Wallace Vs. Darwin

Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer, with Charles Darwin, of the principle of natural selection, but unlike Darwin, Wallace was not a materialist. He did not believe that everything could in principle be completely explained in terms of natural forces and processes. One of the qualities of human beings that he refused to reduce to material causes was human intelligence. Michael Flannery, author of a recent biography of Wallace, writes about his views and modern attempts, specifically a recent attempt by Steven Pinker, to refute Wallace.

In a piece at Evolution News and Views Flannery writes:

Alfred Russel Wallace Issues Fighting Words to Materialists in 1910: "Nothing in evolution can account for the soul [or mind] of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable." Steven Pinker to the Rescue?

Wallace made the above declaration in an interview .... in December of 1910. Much to the chagrin of Charles Darwin, this co-discoverer of natural selection had suggested as much even earlier in the April 1869 issue of The Quarterly Review. Despite maintaining cordial relations, this "heresy" would create a great divide between the two naturalists, and Darwin's disciples have been searching for an answer to Wallace ever since.

Recently Steven Pinker, the darling of evolutionary psychology at Harvard, proposed to rescue Darwinists .... Pinker points out that Alfred Russel Wallace "claimed that abstract intelligence was of no use to ancestral humans and could only be explained by intelligent design." In a singular display of perspicacity, Pinker is right. Wallace felt that certain aspects of the uniquely human mind--love of music, humor, abstract reasoning, mathematics, etc.--were wholly inexplicable by Darwin's own principle of utility, which is the idea that no organ or attribute can exist in a species unless it is or has been useful to the organisms that possess it....

In other words, the problem Wallace puts his finger on is how nature could have selected for such things as a love of music and the ability to develop mathematics when these things offered their possessor no survival value. Evolution only conserves those traits that confer fitness upon the organism, but what fitness did an ability to solve difficult equations or appreciate music have before there were such equations to solve or music to enjoy?

The matter Wallace, and many others since, found to be so vexing is similar to the problem posed by the existence of human consciousness which has been a philosophical thorn in materialism's side ever since Darwin. Steven Pinker tries to grapple with Wallace's argument, but Flannery doesn't think his response is very persuasive. You can read Flannery's assessment of Pinker's argument at the link.

Poverty in America - Another Perspective

We recently featured a reader's response to an earlier Viewpoint post titled Poverty in America. There was a lot of reaction to the reader's opinions, most of which agreed with her critique of the welfare system. One, though, took a different view and I'd like to post it because it offers another side to the issues raised by the first piece.

Here it is:

I would like to start by saying that the response I read was an entertaining, and interesting perspective on welfare, however it was also, in my opinion, not very carefully thought about, or even investigated. Not that I disagree with the response entirely, I would just like to add some points that I believe were neglected to be considered.

For instance, "People have become dependent on the government to support them, and have lost all desire to achieve anything on their own." This statement can be looked at from so many different angles. Let's start with the obvious one, what timeline are you talking about here? Is it welfare at the present? or welfare in the past? The reason I ask such questions is because, back when I was growing up, in the eighties, the welfare system gave much more assistance, when it came to rental assistance, food stamps, and medical assistance.

Back in those days, it could have been looked at as easy to become dependent on the support welfare gave, there was no such thing as working for the assistance, it was just given to you based on financial status, and almost everyone I knew was on welfare.

However if you look at it from the present time frame, there is a more in depth screening process, and not everyone you know can get welfare assistance. There are income brackets you must fall into, and you must work, or go to school for your benefits, with small exceptions, that I believe should be put there for those who really fall into them.

There is no real way you can prevent all people from abusing the welfare system, however what is there really to abuse? The average person gets a total of $250.00 a month for cash assistance, a total of $186.00 in food stamps, and the medical has its restrictions when it comes to covering things like glasses, and many other things that I have not researched enough to feel comfortable opinionating on.

Now picture this, you get a total of $250.00 a month in cash assistance, but your average rental expense is just about $600.00 a month, not to mention utilities and cost of living expenses, such as toiletries, transportation, and child care. How can you become dependent on something that doesn't cover even the roof you sleep under?

"I feel that the welfare system should be completely modified, if not eliminated altogether!" Modified? hasn't it been modified enough? I suffer with hypertension, and worked in a clinic for an entire year, as a single mother, paying a total of $515.00 a month in rent, $520.00 a month in childcare, not to mention car insurance, gas, electric, and food, and was denied medical assistance to help cover the cost of my medication, because I had an income of over $300.00 dollars a month.

So which one should I eliminate? The rent and be homeless, the childcare, and be jobless, maybe insurance, which was only $50.00 dollars a month because the average cost of hypertension medicine is probably a few hundred dollars. Or maybe I could just live in the cold without gas and bundle my daughter in several blankets and feed her bread since I can't afford to keep my electric on. So you see which one of these is the viable option?

Now picture if they eliminated it [welfare] all together, with the ever increasing number of jobs being lost, and the hole in our economy so big it could cover the moon. Or maybe you were wondering where the father of my daughter was in all this, well let's just say he abandoned us, ran to another state and was pending child support, and still continues to do so till today. Or maybe you were wondering where the rest of my family was in helping me with child care, but what if like my case there is no family support? What if you moved out to PA to try and start a better life for you and your family, because you couldn't afford to live in NY?

So you see I believe, that people can sometimes become victims to our economy, specifically when you were already impoverished to begin with, it's not like we can choose what financial class to be born into.

We can however, choose to try and change what we were already giving. It is for this very reason welfare was created, so that the underprivileged people can stand a chance in a world that is built on financial class, and competition. Don't we as the people believe in the "American Dream" and the "Land of opportunity".

In conclusion, to assume that someone can become dependent on welfare, to the point where they no longer have a desire to achieve for themselves, varies from person to person, and situation to situation. If a person no longer wishes to thrive in this world, it could be for a number of reasons, depression, pure sloth, health, and sometimes even carelessness. To assume that welfare is the main reason is biased, because we can't speak for everyone.

After all, if we lived in a society where people practiced Social Solidarity, would people still continue to frown upon welfare? Just one of those very things I wonder.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this topic?

Presidential Principles

When in 2009 Hondurans acted constitutionally and properly via the military, Supreme Court, and the legislature to remove a president who gave signs of becoming a dictator and despot, the Obama administration was outraged and demanded that the president, Manuel Zelaya, be reinstated despite the wishes of the peoples' representatives.

When the Iranian people rose in protest of the fraudulent elections in 2009 which returned Ahmadinejad to power, the Obama administration justified their silence by saying that we shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other nations.

When the leader of China, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, visited the U.S. several weeks ago, President Obama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, feted his Chinese counterpart with a lavish state dinner while many Chinese, including another Nobel Peace Prize winner, languished in prison.

Now, when the people of Egypt rise to demand the resignation of a man who has been one of our best friends, President Obama throws in with the Egyptian masses and demands that Mubarak leave office immediately.

Set aside the unseemliness of Mr. Obama sounding as though he was dictating terms to Mr. Mubarak rather than advising him. Let's grant, moreover, that taking the side of the pro-democracy protesters is the proper thing to do.

The question I wish to pose is what principles guide this president in making decisions as to whom he will support in these conflicts? What guides him to side with the people in the case of Egypt, but with a likely despot in Honduras, and to remain silent while the people of China and Iran suffer under the crushing weight of tyranny?

It would be very interesting to hear him explain the principles, if any, which light his path in these matters.

The Egyptian Uprising

The American Thinker has a very good account of the events of the last several days in Egypt written by a politically astute young man who witnessed them close up. His report is at odds in several respects with what we've been hearing in our own media, and his insights are very helpful. Anyone interested in the history behind the present turmoil and what will come of it really should read his essay.

Here's the lede:

One week ago, Egypt was a stable authoritarian regime, prospects of change were minimal and every expert in Washington would have betted on the endurance of its regime. Today, Egypt is in a state of chaos. The regime, even after using its mightiest sword is not able to control the country and the streets of Egypt are in a state of utter lawlessness. As the world stands in awe, confusion, and worry at the unfolding events, perhaps it is important to write the evolving story that is happening in Egypt before any reflections can be made on them.

Contrary to pundits, it turns out that the Egyptian regime was neither stable nor secure. The lack of its stability is not a reflection of its weakness or lack of a resolve to oppress. It is a reflection of its inherent contradiction to the natural desire of men to enjoy their basic freedoms. Egyptians might not know what democracy actually means, but that does not make the concept any less desirable. Perhaps it is precisely its vagueness and abstraction that makes the concept all the more desirable.

For two weeks calls were made using new social media tools for a mass demonstration on the 25th of January. Observers dismissed those calls as another virtual activism that would not result in anything. Other calls in the past had resulted in very small public support and the demonstrations were limited to the familiar faces of political activists numbering in the hundreds. As the day progressed, the observers seemed to be correct in their skepticism. While the demonstrations were certainly larger than previous ones, numbering perhaps 15,000 in Cairo, they were nothing worrisome for the regime. They were certainly much smaller than the ones in 2003 against the Iraq War. The police force was largely tolerating and when they decided to empty Tahrir Square, where the demonstrators had camped for the night, it took them less than 5 minutes to do so.

But beneath that, things were very different. The social media tools had given people something that they had lacked previously, an independent means of communication and propaganda. Hundreds of thousands of young Egyptians in a matter of minutes were seeing the demonstration videos being uploaded on youtube. For an apolitical generation that had never shown interest in such events the demonstration was unprecedented. More remarkable they were tremendously exaggerated. At a moment when no more than 500 demonstrators had started gathering in that early morning, an Egyptian opposition leader could confidently tweet that he was leading 100,000 in Tahrir Square. And it stuck.

Read the rest of it. You probably won't find so much information on the Egyptian uprising in one place anywhere in the mainstream media.

Government Mandates

Some South Dakota state legislators are determined to make a point about Obamacare. They've introduced a bill that would require every adult in the state to buy a firearm for their own protection:

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm. The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self-defense of themselves and others.”

The chief sponsor of the bill, Rep. Hal Wick, knows it won't succeed but that's the point. The government has no business mandating that citizens buy something. This is the rational for the decision of Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson who ruled Monday that the entire Health Care Reform law is unconstitutional because it contains as an essential provision a mandate that everyone purchase insurance.

Wick is quoted as saying: “Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.”

If Vinson's decision is overturned by the Supreme Court next year there'll be no limit to what the government can mandate that you buy or not buy. They could mandate that you buy a Bible or a Koran, whether you want one or not. They could require you buy a car whether you need one or not. They could insist that you only buy cars made by American manufacturers and refrain from purchasing from non-unionized foreign companies. After all, that would, it could be argued, be helpful to the economic health of the nation, or at least to the UAW.

It's an interesting fact that this very same argument was made in 2008 during the Democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was made as a criticism of Ms. Clinton's health care proposal, ironically enough, by....

Of course, that was then and this is now. Some politicians believe it's permissible to say anything if it helps you get elected.

Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

Unthinkable

A terrorist has planted nuclear bombs in three cities in the United States. They are programmed to go off in just a few days. The terrorist has been captured and interrogated but refuses to divulge the whereabouts of the bombs. What do you do if you're the FBI? Your families are potential victims of the blasts. Time is running out. The terrorist remains obdurate.

This is the theme of a movie released last year titled Unthinkable. It raises difficult questions for both the one who believes that torture should never be used as well as the person who argues that there are situations, such as the one described, in which torture is justified.

If you are absolutely opposed to torture, as is an FBI agent in the film, the question for you is how many people are you prepared to see maimed and killed when their lives could possibly be saved if the terrorist is tortured? Would you think differently if you knew your spouse and children were in one of the target cities?

If, on the other hand, you're convinced that such a scenario justifies torturing the man to pull the needed information from him, how far would you be willing to go with such methods? In the film, the terrorist's wife and children are also threatened with torture in order to ratchet up the pressure on him to divulge the whereabouts of the bombs. Would such an "unthinkable" measure be justified if he refuses to cooperate? If not, why not? If so, how do you justify torturing innocents?

These are important questions given the fact that the film's premise is entirely plausible in our contemporary world and given President Obama's abjuration of all forms of torture in his Cairo speech shortly after his election. I should note, too, that the film adds complexities to the question that shake the certitude that many people bring to the debate. It certainly makes the position of those politicians who self-righteously grandstand before the public about this issue look pretty simplistic.

Unthinkable stars Samuel L. Jackson, Carrie-Anne Moss and Michael Sheen, and is tough to watch (R-rated for violence and language) so I don't recommend it for everyone. If you're squeamish take a pass on this one. If, however, the ethical questions mentioned above trouble and perplex you, you might want to try. I suggest that if you do, that you view it with people you disagree with on the issue. It'll be a great catalyst for conversation afterward. Be sure to select the extended version. It's important.

Those Stupid Republicans

Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly wants everyone to realize what a smart guy he is and what ignoramuses those Republicans are. In a recent column he recounts a response that a GOP congressman gave to a question from Bill Maher about evolution in order to roll his eyes at how stupid Republicans are:

"Real Time" host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: "Do you believe in evolution?" Kingston not only rejected the foundation of modern biology, he explained it this way: "I believe I came from God, not from a monkey." He added, "If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence."

Seriously, that's what he said.

Let's pause to appreciate the fact that it's the 21st century -- and Jack Kingston is a 10-term congressman who helps oversee federal funding on the Food and Drug Administration.

As part of the same discussion, former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell tried to ask Kingston about the overuse of antibiotics. The far-right congressman had no idea how the question related to evolution.

What an embarrassment.

Well, what's embarrassing is that someone who writes for a prestigious journal like The Washington Monthly and who obviously prides himself on his own intellectual sophistication would think that Maher's question was "straightforward".

What did Maher mean, exactly, when he asked Kingston if he "believes in" evolution? Was Maher referring to belief in the theory of evolution? If so, precisely which theory of evolution was he asking about? If he was just referring to evolution in general was he referring to naturalistic evolution? Macroevolution? Microevolution? Theistic evolution? Progressive evolution? What, exactly, was he asking the congressman?

The question as posed by Maher is not "straightforward" at all, but apparently Benen lacks the wit to realize this. He's too busy snickering at Kingston who, like probably 95% of the nation's population, doesn't really know much at all about evolutionary theory.

As for the relationship between the overuse of antibiotics and evolution, Mr. Benen thinks it a disgrace that the congressman was apparently non-plussed by the question, so I propose that he put the same query to, say, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama and see what sorts of answers he gets from them. Indeed, I'd like to hear his own answer to the question.

In fact, I'd like to hear Mr. Benen explain the nuances between the various permutations of evolutionary theory mentioned above. I'd also like to see if Mr. Benen can give a coherent defense of whatever form of evolution it is that he presumably believes in. Has Mr. Benen read any of the significant scientific works critical of the claim that natural processes can produce salutary genetic change such as Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution or Darwin's Black Box? Has he read Stephen Meyer's powerful critique (Signature in the Cell) of the evolutionist's claim that undirected forces and chance can produce biological information?

It's unfortunate that Representative Kingston didn't think to ask Maher what kind of evolution he was talking about and didn't think to ask him exactly how he was defining the term evolution, but his answer wasn't all that different, I'll bet, from what most congressmen would have given. It's just that Democrat congressmen are never asked questions like this because people like Maher wouldn't dream of embarrassing them and people like Benen wouldn't notice if he did.

Shocker from Florida

Dave Weigel at Slate is reporting a real bombshell. A federal judge has struck down the entire health care reform law about which there has been so much political quarrelling over the past two years.

Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida has ruled that because the individual mandate part of the law, the part that requires each person to purchase insurance, is unconstitutional, and because that part of the law cannot be severed from the rest of the law, the whole thing must be declared unconstitutional.

This is enormously significant news. If the ruling withstands appeal, the last two years, during which the Democrat party essentially invested all of their energy, focus and political capital to get this bill passed, and which effort ultimately cost them a historic defeat in last November's election, was all for nothing.

It's obvious that Judge Vinson ruled on the law's merits and not on what he wished were the case. Here's what he said:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

And also this:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Health care reform was the one thing President Obama could claim as a genuine accomplishment going into the 2012 campaign season. Now it appears that he has nothing. Events can change that, of course, but right now the Democrats must be feeling pretty empty.

Presidential Snoozer

Watching President Obama go through the motions in his State of the Union speech last Tuesday night made me think that if he could bottle his presentation he could make a fortune selling it to insomniacs. I know that it certainly gave me a serious case of the drowsies.

In light of recent events in Egypt the SOTU speech now seems almost irrelevant, but I want to share Peggy Noonan's take on Mr. Obama's snoozer just the same because she says so much that's worth reading.

Ms. Noonan is a former speech writer herself and currently an op-ed writer for the Wall Street Journal. I've copied her column in its entirety because the link is temporary, and the column may be replaced by her next piece soon. Here's what she says about Mr. Obama's speech:

It is a strange and confounding thing about this White House that the moment you finally think they have their act together—the moment they get in the groove and start to demonstrate that they do have some understanding of our country—they take the very next opportunity to prove anew that they do not have their act together, and are not in the groove. It’s almost magical.

The State of the Union speech was not centrist, as it should have been, but merely mushy, and barely relevant. It wasted a perfectly good analogy—America is in a Sputnik moment—by following it with narrow, redundant and essentially meaningless initiatives. Rhetorically the speech lay there like a lox, as if the document itself knew it was dishonest, felt embarrassed, and wanted to curl up quietly in a corner of the podium and hide. But the president insisted on reading it.

Response in the chamber was so muted as to be almost Xanax-like. Did you see how bored and unengaged they looked? The applause was merely courteous. A senator called the mood on the floor “flat.” This is the first time the press embargo on the speech was broken, by National Journal, which printed the text more than an hour before the president delivered it. Maybe members had already read it and knew what they were about to face.

The president will get a bump from the speech. Presidents always do. It will be called a success. But it will be evanescent. A real moment was missed. If the speech is remembered, it will be as the moment when the president actually slowed—or blocked—his own comeback.

The central elements of the missed opportunity:

• An inability to focus on what is important now. The speech was more than half over before the president got around to the spending crisis. He signaled no interest in making cuts, which suggested that he continues not to comprehend America’s central anxiety about government spending: that it will crush our children, constrict the economy in which they operate, make America poorer, lower its standing in the world, and do in the American dream. Americans are alarmed about this not because they’re cheap and selfish but because they care about the country they will leave behind when they are gone.

President Obama’s answer is to “freeze” a small portion of government spending at current levels for five years. This is a reasonable part of a package, but it’s not a package and it’s not a cut. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who called it “sad,” told a local radio station the savings offered “won’t even pay the interest on the debt we’re about to accumulate” in the next two years. The president was trying to “hoodwink” the American people, Mr. Coburn said: “The federal government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. It’s 27% bigger than it was two years ago.” Cuts, not a freeze, are needed—it’s a matter of “urgency.”

• Unresponsiveness to the political moment. Democrats hold the White House and Senate, Republicans the House, the crisis is real, and the next election is two years away. This is the time for the president to go on the line and demand Republicans do so, too. Instead, nothing. A freeze.

• An attitude that was small bore and off point. America is in a Sputnik moment, the world seems to be jumping ahead of us, our challenge is to make up the distance and emerge victorious. So we’ll change our tax code to make citizens feel less burdened and beset, we’ll rethink what government can and should give, can and should take, we’ll get our fiscal life in order, we’ll save our country. Right?

Nah. We’ll focus on “greater Internet access,” “renewable energy,” “one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” “wind and solar,” “information technology.” “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail.” None of this is terrible, but none of it is an answer. The administration continues to struggle with the concept of priorities. They cannot see where the immediate emergency is. They are like people who’d say, “Martha, the house is on fire and flames are licking down the stairs—let’s discuss what color to repaint the living room after we rebuild!” A better priority might be, “Get the kids out and call the fire department.”

• Unbelievability. The president will limit the cost of government by whipping it into shape and removing redundant agencies. Really? He hasn’t shown much interest in that before. He has shown no general ideological sympathy for the idea of shrinking and streamlining government. He’s going to rationalize government? He wants to “get rid of the loopholes” in our tax code. Really? That’s good, but it was a throwaway line, not a serious argument. And he was talking to 535 representatives and senators who live in the loopholes, who live by campaign contributions from industries and interest groups that pay protection money to not get dinged in the next tax bill.

On education, the president announced we’re lagging behind in our public schools. Who knew? In this age of “Waiting for Superman” and “The Lottery,” every adult in America admits that union rules are the biggest impediment to progress. “Race to the Top” isn’t the answer. We all know this.

As for small things and grace notes, there is often about the president an air of delivering a sincere lecture in which he informs us of things that seem new to him but are old to everyone else. He has a tendency to present banalities as if they were discoveries. “American innovation” is important. As many as “a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school.” We’re falling behind in math and science: “Think about it.”

“I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories. . . . I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans.” But our deterioration isn’t new information, it’s a shared predicate of at least 20 years’ standing, it’s what we all know. When you talk this way, as if the audience is uninformed, they think you are uninformed. Leaders must know what’s in the national information bank.

He too often in making a case puts the focus on himself. George H.W. Bush, always afraid of sounding egotistical, took the I’s out of his speeches. We called his edits “I-ectomies.” Mr. Obama always seems to put the I in. He does “I implants.”

Humor, that leavening, subtle uniter, was insufficiently present. Humor is denigrated by serious people, but serious people often miss the obvious. The president made one humorous reference, to smoked salmon. It emerged as the biggest word in the NPR word cloud of responses. That’s because it was the most memorable thing in the speech. The president made a semi-humorous reference to TSA pat-downs, but his government is in charge of and insists on the invasive new procedures, to which the president has never been and will never be subjected. So it’s not funny coming from him. The audience sort of chuckled, but only because many are brutes who don’t understand that it is an unacceptable violation to have your genital areas patted against your will by strangers.

I actually hate writing this. I wanted to write “A Serious Man Seizes the Center.” But he was not serious and he didn’t seize the center, he went straight for the mush. Maybe at the end of the day he thinks that’s what centrism is.

And here's Ramirez summing up in one picture everything that's wrong with both the speech and the President's agenda:

Be Careful What You Hope For

Americans need to be careful what we wish for in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world where massive protests are threatening to topple even well-established regimes like that of Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.

Many of these Arab nations are ruled by authoritarians and despots who've been little concerned about the plight of the Arab people and the people have had enough (parenthetical question: Why aren't the Palestinians rebelling against Hamas?). The protestors are demanding more freedom and democratically elected governments. They want, to put it succinctly, what Arabs living in Europe and the U.S. have.

Americans are sympathetic to these desires, but here's the problem. Almost always revolutions initiated and led by democratic reformers at some point get co-opted by ruthless, brutal factions, and what starts out as a revolution for freedom winds up as a tyranny worse than the one it replaces.

This was the pattern throughout the twentieth century in the communist revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere. It's what happened in Iran when the Shah was deposed and the mullahs took over, and it's what very well could happen in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has entered the fray. The Muslim Brotherhood is the group that sired al Qaeda and has inspired Islamic extremists around the world.

Mubarak's government was oppressive, but he was not interested in war with Israel and worked with the U.S. to prevent those who wanted to bathe that region in blood from realizing their dreams. He was also an ally in the war against terrorism. He was a good friend to the U.S. but not so much to the masses of his own people.

If Mubarak resigns it could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on who takes over. If it's the Muslim Brotherhood, which it very well may be since they are organized and likely, despite their claim to have renounced violence, to resort to it, then Egypt will be the next Iran. Worse, if Egypt is taken over by the extremists, the rest of the Arab world will probably topple like dominos.

I don't think we should hope that Mubarak survives, rather I think we better hope that if he falls he's replaced by people who are willing to continue his opposition to extremist terrorism and war while keeping their boot off the throats of the people. History, though, gives us little reason to be optimistic that this will happen.

Best and Worst on Immigration

NumbersUSA is a group concerned about immigration policy, particularly illegal immigration. They've graded nine potential presidential contenders, including President Obama, on their declared positions on various immigration-related issues.

It will probably not surprise anyone that President Obama comes out with the lowest grade in the group, but it may surprise some that not faring much better are Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. The top score was a C+ which they gave to....well you should go to their website to find out.

Re: Poverty in America

Several years ago we put up a post titled Poverty in America that captured the interest of a reader who came across it while browsing the archives. She sent us the following thoughts:

I would have to say that I agree with this post for a number of reasons, as well as a few of my own personal viewpoints on the issue. I have very strong feelings about this, and they may sometimes come across as harsh and un-caring, but I can justify very strongly why I feel this way. In my opinion, the government of this country is too lenient on the welfare system. People have become dependent on the government to support them, and have lost all desire to achieve anything on their own. I believe that it is too easy to get welfare benefits, and there are too many ways to cheat the system.

Personally, I have a few family members who I have seen my entire life cheating the system. My aunt, for example, has a drug and alcohol addiction, and has never held a job a day in her life. She asks why she should get a job when the government gives her almost $2000 a month in food stamps, cash assistance, and disability to not work. In a way I see her point...I work full time and pay for my education (with no help from the government), and I make barely $1200 a month. She has to go to monthly psych visits, which is also paid for by the government, and tells them that she has a problem and can't function in the "real world". But knowing her personally, I know that she can, she just doesn't want to and lies so that she can continue to get support. This is just one of many examples that I can think of.

I also work in retail, so I see the abuses of the system there every day. Almost every customer that walks through the door has an access card in their wallet. I am not exaggerating. Probably 99%. I see them pull out cash from the ATM with their cash side of the benefit card to buy things like cigarettes and lottery tickets, and then use their cards to buy a soda. It frustrates me so much! I don't think that it is fair that MY tax money goes to these people so that they can make poor choices and buy cigarettes and lottery tickets, but can't afford to buy food. Why should I have to pay for their poor life choices? I watched a lady one time spend over $100 on lottery tickets in an hour, and then use her access card to buy a soda. Ridiculous!

Because of these reasons, and probably countless other examples that would probably take up 30 pages, I feel that the welfare system should be completely modified, if not eliminated altogether! If they need help, then they need help. But I think that they should monitor the people who receive help more carefully to determine if they actually need it in the first place, and while they receive it. I also think they shouldn't let them purchase "convenience" items (such as gourmet coffee and smoothie drinks like they do where I work), cigarettes, and lottery tickets.

If they can afford that kind of stuff, then they shouldn't need help to begin with. I also think that they should limit the food they can buy to healthy choices. I see people every day come in and buy nothing but junk food...what is the point? So that in 10 years when they are obese from poor eating habits and have cardiorespiratory disease from smoking the government can then pay for their health care? It seems like an endless cycle.

The bottom line is that these people will never have the desire to better themselves if the government continues to support them. They will do what is necessary to get by and that is all. After all, why work and get an education when you will always have a paycheck no matter what? Why worry about using condoms when the government will support any child born without a father? Why worry about anything at all when you know that all of your needs will be taken care of, leaving you to not have to work hard to support yourself or your family? Many of these people come from families that have been that way for a long time, and they learn from their families that they don't have to work hard. So they don't.

The reason I have such strong feelings about this issue is because, like I said before, I have a few members in my family that are on welfare and abuse the system. I could have easily gone down that same path, but I didn't. I made a choice to better myself and to work hard, and I feel that if I can do it, then anyone can.

The reader chose to remain anonymous, but I think she speaks for a lot of Americans who are just fed up with pulling a wagon full of people who refuse to get out of the wagon and help.

Journalists Fib

Here's a shocker: Some journalists just make stuff up. Journalist Mike Evans had reported that he had spoken with Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie and that Abercrombie had told him that there was no birth certificate for Barack Obama anywhere to be found. Now Evans has been forced to confess that he "misspoke" - the current euphemism for "told a whopper".

Here's the story:

A celebrity journalist now claims he misspoke when he said last week that Hawaii’s governor told him he was unable to find President Barack Obama’s original birth certificate after a search of state and hospital archives. Mike Evans told FoxNews.com on Wednesday he was remorseful and embarrassed that he appeared to have given the impression that he had discussed the search for Obama’s birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week and said he’d been told by the governor himself that Obama’s birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:

"Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ..... there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."

But that’s no longer Evans’ story.

“Only this I can you tell you is 100 percent fact: that Neil never told me there was no birth certificate,” Evans told Fox News. “I never talked to him.”

On the morning of Jan. 20, Evans says he accidentally told KQRS that he’d spoken directly with Gov. Abercrombie about the Obama birth certificate.

“I was on 34 radio stations that morning. That was the only station where instead of saying ‘the hospital said there’s no birth certificate’ I misspoke and said Neil said that,” Evans said. “I misspoke and I apologize for that. I apologize to Neil.”

Evans says he first noticed the story on Jan. 18, when he was reading an online article with the headline, “Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate.” The article cites an interview with a former Honolulu elections clerk who says records of Obama’s birth could not be found at either Honolulu hospital.

“Halfway down the story it said the long form certificate was not on file at the two hospitals,” Evans said. “It says the hospitals say there’s no birth certificate and says Neil says he couldn’t find it.”

Evans said he continued reading other reports online, including one that quotes a former Honolulu election official as saying no hospital has been able to find Obama’s original long form birth certificate.

This story is a little confusing, but evidently, the hospitals have said they have no record of Barack Obama's birth, but, contrary to what Evans had earlier reported, the Hawaii governor who was on a mission to find the darn thing never said there was no such document. He has, though, admitted to failing in his quest for this holy grail.

But that aside, how can anyone "accidentally" tell a radio station that he spoke to the governor about anything, let alone something as contentious and serious as documentation of the president's citizenship and eligibility to serve?

There's a moral to this unfortunate story: Just because you read it in the papers, heard it on the news, or saw it on television doesn't mean it's true.

Seeing What's in it

Over at Hot Air John Sexton reports that the number of waivers granted by Health and Human Services to businesses and unions who have requested exemptions from the Health Care Reform law (Obamacare) has shot from 222 to 729 in one month. Over two million people are now exempted from the program.

Sexton explains the reason for these waivers:

This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employers who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan. In other words, the 729 organizations who have received waivers are not seeking refuge from an unintended consequence, but from the costs associated with one of ObamaCare’s features. The real question is what these businesses will do once the waiver program comes to an end.

By requiring insurance providers to raise the benefit levels that they're obligated to provide to their clients in a year, Obamacare in effect forces the providers to raise the premiums they charge. This means that businesses and unions who pay part or all of their employees' insurance have to pay more for their employees. That means that these businesses will have the following options: cut costs elsewhere, lay people off, or opt not to take on new employees.

That's a heck of a position for a "jobs president" to put businesses in.

Actually there's another option for employers, one that is probably the intent of Obamacare: drop employee health care coverage. This would drive employees who can't get care through their employers into government provided insurance, a single-payer system, like many European countries have. It would probably also drive insurance companies out of business.

When the President assures us that we'll be able to keep our current insurance under Obamacare I'm sure his aides in the White House are all snickering.

Before the vote to pass this bill last year, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi perplexed people of common sense everywhere when she told us that we had to pass the bill in order to see what was in it. Well, now we're seeing what's in it, and, just like seeing what's in a sausage, it isn't pretty. That's why the GOP and, I suspect, a lot of moderate Democrats, want to see the thing repealed.

Confronting the Data

A Pennsylvania high school has decided that the statistics can no longer be subordinated to ideology. Black students, particularly males, are failing in disproportionate numbers and putting them in classes with whites and Asians isn't helping. McCaskey has decided to initiate a pull-out program just for African-American students wherein for a small portion of the day they'll be mentored by a teacher of the same race and gender. Here's part of the story:

A high school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is defending its decision to segregate its students by race and gender. The scheme, at McCaskey East High School, separates black students from the rest of the school body, and then further breaks it down into black females and black males. The separation is only for a short period - six minutes each day and 20 minutes twice a month - but it naturally drew criticism for bringing back the awful memory of racial segregation. Today the school's principal defended its policy.

Bill Jimenez said the school noticed that black students were not performing as well as other students, and that research had shown that same-race classes with strong same-race role models led to better academic results.

Mr Jimenez admitted that no other students were divided by race at the school, but he added that academic data dictated the school take a different approach with its black students.

He told Lancasteronline.com: 'One of the things we said when we did this was, "Let's look at the data, let's not run from it. Let's confront it and see what we can do about it".'

The idea came from Angela Tilghman, an instructional coach at McCaskey East. She said statistics had shown about a third of McCaskey's African-Americans scored proficient or advanced in reading on last year's Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests, compared with 60 per cent of white students and 42 per cent of students overall.

In mathematics, only 27 per cent of black students scored proficient or advanced.

She said research had shown that grouping black students by gender with a strong role model could boost both academic achievement and self-esteem.

There's more about McCaskey's experiment at the link.

Actually many high schools with a substantial minority population are already segregated to some extent. Walk into any AP or honors class and you'll be confronted by a sea of white and Asian faces. The few black students in the classes will be mostly female. Walk into the low level and remedial classes and you'll see a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic males.

I don't know why this is, but I don't buy the traditional explanation that it's due to poverty, or racism, or inadequate funding, or any of the other facile explanations that we're often given.

Nor do I understand why whites and Asians can learn from teachers of any race or gender, but blacks, or at least black males, can only learn from other black males. There's a very serious problem in all of this, and, in my opinion, political correctness has crippled efforts to find out exactly what it is. In fact, political correctness has stood in the way of helping black male students for two generations, because it has made people reluctant to speak frankly about the problem, and it has prevented those who are concerned about it from positing any cause other than those - racism and poverty - which are promoted by the left.

Ever since political scientist Charles Murray and Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein were excoriated by liberals for their 1994 book The Bell Curve, which showed that black students underperformed on assessments of IQ, serious scholars have shied away from suggesting any causes and solutions to this crisis that did not have the left's stamp of approval. Consequently, a large number of African American students have passed through our schools for fifty years with only minimal benefit.

We should applaud Principal Bill Jimenez for "confronting the data and not running from it."

Good and Evil

David Kahane diagnoses the real reason why there's so little civility in our politics. Conservative troglodytes simply won't submit to their liberal betters and yield to their higher wisdom and goodness. Addressing his epistle to the benighted right, Kahane, who, in case you can't tell, is actually being facetious, opens with this (pardon the language):

His Exalted Majesty Barack Hussein Obama II, Lord of the Flies, Keeper of the Hoops, and Protector of the Holy Cities of Honolulu and Chicago, is right. It’s time for a new tone. A kinder, gentler tone, just like the one Daddy Bush was talking about right around the time he tried to upend Saddam Hussein back in the day. A tone of sweet reasonableness, of civility in the way we interact with each other, an Athenian level of discourse that would make Pericles proud.

If only you bastards would let us do it.

Taking my cue from such exemplars as Reps. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, I’m talking about a whole new way to look at political speech, one that combines First Amendment protections — which of course we could not possibly respect more — with a living-and-breathing constitutional view that above all prizes personal responsibility for public utterances, lest some wingnut loon or right-wing goon be driven into a homicidal fit of rage by Sarah Palin’s recipe for moose stew.

In other words, shut the hell up.

The rest of his column is pretty good. Give it a read. Meanwhile, savor the irony of Chris Matthews berating conservatives for an entire segment of his show for their lack of civility then in the next segment slurring tea-partiers with the much-cherished "nazi" insinuation.

I should point out that there's nothing wrong, at least in my opinion, with calling someone a nazi, or a racist, or a liar provided one offers solid evidence to support the charge. If the allegation is made without giving any explanation as to why the charge is justified then the claim is irresponsible, uncivil, and detestable. If one engages in such behavior while at the same time criticizing others for doing the same thing then that individual is either risibly inconsistent or, if consciously aware of what he or she is doing, shamefully hypocritical.

People like Matthews seem to do this a lot, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I don't think they're aware of it. It's just that they have, or seem to have, a subconscious conviction that the political right is inherently evil and the left is inherently good. Some liberals see everything within this interpretive matrix, and without even thinking about what they're saying they just assume, without the need for evidence even faintly occurring to them, that anyone who is upset with liberal economic and social policies must have evil motives, if not be completely racist or sympathetic to nazi ideology.

Let's not be afraid to call things as they are, but if doing so is unflattering or insulting then we have an obligation to justify the charge. Otherwise it's just childish name-calling.

Inciting Violence

Liberals are rightly upset by an article in a conservative magazine in which a prominent tea party leader declares that in order to bring about real change tea party members should resort to violent riots:

“Local protests have to accumulate and spread — and become more disruptive — to create pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the Tea Party will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece. . . .”

Liberal opinion shapers are pointing out that since the riots in Greece have been violent, and people have died, the Tea Party is inciting violence and should be condemned by all Americans along the entire length of the political spectrum. Such recommendations coming from prominent leaders are incredibly irresponsible, it is justly noted, and will lead us down the path to social chaos. The tea party will have blood on its hands.

We can all agree that good, sensible people should condemn this kind of rhetoric and dissociate themselves from anyone who utters it. Encouraging violent protest has no place in our politics nor in our country.

Sadly, though, liberals haven't shown much evidence that they're actually upset by the call for violence, perhaps because it didn't appear in a conservative magazine, and it wasn't a tea party spokesperson who uttered those words. They were spoken by Francis Fox Piven, an editor at the leftist magazine The Nation in an editorial on December 10th of last year. The quote is accurate except that she used the word "unemployed" where I substituted "Tea Party".

Piven is a leading socialist intellectual who has been said to have been influential on President Obama's political development. Since Piven is a lefty, though, the media has been pretty quiet about her call to emulate the riots in Greece. Somehow the call for violent riots, a call that would be loudly, energetically, and correctly condemned if it had emanated from the right, is considered righteous when coming from the left.

Good thing for Ms. Piven she isn't Michelle Bachman urging her listeners to be "armed" with information on pending legislation, and "dangerous" to their political opponents. If she were, the media would have committed the journalistic equivalent of water-boarding on her by now.

Sick Joke

A gentleman by the name of Richard Belfry has a website called "Jesus Hates Obama". Mr. Belfry had sought to sponsor a 30 second Super Bowl ad that depicted bobble-head versions of President Obama and a scowling Jesus and I don't know what all else and don't much care. Fox declined his proposal so, mercifully, the ad will not appear.

Mr. Belfry insists his meme that Jesus hates Obama is all a joke:

Belfry said he's sold more than 70,000 Jesus Hates Obama T-shirts out of the back of his car and through word of mouth since the company launched in 2009.

He said he was shocked by Fox's decision [to decline his Super Bowl ad].

"They don't realize it's a joke," he said.

I can't imagine how Fox manages to miss the humor in Mr. Belfry's kneeslapper. Nor can I tell which is more discouraging - that someone would sell this sort of junk or that so many people would buy it. One thing I think it is safe to say about both Mr. Belfry and his customers - none of them know much about the man whose entire life was not only apolitical, but much more important, was focused on teaching us to love even those we consider our "enemies", political and otherwise.

Busy Place

Jason came across this fascinating video and forwarded it to us. It compresses into one minute 24 hours of global air traffic as viewed from a geosynchronous satellite. The video translates the aircraft's transponder signal into a light signal. It looks like one of those videos of cytoplasm streaming through a cell. Take a look:

The globe is a busy place.

Oh, Boy

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie promised when he took office last month that he was going to put the "birther" controversy to rest once and for all by producing President Obama's long-form birth certificate, the only official record of birth. We commented at the time that this was an extraordinarily foolish move. The birther movement had fallen into senescence and had become largely a target of ridicule. If, however, it turns out that the governor, who thought he was helping the president, can't make good on his promise then he's simply going to breath new life into the doubts and create a lot more headaches for the President.

Now it seems that just that has happened. The Governor was asked recently how his search for the elusive document was going, and he had to admit that he just can't find the darn thing.

Here's the UK Daily Mail (Where's the American press on this, anyway?):

Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there. Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

In other words, Mr. Obama may not be able to prove that he really was born in the U.S. Birthers should tread carefully, though, warns Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh smells a devilishly clever plot afoot to discredit Mr. Obama's enemies. According to Limbaugh it works like this: The certificate really is there but Abercrombie is pretending that he can't find it in order to tempt some big name Republicans to start making hay about the issue. Then, presto, Mr. Abercrombie deftly pulls the certificate out of a hat, as it were, and make the Republicans, who had been accusing Mr. Obama of being an illegitimate president, look completely stupid.

Could be. Or maybe he's just determined to make himself look like a blundering dolt by reminding people of the controversy, by promising to end it and only making it worse, and thereby making life miserable for the President. Mr. Obama must be wondering right about now why anyone who has friends like Mr. Abercrombie would ever need enemies.

UPDATE: The WaPo reports that state officials have informed the Governor that the law prevents them from releasing the mysterious documents without the consent of the person they document. The President has refused to cooperate so it looks like Mr. Abercrombie is back where he started and the birthers remain unmollified, unrefuted, and undaunted.