Inference to the Best Explanation Pt. I

Among the indictments of religious believers recently handed down by skeptics such as the coterie of anti-theists lead by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al. is that belief in God is at best irrational and at worst pernicious. Theism is all faith and no evidence, the believer is condescendingly assured, but should a theist try to pin down his antagonist and ask him exactly what he means by evidence, it often turns out that the word is being employed as a synonym for "proof."

Well, of course there's no proof that there is a personal God, but that's hardly a reason not to believe that one exists. We have proof for very little of what we believe about the world, yet we don't hold our beliefs less firmly for that.

The skeptic's claim that there's no evidence that God exists and that theistic belief is thus irrational is, ironically, the reverse of the truth. It's actually more rational to believe that a personal transcendent creator of the universe exists than to disbelieve. Moreover, as I hope becomes evident in what follows, the logical consequences of atheism turn out to be psychically toxic.

Indeed, though it may come as a surprise to some readers, almost all the evidence that counts on one side or the other of the question of belief in God rests on the side of the believer. This is because almost every relevant fact about the world, and every existential characteristic of the human condition, makes more sense in light of the hypothesis of theism.

Put differently, the conclusion of theism is what philosophers call an inference to the best explanation. I don't mean to suggest that there are no facts about the world that militate against the God of Christian theism - there are, of course. Nor do I mean to suggest that atheism can offer no account of the facts of human existence. Perhaps it can. I only argue that on the assumption of atheism the facts are more difficult to explain, in some cases exceedingly so, than they are on the assumption of theism. If that is the case, it follows that it's more reasonable to believe that the explanation for them is the existence of a personal God.

In Part II tomorrow we'll consider seven or eight particulars about the world and our existential condition within the world which harmonize more easily or readily with the belief that there exists a transcendent personal Creator than with the belief that the universe is all that there is. The series will conclude with Part III in which we'll review an additional eight or nine such facts.

RLC

The Darwinians' Learned Desperation

Eugene Koonin has written a paper on the origin of life in which he acknowledges that, given what we know, the odds of any system capable of replication of genetic material and translation (replication and translation: R&T) into proteins of that genetic material arising by chance are exceedingly close to zero.

That being so how can we account for the appearance and existence of life? We must certainly increase the odds somehow, but there are really only two ways of doing that - either introduce intentionality (Intelligent Design)or postulate a near infinite number of worlds in which chance operates.

Koonin explicitly wants to avoid the former so he embraces the latter and plunges himself into the very metaphysical speculation he wants to avoid:

I only discuss here what is often called "weak" anthropic principle and is the only acceptable scientific rendering of this concept. The so-called "strong" anthropic principle is the teleological notion that our (human) existence is, in some mysterious sense, the "goal" of the evolution of the universe; as such, this idea does not belong in the scientific domain.

Having discarded an explanation because he considers it metaphysical and unscientific he then adopts a second hypothesis that is itself metaphysical and unscientific.

He argues that the universe is really a multiverse, infinite in extent, containing every possible kind of universe consistent with the laws of physics (I'm not sure why he adds this qualifier since there could certainly be universes which are inconsistent with the laws of physics, at least as we know them). If that is so, and given that a universe in which R&T occurs by pure chance is a possible universe, no matter how unlikely, such a universe must exist and we're in it. In other words given enough trials anything that is possible to happen, no matter how improbable, will happen. Since our universe is a possible universe, given an infinite number of worlds and an infinite amount of diversity, our universe must exist.

This is a wonderful piece of metaphysical legerdemain. Simply postulate the existence of a near infinite number of worlds, never mind about adducing evidence for them, stir in the tacit but crucial assumption that those worlds would be infinitely diverse, and presto, a world with life in it just has to exist.

Koonin's goal in writing this paper is, as he makes clear, to allow his fellow materialists to avoid the despair which results from having no answer to those pesky Intelligent Design people. He writes:

A final comment on "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design". By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover, are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issue of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for any form of intelligent design.

Perhaps, but at what cost? After all, if we are to accept the assumption that in an infinite number of worlds all possibilities consistent with the laws of physics become actual (and they must do so an infinite number of times) then it follows that there must be an infinite number of worlds that are intentionally designed since that is certainly a possibility consistent with the laws of physics.

But set that aside and note the implicit admission in Koonin's words. Unless there are an infinite number of worlds representing all possible biological histories the idea of Intelligent Design becomes very difficult to avoid.

Note, too, that Koonin purports to be advancing a legitimate scientific hypothesis even though it's full of metaphysical speculation. Yet Intelligent Design is condemned by the scientific establishment because it has metaphysical implications.

Koonin's paper is very learned, but it's really an act of learned desperation.

RLC

BDS in Seattle

How deep is the hatred for George W. Bush among Democrats in this country? How completely irrational is it? Well, this story out of Seattle might offer us some insight:

Are you still fans of Matt Hasselbeck and Mack Strong after they visited President Bush last week in Bellevue? Or have their political leanings turned you against them?

The Seahawks quarterback and fullback gave the 43rd president a No. 43 jersey with his name on it at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Rep. Dave Reichert at the Hyatt.

At the time, Hasselbeck called it a thrill and said it was a win-win, this opportunity to meet the president and get out of a team meeting.

But as soon as he saw the picture of the two players with Bush, Gary Wright, the team's vice president of administration, said he was concerned about negative reaction.

Maybe in really red Republican states, it would not have been a big deal. But Washington is a blue state, and deep, deep Democratic blue in King County. So objections were raised, and Hasselbeck heard them and read them. He got nasty voice mails, e-mails and text messages.

"I had no idea," Hasselbeck said.

One guy told him: "I hate you, I'll never wear your jersey, I'll never like the Seahawks again."

"Huh?" Hasselbeck thought. "Seriously?"

"Politics can be very mean and dirty," he said. "The things politicians say about each other, and what activists say, I had a brief glimpse of that for a couple of days.

"If I ever had any questions about whether I wanted to run for office, I now know the answer -- I don't."

As a quarterback, he's used to getting booed. "But this was a whole new level," he said. "I was very surprised how mean (they were)."

As evidence were these responses to Angelo Bruscas' blog posting on seattlepi.com:

"How dare Hasselbeck declare Bush an honorary Seahawk," wrote one. "Who is Matt speaking for? Bush is no Seahawk. He is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm almost 60. Shame on you, Matt."

"To learn that two of the most popular Seahawks are strong (Bush) supporters ruins the season for me and my family," wrote another.

And Timothy P. wrote: "Just goes to show you that being a great athlete doesn't make you smart."

The rest of this sad story can be read at the link. Evidently, there are quite a few people in the northwest who need to get a life. It may be comforting to the left to hear that Bush Derangement Syndrome is flourishing in Seattle, but it's certainly disturbing to the mentally sane to read this stuff.

RLC

Terrorist Takedown

ABCNews has a few details on the German investigation that led to the arrests of three German Muslims who plotted to kill Americans in night spots near Ramstein Air Force base in Germany (Yes, our military is still in Germany sixty seven years after the end of WWII).

RLC

Testing Syria's Defenses

The Israeli foray, into Syrian airspace earlier this week has apparently mystified commentators, some of whom have speculated that it was a navigational mistake.

Probably the real reason was to test the capability of a newly-installed anti-aircraft system that the Russians have sold to both Syria and Iran. The system failed to down any of the Israeli jets which failure has no doubt embarrassed the Russians, frustrated the Syrians and caused deep concern among the Iranians who were surely hoping it would give some measure of protection against an American strike on their nuclear facilities.

DEBKAfile says:

The purported Israeli air force flights over the Pantsyr-S1E site established that the new Russian missiles, activated for the first time in the Middle East, are effective and dangerous but can be disarmed. Western military sources attribute to those Israeli or other air force planes superior electronics for jamming the Russian missile systems, but stress nonetheless that they were extremely lucky to get away unharmed, or at worst, with damage minor enough for a safe return to base.

The courage, daring and operational skills of the air crews must have been exceptional. They would have needed to spend enough time in hostile Syrian air space to execute several passes at varying altitudes under fire in order to test the Pantsyr-S1E responses. Their success demonstrated to Damascus and Tehran that their expensive new Russian anti-air system leaves them vulnerable.

There's more on this incursion at the DEBKAfile link.

RLC

Support the Mission

If you agree with the following four points you can go here to sign a petition that will be given to members of Congress this month to let them know how you feel.

• Recognize the importance of fighting and defeating al-Qaeda, wherever they can be found, not least in Iraq;
• Consider the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker with an open mind and without regard for partisan politics;
• Recognize the significant threat to U.S. national security that a hasty retreat or a made-in-Washington timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would generate; and
• Listen to the U.S. service members who willingly sacrifice to protect our country and who do not want defeat legislated in Washington so long as American troops are on the battlefield.

It's important.

RLC

Dog Evolution

Denyse O'Leary has an interesting post at Uncommon Descent in which the diversity among dogs is explained. The variations among canines, it turns out, are not the result of an evolutionary process in which genetic information is increased, as Richard Dawkins suggested in his critique of Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution. Rather what happens is that new varieties arise when genetic information is actually degraded.

O'Leary quotes David DeWitt:

Many of the traits for different dog breeds are examples of neoteny.

Neoteny refers to the maintaining of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. Mutations can prevent proper development and maturation. Even though particular traits might seem like they are novel, in such cases it is really a loss of information since the animal has stunted development in one trait.

This is why some breeds of dogs are so cute and look like puppies even though they are full grown (Jack Russel, Shitzu etc).

In other words the regulatory processes that shut off the juvenile characteristic and allow for maturation have been somehow disrupted, probably through some genetic mutation, so that the juvenile characteristic persists. This is not Darwinian evolution which posits an increase in genetic information. It is in fact, the opposite.

In other words, in at least one area where we have evidence of evolution, it seems to go from more complex genetic arrangements to less complex which is exactly what creationists have been claiming for decades that all evolution does.

I'll bet Dawkins wishes he hadn't brought up the subject of dog evolution.

RLC

Worldviews

Civis at Politics, Sex and Religion asks some important questions about worldviews and their philosophical implications. Check out his site and join the conversation.

RLC

From Iraq

Ralph Peters has been to Iraq several times and has given us some good insights into the situation there. His latest column is a must-read piece for anyone who wishes to be informed on both the difficulties and the successes that we are experiencing. He looks down the road at what the problems will be several months hence and also at the current state of the war against the insurgency. He tells us, for instance of one officer's rather startling assessment of the military conflict:

One blade-sharp officer, Lt. Col. Doug Ollivant, the 1st Cavalry Division's G-5 Plans officer, even proposes that "our counterinsurgency fight is largely won," with the fading of the Sunni insurgency and the gutting of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Peters goes on to say that:

I've listed the key problems that may lie ahead, but this visit to Iraq further convinced me that we're on a promising track, security-wise:

• Al Qaeda, America's enemy, has suffered a catastrophic strategic defeat and a humiliation - rejected by its own kind - that will resound in the Muslim world.
• That hotbed of insurgency, Anbar Province, has largely come over to our side.
• The surge strategy is bringing peaceful conditions to ever more Iraqi neighborhoods - and street-level Iraqis are grateful. They don't want us to leave.
• Despite Iran's growing involvement, we've limited Tehran's effectiveness - thus far.

Meanwhile, Fox News recently ran an article in which they mentioned a comment by a Lt. Col. Kenneth Adgie. Adgie said he received a report last Monday that Al Qaeda in Iraq beheaded a 12-year-old boy in the middle of the street because his father was cooperating with the Americans. "That's the level of evil we're dealing with here," he said.

Think of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have cooperated with Americans. What would be their fate and that of their children if we were to pull out before Iraq was safe from these cretins?

Those who advocate withdrawal respond with something like, "Well, we don't really know that these people would be massacred when we get out." That response is as stupid as it is pusillanamous. The rational course is to assume that the future will resemble the past, that the people who behead 12 year-old children to get revenge on the parents and who booby trap children's bodies so as to also kill their grieving parents, aren't going to renounce their savagery just because the Americans leave.

What is far more likely is that the horror inflicted upon that 12-year-old boy and his family will be repeated tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of times. It is that expectation, that liklihood, which should inform our policy, not the wishful thinking embraced by those who rely on the desperate hope that our withdrawal will miraculously assuage the hatreds and change the hearts of these most evil of men.

RLC

Atheist Manifesto

TotheSource has an interview with Alister McGrath, author of The Dawkins Delusion, a book written in response to atheist Richard Dawkins' God Delusion. In the interview it's pointed out that Dawkins' arguments are so bad that even fellow atheists like Michael Ruse are saying that they cause him to be embarrassed to be an atheist.

This comment by Ruse is equally appropriate to another atheist book, a big seller in Europe but less well-known in the United States, by French philosopher Michael Onfray. Onfray has composed a work which he titles, Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam about which there are several things which might be said:

First, anyone expecting an argument for an atheistic view of the world should go elsewhere. Onfray nowhere in the book actually provides an argument for atheism or, for that matter, against theism. The entire book is instead a screed against the three major monotheistic religions.

Moreover, even if everything the author says about the failings and crimes of the adherents of these religions is true, none of it gives anyone any reason to abandon belief in God. The book can be distilled to a single sentence: Religious people in each of the three major traditions have done many awful things, terrible things, therefore these religions are all false. It's not much of an argument, of course, but there you have it.

So, if the book is not an argument for the truth of atheism and doesn't really demonstrate that the world's major religions are false, then what is Onfray's point? He seems to be intent on showing that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) are generally evil people. Of course, to make this case he has to be very selective in the evidence he cites, and he has to put the worst possible construction on much evidence that admits of more than one interpretation.

This passage, taken from among the many which could serve, will afford the reader a sense of Onfray's style: (p.67)

The religion of the one God .... seeks to promote self-hatred to the detriment of the body, to discredit the intelligence, to despise the flesh, and to despise everything that stands in the way of a gratified subjectivity. Launched against others, it foments contempt, wickedness, the forms of intolerance that produce racism, xenophobia, colonialism, wars, social injustice .... the three monotheisms share a series of identical forms of aversion: hatred of reason and intelligence; hatred of of freedom; hatred of all books [other than their scriptures]; hatred of sexuality, women, pleasure, hatred of the feminine; hatred of the body, of desires, of drives ....

This description sounds a great deal like the state atheisms of the twentieth century, and perhaps Islam, but Christians, at least, will have a hard time recognizing in the indictment anything resembling the faith to which they cling.

It might help Onfray if he would provide some support for at least some of his claims, but there's not a footnote nor a literature citation anywhere in the book (not even an index!). The reader is left to trust him on those matters upon which the reader feels incompetent to judge, but Mr. Onfray's accuracy in those matters upon which the reader does have a little knowledge fails to inspire confidence in his overall veracity.

To take but one example, the author claims that Adolph Hitler, so far from being an atheist, was a Christian sympathetic to the Catholic Church (p.187). This is simply false. Hitler was at most a deist or pantheist who in fact despised Christianity (See here). Onfray's book is rife with similar examples of historical distortions.

There is one thing about it, however, which redeems it from total uselessness. Onfray's catalogue of horrors perpetrated by religious people throughout history contains more than a few which actually happened. Reading these should open the eyes of theists everywhere to the evil latent within every human heart and should make Christians, especially, more resolved than ever to fulfill their obligation as representatives of the Christ whose own heart breaks when such crimes are committed in His name.

RLC

D. James Kennedy (1930-2007)

A generation of very well-known Evangelical preachers seems to be passing from the scene in this first decade of the 21st century. First it was James Montgomery Boice in 2000, then Henry Morris (who was not really a preacher but whose ministry was probably more influential than that of any preacher except for Billy Graham) last year, then Jerry Falwell last May and now James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. It's like an era in contemporary Christianity is coming to a close.

RLC

Qualia

One of the most fascinating areas of philosophical study is the study of human consciousness. What is it exactly and where does it come from? The physicalist view is that consciousness is just a product of brain chemistry, but many philosophers are not convinced that consciousness can be reduced to atoms spinning around in the brain.

Physicalism is essentially synonomous with materialism (the view that matter is all there is). It's the view that everything is explicable in terms of physical processes and forces. There's nothing about us, the physicalist maintains, which is non-physical. As such, it's possible that someday computers may possess all the attributes of human beings.

Human consciousness, however, is the fly in the physicalist soup. There is no physicalist explanation of consciousness that has really been successful in persuading philosophers not already inclined toward physicalism.

Consider one aspect of the problem posed to physicalism by consciousness - the problem of sensory experience, or what philosophers refer to as qualia. If human beings are purely physical, like machines, then everything about us should be quantifiable. A complete physical description of us should be a complete description of us. But it's not. The problem was illustrated by Frank Jackson in 1986. Jackson invites us to imagine a student named Mary:

Mary is confined to a black-and-white room, is educated through black-and-white books and through lectures relayed on black-and white television. In this way she learns everything there is to know about the physical nature of the world. She knows all the physical facts about us and our enviroment, in a wide sense of 'physical' which includes everything in completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology, and all there is to know about the causal and relational facts consequent upon all this, including, of course, functional roles. If physicalism is true, she knows all there is to know. For to suppose otherwise is to suppose that there is more to know than every physical fact, and that is what physicalism denies.

It seems, however, that Mary does not know all there is to know. For when she is let out of the black-and-white room or given a color television, she will learn what it is like to see something red, say. This is rightly described as learning--she will not say "ho, hum." Hence, physicalism is false.

In other words, Even if Mary knows everything there is to know about the physical world she doesn't know what it is like to see red (or hear noise, or smell fragrance). She can't know it until she has the experience, but this experience cannot be described in physical terms. A complete physical description of the world is not a complete description of the world.

Thus, there must be more to reality than just the physical, and it is doubtful that a computer, or any machine, could ever know what it is like to experience color or enjoy pleasure or suffer pain.

RLC

Idiot-Proof

Journalist Piers Morgan once mockingly derided George Bush for falling off a Segway scooter, a device Morgan claimed to be "idiot-proof," with these words:

"You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr President. If anyone can make a pig's ear of riding a sophisticated, self-balancing machine like this, Dubya can."

Now, in yet another example of how those who hold Mr. Bush in derision so often wind up with a face dripping with egg, Mr. Morgan has himself fallen off a Segway...and broken three ribs. A broken rib is very painful, and we shouldn't laugh but ....

This article has details and video.

RLC

Racial Disparity

News out of San Diego informs us that recently released state test scores in California reveal a glaring disparity in student performance between blacks and Latinos and their white and Asian counterparts - regardless of income:

"These are just not economic achievement gaps. They are racial achievement gaps and we cannot afford to excuse them," state Superintendent of Instruction Jack O'Connell said at a media briefing. "They simply must be addressed."

The disparity in achievement is stark....Statewide in English/language arts, only 30 percent of black students and 29 percent of Latino students scored proficient or better. In contrast, 62 percent of white students and 66 percent of Asian students scored proficient or better.

In math, only 26 percent of black students and 31 percent of Latino students statewide scored proficient or better, while 54 percent of white students and 68 percent of Asian students scored proficient or better.

While discussing the achievement gap yesterday, O'Connell said the new state test scores clearly show that lower achievement by black and Latino students cannot be "explained away" as the result of poverty. "The results show this explanation simply is not true," O'Connell said.

Similar gaps are seen in San Diego County. "This has never been about race or income," said Randolph Ward, San Diego County superintendent of schools.

Okay, but Superintendent O'Connell just said that these were indeed racial achievement gaps. If neither race nor poverty is a relevant factor then exactly what is the cause for the disparity? The news article explains:

The achievement gap persists for several reasons. One is that the most experienced and talented teachers often work at more affluent schools, while younger and less experienced teachers fill slots at poorer schools, which typically enroll minority students.

A student's economic status surely plays a role, but so do low expectations that the student's teachers, principal, counselors, family and friends have for them, educators say.

Well, maybe, but I think that placing part of the blame on teachers is a cop-out. Whether these students had experienced teachers or not these same problems would persist. After all, white and Asian students in the same school with presumably the same teachers do better than their black and Hispanic counterparts. It may be that teachers have low expectations of minority students, but teachers know their students' capabilities better than anyone, so if they don't expect much perhaps it's because they know from bitter experience that minority students simply don't perform at the levels other students do.

Even if these teachers, many of whom are minorities themselves, it should be noted, harbor diminished expectations that doesn't mean that they try less hard with these students. Teachers don't dislike the children in their classrooms, minority or not. They want their youngsters to do well. They long for them to succeed, but experience has taught them that too many of them simply don't have the tools to do it.

The important question is, why don't they? If the reason isn't racism nor economics we're left with two alternatives. One is the possibility that Charles Murray was correct when he wrote in The Bell Curve that some groups are intellectually, on average, more capable than others. The second possibility is that the problem is social. Before we resign ourself to the first possibility, we really should make a concerted effort to do something about the second.

Many minority students come from communities where, for whatever reason, neither traditional family nor educational excellence is valued. Too many black and Hispanic kids are allowed to dress, speak, and act as if they are morons and proud to be so, and the culture in which they are immersed not only permits this perversity but encourages it.

Moreover, students who grow up with only a single parent invariably find school more of a struggle than do those who grow up with both biological parents. The job of keeping after children to do their homework or taking them to libraries or cultural sites of various sorts, is simply daunting to many moms who strain just to get food on the table. When children, especially sons, get to be twelve or thirteen they often become very difficult to control, and it's even harder then to demand that they focus on academic work. Instead, the young men gravitate to the streets to affirm their masculinity by identifying with thugs, siring another generation of fatherless children, and dressing, talking, and acting as if their IQ were somewhere around the freezing point of water.

The problem certainly exists in every racial group in the country, but it's most severe in the black and Hispanic communities. Until we begin to take the plight of fatherless children seriously all our talk about improving minority academic performance is just going to be so much wasted time and breath, and all our efforts to help minorities close the achievement gap will be like bailing floodwater out of New Orleans with a teaspoon.

We cannot allow another generation of kids to sink into socio-economic oblivion nor can we allow political correctness or what Shelby Steele calls "white guilt" to inhibit us from talking about the problem. The fundamental solution to the tragedy of our inner cities centers upon reinvigorating and restoring the biological family and discouraging behaviors which send the message that it's cool to be stupid. Everything else is just applying a band-aid to a broken arm.

RLC

First Libya, Now the Norks

Will George Bush get any credit from his domestic adversaries for this astonishing development?

GENEVA (AP) - North Korea agreed Sunday to account for and disable its atomic programs by the end of the year, offering its first timeline for a process long sought by nuclear negotiators, the chief U.S. envoy said.

Look for this story to sink with scarcely a trace into the abyssal deeps of political journalism. The media line is that Bush is the worst president in history, and anything which runs counter to that line is merely an anomaly to be ignored.

This worst president in history, however, has liberated more people from oppression and done more to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist states than has any other president we've ever had.

You would think that with his spending and his position on illegal immigration, such a man would be a hero to the left. So why isn't he?

Here are the main reasons: He opposes abortion on demand and government funding of stem cell research. He has instituted tax cuts which allow the rich to keep more of their money and which have caused the economy to thrive, and he believes that America should occasionally be willing to use force as a last resort to free people from tyranny. Plus he's a devout Christian and a Republican. Therefore the left despises him. Their hatred would be comical if it weren't so sad.

RLC

Katrina's Cost

Having recently marked the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina some in the media have been pointing to the mess that still remains and even blaming the Bush administration for not doing more to get people back into their homes in places like New Orleans.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) has a different view. He recently noted that it's "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region. "The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called 'recovery' efforts has been mind-boggling," said Tancredo, "Enough is enough."

There's more:

Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.

"At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative," said Tancredo. "The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end."

The lawmaker criticized in particular the amount that has been wasted through fraud and abuse, estimated at $1 billion.

"This whole fiasco has been a perfect storm of corruption and incompetence at all levels," he added.

It's worth noting that Mississippi, which was just as hard hit as Louisianna, seems not to be nearly as far behind the recovery curve as is its neighbor. I wonder how much that has to do with the political leadership in the respective states and the level of corruption in Louisianna.

Larry Kudlow adds to the picture:

Here's a pop quiz: How much money has Uncle Sam spent on New Orleans and the Gulf region since Hurricane Katrina ripped the place apart? I'll give you the answer because you'll never guess it. The grand total is $127 billion (including tax relief, which Tancredo's numbers apparently omitted).

That's right: a monstrous $127 billion. Of course, not a single media story has highlighted this gargantuan government-spending figure. But that number came straight from the White House in a fact sheet subtitled, "The Federal Government Is Fulfilling Its Commitment to Help the People of the Gulf Coast Rebuild."

This is an outrage. The entire GDP of the state of Louisiana is only $141 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. So the cash spent there nearly matches the entire state gross GDP. That's simply unbelievable. And to make matters worse, by all accounts New Orleans ain't even fixed!

You might be asking, Where did all this money go? Well, the White House fact sheet says $24 billion has been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure, and provide victims with a place to live. But isn't everyone complaining about the lack of housing?

Perhaps all this money should've been directly deposited in the bank accounts of the 300,000 people living in New Orleans. All divvied up, that $127 billion would come to $425,000 per person! After thanking Uncle Sam for their sudden windfall, residents could head to Southern California and buy homes that are now on sale thanks to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bid up the sagging house prices in the state.

The fact sheet goes on to say that $7.1 billion went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild the levees; that the U.S. Department of Education spent $2 billion on local schools; and that the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries has awarded more than $2.5 million (the pikers). The administration also provided $16.7 billion as part of the largest housing-recovery program in U.S. history.

So the billion-dollar question becomes: Where did the rest of that money go?

Meanwhile, ... New Orleans has earned the distinct honor of becoming the murder capital of the world. The murder rate is 40 percent higher than before Katrina, and twice as high as other dangerous cities like Detroit, Newark, and Washington, D.C.

Think of this: The idea of using federal money to rebuild cities is the quintessential liberal vision. And given the dreadful results in New Orleans, we can say that the government's $127 billion check represents the quintessential failure of that liberal vision. Hillary Clinton calls this sort of reckless spending "government investment." And that's just what's in store for America if she wins the White House next year.

Right from the start, New Orleans should have been turned into a tax-free enterprise zone. No income taxes, no corporate taxes, no capital-gains taxes. The only tax would have been a sales tax paid on direct transactions. A tax-free New Orleans would have attracted tens of billions of dollars in business and real-estate investment. This in turn would have helped rebuild the cities, schools, and hospitals. Private-sector entrepreneurs would have succeeded where big-government bureaucrats and regulators have so abysmally failed.

For our part we're wondering why we're rebuilding New Orleans at all. If global warming projections are correct sea levels will continue to rise over the next hundred years and New Orleans will be harder to protect against flooding than ever before. How many times will that city be rebuilt before we decide to concede southern Louisianna to Mother Nature and stop throwing money at it.

RLC

Essay Contest

Any students out there interested in competing in an essay contest on Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind can find details here.

RLC

The Next AG

Rumors have it that the next Attorney General nominee will be Ted Olsen, former Solicitor General and former husband of writer Barbara Olsen who was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Mr. Olsen was instrumental in the legal battle over the 2000 Florida presidential election mess and has been on the short list of possible nominees to fill the last two Supreme Court vacancies.

RLC

So You Like Your Cell-Phone

As if we didn't have enough to worry about word now comes that researchers have shown that cell-phones really do mess with your brain:

Mobile phones can take as little as ten minutes to trigger changes in the brain associated with cancer, scientists claimed yesterday.

They found even low levels of radiation from handsets interfere with the way brain cells divide. Cell division encourages the growth of tumours.

Israeli scientists exposed human and rat cells in a laboratory to low-level radiation at 875 megahertz - a similar frequency to the one used in many mobile phones.

Although the radiation was far weaker than emissions from a typical handset, it began to switch on a chemical signal inside the cells within ten minutes, the researchers report in the Biochemical Journal.

Next thing they'll be telling us that sitting in front of a television screen for more than ten minutes lowers one's IQ by 20 points. Hmmm.

RLC

Got Milk?

If you like creative commercials and don't mind if it actually has nothing to do with the product being advertised try this one.

HT: Hot Air

RLC