Are We Really Getting Less Violent?

Stephen Colbert "interviews" Harvard academic Steven Pinker on Pinker's new book The Better Angels of Our Nature in which Pinker argues that we are becoming a less violent, more moral world. The interview is pretty funny:

The Colbert Report

It's not Colbert's practice to get too deep into these things, but I wish he'd have asked Pinker why he thinks the decline in the percentage of people being killed in wartime is occurring so that I wouldn't have had to look it up.

A review at Amazon by Graham Seibert gives us a summary of Pinker's answer to this question. Seibert lists six significant trends Pinker claims have led to a decrease in wars and deaths in war since WWII:

1. Our evolution from hunter gatherers into settled civilizations, which he calls the Pacification Process.

2. The consolidation of small kingdoms and duchies into large kingdoms with centralized authority and commerce, which he calls the Civilizing Process.

3. The emergence of Enlightenment philosophy, and it's respect for the individual through what he calls the Humanitarian Revolution.

4. Since World War II, violence has been suppressed, first by the overwhelming force of the two parties in the Cold War, and more recently by the American hegemony. Pinker calls this the Long Peace.

5. The general trend, even apart from the Cold War, of wars to be more infrequent, and less violent, however autocratic and anti-democratic the governments may be. Call this the New Peace.

6. Lastly, the growth of peace and domestic societies, and with it the diminishing level of violence through small things like schoolyard fights, bullying, and picking on gays and minorities. He titles this the Rights Revolution.

Of course, even if the statistics that Pinker bases his conclusions on are correct the reasons he offers are merely speculative. There's no way of knowing what's responsible for the alleged decline, but, nevertheless, I think a case can be made that the overriding cause, if a decline there be, is #4 plus the success of capitalism in creating decent living standards for so many of the world's people.

There has been less slaughter since WWII largely because the United States has been the dominant superpower and has had some success in meliorating conflicts around the world. Other powers have not used their might for fear of provoking American response. The recent case of Libya is a case in point. Had the U.S. not inserted itself in that internal conflict Qaddafi may well have killed tens of thousands of Libyans. Other examples are the India/Pakistan, the North/South Korean, and the Arab/Israeli conflicts in which nuclear war has been averted largely because fear of the United States has been an incentive to avoid overt, total war.

Moreover, American military technology has enabled the U.S., when it felt it had to fight, to do so with minimum harm to civilians. The ability to attack a single building without having to send a fleet of B-52s to carpet bomb a city has revolutionized modern warfare and considerably reduced the number of people who would otherwise have died.

Finally, the relative prosperity of much of the world since WWII has diminished the restlessness of people and reduced antagonisms so that nations are not as quick to go to war. All of this is a product of the American economic system that the left so deeply, and so ironically, despises.

What it's not a product of, I'm pretty sure, is an evolving sense of moral responsibility. It's peculiar that Pinker, an atheist, would think that the human race is becoming more moral even as naturalism makes deeper inroads into society, spreading its message that moral duties are pure illusion. It would be interesting to hear Mr. Pinker's explanation as to what survival advantage belief in moral duty confers that would cause natural selection to evolve the human race in that direction, even though, on atheism, such duties have no real world foundation.

Lennox v. Hawking

Readers of Viewpoint might recall that a year or so ago cosmologist Stephen Hawking came out with a book in which he claimed that philosophy is dead, the universe created itself out of the laws of nature, and that God is an unnecessary explanatory hypothesis. As you might imagine, the book created quite a stir.

Oxford mathematician John Lennox, one of the most intelligent men on the planet, recently gave a lecture in Seattle in which he took Hawking's argument apart piece by piece and revealed it to be amazingly incoherent - dumb even - particularly given the unquestionable scientific brilliance of its author.

Lennox's talk is long (55 minutes), but if the matter of the intellectual inadequacy of atheistic arguments is one which interests you, you could find few better ways to spend your time than to listen to it.

You can find it here.

Assad's Predicament

As everyone knows by now Moammar Qaddafi has been killed by Libyan rebels. It is always good for murderous tyrants who have caused so much grief and death to get their earthly recompense, but, as I argued back when Mr. Obama first got us into this conflict, it seems to me that killing Mr. Qaddafi at the outset would have been far preferable to first killing several thousand Libyans, spending a billion or so dollars, and then killing Qaddafi.

Anyway, another Middle Eastern tyrant has died by the sword by which he had lived, and the world, at least for now, until we see what replaces him, is a better place.

The next murderous thug to face the wrath of his people appears to be Bashar Assad of Syria. Debkafile has some interesting news on developments in that country. After reporting the mysterious disappearance of three high ranking generals, one of which turned up dead in a Syrian hospital, debkafile says this:

The Syrian conflict is now dominated by four features:

1. The dwindling of the mass demonstrations plaguing the Assad regime for seven months since March 15 in the face of the army's ruthless onslaught by tanks and guns. This does not mean that the contest is over or that the Syrian ruler has come out of it with the upper hand.

2. Anti-Assad forces are instead marshaling in the northwestern triangle between Hama, Homs and Idlib in bands of well-armed guerilla fighters, often led by defecting soldiers or officers, for attacking individual army officers and small units.

3. Two of Syria's most important minorities, the Alawites and the Druzes, fear that this form of warfare will lead inexorably to widespread civil war. They are preparing themselves for the worst by barricading their villages and towns against interlopers and organizing armed militias to keep them out.

4. The Assad regime is going broke, ruined by the seven-month uprising. It can barely find the money to buy food and other essential commodities for keeping the economy and the military going or even pay salaries to government personnel. According to a recent report, the economic damage suffered by six "Arab spring" nations totals $56 billion. Syria is described as incurring the worst losses of them all to its GDP and public finances, totaling $27.3 billion.

Our Iranian sources disclose that since Syrian banks were frozen out of European banks by European Union sanctions, the Assad regime has been forced to start borrowing from Iranian banks, but it is hard to tell for how long the banks in Tehran will be willing to risk extending credit to bail out Bashar Assad.

Assad appears to be in serious trouble and is no doubt looking at those videos of Qaddafi being pulled bloody and dazed from his hiding place, soon to be shot in the head, and thinking that that's the fate that could well await him if he doesn't suppress the current insurrection.

Warning: This is disturbing and violent footage not for the squeamish:

It really is remarkable to reflect on the changes in the Arab world in the last seven years or so. In that time Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden (along with dozens of lesser luminaries in the al Qaeda firmament), and Moammar Qaddafi have all departed earth for their celestial reward, and Mullah Omar (Taliban), Zine ben Ali (Tunisia) and Hosni Mubarak have been deposed.

With luck Syria will soon rid itself of Assad and Iran will unburden itself of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as the ayatollahs who keep their heels on the throats of the Iranian people. The world is changing so fast, but it's very hard to say whether in the long term the change will make the world a safer, more civilized place. It all depends on who manages to fill the power vacuums in these countries, and history has shown that usually it is the most ruthless who prevail in the struggle for control. That should concern us all.

Smart

The good news for those who think that part of the answer to our employment and energy problems is to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is that drilling will soon begin. The bad news is that it's the Cubans who'll be doing the drilling:

The government is doing what it can to ensure that the first full-scale oil exploration in Cuba's part of the Gulf of Mexico will not endanger Florida's pristine beaches that lie only miles away, the top drilling regulator told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The Obama administration frets that domestic oil companies might have another accident and damage the Gulf's ecosystem so they've delayed drilling permits causing oil companies to send many of their rigs elsewhere and eliminating job opportunities for thousands of Americans.

That leaves the Gulf open to other countries who wish to profit from it's abundant oil resources. Of course, they can have accidents, too, and, being run by communists, probably will, so we'll have all of the potential liabilities of oil drilling and none of the real benefits. Moreover, we'll still be buying a lot of our oil from the Middle East.

During the campaign we were repeatedly reminded that an Obama White House would be one characterized by "smart" policies, but it's hard to see anything smart about this.

Eat the Rich

This is an interesting exchange that took place during a commercial break on Geraldo Rivera's show on FOX. The black man with the microphone is Charles Payne who is a FOX business analyst. The other black man is Russell Simmons, the very successful co-founder of hip-hop recording label Def Jam.

Simmons, the labor union guy, and the blonde woman want to say that nobody gets rich on their own, that the successful person like Payne uses infrastructure and institutions built and paid for by the people and that therefore successful people have an obligation to give back to the people. There are four things (at least) that puzzle me about this argument:

1. Almost half the people in the country don't pay federal income taxes and thus contributed next to nothing to that infrastructure and those institutions Payne benefited from so why does he owe them anything?

2. It's not as if Payne didn't contribute to the building of those things himself. As a taxpayer he paid as much as, if not more than, most people toward them so why should he now be expected to pay even more?

3. Even if the rich have an obligation to pay back to the people how much more should they pay? The top 1% of income earners (those making above $380,000) already pay 38% of all federal income taxes and the top 5% (those making above $160,000) pay almost 60%. How much more should they be expected to pay?

4. Even if we confiscated all the wealth of everyone in the country making over $250,000 per annum, which would, of course, be a one-time event because no one would produce anything after that, it would scarcely be enough to sustain current government spending levels for one year. Then what?

This video illustrates the problem:

The OWS folks and President Obama might think that taxing the rich is the solution to our problems, but they're either ignorant or mendacious. The solution to our problems, if there is one, is to cut government spending. Now.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

Well, how's this for an example of the old saw that what goes around comes around? The OWS folks, the same ones who are shouting that the wealth of the haves be taken from them and redistributed to the have nots, are upset because some people are actually practicing what OWS preaches:

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!” Crafty cat burglars sneaked into the makeshift kitchen at Zuccotti Park overnight and swiped as much as $2,500 in donated greenbacks from right under the noses of volunteers who’d fallen asleep after a long day whipping up meals for the hundreds of hungry protesters, the volunteers said.

“The worst thing is there’s people sleeping in the kitchen when they come, and they don’t even know about it! There are some really smart and sneaky thieves here,” Terrie said. “I had umbrellas stolen, a fold-up bed I brought because my back is bad -- they took that, too!”

So, try to follow this. It's okay for the protestors to demand that those who have what they have taken from them, as long as the protestors aren't the ones who have. Or something like that. Redistribution of wealth is only supposed to be employed against other people, not them.

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, of Brooklyn was furious about the thievery -- and vowed to get tough with the predatory perps.

“I’m not getting paid, but I’m not gonna stand for it. Why people got to come here and do stupid stuff? All it does is make people not wanna come here anymore,” Wyman fumed.

At one point yesterday, Wyman and other volunteers briefly scuffled with a man who was standing near a park entrance with a pail calling out: “Donations! Donations!” -- and pocketing the cash people tossed in the bucket.

Well, what's wrong with what bucket-man was doing? Don't these people understand that when they insist that the American taxpayers provide them with free college tuition, free medical care and free retirement they're calling for government to do exactly to us what the thieves in their camp are doing to them? At least the guy with the bucket isn't forcing anybody to put money in his pocket.

Have these people no sense of irony?

Meanwhile, like most left-wing movements, OWS is now bickering over the usual obsessions with race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. Everybody is equal in the great progressive nirvana but evidently some among the 99% are more equal than others, and it's causing dissension in the ranks.

Someone could perhaps do a real public service by passing out a couple hundred copies of George Orwell's Animal Farm in Zuccotti Park. Maybe some of the kids there are sufficiently perspicuous to see themselves portrayed in the novel.

Who They Are

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen does some polling which pulls back the mask on the Occupy Wall Street protests and shows that the folks in the streets are either deluded or disingenuous when they claim to represent the 99% of people in the country who are not super-rich. The fact is, evidently, they represent the 1% who reside on the radical left of the ideological spectrum. Here's Schoen:

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election. Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Schoen gives the data which support these conclusions in his column at the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Obama and Ms Pelosi have embraced OWS because they share the protestors' worldview. Most people in this country don't.

Paul Is Looking Better

I've not been a fan of Ron Paul, mostly because I think his foreign policy ideas are unrealistic, but his plans for getting us out of the financial morass we're in appear to be the most realistic of anyone's campaigning for the presidency, certainly more realistic than those of the incumbent, whatever they are this week. Politico has some nuts and bolts:

The Texas congressman laid out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five Cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.

There’s even a symbolic readjustment of the president’s salary to put it in line with the average American salary.

“Our debt is too big, our government is too big, and we have to recognize how serious the problem is,” Paul said during an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s GOP debate there.

The plan, Paul said, would cut $1 trillion in spending his first year in the White House and create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.

Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere.

The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Appearing on CNN ahead of the speech, Paul was pressed by Wolf Blitzer on how eliminating about 221,000 government jobs across five cabinet departments would boost the economy. He responded: “They’re not productive jobs,” he said.

“You cut government spending, that money goes back to you. You get to spend the money,” Paul said during his speech. “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”

Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut from $400,000 to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. A longtime Federal Reserve critic, Paul would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”

Cuts like these, especially a premature military drawdown, would certainly be risky and painful in the short term, but the alternative of allowing deficit spending and debt to drive us into the abyss of insolvency is far worse. Sometimes painful, risky surgery is required in order to save a patient. If our children and grandchildren are to have any kind of future we have to stop our addiction to spending money we don't have and realize that we can't just do everything we'd like to do.

My biggest concern with Paul's proposal is what he means by cutting funding for wars. I'd like to know exactly what he means by that, and I'd like to know why no one is calling for oil-rich countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E who want us to stay in the region as a shield against Iran aren't being required to foot the bill.

At any rate, I hope that someone in the field who stands a better chance of winning the nomination than Paul does will adopt and champion his ideas.

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.