For What It's Worth

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup telephone survey of 1,005 people on Sept. 8-11 produced some interesting results:

How much have you thought about the different explanations for how human beings came to exist on Earth (evolution guided by God, evolution without God's involvement or creation as described in the Bible)?

Great deal: 41%

Moderate amount: 35%

Not much: 17%

Not at all: 6%

How much does it matter to you which of these theories is correct?

Great deal: 40%

Moderate amount: 26%

Not much: 19%

Not at all: 14%

Which comes closer to your view about the relationship between science and religion?

Agree with each other: 24%

Conflict with each other: 35%

Not related: 36%

Which statement comes closest to your views?

God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible.

All: 53%

Men: 45%

Women: 60%

18-29: 54%

30-49: 50%

50-64: 50%

65 and older: 60%

By income level

$75K and up: 37%

$50K-$74.9K: 51%

$30K-$49.9K: 56%

Under 20K: 70%

By religion

Catholic: 38%

Protestant: 66%

Non-Christian: 15%

None: 16%

Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, and God guided this process.

All: 31%

Men: 34%

Women: 29%

18-29: 27%

30-49: 38%

50-64: 32%

65 and older: 20%

By income level

$75K and up: 41%

$50K-$74.9K: 31%

$30K-$49.9K: 22%

Under 20K: 19%

By religion

Catholic: 50%

Protestant: 25%

Non-Christian: 31%

None: 29%

Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process.

All: 12%

Men: 17%

Women: 8%

18-29: 17%

30-49: 10%

50-64: 15%

65 and older: 11%

By income level

$75K and up: 29%

$50K-$74.9K: 12%

$30K-$49.9K: 11%

Under 20K: 4%

By religion

Catholic: 10%

Protestant: 6%

Non-Christian: 47%

None: 48%

The most interesting thing to us about this poll is the fact that only 12% of the people surveyed accepted some form of materialistic evolution. The vast majority were either creationists or theistic evolutionists. Seventy six percent of those polled have thought about the matter somewhat or a lot, and 66% say that it makes some difference to them which view is correct.

This does not, of course, have any bearing on which view is correct, but it does suggest how far out of the mainstream naturalistic views of life are in this country.

Let it Rest

Even Richard Cohen, the solidly left columnist at the Washington Post thinks the brouhaha over who outed Valerie Plame is a tempest of Lilliputian proportions. Cohen actually calls for the District Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, to just call the whole thing off:

The best thing Patrick Fitzgerald could do for his country is get out of Washington, return to Chicago and prosecute some real criminals. As it is, all he has done so far is send Judith Miller of the New York Times to jail and repeatedly haul this or that administration high official before a grand jury, investigating a crime that probably wasn't one in the first place but that now, as is often the case, might have metastasized into some sort of coverup -- but, again, of nothing much. Go home, Pat.

The alleged crime involves the outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose husband, Joseph Wilson IV, had gone to Africa at the behest of the agency and therefore said he knew that the Bush administration -- no, actually, the president himself -- had later misstated (in the State of the Union address, yet) the case that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.

Wilson made his case in a New York Times op-ed piece. This rocked the administration, which was already fighting to retain its credibility in the face of mounting and irrefutable evidence that the case it had made for war in Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction, above all -- was a fiction. So it set out to impeach Wilson's credibility, purportedly answering the important question of who had sent him to Africa in the first place: his wife. This was a clear case of nepotism, the leakers just as clearly implied.

Not nice, but it was what Washington does day in and day out. (For some historical perspective see George Clooney's "Good Night, and Good Luck'' about Edward R. Murrow and that most odious of leakers-cum-character assassins, Joseph McCarthy.) This is rarely considered a crime. In the Plame case, it might technically be one, but it was not the intent of anyone to out a CIA agent and have her assassinated (which happened once) but to assassinate the character of her husband. This is an entirely different thing. She got hit by a ricochet.

Now we are told by various journalistic sources that Fitzgerald might not indict anyone for the illegal act he was authorized to investigate, but some other one -- maybe one concerning the disclosure of secret material. Here again, though, this is a daily occurrence in Washington, where most secrets have the shelf life of sashimi. Then, too, other journalists say that Fitzgerald might bring conspiracy charges, an attempt (or so it seems) to bring charges of some sort. This is what special prosecutors do and why they should always be avoided. (The one impaneled in 1995 to investigate then-HUD Secretary Henry G. Cisneros for lying about how much he was paying his mistress is still in operation, although the mistress most certainly is not.)

I have no idea what Fitzgerald will do. My own diligent efforts to find out anything have come to naught. Fitzgerald's non-speaking spokesman would not even tell me if his boss is authorized to issue a report, as several members of Congress are now demanding -- although Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, tells me that only a possibly unprecedented court order would permit it. Whatever the case, I pray Fitzgerald is not going to reach for an indictment or, after so much tumult, merely fold his tent, not telling us, among other things, whether Miller is the martyr to a free press that I and others believe she is or whether, as some lefty critics hiss, she's a double-dealing grandstander, in the manner of some of her accusers.

More is at stake here than bringing down Karl Rove or some other White House apparatchik, or even settling some score with Miller, who is sometimes accused of taking this nation to war in Iraq all by herself. The greater issue is control of information. If anything good comes out of the Iraq war, it has to be a realization that bad things can happen to good people when the administration -- any administration -- is in sole control of knowledge and those who know the truth are afraid to speak up. This -- this creepy silence -- will be the consequence of dusting off rarely used statutes to still the tongues of leakers and intimidate the press in its pursuit of truth, fame and choice restaurant tables. Apres Miller comes moi.

This is why I want Fitzgerald to leave now. Do not bring trivial charges -- nothing about conspiracies, please -- and nothing about official secrets, most of which are known to hairdressers, mistresses and dog walkers all over town. Please, Mr. Fitzgerald, there's so much crime in Washington already. Don't commit another.

Needless to say, the rest of the left is seriously miffed by Cohen's apostacy, but then they're so filled with hatred for Bush they'd crawl a mile over broken glass to get a high ranking Republican indicted. Whether the indictment has merit or not doesn't matter. They're not interested in justice, they're interested in destroying political enemies, and every effort must be made, in their view, to bring about that noble end.

The Miracle of the Cell

Bill Dembski directs us to this 38 minute video which uses computer simulation to illustrate some of the reasons why most people, other than the true believers, are skeptical of the putative powers of blind nature to produce living things.

The resolution is a little fuzzy, but it's worth a look.

Ill-Starred Nomination

John Fund tells us how the Miers nomination came about. The core of his column is these paragraphs:

Regardless of whether or not the vetting process was complete, it presented impossible conflicts of interest. Consider the position that Mr. Bush and Mr. Card put Mr. Kelley in. He would be a leading candidate to become White House counsel if Ms. Miers was promoted. He had an interest in not going against his earlier recommendation of her for the Supreme Court, or in angering President Bush, Ms. Miers's close friend. As journalist Jonathan Larsen has pointed out he also might not have wanted to "bring to light negative information that could torpedo her nomination, keeping her in the very job where she would be best positioned to punish Kelley were she to discover his role in vetting her."

Mr. Lubet, [a Northwestern professor], says "all the built-in incentives" of the vetting process were perverse. "In business you make an effort to have disinterested directors who know all the material facts to resolve conflicts of interest," he told me. "In the Miers pick, the White House was sowing its own minefield."

"It was a disaster waiting to happen," says G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in presidential appointments. "You are evaluating a close friend of the president, under pressure to keep it secret even internally and thus limiting the outside advice you get."

Indeed, even internal advice was shunned. Mr. Card is said to have shouted down objections to Ms. Miers at staff meetings. A senator attending the White House swearing-in of John Roberts four days before the Miers selection was announced was struck by how depressed White House staffers were during discussion of the next nominee. He says their reaction to him could have been characterized as, "Oh brother, you have no idea what's coming."

A last minute effort was made to block the choice of Ms. Miers, including the offices of Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It fell on deaf ears. First Lady Laura Bush, who went to Southern Methodist University at the same time as Ms. Miers, weighed in. On Sunday night, the president dined with Ms. Miers and the first lady to celebrate the nomination of what one presidential aide inartfully praised to me as that of "a female trailblazer who will walk in the footsteps of President Bush."

The conservative displeasure with the Harriet Miers selection shows no signs of abating. No one expects George Bush to pull her nomination, but there's a lot of money being wagered that she'll withdraw of her own volition. It's hard enough to face the judiciary committee when half of the Senators are in your corner, but it'll be an especially difficult ordeal for Harriet Miers because the best she can hope for is that a couple of Senators on an otherwise hostile panel might be lukewarm.

Heads Up

As the above announcement indicates, Viewpoint is going to be down for some server maintenance this weekend. Bill has discovered the reason our blog has been intermittently unavailable over the last month or so, and he's going to be correcting the problem tomorrow. We expect to be down starting Friday afternoon for an indefinite period. We may be back by Friday night or maybe not until Sunday. Check back with us when you get the chance.

I wish to take the opportunity of this post to thank all of our readers for your interest in what we're doing. It's gratifying to know that people are reading us and finding us worth their time. If you come across one of our posts that warrants it, please link us to your friends.

ID Critics Self-Destruct

One of the chief opponents of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools nevertheless encourages teachers to teach religion in science lessons in elementary schools. Steve Peterman at Telic Thoughts reports that:

In one fell swoop Eugenie Scott destroyed so many arguments of ID critics it is hard to believe it. The so called Wedge complaint. The complaint that IDists are trying to smuggle religion into high school science classrooms. The argument that ID=religion under the guise of science. The adamant assertion by ID critics that religion does not belong in science. That science is detached from metaphysical assertions and ideology. All gone in one fell swoop!

Eugenie Scott is the president of the National Council on Science Education and has frequently written against teaching ID in public schools because because ID is religion and religion doesn't belong in science classes, especially in classes of young students. Yet in the article linked above she endorses doing precisely what she wants to prohibit others from doing. Indeed, she recommends that teachers use religion to teach evolution to elementary students.

It's too bad that some newspaper reporter doesn't ask her to explain herself, but it's not likely that any of them will.

Idiots and Ignoramuses

A Stephen Gordon of Utah submits a letter to the 11/2005 Discover magazine:

"I am sick of scientists tiptoeing around the topic of religion. Scientists need to make it clear that if you believe in God you are most likely an idiot or at best uneducated....To treat beliefs as if they mean anything merely elevates them to equal status with science....it is pathetic when an adult thinks demons, angels, Satan, and God are real."

Well. Let's trot out a roster of those uneducated idiots: Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant, Locke, Dostoyevsky, Galileo, Newton, Brahe, Boyle, Aggassiz, Faraday - we could go on, but you get the point. Perhaps Mr. Gordon would scoff and say that these are all pre-twentieth century thinkers, and that it was easier to believe back in their day than it is in ours. We might ask him, if we dare, why that is so. What do we know today that makes belief in God impossible for any but an idiot or an ignoramus? We should not hold our breath waiting for an answer to that one.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Gordon has an answer for us since the basic assumption that only the mentally defective or uneducated can believe in God in the modern era is quite at variance with the facts. Let's take a look at just a few of those whose intellects are of the first rank and who also believe that God exists (and may even believe some of those other things Mr. Gordon contemptuously dismisses as well): Pope John Paul, George Marsden, Mark Noll, William Lane Craig, Karl Barth, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, William Dembski, Os Guiness, Richard Swinburne, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, J.R.R. Tolkein, Carl Henry, William Buckley, John Stott, Reinhold Neibhur, Alistair MacIntyre, Antonin Scalia, Richard Neuhaus, John Polkinghorne et multi, multi plus.

Among the scientists so esteemed by Mr. Gordon, as many of them believe today as believed a century ago, and the number of believing scientists is about the same as the number of their skeptical colleagues (see here, for instance).

Mr. Gordon may not be familiar with these names, but then one probably needs a modicum of education to be acquainted with them. Perhaps Mr. Gordon is indeed conversant with many of them but thinks them mere pygmies in comparison with his own intellectual gifts, and they may be. It's hard to say because, although I've heard of these Christian intellectuals and read their work, Mr. Gordon has till now escaped my notice, doubtless to my detriment. Consequently, I'm unaware of his scholarly credentials which must surely be impressive.

He'd Do it Differently

Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election.

Of the truth of this statement we have no doubt. One difference almost surely would be that under a President Gore we'd still be haggling with the U.N. to bring pressure to bear on Mullah Omar of the Afghan Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the International Criminal Court.

Creationism, Evolution, and ID

The Detroit Free Press runs an excellent column by Brian Fahling which persuasively makes the case that Intelligent Design and Creationism are philosophically disparate paradigms and that Darwinian evolution is much more like Creationism than is Intelligent Design. This claim may surprise some, but Fahling provides a cogent explanation as to why it is so.

This article should be required reading for anyone who insists on using the disingenuous construction, "intelligent design creationism." The two frameworks share very little in common. Indeed, the essay should be required reading for anyone who sides with the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case underway in Harrisburg, PA.

The heart of Fahling's argument is this:

Creationism is an a priori argument drawn from a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In the context of a public classroom, that means the God of the Bible is the starting point and assumed ground of life's origin and the origin of the cosmos. Drawing from a literal reading of Genesis, creationists postulate a "young Earth" and six 24-hour days of creation. All empirical data are subject to and analyzed within this interpretive grid.

Intelligent design, however, is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify a designer. Unlike creationism and the theory of evolution, intelligent design theory does not make dogmatic religious or philosophic claims about the origin of life.

Creationism and the theory of evolution, unlike intelligent design theory, are insular in their approach to science. Creationists reason downward from an article of religious faith and conduct their science within that paradigm. Evolutionists, too, reason downward from an article of faith and conduct their science with the same dogmatic zeal and selectiveness of their creationist counterparts.

Like creationism, the theory of evolution is an a priori argument drawn from the evolutionist's article of faith which holds that the origin of life and the cosmos can only be explained by undirected natural processes. This is a metaphysical claim, not scientific fact. Still, it is not in dispute that one may infer an evolutionary process from the data, but that is not what the evolutionist does.

Good science requires an open mind. There is more than a little irony, then, in the evolutionists' attempt to paint intelligent design theory with the creationist brush when it is the evolutionists who have the most in common with the creationists.

The only flaw in Fahling's piece is when he writes this:

Creationism requires a student to first affirm the creed that God created the heavens and the Earth, and the theory of evolution requires that a student affirm the creed that there is no God. Both are exclusive claims, neither is scientific, neither can be empirically verified.

Everything Fahling says here is true except that evolution does not require what Fahling claims that it does. One can be an evolutionist and still believe God exists. Ken Miller of Brown University is a very prolific writer on behalf of evolution and is a practicing Catholic. Michael Behe is also a Catholic, and he believes that God somehow pre-programmed evolution to produce the forms, processes and structures of living things.

It is the case, however, that Darwinian evolution requires an a priori commitment to the principle that whatever God's status may be he was not involved in the development and radiation of living things. This is, in fact, a religious a priori commitment, of course, so Fahling's larger point is still valid that Creationism and Darwinian evolution are more religiously and philosophically like each other than either is like Intelligent Design.

Fahling adds that:

Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, does not require that any creed about the origin of life and the cosmos be affirmed. It merely points to the evidence and suggests that the best explanation (though not the only explanation) for the design found in nature and the cosmos is a designer, whoever or whatever that may be.

In this respect ID is philosophically unlike either of the other two paradigms and, most importantly, is more scientific than either of the other two. We wonder if this fact will be emphasized in the Dover trial.

The Case For Confirming

Paul Mirengoff at the Weekly Standard makes the case for confirming Harriet Miers:

Two questions control the confirmation issue: Is Miers qualified and should she be rejected on ideological grounds? At this juncture, neither question strikes me as very close. Miers has achieved just about everything a lawyer can accomplish--head of a substantial law firm, head of the state bar association, and top legal adviser to the president. She also has a background in local politics. Only by insisting that a Supreme Court nominee possess either judicial experience or a portfolio of scholarly writings can one pronounce Miers unqualified. But this has never been the standard, and it's not clear why (ideological considerations aside) Republicans should invent a new standard with which to deal a blow to a Republican president.

On the merits, moreover, judicial experience or legal scholarship should not be a requirement for the Supreme Court Justice position. This background may well be highly desirable, and not just for purposes of intelligence gathering about a nominee. Yet some knowledgeable commentators think it's highly desirable for some justices to possess a more practical, less rarified background. Reasonable minds can differ, which suggests that the president should have the option of appointing outstanding lawyers with no judicial or scholarly experience.

The argument that conservatives should reject Miers because she doesn't seem to be the right kind of conservative, and may not be a conservative at all, seems problematic as well. For the past four years, conservatives have argued that ideology does not constitute a proper basis for voting against a president's qualified nominees. We have deplored Democrats who voted against qualified mainstream conservatives. We would have become apoplectic had Sen. Arlen Specter not supported a conservative nominated by his party's president. On what principled basis, then, can conservatives now vote down a nominee who is either a moderate or, more likely, some sort of a conservative? Miers plainly is not "outside the mainstream."

In the case of Harriet Miers, ... we are talking about someone who might be another O'Connor but is just as likely to vote with Scalia in the vast majority of big cases. In this situation, it seems imprudent to blow up the confirmation process---and possibly the Bush presidency and the Republican party--to block her nomination. Thus, conservative senators should be prepared, barring new and damning information, to vote in favor of Miers. The rest of us should be prepared to hold our breath until we start seeing what she writes.

We agree. If Miers turns out to align consistently with Scalia and Thomas on the big cases then whether she's the finest constitutional scholar available becomes less important. After all, Republican presidents have given us a lot of highly intellectual justices who waltzed to the left once they were seated on the Court. Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter come to mind. Given a choice between a fine legal scholar and a reliably conservative (i.e. originalist) vote we'll happily take the latter.

Sadly, though, we could have had both.

Putting Earle on Defense

Tom DeLay's lawyer, acting on the adage that the best defense is a good offense, has subpoened Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle's records. Mr. Earle, like most bullies, is unaccustomed to having his victims fight back. Even so, DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, believes there has been a serious breach of professional ethics on the part of Mr. Earle and intends to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. This is shaping up to be a real donneybrook.

The lawyers at PowerLine have some good background on this story.

No Booty Shaking Allowed

In a fine article at Evangelical Outpost Joe Carter cites the Texas cheerleader "booty shaking" legislation to make the point that conservatism isn't really so much about small government as it is about healing sick societies. The heart of his post is this passage:

I believe this example provides an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding about conservatives and our attitude toward legislating issues of morality and "taste." While resolving disputes over the locus of autonomy, responsibility, and sphere sovereignty of institutions is essential, conservatism isn't, as is commonly misperceived, about "small government."

When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.

The late media critic and educator Neil Postman used this same medical analogy in describing the proper role of teachers. In his essay "The Educationist as Painkiller", Postman proposes that educators don't try to make students intelligent, because we don't know how to do that, but instead try to cure stupidity in "some of the more obvious forms, such as either-or thinking; overgeneralization; inability to distinguish between facts and inferences; and reification, a disturbingly prevalent tendency to confuse words with things."

"Stupidity is a form of behavior," adds Postman, "It is not something we have; it is something we do." The presence of stupidity can therefore be reduced by changing behavior. As a guiding political philosophy, conservatism plays a similar role in society as Postman's paradigmatic teacher. Conservatives, in essence, prescribe procedures for avoiding moral stupidity.

His analysis of what it is conservatives seek to accomplish is interesting. It's true that, as a general rule, bloated governments are symptomatic of a sick society. Consider for example the great harm done to the poor in this country by addicting them to the vast welfare state that subsidized and perpetuated all manner of social dysfunction from the sixties to the nineties. It doesn't follow, however, that there should never be instances, e.g. disaster relief, conservation of historical sites or biologically significant lands, or homeland security, when government takes on a larger role in society. Nevertheless, it requires great care and discernment to assess where and in which way government should be granted power to grow and act, and the way is fraught with many perils.

Carter suggests that it may perhaps be counterproductive for conservatives to argue adamantly that government should be kept as small and unintrusive as it can be, consistent with its role in national defense. After all, conservatives want the government to be intrusive when it's a matter of regulating pornography or sleazy television programming. By what principle do we call on government to protect us from the assaults of the concupiscent juveniles who write television scripts but insist that government stay out of other areas of our lives?

So the question, especially in light of President Bush's exercise of "compassionate conservatism" and his indulgence of deficit spending, is whether conservatives should rethink their traditional view of government. Mr. Bush has certainly given us occasion to begin that reassessment.

The fear that people like me have in saying all this, though, is that once we allow our ideological tether to slacken we risk losing the security and consistency afforded by a well-anchored set of guiding principles. Even worse, we risk, heaven forbid, becoming moderates.

"Sexist" Conservatives

Laura Bush is a lovely woman, but she's not helping to soothe the rift between her husband and his staunchest supporters over the last few years by accusing those supporters of being sexist because of their opposition to Harriet Miers' candidacy for the Supreme Court:

First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer made her a role model to young women.

Mrs. Bush's statement was thoughtless. The critics of the Miers nomination are not opposed to having a woman on the court and indeed would love to see Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, Edith Jones, or Alice Batchelder nominated. Their objection to Miers is rooted in the fact that she's an unknown at a time when there are at least a dozen exceptional candidates whose judicial philosophy and acumen have been demonstrated for all to see. The president has asked us to trust him, and conservatives want to do so, but they also want the best qualified people appointed to the court that Mr. Bush can find, and the White House has given us no reason to think that Ms Miers belongs on that list.

Unlike his conservative critics, perhaps, the president is not overly impressed by scholarly credentials. That is not to say that these are not important to him, but rather to say that they're not of primary importance. He's a man who places more weight on an individual's personal character and virtues and believes that Ms Miers' possession of such assests more than compensates for any shortage of judicial experience or expertise she might suffer. Unfortunately, assessments of character don't lend themselves to quantification and they strike many as vague and subjective, so the administration is unable to mount a compelling rationale for its selection. That's why Bush has to ask that we simply trust him.

The critics respond by noting that there are plenty of candidates out there from which the president could have chosen who have both character and an impressive paper trail, and they are dismayed that he declined to pick from that group. Nor are they shy about giving voice to their disappointment. Unlike the critics, though, we think it to no good purpose to be too critical of the president's nominee until the hearings.

If she's impressive the criticism will appear foolish, if she's a dud then there will be time to call for her defeat on the Senate floor - although defeating her will surely be an uphill battle. If she ultimately turns out to be David Souter in heels then conservatives may justly join with liberals in decrying George Bush's historical legacy and the magnificent opportunity he squandered despite his campaign assurances to the contrary.

See Captain's Quarters for some thoughtful analysis of Mrs. Bush's comments and the Miers nomination.

Niggardly Americans

According to an article in the Independent Online Pakistanis criticize the U.S. and Britain for a niggardly response to the disaster created by the recent earthquake:

Western governments rushed to step up their pledges for the earthquake relief effort after their initial response to the disaster was condemned as slow-moving and financially inadequate.

The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (�280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.

The gesture, intended to make up for the resentment caused by an initial pledge which, along with the British offering of �100,000, was labelled as "peanuts" by Qazi Hussain, the leader of the Pakistani opposition party Jamat Islami, was greeted as a major boost to the struggling relief effort.

This just shows what ingrates Americans are. After Pakistan rushed so much aid to our Gulf coast in the wake of Katrina you would think we'd be more forthcoming. Just because Pakistan looks the other way as hatred of America and Americans is offered up as regular fare in madrassas and mosques is no reason why we shouldn't have had relief supplies on the way even before the earthquake hit.

We should do what we can, of course, but it certainly diminshes one's desire to sacrifice for another when the other demands that you do it and then criticizes you for not doing it on his time schedule and not giving right away what he thinks you ought to give. We're tempted to say to such as Mr. Hussain that maybe he should just hit up his fellow Muslims for the relief his countrymen need. They're much more generous than Americans, and we're sure that they'll flood the country with all the help Mr. Hussain could ask for.

Why ID Will Win

Douglas Kern has an article at Tech Central Station titled Why Intelligent Design is Going to Win. He writes:

It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually.

He then goes on to posit five claims in support of his thesis:

1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.

2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.

4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.

5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.

The text of the article gives supporting arguments for each of the above five assertions. It's pretty interesting.

We'd like to suggest a sixth reason: ID will win because it's obvious to everyone who isn't blinded by a materialist bias that life is such an unlikely phenomenon in any universe even minutely different from our own that the sense that our world is quite probably the product of purposeful intent is overwhelming.

Once it seeps into the public consciousness and discourse that the universe is the result of intentional engineering rather than blind, purposeless forces the correlative idea that the obvious design in the biosphere is also a consequence of intelligent agency will become much more easily accepted.

Indeed, when the public becomes aware that Intelligent Design is a kind of philosophical Grand Unifying Theory, uniting the earth, space, and biological sciences under the teleological umbrella, it will gain a purchase on the public imagination that will could make it virtually irresistable.

The Worldwide Caliphate

The Washington Post describes a recently intercepted letter from Ayman Zawahiri, Bin Laden's deputy, to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the brutal leader of al Qaida in Iraq:

The letter of instructions and requests outlines a four-stage plan, according to officials: First, expel American forces from Iraq. Second, establish a caliphate over as much of Iraq as possible. Third, extend the jihad to neighboring countries, with specific reference to Egypt and the Levant -- a term that describes Syria and Lebanon. And finally, war against Israel.

U.S. officials say they were struck by the letter's emphasis on the centrality of Iraq to al Qaeda's long-term mission. One of the two excerpts provided by officials quotes Zawahiri, a former doctor from Egypt, telling his Jordanian-born ally, "I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

But bin Laden's deputy also purportedly makes clear that the war would not end with an American withdrawal and that anything other than religious rule in Iraq would be dangerous.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us," the letter reportedly says.

Bin Laden's deputy has spoken before about the broad plans for the al Qaeda movement. In a book smuggled out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Zawahiri said the goal of jihad is to establish a religious state throughout the Islamic world and "reinstate its fallen caliphate and regain its lost glory."

The report elicits a couple of thoughts: First, it vindicates the war, if not the means by which the war has been fought. The Islamists see Iraq as central to their efforts to establish Islamic rule throughout the world.

Second, the Sheehanites who are calling for an immediate pullout are extremely irresponsible, or worse. All withdrawal would accomplish would be to widen the theater of operations for the Islamists and every government in the Middle East which did not bend to their will would quickly fall. Once the U.S. no longer forces the Islamists to concentrate their energies in Iraq, the scourge of Islamo-fascism will spread across the region and eventually across the world.

Their jihad is not about poverty or oppression, it's about religion and it's about hatred for every person or nation which resists the goal of a world-wide caliphate. They are fanatical and will not be appeased by U.N. resolutions or economic bribes. They will not rest until every Israeli is dead and Talibanic governments prevail throughout the ancient Islamic world from Indonesia to Spain and the rest of the globe lives in servile dhimmitude.

We have to win in Iraq. Unless we choose unilaterally to quit the fight, the GWOT is not going to have a quick, clean denouement. The conflict will probably endure throughout much of our children's lifetimes. This is unpleasant to contemplate, but the only realistic alternative is surrender and the knife sawing at our children's and grandchildren's throats.

Dysfunctional Police Force

Michelle Malkin has the necessary links to get up to speed on the travesty that is the New Orleans police force. First, many officers were AWOL in the runup and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, then others were apparently involved in looting businesses and homes, then the police superintendent suddenly up and quit, and now there is a taped beating of a 64 year old inebriate which appears completely unwarranted.

If the mayor of this city were a white Republican the media would be screaming at the top of its lungs for his resignation. As it is, New Orleans' Mayor Nagin seems to own one of those courtesy cards that entitles the bearer to special privileges, including immunity from liberal media criticism.

Eenie, Meenie

In an article alluded to an earlier post (Beneath Even Debating?) the TimesOnline specifies those claims of the Bible which the Catholic bishops of England have decided are untrue and those which are true. It's a very interesting list, raising the question of what criteria the bishops' decisions were based upon.

Here's the list:

UNTRUE:

Genesis ii, 21-22: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Genesis iii, 16: God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Matthew xxvii, 25: The words of the crowd: "His blood be on us and on our children."

Revelation xix,20: And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone."

TRUE:

Exodus iii, 14: God reveals himself to Moses as: "I am who I am."

Leviticus xxvi,12: "I will be your God, and you shall be my people."

Exodus xx,1-17: The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7: The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29: Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i: The Virgin Birth

John xx,28: Proof of bodily resurrection

We wonder how the bishops decided that the Genesis passages which were adjudged untrue were, in fact, not true. It would also be worth knowing what the bishops mean when they say that the passage is not true. Do they mean that it is not true in any sense or do they simply mean that it's not literally true? The column seems to suggest the latter, but it's not clear.

The passage from Matthew seems to offend simply because it has been used to rationalize anti-semitism which the bishops apparently think is reason enough to declare it false. If so, they're resorting to emotional rather than scholarly reasons for making their judgment. The Revelation passage is apparently deemed false because it seems too fantastic, but then why do the Virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ pass the test?

Perhaps the sages of the Church had good reasons for their choices, but they seem to have decided on the basis of their own sense of credulity, almost as though they were playing a game of theological eenie, meenie. We hope not.

Beneath Even Debating?

Andrew Sullivan cites this article in the TimesOnLine UK on a statement by Catholic Bishops in England regarding the literal truth of the Bible. The writer, Ruth Gledhill, states that:

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in schools, believing "intelligent design" to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

Gledhill is identified as the religion writer for the Times Online so she should know better. That she would write such a sentence is evidence that either she's incompetent or she's willfully trying to deceive her readers.

Let's deconstruct her claim:

1) It is true that some Christians would like to have a literal reading of Genesis taught in public schools but no one has seriously tried to accomplish this since Louisiana's attempts were defeated by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in the late 1980s.

2) The belief that Genesis is literally, and thus scientifically, true is creationism. It is not Intelligent Design. ID takes no formal position on any of the questions raised by the Genesis account. Genesis could be shown to be completely wrong in every particular and Intelligent Design would be unaffected.

3) Intelligent Design is not a theory "of how the world began." It says nothing about how the world originated. The theory of Intelligent Design makes only two claims: First, it claims that blind, unguided, impersonal forces and processes are not adequate by themselves to account either for the exquisite fine-tuning of the cosmos in every aspect of its structure, nor the high level of information found in the biosphere. Second, it claims that any adequate explanation of both the pervasive fine-tuning of the cosmos and the high information content of living things must somehow include intelligent agency.

Sullivan shows that he doesn't understand what's going on in the current debate any better than does Glendhill when he offers this comment:

The Catholic bishops of England tell American fundamentalists the bleeding obvious: not everything in the Bible is literally true. Money quote: "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision." Of course. Anyone who believes that the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is not expressing his or her "religious beliefs". Believing something that is demonstrably and empirically untrue is not religion. It is simply superstition or lunacy. It has nothing to do with faith in things we cannot know. The notion that it should actually be taught in public schools as science is beneath even debating.

This is a classic straw man fallacy. Sullivan wants the reader to believe that what's at stake in efforts like that currently being fought out in the courts in Kitzmiller v. Dover is whether students will be taught that "the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago." This, of course, is not at all what is at issue despite the attempts of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case to create that impression.

What is being contended in the Dover case is whether a school board should have the right to insist that when biology teachers instruct students that life is the product solely of blind, unguided, impersonal processes that they also point out that not all scientists nor philosophers think that to be true. Some of them, perhaps many of them, think that intelligence must somehow have been involved.

It would be interesting to see Mr. Sullivan or the Catholic bishops demonstrate that any of this is "demonstrably and empirically untrue."

From the Mail Bag

Every now and then we get an e-mail like this that makes us feel that we're doing something worthwhile:

I've been following Viewpoint for a little over a year now, since [a teacher] introduced me to it. I believe that this [Real Reform] is one of, if not the best, entry you've written since I've started reading Viewpoint.

Every word of what you've written in this entry is completely accurate and to the point. Your eleven points are, in my opinion, entirely viable, if only the populous, and the various levels of government by extension, "decide to make American public schools truly excellent."

Thank you for taking the time and effort to make Viewpoint such an excellent resource and treasure trove of information.

Thank You,

Micah

Thank you, Micah.

Denying the Obvious

I had occasion the other night to spend the evening with a very bright group of people (my presence in the group was something of an anomaly) discussing issues related to the Intelligent Design controversy. One participant, a Darwinian and geneticist, objected to a question from another participant by replying that she doesn't talk about design in biology because to do so is unscientific.

It would have been rude to have interrupted the conversation, which didn't really involve me, but I was tempted. I wanted to say that there's nothing unscientific about noting design in living things; almost every biologist does it (except her, apparently), and the fact that living things are designed all the way down to the molecular level is not denied by anyone and is not in dispute. What's in dispute is the cause of the design.

Darwinians insist that the design evident to anyone who has ever studied sixth grade life science is the product solely of blind, unguided processes like mutation and natural selection. Intelligent Design theorists, on the other hand, wish to affirm that blind processes alone are inadequate mechanisms for engineering the degree of complexity and information we see in the biosphere. They argue that some degree of intelligent input is required to satisfactorily explain it.

Evolutionists must really be running scared if they're so afraid of handing their opponents a rhetorical advantage that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the natural world is full of designed structures and systems. Materialistic evolutionists seem to be nervous about using the word design because they don't wish to encourage the general public to think along those lines. The concern may be that the public might draw the conclusion that, given a choice between explaining complex design in terms of coincidence and blind luck and explaining it in terms of intention and purpose, the former suffers grievously in the comparison.

Speaking of ID, the reader might be interested in this column by Jeff Jacoby on why Intelligent Design is a legitimate topic for discusion in science classes. He gets it.

The Religion Test

E.J. Dionne writing at Tech Central Station, detects a whiff of hypocrisy among those conservatives who thought it outrageous that senate liberals were hinting that John Roberts' religion might disqualify him from a seat on the Supreme Court but who are encouraging support for Harriet Miers on the basis that she's an evangelical Christian.

Dionne approvingly cites Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters blog:

"The push by more enthusiastic Miers supporters to consider her religious outlook smacks of a bit of hypocrisy," Morrissey wrote. "After all, we argued the exact opposite when it came to John Roberts and William Pryor when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.... Conservatives claimed that using religion as a reason for rejection violated the Constitution and any notion of religious freedom. Does that really change if we base our support on the same grounds?"

The answer to this last question is "Why would it not?" That a particular trait should not be allowed to count against someone is no reason to believe that the trait shouldn't count in his or her favor. A candidate for the presidency, for example, should not be disqualified because he holds religious beliefs similar to those held by a large swath of Americans, but he certainly may be seen as a more suitable candidate because he does. Similarly, a woman should not be disqualified on the basis of her gender from serving in public office, but her gender may help make her an attractive candidate for such an office.

This seems like such simple logic that although we're not surprised that it escaped Dionne, we are surprised that Morrissey doesn't see it.

The only question that should be raised by the religious beliefs of a candidate for the Supreme Court is whether those beliefs will prejudice his or her reading of the constitution. That she is a devout Christian suggests to many people that the answer Miers would give to that question is "no." Her faith imposes upon her an obligation to maintain the highest standards of judicial integrity and to live by the oath she will take to uphold the constitution. Knowing that she feels so obligated, both to her conscience and to her God, should be a source of comfort to those who must decide upon her suitability to serve.

Smelly Little Orthodoxies

Academic freedom at the University of Idaho is in serious peril. The totalitarian thought police have ascended all the way to the office of the presidency and anyone who abridges the accepted orthodoxies will be disciplined.

Were this not so serious it would be funny. University professors are free to do and say virtually anything in their classrooms no matter how irrelevant to the curriculum as long as it is either anti-American, anti-Christian, or pro-gay. Whether it's salacious, lubricious, banal, or just plain stupid doesn't matter - it's speech consonant, we are told, with the university's responsibility to challenge students to question the "smelly little orthodoxies" of our time. But if a professor decides to challenge his students to consider the possibility that Darwin had things wrong, he'll be out on his ear. Evidently, some dogmas are more sacred than others.

Real Reform

A former teacher named Aaron Belz lays out his vision for improving schools in the U.S. Having taught in a pretty good public high school myself for thirty five years I found much of what he says to be worthwhile and, on the other hand, much to be completely impractical. Despite the latter, Belz writes an interesting essay though his five concluding suggestions for improving schools seem much too idealistic:

1. Campuses should be carefully designed to create space for thinking, writing, reading, and athletics. Classrooms should be open, comfortable environments that respect students as intellectuals in the making. Seating should be at tables or in a circle;

2. Rules for behaviour on campus should tend toward principle rather than specific code, and they should be enforced in large part by a student honour council. Rules should err on the side of giving students too much liberty;

3. Coursework should center on primary books, poems, plays, and physical objects rather than pre-fabricated textbooks and quizzes. As a general rule, no books should be used that later will be discarded as "only for school." Discussion - equal and open-ended, not Socratic needling - should be the centerpiece of each course. Practice (field work) is essential;

4. Subjects should be studied in much larger blocks of time - weeks, perhaps months. Inter-disciplinary threading is essential, so that students have a sense of holism about their quest; and

5. Assessment should be radically reconsidered, with the likely result of eradicating the alphanumeric grading system. Teachers must be given time to assess their students' progress individually.

I don't like to be put in the role of naysayer, but I'm afraid these suggestions would prove either too expensive, unworkable, or otherwise ineffective. As an alternative, I would like to offer eleven suggestions of my own for improving public schools. If we were really serious about having the best educational system possible here's what we would do:

1. Allow students to graduate after their tenth grade year with the option of staying on through twelfth grade if their grades and behavior qualify them for the extra two years. Most students in the bottom 10% to 15% of their class learn almost nothing between ninth and twelfth grades. These students are often alienated and behaviorally difficult and they frequently create an atmosphere in the classroom that diminishes the chances their classmates will learn and which demoralizes teachers. Give them the opportunity, if they meet certain standards, to get a provisional diploma after tenth grade and let them get out of school and into the work force. Little good comes from having them hang around.

2. Raise the driving age to 18. Nothing diverts a student from the books like a car (unless its a girl/boy friend). Raising the driving age will be an inconvenience for parents who will have to provide more of the transportation, but keeping kids at home rather than having them out wasting gas is worth the trouble.

3. Prohibit students under 18 from holding a job during the school year. Most students who work are trying to pay the insurance on their car and buy gas. The jobs they hold are often not the sort which build skills that can be translated into future benefit. Their work often doesn't even bring them into contact with people outside their peer group. Every hour flipping burgers or bussing tables is an hour away from home and homework.

4. Institute dress codes and enforce them. There is no good argument against them and lots of good arguments in their favor. Conservatives ridiculed Clinton for proposing that school's require student uniforms, but that was one of his best ideas. Quality of dress sets the tone for one's attitude about his/her role. Students wearing ties behave differently than when they're dressed more casually. We insist on buying our athletes the sharpest looking uniforms we can afford because we know that classy dress elevates one's performance and instills pride. That's why most coaches have their athletes dress up to travel to away games. But we let our students dress like exotic dancers or refugees from some natural disaster when in the classroom, and then we wonder why they don't take more pride in their school work. The argument that dress codes rob a student of his "individuality" is silly. Sports superstars like Michael Jordan and others had no trouble establishing their "individuality" while wearing the same uniform their teammates did.

5. Permanently expel students who are disruptive, disrespectful, malicious, violent, or chronically in trouble. Such students are a cancer in the student body and just one such individual in the classroom greatly alters the learning atmosphere in that room. Their presence is corrupting and demoralizing. Yet we refuse to remove them because the law says that taxpayers have to provide for their education if they're not in school. This is a ridiculous law and should be rescinded.

6. Encourage academic/intellectual elitism (as opposed to snobbery) just like we encourage athletic elitism. The idea that elitism is bad is nonsense. What's bad is snobbery based on economic status. Elitism based on achievement or values, the sense of pride in one's accomplishments and convictions because they're right and better than those of people who disdain them is a good thing and needs to be stimulated.

7. Hire teachers who are scholars. Not all teachers can or need be scholars, but no one who is not should be teaching the top 50% of students in an academic discipline.

8. Let teachers determine the curriculum or at least give them a dominant role in the decision-making. Administrators are managers, they're not educators, and few of them have much experience as teachers. Many administrators never read anything other than Sports Illustrated magazine or mass market novels. They're mostly good men and women, but they don't see themselves as particularly interested in developing their own intellects, and it's hard to cultivate and nourish student minds if you have no idea based on your own experience what such a task entails. Administrators should handle discipline, organization, and public relations and stay out of the academic affairs of the school to the extent that that is possible.

9. Don't let anything take precedence over academics in the school day. One of the biggest pet peeves of teachers I've known is that in many schools everything and anything trumps the classroom. Kids in the school in which I taught were forever getting out of class for pointless field trips, theater or band practices, and a myriad of other silly reasons. Yet a teacher could never take a student out of one of these other activities in order to insist he be in class. My school sent the subliminal message to kids that the least important thing they do in their day is attend class. When the culture of the school instills that attitude in students, even if inadvertently, a teacher's job becomes much harder than it needs to be.

10. Put a limit on how many students will occupy a building. When student populations reach a certain size they become too impersonal. Impersonal schools may be able to churn out students who are academically competent, but they cannot easily teach the virtues students need to learn to be whole persons and citizens.

11. Segregate middle and high schools by sex. Having young men in the midst of testosterone hyperdrive share close spaces with young ladies awash in a pheromonic miasma is no way to keep either of them focused on the eight parts of speech. When young men share classrooms with young women their behavior is often distorted, their attentions are diverted, and their focus is disrupted. Education would be easier and more effective if such distractions were minimized.

Of course, none of these suggestions will ever be implemented as long as taxpayers are content with mediocre education. If, however, legislators ever decide to make American public schools truly excellent, if they ever become interested in genuine educational reform, adopting any of these measures would be a big step in the right direction. And most of them would hardly cost a cent.

Hide the Salami?!

Howard Dean is always good for laughs at his own expense. The other night on Chris Matthews' Hardball Dean, in talking about whether the White House would release documents that might contain information that would give insight into Harriet Miers' suitability to serve on the Supreme Court, said:

"Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, Hide the Salami, or whatever it's called."

We doubt that "Hide the Salami" was the precise construction for which Dr. Dean was groping. In our recollection, "Hide the Salami" has very little to do with matters involving the White House, or at least it hasn't since President Clinton left office.

Howard Dean seems intent on confirming the widespread opinion that he's a buffoon. One wonders whether anyone takes seriously anything he says.

From The "R Man", Richard Russell

Here's Richard Russell's latest take on the state of things. Must reading in my opinion.

What I believe is happening is that investors, both domestic and international, have collectively recognized that the dollar's in trouble. And if the dollar's in trouble, everything denominated in dollars is in trouble. This concept has such enormous implications that it's almost beyond the comprehension of most professionals and totally beyond the comprehension of the great American retail public.

What, America's "mighty" reserve currency in trouble? The answer is "yes," but it's an answer that few analysts or journalists are addressing. The US population has depended on the dollar's reserve-status and "invincibility" for so long that it has never occurred to them that their debt-laden currency could be slowly losing its reserve status. And you have to ask yourself -- when a nation has to borrow money to pay off its own rising debts, how long can it be before it's currency reflects this dire state of affairs?

My own opinion is that the stock market's weakness is a function of big money leaving the scene. Where is the big money going? The answer is -- away from US dollars. But towards what? Towards other paper currencies such as the euro or even the yen -- but mainly towards tangibles, towards anything of real value unencumbered by debt. And world money is certainly moving toward the only intrinsic (non-debt) currency -- gold (with silver as a second choice).

Is oil a tangible? Yes, I consider oil a tangible, but unlike gold, you can't buy actual oil and put it in your bank vault. Of course, there are oil futures, but I don't recommend futures for most subscribers. This reduces oil to oil stocks and ETFs, including XLE and VDE.

A few days ago I made the statement that this is not just another "emergency oil spike," this is our first primary bull market in oil and energy. Thus, I would treat oil in the same way I treat gold. I'm not trading oil, I'm not timing oil purchases. You take your position, and you sit and allow the primary trend to do its work.

Oil became overbought, and as expected, oil is now correcting. I don't know how far the correction will carry, but I suspect it will be mild. Those wanting to participate in the oil-energy bull market should think in terms of ERFs, or the closed-end fund PEO.

The ominous but brilliant piece below was from the PrudentBear site, a site that I never fail to turn to -- Russell.

Guest Commentary, by Rob Lee Signals of the End of the Dollar Standard October 5, 2005

Rob Lee is an economist who has been involved in investment markets for 30 years, the last few in nominal retirement. I am an economist who worked for 25 years in large investment companies in South Africa.

I "retired" to the UK a few years ago. For most of my career I lobbied for policies such as money supply targets and later inflation targets that were (implicitly) intended to substitute the role of gold as an independent anchor for the monetary system. I was never an advocate of any form of gold standard, unlike the current Fed Chairman, now ironically testing the fiat money system to destruction.

However, in recent years the scales have fallen from my eyes. As Voltaire said in 1729 "paper money eventually goes down to its intrinsic value - zero." Every fiat paper currency before or since has confirmed to this prediction. A fiat paper currency that is also the global reserve currency becomes this problem writ large. A US Treasury official of old - Sam Cross - put it this way: "if you postulate a system that depends on one country always following the right policies, you will find that sooner or later no such country exists. The system is eventually going to break down". In my view the Dollar Standard system is irretrievably breaking down, as signaled by four recent developments described below:

1. China has ended its currency peg to the dollar. The new exchange rate system for the Yuan is admittedly not yet a dramatic break from the dollar fixed peg . That is not the Chinese way. It is nevertheless hugely symbolic. It serves notice that China will be increasingly reluctant to accumulate dollars they know will depreciate in value over time. Chinese economic spokesmen have made no secret in public of their alarm at US profligacy - what is said behind closed doors?

China is clearly intent on exchanging its paper assets (predominantly dollars) for real assets, notably commodities in general and energy products in particular. On gold the strategy focuses on encouraging private citizens to own gold- deregulation of the gold market has been rapid by Chinese standards. [Ironically it may now be easier for citizens of China to invest directly in gold than it is in many western democracies].

China is likely to prefer to remove dollar support only gradually. Bear in mind though that most of the smaller economies in Asia tend to follow China - Malaysia announced a similar change to its exchange rate system very soon after the Chinese. Other countries from outside the region - notably Russia and Saudi Arabia - have indicated an intention to downgrade the dollar in their currency arrangements. Iran is attempting to create an oil trading exchange that does not transact in dollars. These are ominous straws in the wind for a currency so dependent on foreign capital.

2. Deflation in Japan is coming to an end. Japan is the biggest foreign holder of US dollars. For example, Japan held $680bn in US Treasury Securities at the end of June - nearly 34% of total foreign holdings. This compares with $291bn held by China (including Hong Kong). Japan will therefore play a critical part in any changes to the world's currency system.

US-Japan relations are far closer than those between the US and China. Japan also has literally more to lose from the demise of the dollar than China. Nevertheless the same logic that impels China's move away from US paper applies to Japan. As long as deflation remained the key economic concern in Japan supporting the dollar was the paramount objective of its exchange rate policy. However, there are clear signs of a self-sustaining recovery of domestic employment, investment, and consumption in Japan. The recent election victory of PM Koizumi should reinforce reform and recovery. These forces are simultaneously bringing an end to both the deflationary process and to dependence on exports for growth. The imperative to support the dollar will erode and interest rates in Japan will begin to normalize. Another straw in the wind - Japan did not increase its holdings of US Treasuries in the first half of 2005.

3. The US in effect now has to borrow abroad in order to service all its foreign debt. The remarkable down spiral in the US foreign financial position took another crucial but little noticed twist recently. In the second quarter of 2005 the US paid out more in income to foreigners on their US assets than it received in income on its foreign assets. Technically net foreign investment income went negative. No comfort should be taken from the fact the second quarter investment income deficit was a mere $0.5bn. The income deficit will deteriorate rapidly in coming years. The US has net foreign debt (foreign liabilities minus foreign assets) of more than $ 2.5 trillion, and this debt will grow rapidly as the US continues to rack up huge current account deficits (now roughly $800bn annually). The income deficit on this debt has only just gone negative because the US receives a rate of return on its foreign assets roughly double that of overseas investors in the US - about 7% versus 3.4% between 2002 and 2004.

This differential return reflects the fact that Americans have invested largely in riskier assets abroad while foreigners have opted more for Treasury securities. A world economic downturn (likely in my view) would reduce returns on US overseas assets, while rising US interest rates will raise the return to foreigners. The longer term dynamics of this process are alarming. Within a short period of years the US will be borrowing hundreds of billions merely to service existing debt. Economists call this the "debt trap" - and the US economy is heading inexorably into it Can the US dollar sustain its position as the world reserve currency in the face of these fundamentals? As the saying goes, you only have to ask the question to know the answer.

4. The gold price is breaking out in all key currencies. Not all the world's investors (or central bankers!) are blind to the scary developments sketched above. Gold in dollars has definitively been in a bull market for some time, but in recent weeks gold has decisively broken out all key currencies including the Euro, Yen, Swiss Franc and Sterling. Markets are recognizing that the failure of the Dollar Standard is one not only of US economic management but one inherent in the fiat money system itself. In the long term they may demand gold's return as an anchor to the global monetary system.

The flight from paper assets (and especially dollars) towards hard assets is now underway in earnest. There is still time - this is a multi-year trend - for investors to switch from devaluing dollars to rising gold. Those ahead of the herd are moving but the herd itself is yet to stir.

There you have it folks.

Winning Without Fighting

Bush once again has the Democrats discombobulated. They are almost forced to support his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court despite her pro-life opinions and strong evangelical faith. They know so little about her that they can still plausibly hope that she might not be as "bad" as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. Should she fail to be confirmed, however, whoever is nominated in her place is most likely going to be a Thomas/Scalia clone, and it will be much harder to defeat a second nominee. Miers is about the closest thing to what the Dems want that they're likely to get, and they'll almost have to see her confirmed or face a far tougher fight over a more obviously qualified substitute.

If Miers really is a conservative and an intelligent strict constructionist, and if that's truly what the President wanted on the Court, then he is indeed a wizard at political strategy. He gets (ex hypothesi) a qualified originalist on the Bench by forcing the Dems to vote for her and without having to fight them for their vote.

Hugh Hewitt linked to someone today who recalls the words of Sun Tzu:

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence."

I think Sun Tzu would admire the Miers gambit.

Chaos and Anarchy

The LA Times tells us that media reports of chaos and anarchy in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina were highly exaggerated and largely incorrect. Indeed, it was these reports which caused relief teams to delay going into the city.

We'd do well to keep this in mind when we read the next dispatches from the MSM about how Iraq is descending into chaos and civil war.

Consciousness and Materialism

Philosopher David Chalmers notes that there has been a shift among philosophers of mind in the last decade from a strict materialistic reductionism (or physicalism) toward the view that mind cannot be reduced to matter (dualism), that mind and matter are essentially disparate entities. Dualists, by Chalmers' estimation, are still in the minority, but their numbers are growing. This is a fascinating development after a century and a half of philosophers and neurobiologists trying to show that mind is nothing more than a word we use to describe the function of the brain.

Materialism seems to be under assault everywhere. Marxist economic materialism has long been discredited, of course, and within the last fifteen years materialist conceptions of the cosmos have become increasingly untenable in light of discoveries being made by cosmologists about the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces, laws, and constants which govern the universe. Similarly, Intelligent Design is challenging materialism in the realm of biology, and now many philosophers are concluding that consciousness is something other than just chemical reactions in the brain.

Next thing you know philosophers will be resurrecting the concept of soul. It reminds me of the closing words of Robert Jastrow's God and the Astronomers. Jastrow notes that scientists have struggled, like men climbing a mountain, for every foothold and handhold that would help them reach the pinnacle - an understanding how our universe works. Every scrap of knowledge came at a great cost in effort and labor. Finally, after centuries of working their way toward the summit, they heave themselves over the last ledge only to find a bunch of theologians who've been sitting at the top all along.

It's the RINOs' Fault

No Left Turns' Julie Ponzi makes the point that if conservatives are unhappy with Bush's pick for the Supreme Court they shouldn't blame Bush they should blame the Quisling Republicans in the Senate:

And finally, if we really want to pick a fight with someone, why not take it to the spineless Republicans in the Senate whose shameful behavior in the last year has given us this moment? One might ask WHY Bush feels the need to play politics right now instead of complaining about the fact that he does. The Senate is why. We all know the Senate is why. Voinovich and DeWine--Ohio's two senators--are why. We need to do something about that before before we demand more of Bush. To do less is peevish and, worse, it hurts our cause. We will get another shot at it. The problem is that I think the people we most want to get the next nomination will be so tainted by the support of these childish rants that they won't be taken seriously. Too bad.

Quite so. Bush chooses to avoid a fight because he's not sure he can win it if he has to rely on RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) like Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins, as well as weak knees like Voinovich and DeWine. We, too, wish he would have selected a known quantity and that we'd have the fight the Democrats keep pushing us into, but we can't join with those conservatives who are essentially proclaiming that they just don't trust Bush to make a wise selection to the Court. For perhaps sound reasons he's chosen someone he believes he knows well, and there is some reason to expect that Ms Miers will vote with the Court's conservatives. Whether she has as solid an understanding of the constitution as an Antonin Scalia is much more uncertain but will no doubt become more clear at the hearings.

We understand conservative frustration and disappointment, but we think that people like William Kristol and George Will, who have excoriated the President for his selection of Ms. Miers, might well wind up looking foolish in the backlight of their harsh words. We'll see.

Uh, Oh. Not a <i>Christian</i>!

From the New York Times comes this shocking revelation about Harriet Miers:

"I think the one thing that comes across is she genuinely cares about people, at every level - professionally, personally, socially," said Hugh Hackney, a lawyer in Dallas who has known her since their undergraduate days at S.M.U. "She has always taken a great deal of time to really consider other people."

One thing Ms. Miers shares with her boss is a deep faith. She was introduced to Valley View Christian Church in Dallas by Justice Hecht, of the Texas Supreme Court. He was an elder at the church and often plays the organ during Sunday services.

"Harriet has placed her faith in Jesus," said the Rev. Ron Key, who was the longtime pastor there until recently. "She may have been religious before, but it's become more of a priority, more of a focus of her life. She has become a strong example of what happens in a person's life when they come to the faith."

Even as you read this, urgent letters from People For the American Way and other left-liberal organizations are being delivered to blue state homes all across the country calling on concerned liberals to rise up in outrage that Bush would nominate a Christian to the Supreme Court. How dare he treat the wall of church and state with such disdain? Christian women should be in church serving pot-luck suppers. They don't belong on the Supreme Court where who knows what mischief they'll stir up. There's no telling how much harm the nation could suffer by giving that kind of power to someone whose convictions are informed by the gospel.

This is going to be an ugly fight. We can't wait.

Assisted Suicide

The first case the Supreme Court is hearing this session is whether Oregon's assisted suicide law should be allowed to stand. The Bush administration opposes it on the grounds that the federal government has final authority on how controlled substances can be used and since federal legislation prohibits the use of drugs to help people end their lives, state laws allowing doctors to prescribe lethal doses of these substances should be struck down.

There are several questions raised by this case: Is it wise to have doctors assisting people in killing themselves? If doctors should not do this why do we have doctors assist the state in executing condemned prisoners? Will allowing the state to help people die erode the value we place on life? These are all important questions, but I'm not sure that they're relevant to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision. The narrow issue is whether it is unconstitutional for the state of Oregon to allow doctors to prescribe lethal dosages of drugs when federal law forbids it. The wider issue is whether the states have the right under the constitution to permit their citizens to take their own lives under certain circumstances.

It seems that there is really only one way a conservative can consistently answer this latter question and that is to say that the states should indeed have that right. This is ultimately a state's rights matter, just like conservatives say abortion should be. It would be very difficult to argue, as conservatives do, that whether their citizens should have the right to kill their unborn children should be left to the voters of each state to decide, but that whether their citizens will have the right to kill themselves must not be left to the voters of the states.

This is not to say that laws permitting self-euthanasia, or assisted self-euthanasia, are wise or moral. It's simply to say that the decision as to whether such practices should be legally condoned should be left to the citizens of the state in the same manner conservatives believe laws on abortion should be. How it can be argued that euthanasia is a matter for the federal government to control but that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion laws thrown back into the lap of state legislatures is not very clear, at least not to me.

Testing ID

There's an interesting article in the New York Times on the great clash between the magisteria of religion and science at the first Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion.

Whatever the arguments may be for rejecting evidence of intentional design in the biosphere, it seems that one must be not only unable but a forteriori unwilling, to see the evidence that the cosmos itself is the product of purpose and intelligence. Even if only half of what Michael Denton says in Nature's Destiny or Stephen Barr writes in Modern Physics and Ancient Faith is true, the evidence for a telic universe is simply astounding.

The atheist, I suppose, can always fall back on the old chestnut that no amount of evidence is sufficient to constitute proof that the universe was created by a mind and that it is incumbent upon the one who asserts the existence of something to prove that the entity exists.

What this ignores, however, is the fact that proof is person-relative. What constitutes proof for one who is willing to be persuaded will not constitute proof for the man who is unwilling to be moved by it. There is, as Pascal said, enough evidence to convince any man who is not dead set against it, and Denton and Barr have written books which bring that evidence into bold relief. There is indeed sufficient evidence to convince all but the most obdurate that something besides randomness and coincidence were at work in the crafting of this universe.

The writer of the Times article, George Johnson, states that "If the God hypothesis [i.e. the Designer hypothesis] is meaningful, it should be subject to a test. But the theistic gloss Dr. Polkinghorne and others give to science is immune to this kind of scrutiny. It has, by design, no observable consequences."

Whether this is true for Polkinghorne's work or not we cannot say, but it is hardly true for the work of others. Denton, for example offers this test:

If any fundamental force or physical law or chemical property were found which could have been other than what it is and not make the existence of higher life forms impossible then the teleological interpretation of the world would be discredited. If higher forms of life were to be discovered elsewhere in the universe thriving in environments significantly different from our own, there would be no grounds for maintaining the opinion that our world is uniquely suited for life. The argument from cosmic design rests on the conviction that our world is so exquisitely fine-tuned for life that if it were structured just a little bit differently than it is life would be impossible. If that conviction were to be falsified the argument from cosmic design would lose its force.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that the criterion of testability as a measure of meaningfulness is a two-edged sword. If an assertion must be testable to be scientifically meaningful then what are we to make of the Darwinist claim that life arose and evolved to its present state through purely mechanistic, blind, and unguided processes acting over long periods of time? The task of contriving a test of this assertion would baffle the finest minds in science, yet it's considered by all hands to be a perfectly meaningful claim.

There are many similar claims in science that defy testing, but which are considered meaningful propositions. If we are to dismiss the claim that the universe is the product of intentional design because of an alleged inability to be tested then we're going to have to also throw out a great deal of evolutionary biology and modern physics.

The American Soldier

Yesterday we posted an account of the toughness and courage of American soldiers and Marines. Today we direct you to this story which illustrates another side of the American soldier.

Despite the Left's steady focus on the mistreatment of prisoners that occured over a year ago at the hands of a relative few sadists, the average American G.I. is more like these guys in "Deuce Four" than they are like Lynde England.

The Peculiar Story of Judith Miller

The Judith Miller story is more than a little odd (See here for a complete account of the affair). Miller, you will recall went to prison rather than reveal her sources for a story - which she never wrote - on the matter of how Valerie Plame's identity as a covert operative for the CIA came to be made public.

The source she was ostensibly protecting was Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby, but Libby told her over a year ago that she had his permission to testify about any conversations she had had with him.

He then wrote a letter last month repeating his permission to reveal anything she wanted to the grand jury investigating the matter. Even so, she chose to remain in jail for another ten days before agreeing to testify.

Why? PowerLine has the details of the story and offers these three possibile answers to the question:

1) Miller went to jail because she wanted to pose as a martyr, and she just needs an excuse for why she now wants to go home. That's plausible as far as it goes, but it doesn't explain why Miller stayed in jail for another week and a half after getting Libby's "clarification," while her lawyer negotiated with the prosecutor. 2) Miller went to jail because she didn't want to answer questions about her tipping off a terrorist-supporting group [for whom] the FBI was about to execute a search warrant, an episode that also could have come before Fitzpatrick's grand jury. She and her lawyer laid the blame on Libby so that the public wouldn't learn about the other episode, which is pretty much unknown. Plausible, and consistent with what we've been told about her lawyer's deal with the prosecutor--if, indeed, the terrorist tipoff was something that Fitzgerald could have pursued. I'm not sure whether that's correct or not. 3) The third alternative is the most sinister: Miller went to jail to protect not Libby, but another source or sources, and the prosecutor has agreed not to ask her about those other sources. If that's true, it suggests that someone in the administration--presumably, either Karl Rove or Scooter Libby--is being set up.

Whatever the answer her behavior is strange, and it will be interesting to see what she has to say to the grand jury. Our hunch is that this investigation is going nowhere, at least nowhere that the enemies of Karl Rove would like to see it go. All of the excitement that rippled through the MSM last spring and summer as they eagerly anticipated seeing Rove brought low and maybe even led out of his office in leg irons, has evaporated away like a morning mist. Just another case of a great deal of left-wing sound and fury signifying nothing. Next up, Tom DeLay.

Tough Breed

Here's a brief story about the kind of men who are fighting against Islamic extremists in Iraq so that our families are safer from them here:

Lt. Col. Matthew Lopez was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during multiple firefights his Marines were engaged in during battles in al Qaim, Iraq, in April 2004. Shot in the back during an ambush on his convoy and with multiple broken ribs, it was not until after a second firefight further down the road and well into the night that he recieved treatment.

Lt. Col. Lopez was awarded the prestigious Silver Star today for his actions during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when his unit came under fire near the Syrian border in Iraq.

Riding in the 3rd vehicle of an 8-vehicle convoy, heading to assist other Marines in another firefight, Lopez's own unit was suddenly hit with enemy fire. The Marines fired back as they had numerous times before.

When the smoke cleared, Lopez and his Marines had killed 25 insurgents. Twenty-two Marines in the convoy lay wounded, including Lopez himself.

"The shot hit (my) back," said Lopez. In addition, the impact of the round also broke a few of his ribs.

"My first thought was I didn't want to pass out," said Lopez, a Chicago native. "We'd already fought through one ambush and I wanted to get the injured Marines to the (corpsman) as quickly as possible."

The Marines were involved in another fight at a forward base checkpoint, and needed fire support. It wasn't until that night that Lopez was treated for the wounds he sustained.

Lt. Col. Lopez was Cpl. Jason Dunham's Battalion Commander, who saved his fellow Marines by selflessly diving on a grenade thrown by an insurgent. Dunham's Kilo Company 3/7, has a lion's share of honorable Marines, right up the chain to their commanding officer.

Brave, tough men. It's little wonder the enemy has never won a single combat engagement with our troops in Iraq. Nor is it any wonder that the enemy prefers to attack women and children rather than take on Marines like these.

Fly Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

Conservatives are split on George Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court. The American Center for Law and Justice calls Miers an "excellent" choice. But others are less pleased. A group called Public Advocate has released a statement which states that:

"The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

Strong stuff. William Kristol at the Weekly Standard is no less dismayed, claiming to be "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized."

Viewpoint joins Kristol in being disappointed that Bush didn't pick a proven conservative from among the eight or nine candidates that have outstanding judicial records, and we're concerned, too, that Meirs has no real record from which her views can be gleaned. Most of all, we're concerned that her nomination seems to have delighted Senator Chuck Schumer.

Conservatives fear that the specter of David Souter hangs ominously over both John Roberts and Harriet Miers since, like Souter, they both purport to be conservatives but also like Souter, we have no way of assessing the depth of their commitment to an originalist reading of the constitution. Souter has turned out terribly, and the trepidation among conservatives is due to the possibility that Roberts and, even more, Miers, may turn out likewise.

Perhaps. But the difference in the present case is that George Bush is committed, we hope, to putting constitutional originalists on the court. He also knows Miers very well. Unlike his father who didn't know anything about Souter, W. knows Miers' philosophy. Presumably, her convictions mesh with those of the President. If we believe his own judicial convictions and instincts to be correct then it is probably unwise to condemn him for his selection at this point in time. Conservatives have been disappointed by George Bush on more than one occasion, but in picking judges he's been impeccable and has, in our view, earned the benefit of the doubt. One is justified in withholding it only if one thinks that Bush is unprincipled enough to go back on his word that he wants conservative judges on the court. Whatever one thinks of Bush, however, "unprincipled" is hardly a fair description of his conduct in office over the last five years.

We think that much of the disgust and frustration expressed by conservatives over the Meirs pick derives from a desire for a resolution of the power struggle going on in the Senate. Conservatives want Republicans to apply the coup de grace to the floundering Dems who act as if they are still the majority party. Republicans, unfortunately, too often act as if they're still in the minority and seem loath to use the prerogatives bestowed by their majority status. This frustrates conservatives who want Bush to nominate a Scalia/ Thomas type justice and then dare the Democrats to filibuster.

In other words, conservatives are spoiling for a slugfest, but Bush prefers to beat the Democrats with finesse rather than brute force. That's what he did with Roberts and what he'll probably do with Meirs. He has taken something of a gamble, to be sure, but if both picks turn out to be more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor then Bush will have succeeded in his goal of moving the court to the right without shedding much blood. Conservatives want him to fight like Joe Frazier, but he prefers to dance like Muhammed Ali. If he's confident of the conservatism of his selections then it's hard to fault him for his tactics.

The President has enough enemies on the Left. He doesn't need criticism from the Right unless we're sure he deserves it. On this matter we're not yet sure that he does.