct 
        the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for 
        their judgment the judgment of 535 members of Congress.

        And the judgment they’ve made is this: That Iraq is a distraction in 
        the Global War on terror, and that U.S. troops should begin to withdraw 
        in four months, with all combat forces leaving within a year. That’s the 
        judgment that the Reid proposal makes.

        Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of 
        every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men 
        and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 
        120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their army. More than 8,000 
        Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling Democracy over there. 
        And recently, in Anbar province, we’re told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis 
        volunteered for the police force over a period of a couple weeks.

        These brave men and women, Mr. President, are watching what we do 
        here: They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the 
        region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a 
        firing squad soon after we leave. And the message we send them with 
        this resolution is this: good luck.

This is only a little of Senator McConnell's statement - in the interests of space I've left out some of the best parts.  Do take the time to read the whole thing.  Suffice it to say, if we'd had more Republicans willing to come out and speak in language this plain, the Democrats would not be in the position of directing debates like these.  Hopefully more conservatives will come forward and take Senator McConnell as their example, and the Democrats' run in the Congress will be short-lived.  In the meantime, the Senator has taken an important leadership role; I hope he continues to show this kind of courage.

From the AP:

        Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad 
        since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. 
        Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.  The once 
        frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, 
        and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — 
        favored targets of car bombers. (HT:  The Corner)

And reading on into the article, we discover more good news:

        Gone are the "illegal checkpoints," where Shiite 
        and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away 
        members of the rival sect — often to a gruesome 
        torture and death.  The rattle of automatic weapons 
        fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes 
        less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the 
        city's once vacant streets . . . .

        In the months before the security operation began 
        Feb. 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each 
        day in the capital — victims of Sunni and Shiite death 
        squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were 
        found each week — with the figure spiking above 300 
        in some weeks, according to police reports compiled 
        by The Associated Press.

        Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have 
        dropped to about 80 — hardly an acceptable figure but 
        clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active 
        as they were in the final months of last year.

        Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably 
        due to U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons 
        caches and to more government checkpoints in the 
        streets that make it tougher to deliver the bombs.

        In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people 
        were killed in bombings around the capital, according to 
        AP figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the 
        bombing death toll stood at 370 — a drop of about 30 
        percent.

This is indeed a significant step forward.  It would seem that so far the "surge" has been successful.  And though in the last few weeks I've been less able to follow the news than I normally do, it has been very obvious that the body count in the headlines has decreased dramatically.

The best news, though, is buried in the middle of the article, and disguised to make it look like bad news.  Take a look at this:

        U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic 
        forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation 
        a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of 
        the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the 
        streets, and the full complement of American reinforcements 
        is not due until late May.

Did you get that?!  Three-fifths of the soldiers involved in the "surge" haven't even gotten there yet!  Now, if our soldiers can only manage to eliminate the death squads and to equip the Iraqis to defend themselves, that will be really good news.  Nobody wants our young men and women to be there indefinitely; if this mission is successful, maybe they won't have to be.

Declaring the mission a success when less than half its soldiers have even arrived is definitely a bit premature.  But we can definitely celebrate the progress that has been made over the past few weeks, and the good news that progress means for both the Iraqi people and our military men and women.

 At his blog, "The Buck Stops Here," Stuart Buck highlights an interesting article from psychology professor Richard G. Medlin's article, "Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization," Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 75 (2000): 107-23.

        Shyers (1992a, 1992b), in the most thorough study of home-
        schooled children's social behavior to date, tested 70 children 
        who had been entirely home-schooled and 70 children who 
        had always attended traditional schools. The two groups were 
        matched in age (all were 8-10 years old), race, gender, family size, 
        socioeconomic status, and number and frequency of extra-
        curricular activities. Shyers measured self-concept and assertive-
        ness and found no significant differences between the two groups. 

        The most intriguing part of the study, however, involved observing 
        the children as they played and worked together. Small groups 
        of children who all had the same school background were 
        videotaped while playing in a large room equipped with toys 
        such as puzzles, puppets, and dolls. The children were then 
        videotaped again in a structured activity: working in teams putting 
        puzzles together for prizes.

        Each child's behavior was rated by two observers who did not 
        know whether the children they were rating were home-schooled 
        or traditionally schooled. The observers used the Direct Observation 
        Form of the Child Behavior Checklist . . . , a checklist of 97 problem 
        behaviors such as argues, brags or boasts, doesn't pay attention 
        long, cries, disturbs other children, isolates self from others, shy or 
        timimd, and shows off. The results were striking -- the mean 
        problem behavior score for children attending conventional 
        schools was more than eight times higher than that of the home-
        schooled group. Shyers (1992a) described the traditionally schooled 
        children as "aggressive, loud, and competitive" (p. 6). In contrast, 
        the home-schooled children acted in friendly, positive ways.


In recent years, as my older daughter has begun developing into a young lady, I've become more and more convinced that homeschoolers are in fact, as this study suggests, much better socialized than public schooled students.  It stands to reason that children who are constantly exposed to mature, adult interactions, and who spend most of their social time interacting with people of all different ages, are going to be more mature and better developed socially than those whose social experience is limited almost exclusively to the immaturity of their peers.  It is encouraging, though, to find professional research supporting that fact (though it's unfortunate that it has taken so long to come to the attention of the homeschooling community - note the study was done in 1992!).

A couple of days ago on his radio program, Breakpoint, Chuck Colson gave a candid assessment of the ultimate result of China's one-child policy.  For years China has been praised for limiting its population growth, as it has vigorously enforced a policy of one child per family.  Women who became pregnant with a second child have often been forced to have an abortion; those who continually refused to comply were often forced to use contraception; and families with more than one child were shamed and penalized.  In Western countries, many liberals have suggested this would be a good policy for America and other nations.

Colson's broadcast the other day demonstrates the kind of problems that can result when countries implement this kind of policy without regard for consequences.

        According to its Academy of Social Sciences, China “suffers from 
        the world’s most severe brain drain.” Approximately two-thirds of 
        the Chinese who have studied abroad in the past two decades 
        did not return home.

        The BBC offered many possible explanations for this drain: the 
        lack of opportunities at home; a lack of freedom, especially after 
        Tiananmen Square, and a preference for the Western “lifestyle.”

        One factor that was not mentioned but should have been was a 
        concern about spending the rest of your life alone.

        According to China’s State Population and Family Planning 
        Commission, “by 2020 some 30 million Chinese men will not 
        be able to find wives.” If these thirty million men were a country, 
        they would be one of the forty most-populous countries in the world.

        This inability to find wives, in the commission’s words, “may lead 
        to social instability.” I guess it will. According to Constance Kong, 
        a consultant in Shanghai, “given that understatement is a charac-
        teristic of the Chinese Government when it discusses national 
        problems, this means that it is [really] alarmed.”

        The government has only itself to blame. The looming imbalance 
        between men and women of marriageable age is the completely 
        foreseeable result of China’s “one-child” policy. Limited to one 
        child in “a country where daughters are unwanted,” many Chinese 
        families, especially in rural areas, made sure—even by infanticide—
        that the one child born was a boy.

        As a result, in parts of China, there are 130 males for every 100 females. 
        Government attempts to end sex selection, such as prohibiting 
        doctors from revealing the sex of unborn children, have failed: 
        Families regularly bribe doctors.

Colson goes on to discuss some results of this shortage of women: 

1)  Young women in other parts of Asia are being kidnapped to become wives to these young men;
2)  A lack of the stabilizing influence of marriage and family on young men;
3)  The world's fastest-aging population, as young workers fail to replace older ones; and
4)  An increasing reluctance on the part of foreign investors to consider China a worthwhile long-term
      investment.

These are serious consequences, foreseeable given the climate in China over recent decades, but apparently never actually foreseen.  It will be interesting - and hopefully instructive to those of us in the West - to watch what ends up happening there.

On Chuck Colson's Breakpoint address today, he has a wonderful, amazing, touching story illustrating the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and our American soldiers.  There are many Americans these days who would apparently like to believe there is little or no difference between "us and them."  They claim the Islamic radicals - especially Iraqi and Afghan insurgents - simply want to have their country back.  But take a look at these examples Colson gives:

            In Baghdad yesterday, a terrorist blew himself up with a car 
            bomb, killing at least twenty-eight people and wounding dozens 
            more. One witness told the Associated Press that pieces of 
            human flesh were scattered all around the marketplace.

            In Afghanistan last month, another terrorist blew himself up 
            near a crowd gathered for a ceremony to open a hospital emer-
            gency ward. A few days later, a Sunni Muslim blew herself up 
            and forty others at a college in Baghdad.

            In all three cases, Muslims blew up Muslims. The response of 
            Europe and the Muslim world to the stories of death? Outrage? 
            No. Silence. Did the Western press condemn them? No.

            Last week, another story was told on NBC News—this time, a 
            riveting story of life.

            NBC has been running a gripping series on the emergency 
            military triage facilities in Iraq. Last Thursday, NBC showed 
            wounded Iraqi insurgents being brought to Camp Speicher 
            near Tikrit. Two of them had been caught placing an explosive 
            device on a nearby road, intending to kill Americans, when a 
            U.S. helicopter opened fire on them.

            The U.S. medical team moved heaven and earth to save their 
            lives. One insurgent, however, was not going to survive unless 
            he got thirty pints of blood.

            But the base was low on blood. The call went out for volunteer 
            donors; minutes later, dozens of G.I.s had lined up.

            At the head of the line was a battle-hardened soldier named 
            Brian Suam. Asked if it mattered that his blood was going to an 
            insurgent, he smiled and said, no—“A human life is a human life.”

            I have never seen a more dramatic example of worldviews in 
            contrast, nor have I been prouder of an American G.I. On one 
            hand, we have the horrors of a civilization that values death—even 
            the death of its own children—if by killing them they can hurt the 
            infidels. On the other side, we have a story that makes us realize 
            just how deeply embedded within American life is our Judeo-
            Christian heritage. This heritage teaches that human life is 
            sacred—even the life of an enemy who falls into our hands.

These American soldiers are heroes in every sense of the word.  They willingly lay down their own lives to protect, not just us here at home, but innocent Iraqi people.  And when one of the enemy is wounded trying to kill them, they do all they can to help that enemy survive.  All they are after is the safety and security of our people here at home and of fledgling democracies around the world.  These soldiers understand what's really at stake.  They know exactly what they're fighting for.  And those here at home who want us out of Iraq for their own political benefit - the ones who call these heroic men and women "children" - ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Because homeschooling removes dollars from the public education system, education officials are constantly on the lookout for new ways to force homeschoolers back into the system.  Now it would seem they've hit on a new tactic - one they have sold to at least one judge.  It's not uncommon for homeschooling parents to be accused of "educational neglect," but this argument surpasses most in terms of sheer boldness. 

Consent of the Governed has a post up today on the new accusation of "enmeshment."  It's well worth the read, but here's the gist of the argument:

            Proving that parents who instruct at home are not “neglectful” 
            may be an inconvenience, but has been relatively easy to do. 
            The very fact that we care for, nurture, educate and engage 
            ourselves with our children is proof that we are not neglecting 
            them. Right?

            Wrong.

            Now, a new threat looms on the horizon. It is a threat because 
            it will attempt to prove that a parent is neglectful when they 
            homeschool their children. 

            Black’s Law Dictionary defines “neglect” as “to omit, fail, or 
            forbear to do a thing that can be done, or that is required to 
            be done…”

            Webster’s Dictionary defines “enmesh” as “to entangle in…”

            The term “enmeshment” has found its way into psychological 
            and sociological literature. While it is not yet a recognized 
            “diagnosis”, it has gained apparent widespread popularity 
            among the psychological and sociological community, particularly 
            among those who are intimately involved with governmental 
            agencies in determining whether or not children are “neglected.”

            Unfortunately, the term “enmeshment” has been used, 
            astonishingly enough, to find parents guilty of “emotional neglect”, 
            as one judge put it, because “there is a fine line between 
            protection and overreaction.” In that case, the parent was 
            found to be “emotionally neglectful” due to “enmeshment” for 
            “fostering in her child a feeling of mistrust toward school 
            officials and teachers.” In one judicial case, the parent simply 
            wanted the school officials and teachers to follow the 
            instructions of the child’s physician to administer medication 
            immediately to the child in the event of an allergic reaction. The 
            psychologist who found that the parent and child were “enmeshed” 
            did so by concluding that the child is “strongly aligned 
            emotionally and intellectually with his mother, dependent 
            upon her to a very significant degree, and relying on her views 
            and actions to protect him and to keep him alive.” One would 
            think that this would be considered to be the ultimate duty of 
            a parent, the duty to protect and to keep the child alive. The court, 
            however, found the parent and child to be “significantly enmeshed”
            such that the parent was deemed “emotionally neglectful” of the 
            child.

            In essence, for a parent to be aligned emotionally and 
            intellectually with a child for the purpose of protecting the child 
            constituted “neglect”. 

            This is fundamentally an oxymoron, to say the least. 
            “Enmeshment” would appear to be the opposite of “neglect”, 
            yet, it has proven to be the basis for a court finding of neglect!

            If a parent cannot disprove neglect by protection and care, how 
            can a parent disprove neglect?

As the wife of a social worker, I understand the concept of "enmeshment" pretty well.  True enmeshment exists when an adult child is unable to separate from the parent.  The parent pulls the apron strings, and the child does whatever the parent wants done.  Adult children in enmeshed homes are unable to make decisions for themselves, and do in fact find themselves "dependent upon (the parent) to a very significant degree, and relying on (the parent's) views and actions to protect him and to keep him alive."  Enmeshment often occurs in drug- and alcohol-related situations, when the adult child facilitates the addiction, lying for the parent, getting prescriptions for pain medication and giving them to the parent, giving the parent money to buy drugs or alcohol, and so on.  Clearly this is dysfunctional, and a parent raising a child this way might be considered abusive.

There's a clear distinction, though, between an enmeshed adult child and a school-aged child.  It is both normal and healthy for a young child to be “strongly aligned emotionally and intellectually with his mother, dependent upon her to a very significant degree, and relying on her views and actions to protect him and to keep him alive.”  This is particularly true in the case of a child with a severe allergy, who really does depend on his parent to keep him alive.  And if a mother in that situation feels the school is not taking the problem seriously, one would expect her to communicate that concern to her child.  That is NOT neglect!  In fact, that is precisely the kind of care and concern a parent SHOULD have for their child.

It really is disturbing to find school and court authorities collaborating to make the life of this family more difficult than it already is.  One can only hope that this decision will be appealed and overturned.  As for the rest of us, caution is warranted - "enmeshment" is apparently a new argument school officials will be trying in order to get our kids back under their control.

Up to this point I've sort of stayed out of the whole controversy about James Cameron's "discovery" of what he claims is the tomb of Jesus.  For one thing, it seems rather foolish to engage someone whose single claim to fame is that he made a really good movie, when he decides he wants to be an expert on archaeology.  I also assumed more information would come to light over the course of a few days or weeks that would shed light on his claim.

Sure enough, yesterday Chuck Colson dedicated his radio program, "Breakpoint," to the subject of this discovery and the documentary Cameron will soon be releasing.  In less than five minutes, Colson completely demolished any credibility Cameron retained in my mind.

            The ossuary is inscribed “Joshua, son of Joseph”—names that are 
            not exactly rare among first-century Jewish males. So Cameron also 
            points out the nearby ossuaries bearing names of people associated 
            with Jesus—most importantly, “Mary,” as in “Magdalene.”

            Actually, it doesn’t say “Mary” but “Mariamne,” which—according to 
            some people—was what other people called the Magdalene. This is good 
            enough for Cameron, who considers it natural that Jesus would be 
            buried alongside his so-called “wife.”

            See what I mean about The Da Vinci Code? If you do, you are not alone. 
            Archaeologist Amos Kloner, who “did extensive work and research on this 
            very tomb and its ossuaries” ten years ago, said “it’s a beautiful story but 
            without any proof whatsoever . . . ” Lawrence Steigler of Harvard told National 
            Public Radio that Cameron’s claim “sounds rather preposterous.”

            When even Harvard and NPR call your bit of revisionism “preposterous,” 
            you know that you are way out on a limb.

The Washington Post on Wednesday also published an article debunking the whole story, using as sources almost exclusively secular archaeologists and Israeli historians.  The Post claims that this is basically a non-story, and that historians have already considered the possibility and rejected it.

            "I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight," 
            said William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel 
            for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology 
            among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being 
            hyped and manipulated."

            Dever, a retired professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, 
            said that some of the inscriptions on the Talpiyot ossuaries are unclear, 
            but that all of the names are common.

            "I've know about these ossuaries for many years and so have many 
            other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, 
            because these are rather common Jewish names from that period," he 
            said. "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will 
            upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to 
            separate fact from fiction."

The Post also quotes Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, whose criticisms are insightful and particularly devastating.  She brings up, along with other arguments, an issue that seemed very significant to me - that Jesus' family was clearly poor, especially after his father Joseph's death, traditionally believed to have been when Jesus was still a teenager.  In the first century, a widow whose oldest son was only in his teens would certainly have been very poor, and it's unlikely that Joseph would have been buried in a wealthy person's tomb in Judea.

            By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it 
            up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of 
            scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly 
            rejected this," she said.

            Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried 
            their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in 
            niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries.

            She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of 
            the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. "If Jesus' 
            family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would 
            have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem," she said.

            Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate 
            that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around 
            Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father's 
            name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have 
            used their first name and home town, she said.

            "This whole case [for the tomb of Jesus] is flawed from beginning 
            to end," she said.

Colson goes on to point out that according to tradition, 11 of the 12 apostles gave their lives maintaining the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.  That's a lot of people willing to face brutal deaths for something that, if Cameron's arguments are true, they knew to be a lie!  As Colson, who went to jail over Watergate, testifies:

            I know a thing or two about cover-ups and conspiracies: No conspirator 
            willingly dies for what he knows to be untrue—or, in the case of Watergate, 
            even go to jail. The closest men around the president of the United States 
            testified against him to save their own skins. You’re going to tell me the 
            Apostles maintained their story at the cost of their lives? Impossible.

It would seem James Cameron had only one agenda in making this "documentary":  to somehow convince people that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, but instead that his bones were simply moved to "his family tomb."  But back in 1930, author Frank Morison tried to write an honest book proving the story of the Resurrection was only a myth.  Instead, the book he wrote, Who Moved the Stone?, ended up providing very strong support to the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As Morison wrestled with the historical accounts, he discovered the story almost HAD to be true.  Cameron, and other skeptics, would do well to take a lesson from Morison's honest examination of the evidence.