Science or Religion?

Any students out there who plan to do a paper on whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory? If so, you might check out this post by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views. The following is excerpted from the opening section of his post:

[A]s I suggested above, there are many definitions of "theory" out there. How can we know if ID is a scientific theory? Take the definition of "theory" given by ID's most eminent scientific critics, and if ID meets that definition then there's a good bet ID may properly be considered a scientific theory.

Perhaps the most eminent scientific opponents of the theory of intelligent design can be found among the membership of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).... the NAS defines "theory" as an idea that is well-tested and well-supported by the scientific evidence:

• "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (Science & Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1999).)
• "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (Science, Evolution & Creationism (National Academy Press, 2008).)

Even if we accept the NAS's more stringent definition of theory, ID more than qualifies.

When we're confronted with multipart tests, it's often useful to break them down into their elements. If the subject meets all the "elements," then it passes the test. Let's use that method here to analyze whether ID is a theory.

Element 1: ID must be an "explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature."

Element 2: ID must "incorporate many facts, laws and tested hypotheses."

Element 3: ID must be "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence."

The rest of Luskin's post discusses how well ID meets these three elements. One of the criticisms of ID, of course, is that it's religion and not science. Luskin makes a good case for rejecting this criticism as false.

Seeing Is Hearing

Here's an interesting piece from BBC that shows that what we see overrides what we hear. Or, to put it differently, what we hear often depends on what we see:

Thanks to Telic Thoughts for the video.

Do the Right Thing

During the Bush presidency I compared the Democrats' obsession with discrediting and tearing down Mr. Bush to Captain Ahab's obsession with the white whale Moby Dick, a comparison which was, in my view, completely merited. Today, I have to revisit that metaphor. I think that the current Ahabs are populating talk radio, and they're perfectly happy to destroy their own credibility, and make themselves fools, to insure that nothing President Obama does goes uncriticized.

I think if Obama forgot to cover a yawn Sean Hannity in particular would rant about it for 45 minutes. On their radio shows today both Hannity and Rush Limbaugh achieved almost unprecedented levels of fatuity (no mean feat for Hannity) criticizing Obama for sending 100 military advisors to Africa to help the Ugandan government wage war against the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which they falsely asserted was a Christian militia.

In the world of conservative talk radio, some of which I generally regard as a blessing, if Obama does X then X must, by virtue of the fact that Obama did it, be an unmitigated screw-up and there's no need to check the facts. These guys could have saved themselves considerable embarrassment, however, if they'd have taken the trouble to check out the LRA instead of blithely assuming that whatever Obama does is ipso facto misguided and boneheaded.

To give readers a sense of who the LRA is here's an excerpt from a report on them at GlobalSecurity.org:

The LRA continued to kill, torture, maim, rape, and abduct large numbers of civilians, virtually enslaving numerous children. Although its levels of activity diminished somewhat compared with 1997, the area that the LRA targeted grew. The LRA sought to overthrow the Ugandan Government and inflicted brutal violence on the population in northern Uganda. LRA forces also targeted local government officials and employees. The LRA also targeted international humanitarian convoys and local NGO workers.

The LRA abducted large numbers of civilians for training as guerrillas. Most victims were children and young adults. The LRA abducted young girls as sex and labor slaves. Other children, mainly girls, were reported to have been sold, traded, or given as gifts by the LRA to arms dealers in Sudan. While some later escaped or were rescued, the whereabouts of many children remain unknown.

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs placed the number of abducted children held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates varied substantially.

To see a dramatic depiction of what's happening to children in places like northern Uganda and elsewhere in Africa I recommend the movie Blood Diamond.

There's enough reason to criticize the current administration, heaven knows, without fabricating things, especially when the fabrication makes the fabricator look like an utter buffoon.

If American troops can eliminate these savages then why not send them? What's the political/moral case for standing by while children are being raped, murdered, and turned into cold-blooded killers if we can excise the evil and rescue these children? I seem to recall that President Clinton took a lot of heat from the right, as he should have, for allowing the Rwandan genocide to go unabated when we could have stopped it, and I'm sure that if George Bush had sent advisors to Africa there wouldn't have been a peep of protest out of either Hannity or Limbaugh.

Which brings me to what Mr. Obama should be criticized for. Throughout his entire 2008 campaign he condemned Bush's interventionism and the use of American power to liberate 25 million Iraqis from tyranny. He promised to end the wars in which we were engaged, close down Guantanamo, repent of the "Bush doctrine", and establish a nation at peace with the world.

Since being elected, however, he has done none of this. So far from being the UnBush he has been the UberBush. He was right, however, to do so. He was right to not only follow Bush's policy but to amplify it. He was right to prosecute the drone war against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen, to go after bin Laden, to aid in toppling Qaddafi (even though he went about it in a way that caused needless bloodshed) and now to help eradicate the LRA.

Doing what's right after vehemently criticizing others for doing the same thing makes one a hypocrite, to be sure, and Obama certainly is guilty of that, but I applaud him for trying to protect African children from the horrors visited upon them by vermin like the LRA. When doing the right thing makes one a hypocrite one should still do the right thing.

Amazing Photo

Byron sends along an extraordinary photo in which the photographer captured the Milky Way, the aurora borealis, and a meteor in the same shot. I thought our readers might enjoy it:

You can read more about it here.

Bad Link

The link to the Wikipedia account of the crime (see here) committed by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komasarjevsky has been fixed.

OWS and the TP

Are the protestors comprising the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement a mirror image of the Tea Party (TP)? Not hardly says George Will in a column at the Union Leader:

The Tea Party’s splendid successes, which have altered the nation’s political vocabulary and agenda, have inspired a countermovement — Occupy Wall Street. Conservatives should rejoice and wish for it long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates deemed worthy. All Democrats eager for OWS’ imprimatur, step forward.

In scale, OWS’ demonstrations-cum-encampments are to Tea Party events as Pittsburg, Kan., is to Pittsburgh, Pa. So far, probably fewer people have participated in all of them combined than attended just one Tea Party rally, that of Sept. 12, 2009, on the Washington Mall. In comportment, OWS is to the Tea Party as Lady Gaga is to Lord Chesterfield: Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge was not persuasion modeled on Tea Party tactics.

Still, OWS’ defenders correctly say it represents progressivism’s spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.

There's more at the link. One vast difference between OWS and the TP, of course, is the media reaction to it. Despite the inchoate nature of the OWS demands, the disturbing expressions of anti-semitism, the law-breaking, debauchery, and general squalor, the media, like doting grandparents, smile at OWS's foibles and outbursts and act as deferential, patient enablers.

The TP, on the other hand, has demonstrated far more focus and political power, no hatred, no bigotry (Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous claims notwithstanding), nothing whatsoever untoward, and the media treats them like the neighborhood bully.

Perhaps the reason is that the OWS crowd reminds many in the media of their own youth, marinated as it was in the culture of Woodstock with no clear plan to accomplish anything they wanted to accomplish and no clarity at all about what it was they wanted to accomplish except ending the war in Vietnam. The TP, on the other hand, probably reminds the erstwhile flower children in the media of their parents - stolid, staid, responsible citizens calmly calling for rational solutions to our problems.

Perhaps that's not at all a fair comparison, but it occurred to me as I read recently a fawning letter to OWS from Sojourners editor Jim Wallis who wanted the youthful demonstrators to know that he, too, once walked in protest marches - as if any of today's denizens of Zuccotti Park would be impressed or should even care. Wallis seemed nostalgic for his own youthful infatuation with the sixties version of hope and change as he offered advice to the young progressives and seemed to be trying to recapture, if only vicariously, the thrill of being in solidarity with the vanguard on the barricades. That seemed to me to capture pretty well what I think is part of the progressive attitude toward coverage of this event.

There are, to be sure, grievances being aired in these protests that most Americans would endorse. To the extent the "occupiers" are incensed that too many bankers speculators, and politicians who are responsible for the collapse of our economy have been given a pass, I'm certainly with them, but unfocussed spasms of outrage, civil disobedience, and generalized spoiled brattery with no serious, rational plan to remedy the problems is just an exercise in silliness, futility, and juvenile exhibitionism.

The Demands of Justice

Joshua Komisarjevsky has been found guilty and will join his accomplice Steven Hayes on Connecticut's death row. I invite anyone who is opposed to the death penalty to read what these two men did to the Petit family in July of 2007 and explain to Viewpoint readers why it would be wrong to execute them.

If dissenters from the death penalty wish to argue that these men don't deserve to die (actually they deserve far worse), or that regardless of what they deserve the state should nevertheless refrain from taking their lives, then they're saying that the lives of these men are far more valuable and precious than the lives of Mrs. Petit and her two daughters and that no crime could ever be bad enough, no act could ever be evil enough, that a criminal should be executed for it.

Such a view is, in my opinion, dehumanizing. It devalues the victims and devalues innocent life.

Joshua Komisarjevsky (left),  Petit family (right)

Good luck trying to make the case. You can use the Contact Us button to send it to us.

Restraint

Trying to figure out Mr. Obama's reasoning can be vexing at times. This report presents an example:

President Obama has responded to the Egyptian military’s massacre of Coptic Christian protestors in Cairo Sunday with a pointedly even-handed statement that calls equally on Christians and the military to show restraint.

“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Obama said in a statement released this week. ”Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.”

Incredibly, Obama is not only equating the deaths of peaceful protestors and their killers, but he is suggesting that Egypt’s increasingly persecuted Christian minority should show as much “restraint” as their tormentors and refrain from vigorously objecting to the growing abuse.

More than two dozen people, most of them Copts, were killed as security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the burning of a church.

The Egyptian military has denied the killings, but news reports, eyewitness accounts, and videos posted to the Internet contradict the claims, with footage showing armed personnel carriers ramming through crowds of protestors and a soldier firing at them. The dead, according to forensic reports, were either crushed by being run over or were shot.

Three soldiers are also said to have died, but this appears to have occurred as protestors were fighting for their lives. There can be no mistaking that this was a slaughter of civilians.

Does Mr. Obama really think there's an equivalence between running over peaceful protestors with an armored vehicle and shooting at the people who are trying to run one over? Does Mr. Obama think the Copts should not protest the burning of their churches? Does he think that if they would just shut up when their leaders are arrested and their sons and daughters are killed in the streets Egypt would be able to "move forward and forge a strong and united" country? Why are the Copts advised to exercise restraint, but persecuted Libyans were supported with cruise missiles and drone strikes? Nothing about his response to this atrocity makes any sense.

This video shows some of the aftermath of the carnage:

Christians are being systematically eliminated in Somalia. There are no Christian churches left in Afghanistan. Christians are being arrested and driven out of Iraq, Iran and now Egypt, and Mr.Obama, from the comfort of the White House, tells them that they need to show restraint so that Egypt can be strong and united. Good grief.

Victimizing Them Twice?

President Obama has done some inexplicable things related to the needs of the poor and the genuinely victimized. For example, two years ago he cancelled a program that provided grants to poor children in Washington D.C. that allowed them to attend private schools just like his own daughters do. Why he did this, unless it was simply to ingratiate himself with the public schools teachers' union, is a mystery.

So is this latest decision. He has now rescinded support for a program that gave aid to people who were victimized by human traffickers. The program was run by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which has, perhaps not uncoincidentally, been critical of Mr. Obama, for a number of his positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research:

President Obama failed to renew the $19 million grant awarded to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for providing assistance to human trafficking victims.

The grant from the Department of Health and Human Service was awarded to the bishops in 2006 by President George W. Bush and funded the Migration and Refugee Services.

The office helped 2,700 victims of human trafficking obtain food, clothing and access to medical care.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that she hoped the "position against abortion, sterilization and artificial contraception has not entered into this decision."

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families gave no reason to the Catholic Bishops for refusing to renew the grant.

There's more at the link about what may lay at the root of this decision, but, in essence, it seems that the Obama administration is not going to assist organizations that are not on board with his policies, and if that means that human trafficking victims are victimized yet again, well, that's too bad.

Vindictiveness is not an attractive trait, especially in a president. Maybe Mr. Obama had a good reason for stopping this grant. I wish he'd tell us what it is.

Mingling With the Crowd

Some intrepid young conservatives choose to mingle with the Occupy D.C. crowd where they're greeted with all of the kind, gentle tolerance and respect for differing opinions that we've come to expect from liberals.

Well, sorta:

Thanks to The Blaze for the video.

The Keystone XL Pipeline

The standard left/liberal position on the Keystone XL pipeline that will carry tar sands petroleum from Alberta to the Gulf coast for refining is to oppose it's construction. That's why it was a bit of a surprise to see this commentary from the editors of the liberal Washington Post. The paper's editors argue that opposition to the pipeline is misplaced. It's good enough and short enough to warrant repeating their argument in full:

A Canadian company's application to build an oil pipeline between Alberta and the Gulf of Mexico has become the symbol of the fight against fossil fuels in America. In a public hearing last week, activists, some weeping, begged the State Department to oppose the plan.

In the balance, they claimed, was nothing less than the global climate, America’s economy, even sensitive racial divisions. Mainstream environmental groups have enthusiastically embraced the cause. Passions can hardly be overstated: Twelve hundred people were arrested for protesting the pipeline in Washington over the summer.

True, the petroleum that comes from Alberta’s “tar sands” isn’t very clean; it produces more carbon emissions than light sweet crude. And, true, pipelines can leak, as recent ruptures in Michigan and under the Yellowstone River demonstrate.

But rejecting the pipeline won’t reduce global carbon emissions or the risk of environmentally destructive spills.

Canada’s government — and rising world petroleum prices — guarantee that the country will extract the oil from its tar sands, and that Asia will take it if America doesn’t. That means using pipelines to transport Canada’s heavy crude hundreds of miles to the West Coast and then shipping it abroad, burning fossil fuels and risking ocean spills along the way. China already has a large stake in Canadian oil production. Plans are already in the works to build the necessary pipelines.

Critics fall back on the allegation that petroleum companies want to export much of the Canadian oil abroad after refining it in Gulf Coast facilities. With access to the world oil market, they can and should have that option. But if export markets are that attractive, Canadian crude will reach them without transiting the United States, and American refineries will get their low-grade crude from somewhere else.

The bottom line remains: The more American refineries source their low-grade crude via pipeline from Canada and not from tankers out of the Middle East or Venezuela, the better, even if not every refined barrel stays in the country.

Producing energy is a dirty business, and it will remain so for a long time, even with the right policies. Part of facing this reality is admitting that how the world produces energy must change over time. But another part is accepting that oil production will continue for decades and clear-headedly managing the risks — not pretending we can wish them away.

Amen.

Who's the Moron?

Dallas Pastor and Rick Perry supporter Robert Jeffress has created a bit of a storm by wading into waters he probably should have stayed clear of. The pastor made several claims that have gotten him into some serious turbulence but they distill to this:

Mormonism is not a Christian religion, it's a cult, and therefore Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney because Christians have an obligation to vote for Christians.

I disagree with Pastor Jeffress that Christians are obligated to vote for Christians just as I disagree with those who say that blacks are duty-bound to vote for blacks. I agree with Martin Luther who said that he'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.

If a man is clearly the most competent candidate, reveres the constitution, is virtuous and otherwise qualified, then his religion doesn't matter much as far as being my president is concerned.

Even so, I don't think a man is a moron for saying that Christians should vote for a Christian candidate anymore than I think a member of any other group is a moron who urges his fellows to vote for one of their own. Did the people who today criticize Pastor Jeffress also criticize blacks who argued in 2008 that African-Americans had a duty to vote for Barack Obama because he was black?

And I especially don't think the pastor is a moron for saying that Mormonism is not Christian and is, in fact, a cult. This is, despite what the august theologians on MSNBC's Morning Joe show think, the mainstream view among Evangelical Christians. It's not my view, as it happens, but plenty of very intelligent people hold it, and their reasons for doing so are not trivial.

Thus, I thought John Huntsman, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough embarrassed themselves (again) this morning by gratuitously insulting the pastor for stating clearly what is widely accepted among conservative religious thinkers. They can sniff, if they wish, that the pastor and millions of other Christians are theologically mistaken, but to call Jeffress a moron for articulating this belief shows that they are not only arrogant and unkind, but also that they simply don't know what they're talking about.

It makes one wonder who is the real moron:

I suppose this sort of ad hominem is what passes among liberals and faux conservatives like Scarborough as the new tone in our political discourse that President Obama called for in the wake of the Gabriel Giffords shooting.

By the way, did anyone at MSNBC ever call Jeremiah Wright a moron? Just asking.

Religion and Science in Conflict?

Sociologist John H. Evans of the UC San Diego Division of Social Sciences writes an editorial in the LA Times in which he calls for greater understanding between people working in science and religion. Evans means well and offers some helpful advice, but some of what he says reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what the conflict is all about. Here are some examples:

There are, of course, a few fact claims in which conservative Protestant theology and science differ, such as the origins of humans and the universe. Here we find that typical conservative Protestants are likely to believe the teaching of their religion on the issue and not the scientific claim. < br />
We could complain that they are being inconsistent in believing the scientific method some of the time but not always. Yet social science research has long shown that people typically are not very consistent.

I don't think anyone "believes the scientific method" or disbelieves it. The scientific method, if there even is such a thing, is not something which one believes or not, as one does a proposition. Nor is there any significant disagreement over the empirical facts scientists have discovered.

What is at issue between many religious people and many people who work in the scientific disciplines is which metaphysical view of the world, naturalism or theism, best explains and interprets those facts. In other words, the conflict Evans writes about is not between science and religion but between two competing sets of philosophical assumptions.

This is evident in the next excerpt where Evans talks about unobservable abstractions.

Besides, conservative Protestants don't think of their own views as inconsistent, and they have a long-standing way, going back to at least the mid-19th century, of dividing the scientific findings they believe and don't believe. They tend to accept scientists' claims that are based on direct observation and common sense and to reject those based on what might be called unobservable abstractions. Since nobody was around for the Big Bang and for human evolution from lower primates, these unobservable claims are treated with more skepticism than measurements of the effect of airborne carbon on planetary temperature.

An unobservable abstraction is not something scientists should be dogmatic about. The unobservable may be heuristically useful, but if someone finds that it is incompatible with other metaphysical beliefs that they hold the scientist is ill-positioned to argue about it. Scientists can only argue about what can be empirically demonstrated and tested. Unobservable abstractions are usually neither of these.

Once scientists start talking about unobservables, unless they can devise a way to test the unobservable, they're no longer doing science they're doing metaphysics.

Understanding what concerns the "other side" would help. Those wishing to affect public policy on issues such as climate change, for example, need to make it clear to conservative Protestants that the science of global warming is based more on direct observations than on analytic abstractions, that it is more like determining the average body temperature of a human than where humans came from.

Again Evans seems to misunderstand. Those Protestants who are climate change skeptics are not skeptics for religious reasons. Religion, indeed, has nothing to do with it. They remain dubious because they're not convinced that the science supports the claims of those who believe climate change is going to be catastrophic, costly, and that it's man-made.

Conservative Protestants, in turn, should make distinctions between scientific areas where in which they are in moral conflict with science, such as embryonic stem cell research, and those areas where they are not.

But there are no areas where conservative Protestants are in moral conflict with science. There's no dispute about the science involved in stem cell research. The dispute is about whether human embryos should be killed in order to harvest their cells. That's a moral conflict between people who believe it's wrong to take the life of a human, potential or otherwise, and those who believe it's not wrong to take a human life in the early stages of development.

To move forward, we, as a country, need to lower the political conflict. Yes, the views found in fundamentalist churches are not exactly the same as those at the National Science Foundation. But we would see less of the polarizing "we real Americans" rhetoric from the religious right if its members were not ridiculed as know-nothings. Conservative Protestants are not fundamentally opposed to all science.

One can appreciate Professor Evan's intent here while nevertheless wincing at his claim that "Conservative Protestants are not fundamentally opposed to all science." The fact is that conservative Protestants are not fundamentally opposed to science at all. What they oppose is the insistence that only naturalistic, materialistic explanations be permitted to interpret the data collected in the course of scientific investigation. They see this rule as intellectually limiting and metaphysically prejudicial.

To put it differently, conservatives agree with the dictum of philosopher and psychologist William James who wrote that "Any rule of thinking that would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth, if these kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule."

Now They Tell Us

Mark Steyn brings his razor sharp wit to bear in a column for Investors Business Daily in which he skewers the media and academic elites for how they gushed over Barack Obama in 2008 and are now realizing how naive and gullible they were. Their expressions of remorse and regret at having been blinded by the "crease in his pants" and seduced by the "thrill up their legs" are little comfort to those who accepted their judgment and voted for a man with no real record and about whom they knew almost nothing:

"The way I think about it," Barack Obama told a TV station in Orlando, "is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft."

He has a point. This is a great, great country that got so soft that 53% of electors voted for a ludicrously unqualified chief executive who would be regarded as a joke candidate in any serious nation.

One should not begrudge a man who seizes his opportunity. But one should certainly hold in contempt those who allow him to seize it on the basis of such flaccid generalities as "hope" and "change": That's more than "a little" soft.

"He's probably the smartest guy ever to become president," declared presidential historian Michael Beschloss the day after the 2008 election. But you don't have to be that smart to put one over on all the smart guys.

"I'm a sap, a specific kind of sap. I'm an Obama Sap," admits David Brooks, the softest touch at the New York Times. Tina Brown, editor of Newsweek, now says of the president: "He wasn't ready, it turns out, really."

If you're a tenured columnist at the Times, you can just about afford the consequences of your sappiness. But among the hundreds of thousands of your readers who didn't know you were a sap until you told them three years later, soft choices have hard consequences.

Steyn goes on in this vein for the rest of the column. He's relentless in taking the celebrity media to task for assuring us in 2008 that we could put a community organizer in charge of a multitrillion dollar economy and have it turn out well. It was like being assured that giving the keys for a Ferrari to a ten year old is what any wise, sophisticated Ferrari owner should do.

During the campaign it was a common occurrence for someone in the audience of Mr. Obama's speeches to faint from ecstasy at the sound of his voice and the splendor of his words. Now, as we teeter on the brink of economic collapse, as millions of college grads leave school up to their eyeballs in debt with no job prospects suitable for their level of education, as unemployment in the black community hits historic highs, no one swoons anymore when he speaks.

The Nanny State

A while ago I made the comment that there lurks in the heart of many liberals a predilection for totalitarianism. Not that these folks are themselves totalitarians, necessarily, but that the policies they often support push us further down the road toward that end. The comment was not universally well-received by liberal readers, but I stand by it and offer as further evidence of my claim this story out of Brussels by the Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield. His lede reads:

Children are to be banned from taking part in traditional Christmas games, from blowing up balloons to blowing on party whistles, because of new EU safety rules that have just entered into force.

It sounds like a story out of The Onion but apparently it's genuine: The EU toy safety directive, agreed and implemented by Government, states that balloons must not be blown up by unsupervised children under the age of eight, in case they accidentally swallow them and choke.

Despite having been popular favourites for generations of children, party games including whistles and magnetic fishing games are to be banned because their small parts or chemicals used in making them are decreed to be too risky.

Apparently harmless toys that children have enjoyed for decades are now regarded by EU regulators as posing an unacceptable safety risk.

Whistle blowers, that scroll out into a a long coloured paper tongue when sounded – a party favourite at family Christmas meals – are now classed as unsafe for all children under 14.

The new rules are designed to protect children from the chance that a piece of the whistle could be swallowed and cause choking.

There's more at the link. One wonders what the EU regulators will think to ban next. Perhaps children under 14 will be prohibited from eating chicken for fear that the tykes will choke on a bone.

The problem is that bureaucrats have the job of writing regulations. That's what they do, it's what they get paid for and what makes their lives meaningful. So write them they must, no matter how stupid, intrusive, and tyrannical they may be. The last two sentences in the article shed light on the bureaucratic mindset:

Another EU official admitted that the new regulations could be difficult to understand but insisted that safety experts knew best. "You might say that small children have been blowing up balloons for generations, but not anymore and they will be safer for it," said an official.

That's precisely the kind of thinking that leads to Animal Farm.

Reciprocity

Muslim hostility toward Christians continues in Egypt where 19 people were killed and 150 injured as police opened fire on Coptic Christians who were protesting the increasing attacks on Christians and churches throughout Egypt. Here's an excerpt from the story:

“The protest was peaceful. We wanted to hold a sit-in, as usual,” said Essam Khalili, a protester wearing a white shirt with a cross drawn on it. “Thugs attacked us and a military vehicle jumped over a sidewalk and ran over at least 10 people. I saw them.”

Wael Roufail, another protester, corroborated the account.

“I saw the vehicle running over the protesters. Then they opened fired at us,” he said.

Khalili said protesters set fire to army vehicles when they saw them hitting the protesters.

Television footage of the riots showed some of the Coptic protesters attacking a soldier, while a priest tried to protect him. One soldier collapsed in tears as ambulances rushed to the scene to take away the injured.

Throughout much of the Muslim world being a Christian means being treated as a second-class citizen. It could be worse. If you were a Muslim who converted to Christianity you can expect to be murdered.

These paragraphs contain an especial irony:

In the past weeks, riots have broken out at two churches in southern Egypt, prompted by Muslim crowds angry over church construction. One riot broke out near the city of Aswan, even after church officials agreed to a demand by local ultraconservative Muslims, called Salafis, that a cross and bells be removed from the building.

Aswan’s governor, Gen. Mustafa Kamel al-Sayyed, further raised tensions by telling the media that the church was being built on the site of a guesthouse, suggesting it was illegal.

Protesters said the Copts are demanding the ouster of the governor, reconstruction of the church, compensation for people whose houses were set on fire and prosecution of those behind the riots and attacks on the church.

Americans fight for the right of Muslims to build a mosque within a stone's throw of the site where Muslims perpetrated the most horrific attack on American soil in our history, but in Egypt the attempt to build a simple church results in riots.

Muslims demand that their religion be respected, but for many of them respect is a one-way street. We respect them, and they reciprocate by burning down churches and murdering Christians. I wonder what the Koran says about such atrocities.

Northern Wheatear

One of these birds, a Northern Wheatear, a close relative of the American Robin, is seen in Pennsylvania about once every ten or fifteen years. They're common in the arctic and occasionally an adventurous individual will wander down along the east coast from Greenland.

Northern Wheatear (photo by Geoff Malosh)

This one was found this week behind a Days Inn hotel in northern Lebanon county in Pennsylvania. A local resident said it'd been hanging around for several weeks, but until a birder from South Carolina who was staying at the hotel happened to spot it in the parking lot no one but the locals knew about it. Since the word got out, though, people have been coming from all over in a steady stream to see it.

It doesn't look particularly special because it's a juvenile and not yet in adult plumage. It's noteworthy because it's so rare.

Winds of War

According to debkafile, Iran is planning a massive retaliation on American-owned oil facilities in the Caspian Sea region in the event of an American or Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities:

France's U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud warned on Sept. 28 that Iran runs a high risk of a military strike if it continues on the path to nuclear proliferation. "Some countries won't accept the prospect of Tehran reaching the threshold of nuclear armament," he said. "Personally I am convinced that it would be a very complicated operation...with disastrous consequences in the region."

Ambassador Araud's comment confirmed reports from debkafile's military sources in recent months that US and European sanctions against Iran had been ineffectual and the ayatollahs had no intention of slowing down on their drive for a nuclear weapon. The French diplomat was not the only one to raise the alarm this week about regional war clouds circling over Iran.

Sept. 9-26, the Russian army, joined by Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, deployed 12,000 troops in a huge combined military exercise code-named Center-2011 which simulated an Iranian attack on Caspian oil fields operated by American firms in reprisal for a US strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

Russian intelligence postulated an instantaneous Iranian reprisal for this strike and based the war game staged by Russian-led Collective Rapid Force and the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces of the Central Asian Region –CSTO – on this assumption.

Our military sources disclose that the forces taking part in the exercise were briefed for a two-stage scenario:

Stage One: An naval attack on the Caspian Sea coast coming from the south (Iran).

Stage Two: A large-scale air and ground attack from the south by 70 F-4 and F-5 fighter-bombers, namely, the bulk of Iran's air force, along with armored divisions, marine battalions and infantry brigades landing on the northern and eastern shores of the Caspian Sea.

The Russian briefing conjectured that the Iranian offensive would single out the Kazakh oil field at Mangustan on the Caspian coast, a field which debkafile reports Exxon Mobile is operating.

Moscow clearly attached the highest importance to the exercise and extreme credibility to the hypothetical scenario. Russian chief of staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov personally commanded the drills and on Monday, Sept. 26, President Dmitry Medvedev toured the field commands and units.

Tehran was not idle: Tuesday, the day before the war game ended, Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian Navy, stated that Iranian warships would be deployed "close to US territorial waters," since the Islamic Republic of Iran considers the US presence in the Persian Gulf "illegitimate and makes no sense."

After Tehran rejected a recent US request to establish a "red phone" link between the countries to avoid unwanted confrontation between their armed forces in the Gulf region, Ali Fadavi, Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Navy chief, commented enigmatically: "When we are in the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct contact with the United States."

It wasn't clear from the debkafile piece whether the Russians would deploy against the Iranians or in concert with them.

At any rate, how much of this is bluster and how much is serious I certainly can't say, but it seems to me that an attack on an American-owned oil facility while the Iranian fleet sits in the Gulf of Mexico would be a fine way to relieve oneself of the financial burden of one's navy. I'm sure that the Iranians know this, which is why I'm also sure that they would not telegraph their punch.

Those Devious Tea-Partiers

You might not know it, given the absence of media interest, but there's been an amazing development on the nation's political scene. The racist, bigoted GOP, a party populated by racist tea-partiers and their ilk, have catapulted Florida businessman Herman Cain to a 20 point lead over his next closest competitor for the Republican nomination for president.

How can such a thing be explained? How can it be comprehended? It contradicts every narrative promoted by the left for the last four decades. Herman Cain, for those who may not follow these things (shame on you) is a black man, the son of a poor black father and mother, which makes him, in the liberal way of thinking, blacker than Barack Obama whose ancestors, unlike Cain's, never endured slavery, or Jim Crow, or even lived through the Civil Rights era.

I don't know how long the enthusiasm for Cain will last, but it certainly does give the lie to the progressive narrative about tea-party Republicans. How does a staunch liberal cope with the collapse of a major pillar in his worldview, how does he hold together (to paraphrase Marx) when all that is solid in his noetic structure melts into air? How does one keep one's sanity when every entrenched dogma about one's enemy to which one has unquestioningly clung throughout one's life is shown to be an illusion? How will liberals like Samuel L. Jackson and Morgan Freeman ever reconcile these two facts: Republican conservatives are inveterately racist, and Herman Cain is, at least for the moment, their champion.

And what about anti-semitism? Surely conservatives are by nature anti-semitic. But then how are we to explain the strong Jewish vote for the conservative GOP congressional candidate rather than the Jewish Democratic candidate in New York's 9th district special election to replace Anthony Weiner?

"But," we can hear our progressive friends insist, "look at the tea-party. There's real anti-Jewish bigotry there. Just listen, for instance, to this man at a tea-party rally spewing his anti-semitic contempt onto an elderly Jew":

Oops. Wrong video. That was recorded at the Occupy Wall Street protest and the young man was no tea-partier. "Oh well," our liberal interlocutors will say, "we're sure there are anti-semites in the tea party, and the fact that they haven't shown themselves is just proof of how devious they are."

I wonder, if someone at a tea party rally had acted the way this guy behaved toward that man, how the media would have reacted? What conclusions would the folks at MSNBC have drawn about the dark evil lurking in tea-party hearts from such a squalid exhibition of bigotry and incivility?

Never mind. It's a silly question.

Missing Something

According to an article in The Guardian religion is losing its cachet in both England and America, much to the delight of atheists who believe that secularization is good for the world, and that humankind will be far better off once liberated from the stifling shackles of belief in God.

The article goes on to find proof of religion's waning influence in the marked increase in the number of divorces and the growing numbers of children born out of wedlock.

These people seem to have themselves been born bereft of a sense of irony.