The A Whale

Hot Air calls our attention to another depressing story of how bureaucratic inefficiency in the government is slowing the Gulf oil clean-up. It's the story of a ship, called the A Whale (pronounced like "A Team"), designed to skim oil from sea water at a rate of 500,000 barrels of water a day. If it works as designed it could accomplish as much clean-up in a day and a half as has been done by other means in 66 days. So why is it just now sailing for the Gulf? Bureaucratic red tape:

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters.

The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

That's part of the reason the ship was tied to pier at the Virginia Port Authority's Norfolk International Terminals Friday morning. TMT and its public-relations agency invited scores of media, elected officials and maritime industry executives to an hour-long presentation about how the ship could provide an immediate boost to clean-up efforts in the Gulf.

TMT also paid to fly in Edward Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at Louisiana State University, to get a look at the massive skimmer.

Overton blasted BP and the federal government for a lack of effort and coordination in their dual oil-spill response and made a plea to the government to allow the A Whale to join the cleanup operation.

"We need this ship. We need this help," Overton said. "That oil is already contaminating our shoreline. We've got to get the ship out there and see if it works. There's only one way to find out: Get the damn thing in the gulf and we'll see."

"This concept has never been tried before," said Bob Grantham, a TMT project officer. "But we think we can do in maybe in a day and a half what these other crews have done in 66 days. We see the A Whale as adding another layer to the recovery effort."

To join the fight, the ship also might require separate waivers from the Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The A Whale - pronounced along the lines of "A Team" because there is a "B Whale" coming - is designed to work 20 to 50 miles offshore where smaller skimmers have trouble navigating. The ship would take in oily water and transfer it into specialized storage tanks on the flanks of the vessel. From there, the oil-fouled seawater would be pumped into internal tanks where the oil would separate naturally from the water.

After the separation process, the oil would be transferred to other tankers or shore-based facilities while the remaining water would be pumped back into the gulf.

Because the process wouldn't remove all traces of oil from the seawater, TMT will likely have to gain a special permit from the EPA, said Scott H. Segal of the Washington lobbying firm, Bracewell &Giuliani, which TMT has retained to help negotiate with federal regulators.

"The simple answer is, we don't know what the discharge will look like until we can take A Whale out there and test it," Segal said. TMT will work with regulators to determine an appropriate level of oil that can be contained in the ship's discharge.

TMT is also working with the Coast Guard to gain approval to operate in the gulf, which may require a waiver from a 90-year-old maritime act that restricts foreign-flagged vessels from operating in U.S. waters, said Bob Grantham, a TMT project officer.

So what's the hold-up? Does the EPA think that the gulf will be worse off after the A Whale has processed the polluted water than it was before processing it? Why can't President Obama just tell his people to waive all restrictions that would prevent anyone from contributing to the effort to clean the Gulf? When is the media going to insist that he explain why these kinds of bureaucratic hold-ups are allowed to persist while the Gulf ecosystem, and people's livelihoods, are suffering so much damage?

RLC

Caring for Strangers

I've recently been engaged in an interesting dialogue at Secular Right a blog for political conservatives who reject theism. The discussion resulted from a post there that discussed the fact that our concern for people diminishes as our (cultural, genetic, geographical) distance from them increases. My point was that on secularist assumptions there's no reason why this should be otherwise. You can have an obligation to care about others or you can have atheism, but you can't have both.

Check out the post and the exchange here. I go by my nickname Dick in the comments section.

RLC

Guns and Crime

Like many of my generation, when I was a young man I was considerably more more liberal on many issues than I am today. In my twenties I was pro-choice, today I am not. I also believed then that public lands should be completely off-limits to industrial use of any kind (logging, mining, drilling, etc.) today I think that position is needlessly restrictive. I also believed, even into my forties, that handguns should be banned and was even a member for a time of Sarah Brady's organization Handgun Control Inc, (HCI).

What began my change of mind about this last issue was a column by the late Chicago newspaperman Mike Royko arguing that women would be a lot safer in our society if they owned guns and knew how to use them. I thought he made a good case, and as time went on I came to think that it was simply unjust for the government to deprive citizens of the ability and right to protect themselves and their families.

By the time John Lott came out with his book More Guns, Less Crime in which he shows that communities that allow people to own and carry arms are much safer than those in which they are not, I had long since given up my opposition.

Syndicated columnist John Stossel has evidently made a journey similar to my own and writes a column about why he no longer believes what he once did about guns. Here's part of it:

I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- less crime. How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Now a 76 year-old Chicago man named Otis McDonald, who was denied the ability to buy a gun to protect his home from the thugs that infest his neighborhood, has taken his case to the Supreme Court. The Court's decision will be handed down this week and if they rule in favor of McDonald the expectation is that restrictive gun laws that prohibit citizens from owning the means of protecting their lives and property will begin falling all across the nation. If Lott is right, and his statistics certainly make a strong case, crime rates will fall as well.

There was a time when it seemed to me that it was irrational to allow citizens to carry weapons in public. That opinion fell by the wayside many years ago as evidence mounted that armed and licensed citizens have saved thousands of lives, including their own, simply by virtue of possessing a weapon, even if it was merely displayed and not used. My former view was finally buried by reading Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, a book I recommend to anyone who doubts that a society in which citizens are armed is actually safer for everyone than one in which only criminals carry weapons.

Update: the Supreme Court has this morning passed down a 5-4 decision striking down the ban imposed by the city of Chicago on gun ownership. This effectively makes any such laws anywhere in the country unconstitutional.

RLC

Sixth Sense

Olivia Judson, writing a blog entry on brood parasitism at Opinionator.com, raises an interesting question. Brood parasitism is the behavior, not uncommon in the animal and insect world, of one species laying eggs in the nest of another and having the host parents raise the offspring. Judson focuses on brood parasitism in birds, and meditates on why the parents don't seem to recognize the parasites' eggs or young.

Here's part of what she writes:

...birds don't see the world as we do: they see more colors. Therefore, what looks like a good match to us may not look like a good match to the bird; and vice versa.

Which makes me wonder: what are we missing? Like the birds - like any organism - our sensory system defines the way we perceive and interact with the world, and it is limited in important ways. As I said earlier, our sense of color is not as vivid as that of most birds. As mammals go, our sense of smell is poor. We hear a limited range of sounds: unaided, we cannot hear much of the conversations of elephants, or of bats.

True, we have invented machines to detect many aspects of the world that are invisible to us, but most of these are kept in fancy laboratories and are not available for daily life. If another organism, a dog say, were watching us, what "obvious" problems would they spot that we are oblivious to? (My guess is that dogs often have moments when they look at us and wonder, "Why don't they notice?" For dogs are often able to smell things about us that we cannot. Many cancers, for example, change the scent of our urine and our breath. Without special machines, we cannot detect this - but dogs can.)

To what extent do our preconceived notions narrow our perception of the planet, and ourselves?

These are fascinating questions. In my classes I invite students to imagine that our five senses were much more acute than they are and to ponder how differently the world would then appear. What if we could see radio waves? What colors would they be? What if we could smell or hear what a dog can? How might it change human behavior and the way we live?

On the other hand, suppose we possessed not five, but six or seven senses. To appreciate how much different the world would appear to us imagine a man born blind and deaf so that he has only three senses. Imagine him walking along the surf at a crowded beach. How impoverished would his mental image of his surroundings be? He would be aware of heat and wind on his skin, the crunch of sand at his feet, and the smells typical of the beach, but that would be about it. Now imagine that this man walking along the beach suddenly, through some miracle, finds himself able to both see and hear. The experience would doubtless knock him flat. He'd be overwhelmed by how much different the world would be than what he had ever imagined. He would be unable, I should think, to comprehend what he was experiencing when he saw color for the first time or hears sound.

Or what if there are more dimensions than what our minds are structured to perceive? If we're really five dimensional creatures but are only able to perceive each other in three dimensions our "real" appearance would be totally different than how we currently appear to each other. In other words, what we "look" like is a function of the structure of our minds. If our minds were structured differently we would see each other as much different beings.

Why should we assume the world is just the way our senses reveal it to us? The world is perhaps far richer and more wondrous than we assume it to be. We are in this life like an unborn child in its mother's womb. The child's world is dark, warm and moist, with only a few muffled sounds. At birth, though, the child is suddenly delivered into a world that would have been literally inconceivable prior to its being experienced.

Perhaps at death we pass, like the aborning child, into a state of existence infinitely more beautiful than what we have ever experienced before. Perhaps we acquire more senses and/or the ones we have become more finely attuned. Perhaps we're able to experience additional dimensions. Perhaps we're able to "see" the world more as God sees it. Whatever it would be like it would not be something of which we could presently conceive any more than the child in the womb could conceive a world of color and flavor. It's very hard to imagine something we have never experienced with our senses.

Shakespeare reminds us that there are more things in heaven and on earth than we dream of in our everyday musings. Plato depicts this world as being like a cave in which we have for our entire lives been imprisoned. All we've ever seen are dark shadows on a wall and we naturally think that those shadows are all there is. We are oblivious to the world of color and other sensory delights outside the cave.

But why should we think that reality is just the way we perceive it to be with our puny little sensory and conceptual apparatus? Why not think that the way we apprehend reality is simply a function of the number and type of senses we have and that the world really would appear quite differently to us, as it no doubt does to those birds victimized by the parasite, were we to have different senses or senses with greater sensitivity?

RLC

Giving Sight to the Blind

The stories of wonderful results from stem cell technology, particularly adult stem cells, continue. Now comes word of a technique that can restore sight to those who've been blinded by chemical burns:

Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells - a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.

The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.

"This is a roaring success," said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study - the longest and largest of its kind.

I imagine that researchers are working with every organ system and bodily disease trying to find ways to use stem cells to cure, reverse, or slow the various debilities which plague the human body. We applaud their efforts, admire their genius, and pray for their success.

RLC

Mr. President, Do Your Job

Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer is not taking President Obama's feckless response to the flood of illegals pouring across our borders lying down. This ad is effective, but it's unlikely to stir any positive reaction from a president who opposes border control out of both ideological conviction and political necessity. He's ideologically disposed toward open borders and is politically dependent on Hispanic votes for survival in 2012 so he's really not interested in Governor Brewer's insistence that he fulfill his responsibilities as the nation's chief law enforcement officer:

The President showed us how much he cares about the concerns of those who want laws against illegal immigration enforced by threatening to sue Arizona over their recent measure (SB1070) requiring local police to uphold federal law and by appointing a man to head up ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) who supports sanctuary cities and who opposes legislation like SB1070.

Mr. Obama's immigration policies can have only one of two long-term outcomes. Either border states will simply give up trying to keep illegal aliens out and the nation will be overwhelmed with the cost burden these immigrants will impose, or states will move further and further toward independence from a federal government that they perceive as hostile to their welfare. Neither of these outcomes is in any way good for the nation, but that's the hope and change we voted for in 2008.

RLC

Money for Nothin'

Here's a story that tells you everything you need to know about why so many people distrust government and its ability to manage anything well. Be sure you've taken you blood pressure meds before watching the video:

 

Seven hundred dollars per card per month. Why is it that this system was not designed to prevent converting benefits into cash? Why are the recipients able to get anything they want with these cards instead of being limited to necessities like food and clothing? Why even ask why? The answer is that it's a government program and one shouldn't expect government programs to actually make sense or be frugal.

Perhaps, though, we're not looking at this correctly. Perhaps these ATM cards are not a symbol of bureaucratic waste and stupidity but rather a reflection of the magnanimity of the taxpayers of California, at least the few who are left, who are eager to do what they can to subsidize the recreational habits of the indigent. This would account for the dismay so many of them feel at Arizona's decision that it can no longer afford the millions of dollars it costs to have hordes of illegal aliens crossing its borders. Such niggardliness would certainly have no place in California, which, despite the fact that it teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, nevertheless feels a moral obligation to facilitate excursions to casinos by those who couldn't afford such visits on their own.

If Arizonans can't pay for their illegals they should send them to California. Californians will gladly turn their state into Zimbabwe, apparently, in order to accommodate them.

RLC

Not Good People

Another Democrat shows that he's either a bigot or lacks a basic understanding of the rules of logical implication. In the video Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D, PA) is holding forth on how his office is helping people get through the recession. The people he's helping, he declares, are not irresponsible, they're not minorities, they're not "defectives." On the contrary, they're average, good American people.

Does Mr. Kanjorski really mean to imply that minorities and "defectives" are not good Americans? Is he unwittingly revealing something about his own underlying racial attitudes that perhaps we should know?

At Hot Air they're wondering if the media will give Mr. Kanjorski's bigotry the same sort of attention they lavished on George Allen's use of the word "macaca." Silly boys. Don't they know that Allen was a Republican and that Kanjorski's a Democrat? Don't they know that Democrats are allowed to say racist things and that only Republicans get punished for their unfortunate breaches of racial etiquette?

RLC

Fundamental Freedoms

I hardly know what to make of this report. I can't believe that the Michigan cops would be so stupid as to arrest a bunch of people just for passing out religious literature. Perhaps there's more to it, but if so, it hasn't yet come to my attention.

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian explains:

Yesterday I found out friends of mine had been arrested for sharing the gospel in Dearborn, Michigan. I've shared some meals with Nabeel Qureshi, and I spoke at an apologetics conference he organized. I've had some shorter conversations with David Wood, who was also taken away from there in handcuffs. David has been featured and has commented on this blog. (I do not know Negeen and Paul Rezkalla, who were also arrested.)

Their cameras were confiscated for a time. What were they doing to deserve this? They were sharing the love of Jesus Christ at an Arab ethnic festival. The first YouTube video I saw on it when I checked in this morning called them liars, saying they went there to stir things up, and they were more interested in creating a scene than in preaching the gospel. This video tries to support this with a few out-of-context, unreferenced quotes from David Wood. I can assure you emphatically David and Nabeel's heart really is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. So what did they do to deserve a night in jail?

Apparently nothing:

They tell us here they handed out no printed materials, they approached no one, they spoke only with people who approached them. They went out of their way to avoid even the appearance of being disruptive. I've seen no evidence in other news sources to contradict any of this. They had "amicable" conversations and "made friends" with many there. The police took them away just as they were closing up another such amicable discussion. They told the officers they had video to show they had done nothing provocative, and asked them to sit down and watch it with them, but the police refused to look at the evidence.

It's important to note that this was not a Muslim festival. It was not a religious event. It was an ethnic festival...

There's more at the link. Perhaps the young evangelists will sue the Dearborn police for violating their first amendment rights. I hope so. It's apparently the only way this type of harrassment is going to stop.

I can't imagine that the police would have made these arrests had the young people been Muslims talking to the curious at, say, a fourth of July fireworks celebration, or if they had been Young Democrats talking to people at a Tea Party rally. Why does being Christian make them targets for arrest?

Update: Allahpundit has some commentary and video on this travesty at Hot Air.

RLC

Second Opinion

An acquaintance of mine, Dr. Nick Pandelitis, has a blog he calls Dr. Right on which he has posted a series of very thoughtful and well-informed pieces analyzing health care in America and the legislative "reform" signed into law last spring. Dr. Pandelitis is doubtful, to put it mildly, that the legislation is going to accomplish anything by way of solving the most pressing problems, and will instead exacerbate many of those problems.

Anyone interested in this issue is encouraged to visit his site and read his posts. His most recent is #11 in the series. The others can be accessed by scrolling down from that one.

RLC

Charlotte Simmons Redux

Joseph Bottum writes a winsome essay at First Things about a young woman of his acquaintance, a rural girl raised around horses in the American west, who went away to college and lost her innocence. It's a sad story. Here's part of what Bottum has to say:

Even out at a minor western state university, there's no supervision, no moral code, no help. Just the one-hour freshman orientation session that hands out condoms and vaginal dams, with a warning about AIDS. The cowgirl from the ranch-her parents wouldn't have sent her to UC Berkeley or NYU, mostly because old reputations die hard. But they didn't realize they were doing the rough equivalent.

The cost of a small state school's embarrassment, of its hunger to be just like everywhere else, is paid by abortions and the knocked-up, messed-up young women who were thrown to the wolfish boys, unconstrained by either manners or morals.

The bacchanalia of the contemporary American college experience can be resisted, by young people who are strong enough and determined enough to oppose a personal code to the riot all around them. But lots of the young are not that tough. They're weak and silly and susceptible-they're young and uneducated, in other words-and they just want to do what everyone else is doing. In its way, that makes them just like the administrators of those colleges: weak and silly and susceptible.

Sending a child, especially a daughter, to an American college has become a source of deep anxiety for many parents. Colleges have completely abandoned any pretense of supervision of the children we entrust to them. It's frightening for parents to think that Bottum's description of college administrators is pretty much true.

The experience of the young woman in his essay reminds me in so many ways of Tom Wolfe's story of the young woman in I Am Charlotte Simmons, a novel I recommend to any parent who'd like to see what his or her daughter is in for when she heads off to college.

RLC

In Defense of Elitism

(Note: Some of the following was taken from a post which appeared on Viewpoint in April of 2008 titled Three Cheers for Elitism.)

In his book To Change the World James Davison Hunter cautions Christians against developing an attitude of elitism that often accompanies a higher socio-economic status.

He never really defines what he means by "elitism," but throughout the concluding chapters of the 3rd essay he seems to assume that the reader shares his disdain for it. I don't think that the assumption, or the disdain, is necessarily warranted.

Like prejudice and discrimination, whether elitism is an undesirable character trait depends a lot on the kind of elitism we're talking about. For many the word "elitism" is a euphemism for racism or a haughty sense of moral superiority and entitlement attaching to one's own socio-economic class. Of course it can be this, but it need not be. Elitism, as I understand the word, is the conviction that some values are better than others, some people are smarter, harder working, more virtuous than others, and some traditions and ways of life are better than others. This, it seems to me, is hard to deny.

Nevertheless, critics will object that in our politically correct post-modern world "everyone knows" that no one's values are any better than anyone else's and that to think otherwise is to be guilty of being a racist, classist, elitist reactionary - to which the appropriate response is: So what.

As William Henry, a liberal Democrat in the Clinton administration once wrote, it's an absurdity to think that all cultures and ways of life are equally admirable. It's scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone through one's nose.

In The Moviegoer, novelist Walker Percy puts it somewhat differently, if no less bluntly, when he has a Louisiana matriarch named Aunt Edna address herself to this matter. Edna declaims:

"I'll make a little confession. I am not ashamed to use the word class. I will also plead guilty to another charge. The charge is that people in my class think they're better than other people. You're damn right we're better. We're better because we do not shirk our obligations to ourselves or to others. We do not whine. We do not organize a group and blackmail the government. We do not prize mediocrity for mediocrity's sake....Ours is the only civilization in history which has enshrined mediocrity as its national ideal....They say out there that we think we're better. You're damn right we're better and don't think they don't know it."

This proud woman wasn't about to apologize for the obvious political incorrectness of her "elitist" sentiments. Neither should anyone else. Elitism based upon moral principle, so far from being some awful sin, is in fact a virtue, a salutary antidote to the infection of moral relativism currently metastasizing throughout our culture. This may scandalize those who feel that nobody should be so chauvinistic as to think his principles to be actually better than the next person's, but the irony needs to be noted that those who feel this way evidently believe their own moral egalitarianism is better than my moral elitism.

Aside from those enumerated by Aunt Edna, though, what exactly are the virtues which distinguish her "better" class of people? Without attempting an exhaustive list, it's probably correct to say for starters that, no matter what their race or socio-economic status, men and women of this elite class take a great deal of pride in their work, their property, and their character. They assume responsibility for their actions. They strive to be cordial, courteous, and considerate of others. They're dependable, trustworthy, and temperate, willing to defer short-term gratification for long-term benefit. They're frugal, faithful to their spouses, and committed to the well-being of their families. They're mindful of the fact that children do not raise themselves very well and that properly ushering a child into adulthood requires an enormous investment of time, energy, and self-sacrifice. They enjoy and appreciate excellence, especially in the arts and other forms of entertainment. They esteem education, especially for their children, and possess at least a modest appreciation for the life of the mind.

Why should anyone shrink from affirming the pre-eminence of these qualities and from regarding those who share them to be of superior moral timber to those who don't? And why should the social levelers among us be allowed to succeed in making people feel there's something wrong with choosing to avoid the society of those whose lives and habits are the antithesis of the values one cherishes?

It must be emphasized that this is not a matter of race or economics. People of all colors and incomes esteem these virtues and feel uncomfortable around those who don't. Indeed, it's perhaps true to say that many people who share them feel more comfortable in each other's company, regardless of their ethnicity or wealth, than they do in the company of those of similar race and economic class who don't share them.

Moreover, when people are made to feel guilty for believing their convictions to be more noble than their contraries, or when substantial numbers of people are persuaded that the precepts one lives by are merely arbitrary preferences, none of which is any better than any other, then, as with money, the worse will inevitably drive out the better. The lowest moral classes will eventually succeed in establishing the behavioral norms of the culture, and the principles, or lack of them, which govern their own lives and which are in large measure responsible for their being lower class in the first place, will eventually percolate upward, like a toxic gas, and permeate the rest of society. The denouement will be a social unraveling, corruption and disintegration that'll substantially diminish the quality of life of everyone.

Three cheers, therefore, for Aunt Edna and for elitism so construed.

RLC

Unsustainable Prejudices

Well, those racist, sexist, redneck, bigoted Tea-Partiers in South Carolina have certainly refused to conform to the stereotypes we keep hearing about them. Yesterday they chose a daughter of Indian immigrant parents, Nikki Haley, to run for governor and a black man, Tim Scott, to run for congress. If Haley is elected, which she's favored to be, she'll be one of two Indian-American governors - Bobby Jindal being the other - and both are Republicans. I wonder how the media is going to fit that irksome development into their Tea Party narrative.

It should be fun to watch. Meanwhile, South Carolina Democrats are still in a swivet over the fact that their primary voters have served up ... Alvin Greene to run against GOP incumbent Jim DeMint for U.S. Senate.

For years we've been lectured about how the Republican party is suspiciously underrepresented by minorities and women and that the Democrats, by contrast, are the party of inclusion and competence. Now the Republicans have selected an Indian-American woman and a black conservative man to serve their political interests, and the Democrats have selected a man with criminal charges pending, no job, and an IQ that seems to hover somewhere on the south side of normal. Add to this, among others, the conservative GOP women running against Harry Reid in Nevada and against Barbara Boxer in California, and all the old liberal prejudices and shibboleths are just getting much, much harder to sustain.

RLC

To Change the World

James Davison Hunter has written a book (To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World) that should be read by every Christian who is concerned about modern America culture, how to change it, and how best to relate to it. The book is built around three essays. In the first, Hunter argues that, contrary to what many might believe, cultural change does not come about by changing the hearts of ordinary people, but by changing the way the cultural elite see the world.

The elite are the creators of culture - the artists, politicians, professors, journalists, novelists, celebrities, and so on. They're the engine (my metaphor, not Hunter's) that pulls the long freight train of society. Ordinary people are just box cars. It doesn't matter how many box cars there are in the train, or how easily they glide along the rails, the train's not going to move unless the locomotives pull it. Unfortunately, for those Christian revanchists on both left and right who wish to see a renascence of a culture more compatible with Christian assumptions, Hunter doesn't think that's something that can be accomplished through conscious effort.

Many readers will perhaps find parts of the book a bit too academic for their tastes, but, if so, they'll be confirming one of Hunter's main points in the first two essays. The reason Christians have had so little impact on modern culture is that they too often fail to appreciate the crucial importance of being among the cultural elite. Christians do not reside at the center of culture either in terms of their institutions, their artifacts, or their intellectual life. Too much of the Church is anti-intellectual, and those who are not too often reside on the cultural margins from whence they can exert little influence. Christians, Hunter notes, are lamentably content to produce culture (books, music, films, etc.) solely for themselves and too infrequently inclined, or able, to speak to the world in terms it can understand. The idioms of Evangelicalism simply have no resonance with the secular world and Christians marginalize themselves further if they cannot speak in accents with which our culture is familiar.

In the second essay Hunter offers an interesting an impartial taxonomic description of the Christian right, the Christian left, and the small but growing neo-anabaptist movement. His treatment is fair, as far as I can tell, and, with regard to Christian progressives, a bit more frank than perhaps they'll appreciate.

There is much to commend in these three essays, but in the third he makes the controversial claim that Christians would do well to content themselves with being a "faithful presence" in the world rather than trying to change it. It's here that he'll probably find many of his readers parting company with him. My problem with this section is not that I disagreed with what he said, so much, indeed, the majority of it was very good. Rather, I didn't think that his notion of faithful presence needed to be seen so much as an alternative to the right or left, but instead as an adjunct to, or reinforcement of, whichever of the other two approaches one is inclined to follow. In other words, nothing he said convinced me that either conservatives or progressives were mistaken in pursuing their vision of culture-change through changing the hearts of ordinary people one heart at a time. His insights, however, do serve the very important purpose of putting those visions into perspective and cautioning us against slipping into the perennial "neo-Constantinian" temptation to lust for, and abuse, political power.

A short post can hardly do Hunter's book justice so I recommend that those who want more of an introduction before tackling To Change the World go to the interview with Hunter at Christianity Today in which he talks about his main themes and which also features replies by Chuck Colson and Andy Crouch, two writers Hunter criticizes in his first essay.

For those who'd like to dive right in, however, To Change the World can be ordered at our favorite bookstore, Hearts and Minds. It's a book I feel sure will be referenced and discussed for many years to come.

RLC

General McChrystal

Two quick and perhaps not well-considered thoughts about the General McChrystal contretemps:

1) McChrystal should resign or be fired. The President can no more tolerate public insubordination from his military commanders than the commanders should tolerate it from their underlings. The criticism McChrystal and his staff directed at the administration is quite possibly accurate, but should not have been voiced publicly while he and his staff remain in the military.

2) I can't prove it, but had a general made similar criticisms of George Bush during the Iraq war that officer would have been a media hero. As it is, much of the media is calling for McChrystal's head. In their minds his mistake was not to criticize the Commander in Chief but rather to criticize this Commander in Chief.

RLC

Geological Catastrophism

Uh, oh. Wait till the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) get a hold of this report:

In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake -- the reservoir of the Canyon Dam -- to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.

According to a new analysis of the flood and its aftermath -- performed by Michael Lamb, assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and Mark Fonstad of Texas State University -- the canyon formed in just three days.

Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.

Such is not always the case, however. "We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth's history," Lamb says.

I hold no settled position on such questions as the age of the earth and the rate at which geological change has transpired, but the YEC folks do, and this finding confirms a claim that they've been making for sixty years or more that structures like the Grand Canyon were the result, not of gradual wearing away of sediment, but by rapid catastrophic erosion in the wake of the global Noahican flood.

I'm not qualified to venture an opinion on this matter, but I will share an anecdote. About ten years ago I took my wife and daughter on a trip through the national parks in Utah. As I sat and gazed at the rock formations at Arches N.P. and Bryce Canyon N.P. I couldn't help but think that they showed all the signs of having been scoured and sculpted by massive amounts of turbulent water. This isn't the official explanation for these landscapes, of course, but it wasn't hard to imagine, sitting in these Utah parks, how vast amounts of water pounding and swirling from north to south could carve out these canyons and rock arches, and ultimately dig out the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona.

Arches N.P.

Bryce Canyon N.P.

The article above seems to make that layman's interpretation of the visual evidence plausible, and confirm the possibility of a world-wide flood such as is recorded in the Old Testament and other ancient documents, but then, that can't be right. If it is then the age of the earth could perhaps be revised dramatically downward and evolution of the Darwinian sort would become even less likely than it already is. Since Darwinian evolution is as well-established as any fact of science, or so we're often told, it follows that rapid catastrophism on such a scale must be wrong.

QED. Or something.

RLC

Unfounded Fears

You might remember the frequent anxiety attacks suffered by the secular (and Christian) left in the early years of the Bush administration at the prospect of the imminent theocracy they were just sure Bush was planning to impose upon America. Once it was discovered that Bush was an Christian and that evangelical Christians were engaging in politics, the tocsin was sounded, fears were stoked, and the survival of the nation was said to be in serious jeopardy.

Well, like so many other fears that've captured the febrile imaginations of our liberal friends, only to eventually evaporate, the concern that the Christian right was planning a theocratic takeover of the country proved groundless. Indeed, it turns out that political involvement by white evangelical protestants is a relative smidgeon compared to that of Catholics and black protestants whose political activity for some reason causes no concern on the left.

This chart compiled by Mark Chavez provides the data:

Notice that in almost every category the extent of political engagement is greater for black and liberal protestants and Catholics than it is for white evangelicals. So why all the fuss and bed-wetting about an imminent theocracy?

Well, the above chart is based on facts, but facts are helpful only to those interested in rational reflection. Too often the people spreading fear have abandoned rational reflection. Remember the fear in the late sixties that the population bomb was going to produce world-wide famine by 1980, or the fear in 1980 that Reagan would start WWIII, or the fear in 2004 that global warming was destroying the planet? All of these were based on a few tendentiously interpreted facts served up with healthy dollops of prejudice and superstition. None of them proved to be warranted.

As with little children, sometimes we need to shine the light of calm reason under the bed to reassure our friends on the left that there really are no boogeymen there. It saves them the trouble of having to change their pajamas.

RLC

More on the Flotilla Attack

This is video produced by the Israeli government giving some important details about the Gaza blockade and the assault on the Mavi Marmara:

The following video contains footage of leaders of the Islamists addressing their cadres as the Mavi Marmara set sail. It seems pretty clear they were looking for a confrontation and were not much concerned with delivering aid to Gazans.

Of course, there will be those who'll say that since the Israelis killed more of their attackers than the attackers killed Israelis the Israeli response was "disproportionate." Maybe these critics have a point. Maybe in the future the Israelis should just allow themselves to be beaten to death with pipes and clubs and stabbed to death with knives and thereby prove to the world that they're not such bad guys after all. Why haven't they tried that, I wonder.

Thanks to National Review Online for the videos.

RLC

A Parody of Himself

Lori Ziganto of Hot Air watched the Chris Matthews special on the rise of "The New Right" the other night and found it, well, typical of the sort of intellectual fare that Chris serves his audience every night at MSNBC.

Here's Ziganto's lede:

Last night, MSNBC aired a Chris Matthews special, labeled a documentary, called The Rise of the New Right. I decided to take a quick break from my radical right wing extremist acts like bitterly clinging to my guns and my Bible, whilst fiendishly drawing Hitler moustaches on Obama photos, to watch it. I know. Apparently, I'm a glutton for punishment.

However, while absolutely infuriating, it was simultaneously hilarious and almost took my mind off the distressing shortage of windmills in this country. Almost immediately, two things became rather apparent. Firstly, MSNBC's NewSpeak definition of "documentary" is evidently "blatant fallacies and pure propaganda".

Secondly, it's quite clear that Chris Matthews' leg 'tingle' has moved into his brain, or what passes for some semblance of one. Either that, or he's merely decided to embrace his cuckoo pants. Plus, he's a big, fat liar. I feel no qualms about saying that, since Matthews spent a full hour demonizing me and people like me as violent, irrational racists. In fact, the entire show could be summed up like this:

Racists. Birthers. Guns! Evil scary militia groups that have the same "Don't Tread on Me" flag!!! Chanting "USA, USA" and being fond of the Constitution and, you know, liberty is super scary and ominous. Also, racist. And violence fomenting. Plus, racist.

You see, now Community Organizing is evil and dissent is no longer Patriotic. Instead, that now signifies some sort of marauding mob of nefarious radicals who are doubleplusungood. President Obama said "I want you to talk to your friends and neighbors; I want you to argue with them and get in their faces", but that was okay because George Bush. Or something.

It's not okay when the right peaceably assembles, voicing opinions articulately, in full and coherent sentences and using facts and rational thought, because we aren't supposed to even know how to read! Plus, we don't base things on feel-goody Utopian ideas of kitten whiskers, fairy dust and magical windmills. We sneaky right wing-nuts embrace real world ideas like individual success is a good thing and that people do not need the government to run every aspect of their lives and businesses. Oh, the horror.

If you think her words a little strong you should see the stuff she quotes from Matthews. Anyway, read the rest of her review. It's very good, especially where she rebuts Matthews' fear of right-wing violence.

At one point she quotes a tweet she received that she says sums up the whole show:

JennQPublic summed it up best when she tweeted "If I was writing a parody of a Chris Matthews special, it would sound just like this Chris Matthews special." Exactly. It was almost a self-parody and included every tired, lame, outright false and, frankly, insanely delusional leftist narrative regarding conservatives.

When people have no ideas to offer against their opposition they sometimes seek, by smear and innuendo, to discredit them, and then they complain, as Matthews often does, about our debased political discourse. Perhaps it's time for Chris Matthews to follow Helen Thomas off into the journalistic sunset. What he has left to say that's true is not particularly important or interesting, and what he says that's important or interesting is not particularly true.

RLC

Hey, Let's Build More Nuclear Plants

Yet another Green icon has wandered onto the Damascus Road, and the scales that had blinded him to the importance of nuclear power have fallen from his eyes. In this case the icon is Stewart Brand, founder and editor for sixteen years of Whole Earth Catalog. Peter Huber tells the story of Brand's better-late-than-never partial conversion at City Journal.

Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from Huber's account:

"The question I ask myself now," Brand tells us when he gets to nuclear power, is: "What took me so long? I could have looked into the realities of nuclear power many years earlier, if I weren't so lazy."

When he got over his nuclear sloth, here's what Brand learned. (Most of the words quoted here are Brand's own, but some are Brand quoting others approvingly.) "Fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself." "Reactor safety is a problem already solved," and the new reactors are even safer than the old. Waste isn't a problem; we need the $10 billion Yucca mountain disposal site "about as much as we need a facility for imprisoning dangerous extraterrestrials."

Nuclear power isn't just the cheapest practical carbon-free option around, but the cheapest, period, when not snarled up in green tape. Scientists "invariably poll high in support of nuclear." The people so pragmatic that they actually keep the lights lit, he might have added, have polled that way for 40 years, on the strength of reams of data and analyses, as well as the operating experience of our nuclear navy and a wide range of commercial reactors scattered across the planet.

It's an indubitable historical fact that the developed world was poised to break free from a carbon-centered energy economy 30 years ago. Greens locked us back into it. By demonizing nukes so effectively, they boosted U.S. coal consumption by about 400 million tons per year. We would instantly cut our coal consumption in half if we could simply conjure back into existence the 100-plus nuclear plants that were in the pipeline three decades ago. If global warming is a problem, Brand and his ex-friends own it.

Yes, indeed. The fear of nuclear power, a fear that was in many ways founded, as many irrational fears are, upon ignorance, has deprived us of an excellent source of clean energy that would have made us much less dependent upon coal to produce electricity.

Now the Greens are pushing for cap and trade, legislation which, by some accounts, will be enormously expensive for the country and the main motivation for which, global warming, has lost its credibility as an imminent danger. When will we learn not to take these people so seriously?

Anyway, on the bright side, the Damascus Road is getting crowded.

RLC