Analytical studies of new airfoils for wind turbines

Computer studies were conducted to analyze the potential gains associated with utilizing new airfoils for large wind turbine rotor blades. Attempts to include 3-dimensional stalling effects were inconclusive. It is recommended that blade pressure measurements be made to clarify the nature of blade stalling. It is also recommended that new laminar flow airfoils be used as rotor blade sections

If Separation of Church and State Doesn’t Demand Separating Religion from Politics, Does Christian Doctrine Require It?

This Essay responds to comments by Wayne Barnes, Ian Huyett, and David Smolin on my prior Article, Separation of Church and State: Jefferson, Lincoln, and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended to Separate Religion From Politics. Part II, although noting a few disagreements with Huyett and Smolin, principally argues that they strengthen the case for the appropriateness of religious arguments in the public square. Part III evaluates Wayne Barnes’s contention that Christian doctrine requires separating religion from politics

Did Custer Disobey?

Of the many controversies surrounding the life and death of George Armstrong Custer, none has been more enduring than whether he disobeyed orders given him three days before the Battle of Little Big Horn. Some have argued that Custer willfully disregarded Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry\u27s written instructions concerning his approach to the Little Big Horn Valley; others have said that the order gave Custer sufficient discretion to justify his actions. Evan S. Connell, in his best-seller about Custer, Son of the Morning Star, writes that [i]t is a matter of interpretation...[i]t depends, like the blind men describing an elephant, on what part of the creature you touch. While acknowledging that modern students of this battle are to an extent akin to blind men, this article attempts to \u27describe the elephant\u27 - to determine whether Custer disobeyed - by closely examining the language of the order in light of Custer\u27s circumstances. This is not the first such attempt and undoubtedly will nto be the last. The years are seemingly bearing out Frederic Van De Water\u27s 1934 prophecy that the order, which had already had its every word tested, its each comma and period examined, [and] all its sentences twisted and stretched, would generate immortal controversy

May the President Appropriately Invoke God? Evaluating the Embryonic Stem Cell Vetoes

President George W. Bush twice vetoed measures to provide federal funds for embryonic stem cell research requiring the destruction of human embryos. Each veto was premised in part upon his religious beliefs. President Bush’s reliance upon his faith provoked a strong negative reaction. This essay argues that this criticism is baseless. The essay demonstrates that important political leaders spanning three centuries— including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr.—have invoked religious beliefs in explaining their positions. The principle of “separation of church and state,” properly understood, is not a persuasive basis for criticizing this religious heritage. President Bush, in relying upon his faith to justify his vetoes, acted in accord with well-established national tradition. The essay also examines various arguments that religious discourse in the public square is normatively inappropriate and thus should be excluded. All of these critiques fail. Anyone genuinely committed to diversity and to democratic ideals should support a rich array of disputants in public policy controversies, including religious believers openly proclaiming their faith-based values

Grounding Normative Assertions: Arthur Leff\u27s Still Irrefutable, But Incomplete, Sez Who? Critique

The late Professor Arthur Leff believed that standard methods for grounding normative assertions fail to provide a solid foundation for moral judgment because none provides a satisfactory answer to what Leff called the grand \u27sez who?\u27 - a universal taunt by which a skeptic may challenge the standing/competency of the speaker to make authoritative moral assessments. Leff argued that as a matter of logic no system of morals premised in mankind alone ever could withstand the taunt. His provocative conclusion was that the only unchallengeable response to the grand \u27sez who?\u27 is God sez. This Article demonstrates the continued relevance and validity of Leff\u27s critique by evaluating three contemporary discussions of morality: (1) Judge Richard Posner\u27s attack on academic moralism; (2) Professor Edward Wilson\u27s assertion that morality has a biological basis; and (3) Professor Steven Pinker\u27s attempt to distinguish between morality and our innate human nature. Although Leff did not discuss the practical possibility of a God-based moral system, this Article examines the practical question, focusing on three critical presuppositions implicit in seeking God\u27s help to discern the right: (1) God actually exists; (2) one looks to the God who actually exists; and (3) this true God communicates what is right in understandable ways. While not providing any final answers, this Article honestly grapples with the three key issues, refuting some common objections to a God-premised morality, while acknowledging the existence of some genuine difficulties

The Law and the Little Big Horn: What Beginning Law Students Can Learn from General Custer

Not available

Inappropriate for Establishment Clause Scrutiny: Reflections on Mary Nobles Hancock’s, God Save the United States and this Honorable County Board of Commissioners: \u3cem\u3eLund\u3c/em\u3e, \u3cem\u3eBormuth\u3c/em\u3e, and the Fight Over Legislative Prayer

This Response to Mary Nobles Hancock’s Note, after noting the complexity of the issues she presents, briefly comments on Ms. Hancock’s analysis, which focuses on how current Supreme Court doctrine should be applied to legislative prayer. Part III ranges more broadly. The author\u27s basic position is that the Supreme Court has long misconstrued the Establishment Clause. This misinterpretation in turn has led the Court mistakenly to interpose itself into the realm of legislative prayer, an incursion the Founders never intended