One of the profound mysteries in biology that no materialistic theory like Darwinian evolution has ever been able to explain is how an organism develops from a fertilized egg. The video below shows the development of a chicken embryo, and as you watch it ask yourself how the cells know where to migrate to and what structures to form when they get there.
Ask yourself, too, how these cells know when to move, when to divide and when to differentiate.
What controls and choreographs all of this and how did that control system evolve?
A computer programmer can program a computer to control machinery in a factory so that it performs specific functions in a specific sequence in a very rudimentary version of what's happening in the embryo, but then the computer programmer is an intelligent agent.
How does all that happens in an embryo come about by undirected, mindless chance? I wish someone who thinks it did would explain it to me because the only explanation of these sorts of biological mysteries I've ever found are along the lines of, "It just did, somehow, and someday we'll know how."
Perhaps, but scientific promissory notes, especially notes whose maturity date is never specified, are very unconvincing as reasons for believing something that's otherwise very difficult to believe.
Here are a few other mysteries that seem to defy any materialistic or naturalistic explanation. I'd like very much to have someone explain how any of these could've evolved by those blind, mindless purposeless processes. And no promissory notes, please: Animal migration and navigation, insect metamorphosis, sexual reproduction, the first living cell, and human consciousness.
There are lots more, but those would make for a good start.
Anyway, here's the video:
Monday, March 7, 2022
Saturday, March 5, 2022
The Incredible Maiden Voyage of the Barnacle Goose
I thought it might be well to take a break from the terrible events occurring in Ukraine this week, and inject a little awe and wonder into our day. To that end, I chose to write about the incredible manner in which young Barnacle geese leave their nest.
The Barnacle goose is a resident of Greenland but occasionally wanders south in the winter into the Middle Atlantic states of the U.S. It's perhaps the most handsome of all the geese seen in North America.
One thing that makes Barnacle geese especially interesting is the manner in which their young are fledged. They're hatched on ledges high up on cliff faces, but their natural milieu lies in the water hundreds of feet below.
Watch this video to see the remarkable manner by which they get from the ledge to the water: That any of them survive this first "flight" is surely one of the wonders of the animal kingdom.
The Barnacle goose is a resident of Greenland but occasionally wanders south in the winter into the Middle Atlantic states of the U.S. It's perhaps the most handsome of all the geese seen in North America.
One thing that makes Barnacle geese especially interesting is the manner in which their young are fledged. They're hatched on ledges high up on cliff faces, but their natural milieu lies in the water hundreds of feet below.
Watch this video to see the remarkable manner by which they get from the ledge to the water: That any of them survive this first "flight" is surely one of the wonders of the animal kingdom.
Friday, March 4, 2022
A Few Thoughts on How Things Stand, Nuclear - Wise
Vladimir Putin recently ramped up Russia's nuclear readiness status which raises a lot of questions about nuclear weapons. Moreover, some in the U.S. in Congress and in the media have called for the introduction into Ukraine of American air power which could certainly escalate to a nuclear exchange.
The Heritage Foundation's policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense, Patti-Jane Geller, has been asked by The Daily Signal to give her thoughts on these matters, which she does by answering six questions posed to her by the Daily Signal.
I've listed the six questions she addresses in bold along with one or two of her sentences that give a succinct summary of her more detailed answer. If you're interested in her more extensive responses I encourage you to read the whole article:
1. Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert during the invasion of Ukraine. What is the likelihood he would use nuclear weapons, and on who and what? "The simplest answer to this question is that while the likelihood is not high, it is not zero either."
2. A nuclear attack by Russia on the United States seems extremely unlikely. But what should be the U.S. response, and that of NATO, if Russia hits Ukraine with a nuclear weapon? "Ukraine is not a NATO member, and therefore the United States does not extend its nuclear umbrella over Ukraine. Nor are the United States and NATO currently involved in the conflict militarily, so they have no obligation to respond using military force."
3. Just out of curiosity, how much of the United States could be reached by a Russian nuclear attack? "All of it."
4. Does the United States have an adequate missile defense system in place under the worst-case scenario to defend itself or to defend allies from a Russian nuclear attack? Do Eastern European allies have adequate missile defense systems? "Many Americans find it hard to believe that we have no way to defend against a major Russian nuclear attack."
5. By most counts, Russia has several hundred more nuclear warheads than the United States. How relevant is this? Or would such a conflict bring such annihilation that it almost wouldn’t matter? Concerning strategic warheads [warheads mounted on ballistic missiles which could travel thousands of miles] there's a rough parity. Concerning non-strategic "battlefield" weapons [nuclear weapons of relatively shorter range and lower blast yields designed for use on the battlefield] the Russians have a 10 to 1 advantage over the U.S. (2000 to 200)
6. Anything else about Russia’s nuclear capabilities that Americans should keep in mind as Putin’s rhetoric harshens? "As much as U.S. policymakers might like to wish away nuclear weapons from existence, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. Putin’s recent inflammatory rhetoric, nuclear saber-rattling, and military actions in Ukraine are proof of the need for a strong, modern U.S. nuclear force."
The Heritage Foundation's policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense, Patti-Jane Geller, has been asked by The Daily Signal to give her thoughts on these matters, which she does by answering six questions posed to her by the Daily Signal.
I've listed the six questions she addresses in bold along with one or two of her sentences that give a succinct summary of her more detailed answer. If you're interested in her more extensive responses I encourage you to read the whole article:
1. Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert during the invasion of Ukraine. What is the likelihood he would use nuclear weapons, and on who and what? "The simplest answer to this question is that while the likelihood is not high, it is not zero either."
2. A nuclear attack by Russia on the United States seems extremely unlikely. But what should be the U.S. response, and that of NATO, if Russia hits Ukraine with a nuclear weapon? "Ukraine is not a NATO member, and therefore the United States does not extend its nuclear umbrella over Ukraine. Nor are the United States and NATO currently involved in the conflict militarily, so they have no obligation to respond using military force."
3. Just out of curiosity, how much of the United States could be reached by a Russian nuclear attack? "All of it."
4. Does the United States have an adequate missile defense system in place under the worst-case scenario to defend itself or to defend allies from a Russian nuclear attack? Do Eastern European allies have adequate missile defense systems? "Many Americans find it hard to believe that we have no way to defend against a major Russian nuclear attack."
5. By most counts, Russia has several hundred more nuclear warheads than the United States. How relevant is this? Or would such a conflict bring such annihilation that it almost wouldn’t matter? Concerning strategic warheads [warheads mounted on ballistic missiles which could travel thousands of miles] there's a rough parity. Concerning non-strategic "battlefield" weapons [nuclear weapons of relatively shorter range and lower blast yields designed for use on the battlefield] the Russians have a 10 to 1 advantage over the U.S. (2000 to 200)
6. Anything else about Russia’s nuclear capabilities that Americans should keep in mind as Putin’s rhetoric harshens? "As much as U.S. policymakers might like to wish away nuclear weapons from existence, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. Putin’s recent inflammatory rhetoric, nuclear saber-rattling, and military actions in Ukraine are proof of the need for a strong, modern U.S. nuclear force."
Thursday, March 3, 2022
"Basically, That's Wrong"
Vice-preident Kamala Harris was asked recently to explain in layman's terms what's going on in Ukraine. Her answer indicates that she has a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of the average layman:
Or, and I just had this depressing thought, maybe that's how Ms. Harris talks to everybody!
In any case, I'd like to ask her what she means when she characterizes one country invading another, deliberately killing and terrorizing its citizens and destroying its cities, by saying that "basically, that's wrong."
Is that the strongest censure she can think of? Would she say that "basically," child abuse is wrong or that "basically," the holocaust was wrong?
Thankfully, she didn't use the one timorous construction so popular today among those who can't bring themselves to condemn any behavior, no matter how iniquitous or vile - she didn't say that killing thousands of civilians, including untold numbers of children, is "inappropriate" or "not okay."
Even so, must our leaders speak about right and wrong, good and evil in such milk-soppy language as Ms. Harris did employ? Why is she - and not just her - so reluctant to say categorically that what the Russian political leadership and many in the Russian military are doing in Ukraine is pure, unadulterated evil?
Why are so many so reluctant to speak as if evil really does exist?
We've arrived at another distressing point in our cultural decline when our highest political officials talk to Americans as if they were talking to a class of pre-schoolers.OH… MY… GOD
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 1, 2022
Q: “What’s going on in Ukraine?”
Kamala: “Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine so basically that’s wrong.”
pic.twitter.com/gDJDJQVsWb
Or, and I just had this depressing thought, maybe that's how Ms. Harris talks to everybody!
In any case, I'd like to ask her what she means when she characterizes one country invading another, deliberately killing and terrorizing its citizens and destroying its cities, by saying that "basically, that's wrong."
Is that the strongest censure she can think of? Would she say that "basically," child abuse is wrong or that "basically," the holocaust was wrong?
Thankfully, she didn't use the one timorous construction so popular today among those who can't bring themselves to condemn any behavior, no matter how iniquitous or vile - she didn't say that killing thousands of civilians, including untold numbers of children, is "inappropriate" or "not okay."
Even so, must our leaders speak about right and wrong, good and evil in such milk-soppy language as Ms. Harris did employ? Why is she - and not just her - so reluctant to say categorically that what the Russian political leadership and many in the Russian military are doing in Ukraine is pure, unadulterated evil?
Why are so many so reluctant to speak as if evil really does exist?
Wednesday, March 2, 2022
Do They Really Want a Nuclear Holocaust?
I find it beyond shocking that there are calls on Twitter and even in the halls of Congress to introduce American fighter jets into Ukraine to establish a no-fly zone (NFZ).
I'm stunned by this because surely they understand what they're calling for. A no-fly zone is not like some invisible force field over the country, it's an edict that requires enforcement.
If a NFZ were declared NATO aircraft would have to patrol the skies over Ukraine and shoot down any Russian aircraft that entered that airspace. They would also have to take out any ground-based radar and anti-aircraft missiles systems manned by Russian troops.
This would entail the loss of a lot of Russian lives at the hands of NATO, which would certainly elicit a Russian declaration of war against Europe and the U.S. That war might start out with conventional weapons, but it wouldn't stay that way. It would quickly escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, intermediate range nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.
It would be mutually assured destruction. Our cities would be blasted into smoldering, radioactive piles of rubble. It astonishes me that anyone could seriously want this.
The Biden administration has a lot to be held accountable for in this current war. They waited too long to try to arm the Ukrainians, they passed on an opportunity months ago to build up the Ukrainian air force, and they waited too long to impose sanctions.
When the sanctions did come, they were too mild and the administration inexplicably delayed in targeting the right people and institutions and still haven't targeted Russia's petroleum and gas industry.
Nevertheless, they've done the right thing in refusing to heed the calls for a no-fly zone. Ukraine is not Iraq in the 1990s, the Russians aren't the Iraqis and Putin is not Saddam Hussein. Hussein could do nothing about our no-fly zone over the Kurdish areas he wanted to obliterate. Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons. Putin does. A couple thousand of them.
Arm the Ukrainians, demoralize the Russian army, but don't introduce American or NATO forces into this war unless Putin attacks a NATO country. To do so would be to invite a nuclear exchange nobody would win and everyone would lose.
I'm stunned by this because surely they understand what they're calling for. A no-fly zone is not like some invisible force field over the country, it's an edict that requires enforcement.
If a NFZ were declared NATO aircraft would have to patrol the skies over Ukraine and shoot down any Russian aircraft that entered that airspace. They would also have to take out any ground-based radar and anti-aircraft missiles systems manned by Russian troops.
This would entail the loss of a lot of Russian lives at the hands of NATO, which would certainly elicit a Russian declaration of war against Europe and the U.S. That war might start out with conventional weapons, but it wouldn't stay that way. It would quickly escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, intermediate range nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.
It would be mutually assured destruction. Our cities would be blasted into smoldering, radioactive piles of rubble. It astonishes me that anyone could seriously want this.
The Biden administration has a lot to be held accountable for in this current war. They waited too long to try to arm the Ukrainians, they passed on an opportunity months ago to build up the Ukrainian air force, and they waited too long to impose sanctions.
When the sanctions did come, they were too mild and the administration inexplicably delayed in targeting the right people and institutions and still haven't targeted Russia's petroleum and gas industry.
Nevertheless, they've done the right thing in refusing to heed the calls for a no-fly zone. Ukraine is not Iraq in the 1990s, the Russians aren't the Iraqis and Putin is not Saddam Hussein. Hussein could do nothing about our no-fly zone over the Kurdish areas he wanted to obliterate. Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons. Putin does. A couple thousand of them.
Arm the Ukrainians, demoralize the Russian army, but don't introduce American or NATO forces into this war unless Putin attacks a NATO country. To do so would be to invite a nuclear exchange nobody would win and everyone would lose.
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
How Far Will He Go Before...?
If there was any doubt about the evil of Vladimir Putin and his henchmen the last day or so should've dispelled it. In the last 48 hours the Russians have tacitly and explicitly threatened nuclear war with the West, attacked civilian sites with rockets, allegedly employed a type of bomb called a vacuum bomb that's banned by international law, and dropped cluster bombs on a school, among other places.
Russia appears to have used banned cluster munitions to indiscriminately shell civilian areas in Ukraine's east that had stood up to Vladimir Putin's invasion in what would constitute a war crime.The Russians have also deployed hundreds of assassins from a private militia run by an oligarch and Putin crony. These killers are tasked with killing Ukrainian officials and particularly President Volodomyr Zelensky:
Kharkiv, which has witnessed some of the heaviest fighting of the war so far, was hit by rockets fired from Russian positions on Monday - with video showing a shopping centre in the Serpnia area blanketed by explosions. A military source told MailOnline that the videos showed 'cluster' munitions had been used.
'The BM-21 Grad is a multiple launch rocket system used for 'area denial', dropping cluster bombs on a concentrated area,' the expert said. 'It's mainly used on enemy troops before an offensive. Used against civilians, it's not only a war crime, but has only one purpose – to spread terror and alarm among the civilian population.'
Graphic images and video revealed streets littered with the bodies of dead and badly wounded civilians, with other images showing spent BM-21 Grad rocket cartridges laying in the streets and having fallen through apartment roofs.
Cluster munitions were also used to destroy a school in Okhtyrka, activist group Amnesty said, in which three people including a child were killed. The attack 'appears to have been carried out by Russian forces, which were operating nearby, and which have a record of using cluster munitions in populated areas,' Amnesty said.
'There is no possible justification for dropping cluster munitions in populated areas, let alone near a school,' secretary Agnes Callamard added.
More than 400 Russian mercenaries have been flown in from Africa to assassinate Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, it was revealed last night.One wonders how far Putin will go before someone in his government or military decides that he simply can't be allowed to go any further and acts to put an end to the misery this man is inflicting on Ukraine, Russia and possibly upon the rest of the world.
A private militia known as the Wagner Group allegedly has orders from Vladimir Putin to take out Zelensky - and 23 other government figures - to allow Moscow to take over its eastern European neighbour.
According to the Times, the army-for-hire, run by oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin - a close ally of the Russian president who is often dubbed 'Putin's chef' - was flown in five weeks ago and is being offered a huge sum for the mission.
The highly-trained operatives are said to be waiting for the green light from the Kremlin to pounce, with their hit list also including Ukraine's prime minister, the entire cabinet, mayor of Kyiv Vitali Klitschko and his brother Wladimir - both boxing champions who have become iconic figures on the front lines of the capital.
Monday, February 28, 2022
Deliver Them from Evil
When the Taliban were closing in on Kabul Afghanistan's president absconded with his family and his wealth. Not so the courageous president of Ukraine, Volodomyr Zelensky. He and many members of his administration and Parliament are not just ordering the Ukrainian people to fight, they're fighting alongside them in the streets even though Zelensky knows he's marked for death by Vladimir Putin.
When the Americans offered to spirit Zelensky out of Ukraine he responded that what he needed was ammunition, not a ride.
The stories of incredible courage coming out of Ukraine are as heart-breaking as they are inspiring. A Ukrainian soldier blew himself up on a bridge to slow the Russian advance.
Thirteen Ukrainians on an island in the Black Sea refused to surrender to a Russian warship and were all killed in the subsequent bombardment (although see here).
Middle-aged women are taking up rifles in Kyiv to fight the Russians in the streets. Unarmed citizens are standing in front of tanks to block their advance.
The stories of heroism are everywhere in Ukraine.
In the Lord's prayer is the petition to God to "deliver us from evil." May God deliver the brave Ukrainians from the evil that has come upon them, delivered by a man who will doubtless go down in history as one of the most evil European leaders of the last one hundred years.
When the Americans offered to spirit Zelensky out of Ukraine he responded that what he needed was ammunition, not a ride.
The stories of incredible courage coming out of Ukraine are as heart-breaking as they are inspiring. A Ukrainian soldier blew himself up on a bridge to slow the Russian advance.
Thirteen Ukrainians on an island in the Black Sea refused to surrender to a Russian warship and were all killed in the subsequent bombardment (although see here).
Middle-aged women are taking up rifles in Kyiv to fight the Russians in the streets. Unarmed citizens are standing in front of tanks to block their advance.
The stories of heroism are everywhere in Ukraine.
In the Lord's prayer is the petition to God to "deliver us from evil." May God deliver the brave Ukrainians from the evil that has come upon them, delivered by a man who will doubtless go down in history as one of the most evil European leaders of the last one hundred years.
Saturday, February 26, 2022
Ukraine's Resistance
Television news reporting on the war in Ukraine has been a bit short on the details of the fighting. Strategy Page, however, has an extended column on the war in Ukraine, and one part provides some particularly interesting insight into what's going on outside Kyiv.
This is an excerpt from their column dated February 25th:
I don't know how trustworthy those numbers are, but if they're in the ballpark it seems that Vladimir Putin is so far paying a steep price for his decision to invade Ukraine.
This is an excerpt from their column dated February 25th:
As expected, not a lot of the nearly 200,000 Russian troops now near the Ukraine borders actually entered Ukraine. All, or most appeared to be volunteers, rather than the one-year conscripts that comprise half the strength of the armed forces. Few of the conscripts and even fewer of their parents are eager for the conscripts to be fighting neighbors.The Ukrainian newspaper, The Kyiv Independent, reports that as of February 26th the Russians have lost 3500 soldiers, 102 tanks, 536 armored vehicles, 14 fighter jets, and 8 helicopters.
Russian airborne forces managed to take an airport ten kilometers outside Kyiv. Efforts to use that airport to bring in additional troops were disrupted by the Ukrainian use of Stinger portable anti-aircraft missiles as well as rifle and machine-gun fire at low flying aircraft.
The airport was quickly attacked by a Ukrainian army rapid reaction force organized and trained for retaking key locations seized by Russian airborne forces.
While the area around the airport was soon surrounded by regular reservists and armed volunteers, the Rapid Reaction unit retook the airport before the Russians could use larger transport aircraft to bring in more troops. [Today's news brings word that the Ukrainians have shot down at least two Russian transport planes, each capable of transporting up to 150 troops].
Russia appears to have underestimated the preparations Ukraine has made since 2014 to deal with this kind of invasion. In addition to 150 local defense units (of at least battalion size [400-800 troops]) arrangements were made to quickly arm, train and deploy volunteers, which includes all physically able males aged 16 to 60.
The regular army obtained more portable anti-aircraft weapons and trained special units to deal with any Russians that seized key objectives. All those armed Ukrainians were more of an obstacle than the Russians expected.
The invaders are using about a dozen main roads from the border to objectives inside Ukraine. Within hours all those roads were under fire from the armed locals. Even convoys with numerous armed escorts were fired on and the Russians did not have enough troops to clear the roads of armed hostiles.
Some convoys were halted by roadblocks, and at least one Russian reconnaissance platoon was captured.
While the Russians control most Ukrainian airspace and coastal waters, land areas remain under Ukrainian control. An amphibious assault on the major Black Sea port of Odessa failed and most ground advances appear to have stalled as well.
I don't know how trustworthy those numbers are, but if they're in the ballpark it seems that Vladimir Putin is so far paying a steep price for his decision to invade Ukraine.
Mystifying Policy
As readers of Viewpoint can discern, I'm not a fan of President Biden. Now's not the time to get into the reasons, but I did hope that he would do all he could to make war in Ukraine such an ugly prospect for Vladimir Putin that the Russian president would find some way to save face and back out.
I thought that the best way to do this was to arm the Ukrainians with such an arsenal of defensive weapons that Mr. Putin would count the cost and choose not to invade. I have to say that Mr. Biden has deeply disappointed. However much he equipped the Ukrainian military, and that seems to be a classified secret, his use of sanctions is mystifying.
He has sanctioned several big Russian banks which means that the Russian people, already poor, will be made a bit poorer, but he has declined to sanction Mr. Putin himself, and worse, he has declined to sanction Russia's oil and gas industry.
Even as he's ostensibly trying to cripple Russia's economy we and our NATO allies are still buying Russian fossil fuels! Gas and oil make up 50% of the Russian economy, but Mr. Biden has decided that neither Americans nor Europeans are willing to pay $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon for gasoline in order to help the Ukrainian people.
Of course, had he not turned us from being a net exporter of fuel to being a net importer reliant on Russian petroleum for 10% of our fuel, we'd still be energy independent, as we were under Mr. Trump, and Mr. Biden wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of allowing Russia to continue to sell its chief export while also seeking to stifle the Russian economy.
Nor is it clear that the sanctions Mr. Biden unveiled on Thursday will do much to help the Ukrainian people in any case. He admitted as much himself when he said that we'll have to wait a month or so to see if they're working.
The Ukrainian people don't have a month to sit around waiting to see how Mr. Putin's Russia is holding up under Mr. Biden's sanctions. I'm sure they'd like a bit more help this afternoon rather than next month.
I also don't know why, if the sanctions won't bite for a month, they weren't imposed a month ago. Nor is it clear why they were imposed at all if, as Mr. Biden acknowledged, they weren't intended, contra Vice-President Harris, to be a deterrent.
If they weren't a deterrent then they're just punishment, but why not save thousands of lives and do something before Russia launched its invasion to perhaps make them reconsider?
I'm not a military expert nor am I a statesman steeped in international finance, but none of what President Biden has done in Ukraine, just like none of what he did in the Afghanistan pullout, nor what he's doing on our southern border, makes any sense to me.
I don't think it makes any sense to many other people either, least of all the Ukrainians.
I thought that the best way to do this was to arm the Ukrainians with such an arsenal of defensive weapons that Mr. Putin would count the cost and choose not to invade. I have to say that Mr. Biden has deeply disappointed. However much he equipped the Ukrainian military, and that seems to be a classified secret, his use of sanctions is mystifying.
He has sanctioned several big Russian banks which means that the Russian people, already poor, will be made a bit poorer, but he has declined to sanction Mr. Putin himself, and worse, he has declined to sanction Russia's oil and gas industry.
Even as he's ostensibly trying to cripple Russia's economy we and our NATO allies are still buying Russian fossil fuels! Gas and oil make up 50% of the Russian economy, but Mr. Biden has decided that neither Americans nor Europeans are willing to pay $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon for gasoline in order to help the Ukrainian people.
Of course, had he not turned us from being a net exporter of fuel to being a net importer reliant on Russian petroleum for 10% of our fuel, we'd still be energy independent, as we were under Mr. Trump, and Mr. Biden wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of allowing Russia to continue to sell its chief export while also seeking to stifle the Russian economy.
Nor is it clear that the sanctions Mr. Biden unveiled on Thursday will do much to help the Ukrainian people in any case. He admitted as much himself when he said that we'll have to wait a month or so to see if they're working.
The Ukrainian people don't have a month to sit around waiting to see how Mr. Putin's Russia is holding up under Mr. Biden's sanctions. I'm sure they'd like a bit more help this afternoon rather than next month.
I also don't know why, if the sanctions won't bite for a month, they weren't imposed a month ago. Nor is it clear why they were imposed at all if, as Mr. Biden acknowledged, they weren't intended, contra Vice-President Harris, to be a deterrent.
If they weren't a deterrent then they're just punishment, but why not save thousands of lives and do something before Russia launched its invasion to perhaps make them reconsider?
I'm not a military expert nor am I a statesman steeped in international finance, but none of what President Biden has done in Ukraine, just like none of what he did in the Afghanistan pullout, nor what he's doing on our southern border, makes any sense to me.
I don't think it makes any sense to many other people either, least of all the Ukrainians.
Friday, February 25, 2022
Ukraine
Ukraine had been part of the old Soviet Union until the dissolution of the Union that occurred from 1988 to 1991. As part of the U.S.S.R. some 1800 nuclear weapons were situated on Ukrainian soil, and when the Soviet Union disbanded Ukraine became a sovereign nation in possession of all those nukes.
These weapons included short-range tactical missiles and air-launched cruise missiles. The U.S. wanted to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, so in 1994 The U.S., U.K. and Russia signed an agreement in Budapest to guarantee Ukraine that their sovereignty would be protected if they gave up their nuclear weapons, which they did, returning them all to Russia by 1996.
In 2014 Vladimir Putin abrogated the Budapest agreement by invading Crimea, a part of Ukraine. The Obama administration responded by sending the Ukrainians blankets when they needed weapons with which to defend themselves.
Now the Russians want all of Ukraine back and have launched an attack against the rest of the country. This is an historic betrayal on the part of Russia, but the question for Americans is what we will do this time to help Ukraine. So far, President Biden has announced only sanctions against Russia, but what the Ukrainians need are munitions.
To fail once again, to refuse weaponry and other resources to Ukraine now, would be another betrayal on our part of the Budapest memorandum. Mr. Biden has already betrayed Afghanistan, and it would be a terrible thing if he compounded this stain on our national reputation by also abandoning Ukraine.
Perhaps we have indeed been quietly sending Ukraine the resources they need with which to resist the Russians. Mr. Biden hasn't said, but one thing is clear: if we haven't a lot of countries are going to take some lessons from this.
Taiwan and South Korea are going to wonder how steadfast the U.S. will be in honoring the security agreements we have with them.
Countries like North Korea and Iran are going to justify continuing their nuclear programs by pointing to what happened to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. Other nations like Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Taiwan are going to want to obtain their own nuclear deterrents if they have reason to conclude that the U.S. is not a dependable ally.
By trying to limit nuclear devices and being unable or unwilling to enforce the security guarantees made to Ukraine, we've actually made it more likely, apparently, that those weapons will proliferate.
America is at what scholars call an inflection point. It falls to Mr. Biden to demonstrate to the world that we are not, to paraphrase one letter writer to the Wall Street Journal, a soft, self-obsessed consumer society whose primary concerns are the weather a few hundred years hence, transgender bathrooms, and systemic racism. We must demonstrate that we really do consider ourselves bound by our commitments and that our guarantees really are reliable.
This emphatically does not mean that we should put troops in Ukraine or go to war with Russia, but it does mean that we should do everything else in our power, including arming Ukraine, to dissuade Russia from doing what Putin obviously wants to do. It's still not too late.
China is doubtless watching to see what we'll do, and if we waver, if we shrink from the challenge, Taiwan will surely be next to suffer.
These weapons included short-range tactical missiles and air-launched cruise missiles. The U.S. wanted to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, so in 1994 The U.S., U.K. and Russia signed an agreement in Budapest to guarantee Ukraine that their sovereignty would be protected if they gave up their nuclear weapons, which they did, returning them all to Russia by 1996.
In 2014 Vladimir Putin abrogated the Budapest agreement by invading Crimea, a part of Ukraine. The Obama administration responded by sending the Ukrainians blankets when they needed weapons with which to defend themselves.
Now the Russians want all of Ukraine back and have launched an attack against the rest of the country. This is an historic betrayal on the part of Russia, but the question for Americans is what we will do this time to help Ukraine. So far, President Biden has announced only sanctions against Russia, but what the Ukrainians need are munitions.
To fail once again, to refuse weaponry and other resources to Ukraine now, would be another betrayal on our part of the Budapest memorandum. Mr. Biden has already betrayed Afghanistan, and it would be a terrible thing if he compounded this stain on our national reputation by also abandoning Ukraine.
Perhaps we have indeed been quietly sending Ukraine the resources they need with which to resist the Russians. Mr. Biden hasn't said, but one thing is clear: if we haven't a lot of countries are going to take some lessons from this.
Taiwan and South Korea are going to wonder how steadfast the U.S. will be in honoring the security agreements we have with them.
Countries like North Korea and Iran are going to justify continuing their nuclear programs by pointing to what happened to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. Other nations like Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Taiwan are going to want to obtain their own nuclear deterrents if they have reason to conclude that the U.S. is not a dependable ally.
By trying to limit nuclear devices and being unable or unwilling to enforce the security guarantees made to Ukraine, we've actually made it more likely, apparently, that those weapons will proliferate.
America is at what scholars call an inflection point. It falls to Mr. Biden to demonstrate to the world that we are not, to paraphrase one letter writer to the Wall Street Journal, a soft, self-obsessed consumer society whose primary concerns are the weather a few hundred years hence, transgender bathrooms, and systemic racism. We must demonstrate that we really do consider ourselves bound by our commitments and that our guarantees really are reliable.
This emphatically does not mean that we should put troops in Ukraine or go to war with Russia, but it does mean that we should do everything else in our power, including arming Ukraine, to dissuade Russia from doing what Putin obviously wants to do. It's still not too late.
China is doubtless watching to see what we'll do, and if we waver, if we shrink from the challenge, Taiwan will surely be next to suffer.
Thursday, February 24, 2022
Mr. Biden's Silly Question
In his speech announcing the sanctions that the U.S. and its allies will be imposing on Russia for their incursion into eastern Ukraine President Biden asked, "Who in the Lord's name does Putin think gives him the right?" The right, that is, to invade another country:
This is, unfortunately, a very silly thing for our president to have said. In a secular world there are no rights except what the strong deign to grant to the weak. In the world of Vladimir Putin, might makes right. Mr. Putin may well answer Mr. Biden with the riposte that he gives himself the right, and what would our secular leaders have to say in reply?
They might respond that Mr. Putin is violating agreements and U.N. rules and whatnot, but Mr. Putin would doubtless reply, "So what?" Why can't he break those agreements if he has the power to do so? Who will hold him accountable?
The fact is we live in a secular world, a world in which there's thought to be no relevant transcendent ground for human or legal rights. If God exists in this secular world, He doesn't matter. Only what happens in this world matters. Indeed, that's the meaning of the word secular.
In such a world the state becomes the arbiter of rights and the stronger states get to impose their will on the weaker. To do so isn't "wrong," it just is. We may not like it, but unless we believe rights, like the right not to be invaded by another country, are granted by God, we just have to recognize that there's really no use asking the question that Mr. Biden asked.
To someone like Mr. Putin the question is risible. He has stolen millions from the Russian people and murdered hundreds of his countrymen along his road to power. He's not likely to be impressed by President Biden's implicit protest that he had no right to invade Ukraine.
Right and wrong, human rights, ultimately reduce to a question of who has the power. Only if there's a God who grants people rights and holds accountable those who violate them can it be otherwise.
I'm reminded of a passage in a book by the mathematician David Berlinski. The book is titled The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions and in it Berlinski describes a scene in the early years of WWII. An elderly Jew is being made to dig his own grave while an SS officer stands by holding a rifle. At length the Jew stands erect, faces the German, looks him in the eyes and says, "God is watching what you are doing." With that the SS officer shot him dead.
Berlinski goes on to say that,
They might respond that Mr. Putin is violating agreements and U.N. rules and whatnot, but Mr. Putin would doubtless reply, "So what?" Why can't he break those agreements if he has the power to do so? Who will hold him accountable?
The fact is we live in a secular world, a world in which there's thought to be no relevant transcendent ground for human or legal rights. If God exists in this secular world, He doesn't matter. Only what happens in this world matters. Indeed, that's the meaning of the word secular.
In such a world the state becomes the arbiter of rights and the stronger states get to impose their will on the weaker. To do so isn't "wrong," it just is. We may not like it, but unless we believe rights, like the right not to be invaded by another country, are granted by God, we just have to recognize that there's really no use asking the question that Mr. Biden asked.
To someone like Mr. Putin the question is risible. He has stolen millions from the Russian people and murdered hundreds of his countrymen along his road to power. He's not likely to be impressed by President Biden's implicit protest that he had no right to invade Ukraine.
Right and wrong, human rights, ultimately reduce to a question of who has the power. Only if there's a God who grants people rights and holds accountable those who violate them can it be otherwise.
I'm reminded of a passage in a book by the mathematician David Berlinski. The book is titled The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions and in it Berlinski describes a scene in the early years of WWII. An elderly Jew is being made to dig his own grave while an SS officer stands by holding a rifle. At length the Jew stands erect, faces the German, looks him in the eyes and says, "God is watching what you are doing." With that the SS officer shot him dead.
Berlinski goes on to say that,
what that officer did not believe, what Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.And I doubt that Putin believes it either.
And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Quitting Tik Tok, Reading Books
The Federalist's Zsanna Bodor offers some hopeful news amidst these grim times. According to Ms. Bodor Gen Zers are leaving social media and turning to, of all things, reading books!
She writes that, "Personalities like Timothée Chalamet, Kaia Gerber, and YouTube sensation Emma Chamberlain have promoted reading as a way to relax, learn, and escape the toxic world of social media."
I have no idea who these people are, but if they're promoting books instead of mindlessly grazing through the various social media sites, they have something to say that's worth listening to. Bodor goes on to tell us that,
I've acknowledged in other posts that I'm very reluctant to recommend particular books to people because what appeals to me usually doesn't appeal to others, but if I were asked what my favorite classical novels are, I'd probably list the following (although there are a lot of others that are really hard to leave off the list.):
She writes that, "Personalities like Timothée Chalamet, Kaia Gerber, and YouTube sensation Emma Chamberlain have promoted reading as a way to relax, learn, and escape the toxic world of social media."
I have no idea who these people are, but if they're promoting books instead of mindlessly grazing through the various social media sites, they have something to say that's worth listening to. Bodor goes on to tell us that,
In her YouTube video, titled “Reading Makes You Hot,” which has more than 3.8 million views, Chamberlain describes how reading alleviates her anxiety and depression. She explains, “Reading is harmless. Going on social media is not harmless. It makes you sad, it makes you compare yourself to other people, it makes you depressed.”There's much more at the link on Bodor's view of the harm social media is doing to our young people's brains and bodies, and it's all worth taking the time to read. Here's one excerpt:
Since this video was released, Chamberlain has quit TikTok entirely and limited her Instagram usage, citing mental health reasons.
Millions of teens and young adults can relate to Chamberlain’s experience, and research has found a definite causal relationship between social media and depression. A study conducted by the University of Arkansas found that young adults who spent more than 300 minutes a day on social media platforms were “2.8 times as likely to become depressed within six months” than those who spent 120 minutes or less on social media.
According to Nicholas Carr’s bestselling book, “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains,” the exhaustion many users experience after engaging with social media stems from the fact that “our social standing is, in one way or another, always in play, always at risk. The resulting self-consciousness — even, at times, fear — magnifies the intensity of our involvement with the medium. That’s true for everyone, but it’s particularly true for the young.”
Thus, trying to relax through social media is a contradiction of terms. A social media user is not only subject to the myriad auditory, visual, and somatosensory cues put forth by the medium (think of TikTok’s addictive combination of music, fast-paced video content, and “swiping up” to see more), but is also perpetually conscious of his own status and social perception.
In a virtual world governed by likes and dislikes, the danger of being ignored or even “canceled” is an ever-present threat.
Reading comprehension has been declining in America for years, and lockdowns only exacerbated the situation. But Carr reassures us that rewiring your brain is possible. With enough training, those skills of deep concentration and focus can be relearned, or developed for the first time.In her last section she says this:
Just make sure to hide your smartphone while you practice. A 2017 study at the University of Texas found that students whose phones were in plain sight performed more poorly on a series of tests than students who left their phones in a bag or in a different room altogether. “As the smartphone becomes more noticeable, participants’ available cognitive capacity decreases,” explained Adrian Ward, one of the study’s authors.
If you want to incorporate leisure reading into your routine, classical literature is a great place to start. When you read the classics, you interact with the ideas of the greatest minds in human history.I agree. Reading the classics is not easy, it takes time and effort, but the rewards make the effort worth it.
Spencer Baum declares classical literature “essential medicine in the age of social media.” He explains, “When you read Melville (or Hugo or Austen or Tolstoy or Plato or Shakespeare) you are sharing headspace with someone who is much better at slow, deep, meaningful thinking than you are because they’ve never lived in the shallows like you do.”
I've acknowledged in other posts that I'm very reluctant to recommend particular books to people because what appeals to me usually doesn't appeal to others, but if I were asked what my favorite classical novels are, I'd probably list the following (although there are a lot of others that are really hard to leave off the list.):
- The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
- Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
- Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
- Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
- Bleak House by Charles Dickens
- 1984 by George Orwell
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
No Ordinary People
C.S. Lewis, the author of The Narnia Chronicles among many other works, delivered a sermon/lecture in 1942 titled The Weight of Glory in which he concluded with words that, though they were delivered to a Christian audience and have a Christian resonance, might be meditated upon with profit by anyone of any metaphysical persuasion.
Our society would certainly be better off if all of us, even those who disagree with Lewis' religious beliefs, nevertheless lived as if what he says here is true:
 |
| C.S. Lewis 1898-1963 |
Our society would certainly be better off if all of us, even those who disagree with Lewis' religious beliefs, nevertheless lived as if what he says here is true:
It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.If we take Lewis' words seriously and look at others not as merely transient clumps of mortal flesh but as creatures whose destiny it is to exist forever, one way or another, it certainly does alter, or should alter, how we view them and how we act toward them.
All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit— immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.
This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner....
Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat—the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.
Monday, February 21, 2022
Greenland's Ice
One of the concerns with global warming is the rise in sea levels due to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. In an article at the Wall Street Journal (paywall), New York University theoretical physicist Steven Koonin argues that the situation is not nearly as dire as many make it out to be.
Here's his lede:
On the other hand, the IPCC projects a more dramatic rise over the next 80 years:
"Moreover," he notes, "the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm."
His takeaway is this:
Just as importantly, vast tracts of land in Greenland (and Siberia) would become available for human and wildlife habitation and resource mining. The loss of ice cover could well be a boon to humanity, so why do we assume that it would necessarily be a disaster?
Here's his lede:
One of the most sacred tenets of climate alarmism is that Greenland’s vast ice sheet is shrinking ever more rapidly because of human-induced climate change. The media and politicians warn constantly of rising sea levels that would swamp coastlines from Florida to Bangladesh. A typical headline: “Greenland ice sheet on course to lose ice at fastest rate in 12,000 years.”Referring to the following chart, Koonin declares that the amount of ice Greenland has lost since 1900 averages about 110 billion tons per year, which sounds like a lot but which has resulted in a rise in sea level of about one fifth the thickness of a dime.
With an area of 660,000 square miles and a thickness up to 1.9 miles, Greenland’s ice sheet certainly deserves attention. Its shrinking has been a major cause of recent sea-level rise, but as is often the case in climate science, the data tell quite a different story from the media coverage and the political laments.
In contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that for the most likely course of greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century, the average annual ice loss would be somewhat larger than the peak values shown in the graph.However, according to Koonin, the ice melt is not increasing steadily each year. The graph shows that it's fluctuating, and in fact the ice loss today is not significantly larger than it was in the 1930s when human influences made much less of an impact.
That would cause sea level to rise by 3 inches by the end of this century, and if losses were to continue at that rate, it would take about 10,000 years for all the ice to disappear, causing sea level to rise more than 20 feet.
"Moreover," he notes, "the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm."
His takeaway is this:
While a warming globe might eventually be the dominant cause of Greenland’s shrinking ice, natural cycles in temperatures and currents in the North Atlantic that extend for decades have been a much more important influence since 1900.For my part, I wonder why a gradual loss of ice in Greenland would be catastrophic. To be sure some coastal areas and islands may be rendered uninhabitable by a rise in sea levels of three inches, but if the rise was gradual enough many areas would be able to adjust.
Those cycles, together with the recent slowdown, make it plausible that the next few decades will see a further, perhaps dramatic slowing of ice loss.
That would be inconsistent with the IPCC’s projection and wouldn’t at all support the media’s exaggerations.
Just as importantly, vast tracts of land in Greenland (and Siberia) would become available for human and wildlife habitation and resource mining. The loss of ice cover could well be a boon to humanity, so why do we assume that it would necessarily be a disaster?
Saturday, February 19, 2022
Our Existential Predicament
My classes recently spent some time talking about the view of life called existentialism, so I thought it might not be out of place to offer a little mood music here on VP to perhaps nudge us toward reflection upon what's sometimes referred to as our "existential predicament."
The great 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer perceived the problem more clearly than most when he noted that, "Unless the point of life is to suffer, there is no point," and this depressingly droll observation: "Life is bad today, tomorrow will be worse, until we die," and, "Life is a task, the task of staying alive and staving off boredom." The world, for Schopenhauer, is a "penal colony" in which "happiness is measured by the absence of suffering."
He titled the book from which these quotes are taken, Studies in Pessimism. It's not hard to see why.
Alex Rosenberg, the philosophy department chair at Duke University, frames the problem of our predicament succinctly when he writes: "What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto."
Bertrand Russell put the same dispiriting thought this way:
Those who insist on the one hand that death is the end of our existence and on the other that there can nevertheless be some purpose to our lives are a bit like a prisoner who insists on making his bed and brushing his teeth before accompanying the executioner to the scaffold.
At least that's how many who hold to a naturalistic worldview, as do all three of the philosophers quoted above, see life, and they're probably correct to do so if indeed death really is a personal annihilation. Unless what we do matters forever it's hard to see how it matters at all.
Maybe, though, naturalism is wrong and what we do in this life does matter forever. If so, that would change everything.
The question this song by the group Kansas raises is, if it's true that all we are is dust in the wind what meaning or point is there to our lives?
The great 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer perceived the problem more clearly than most when he noted that, "Unless the point of life is to suffer, there is no point," and this depressingly droll observation: "Life is bad today, tomorrow will be worse, until we die," and, "Life is a task, the task of staying alive and staving off boredom." The world, for Schopenhauer, is a "penal colony" in which "happiness is measured by the absence of suffering."
He titled the book from which these quotes are taken, Studies in Pessimism. It's not hard to see why.
Alex Rosenberg, the philosophy department chair at Duke University, frames the problem of our predicament succinctly when he writes: "What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto."
Bertrand Russell put the same dispiriting thought this way:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home.What these thinkers are urging us to recognize is that death annihilates all, it's the big eraser, obliterating everything we do and rendering our existence on the planet a pointless exercise in absurdity.
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.
Those who insist on the one hand that death is the end of our existence and on the other that there can nevertheless be some purpose to our lives are a bit like a prisoner who insists on making his bed and brushing his teeth before accompanying the executioner to the scaffold.
At least that's how many who hold to a naturalistic worldview, as do all three of the philosophers quoted above, see life, and they're probably correct to do so if indeed death really is a personal annihilation. Unless what we do matters forever it's hard to see how it matters at all.
Maybe, though, naturalism is wrong and what we do in this life does matter forever. If so, that would change everything.
Friday, February 18, 2022
Topoisomerase
One of the amazing discoveries in biology in the last couple of decades is the discovery in the cells of living things dozens of incredibly complex molecular machines. One such machine is a protein named topoisomerase II. Topoisomerase II is an enzyme, that is, it's a protein that facilitates some process in the cell, and Casey Luskin at Evolution News describes what this amazing enzyme does:
This is an intractable problem for any theory of the origin of life based on unguided, mindless processes. DNA can't function until there are topoisomerase enzymes, but the enzymes can't be produced until the DNA functions. How did such a system evolve by chance?
Darwinian evolutionists would probably argue that this process evolved gradually over millions of years, but how could evolution even get started if primitive strands of DNA got knotted up before they could do anything?
Do biologists think that the tangle problem only arose in DNA after the topoisomerase enzyme had evolved to fix it? If so, what did the enzyme do before DNA developed tangles, and how did it evolve just the right structure to perform a function for which there was no need?
Another aspect of this astonishing system is that somehow the topoisomerase is able to find the tangles on the DNA and manipulate the DNA into the enzyme in order to untangle it. How did that ability come about as a result of purposeless, random processes?
Anyway, watch the video and see what you think: It takes a lot of faith in blind chance to think that this system could evolve naturalistically, and this is just one of dozens, possibly hundreds of molecular machines that are inexplicable in terms of genetic mutation and natural selection. How do mindless undirected accidents produce something like this?
I'm reminded of the words of biologist Francis Crick who said that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." In other words, biologists must just keep telling themselves that seemingly impossible things happen all the time.
Belief in Darwinian evolution really is a testament to the power of faith in a naturalistic worldview on the part of those who are committed to that worldview.
The topoisomerase II enzyme is designed to untangle knots and supercoils in DNA strands which arise during replication and transcription. It does this by grabbing two tangled DNA segments, holding one steady while it breaks the other segment in two, and then passing the first segment through the break.This sounds relatively simple, perhaps, but as the video below illustrates, it's anything but simple. It's an extremely complex mechanism and an extremely complex process, and here's an important point to keep in mind: The topoisomerase enzyme is necessary for DNA to function, but DNA produces the enzyme.
The second segment is then reconnected, and the two DNA segments are released, having been successfully untangled. Without topoisomerases, chromosomes would become an impossible mess, making DNA replication, transcription, and cell duplication impossible.
This is an intractable problem for any theory of the origin of life based on unguided, mindless processes. DNA can't function until there are topoisomerase enzymes, but the enzymes can't be produced until the DNA functions. How did such a system evolve by chance?
Darwinian evolutionists would probably argue that this process evolved gradually over millions of years, but how could evolution even get started if primitive strands of DNA got knotted up before they could do anything?
Do biologists think that the tangle problem only arose in DNA after the topoisomerase enzyme had evolved to fix it? If so, what did the enzyme do before DNA developed tangles, and how did it evolve just the right structure to perform a function for which there was no need?
Another aspect of this astonishing system is that somehow the topoisomerase is able to find the tangles on the DNA and manipulate the DNA into the enzyme in order to untangle it. How did that ability come about as a result of purposeless, random processes?
Anyway, watch the video and see what you think: It takes a lot of faith in blind chance to think that this system could evolve naturalistically, and this is just one of dozens, possibly hundreds of molecular machines that are inexplicable in terms of genetic mutation and natural selection. How do mindless undirected accidents produce something like this?
I'm reminded of the words of biologist Francis Crick who said that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." In other words, biologists must just keep telling themselves that seemingly impossible things happen all the time.
Belief in Darwinian evolution really is a testament to the power of faith in a naturalistic worldview on the part of those who are committed to that worldview.
Thursday, February 17, 2022
The African Slave Trade
This being Black History Month an article by Charles Jacobs, president of the American Anti-Slavery Group, seems especially relevant. It's a very important and interesting article, written a couple of years for The Federalist.
In his column, Jacobs informed us that black Africans are still being bought and sold by slavers, but you may have been unaware of this human rights atrocity because there's very little interest in doing anything about it in Western nations or the press.
Perhaps Western indifference is due to the fact that the perpetrators are mostly black or Arab Muslims, a favored class among Western media liberals due to their status as an historically "oppressed" group, and the victims of this odious trafficking are largely Christian, and thus not deemed worthy of the attention of our secular media.
If Israelis were selling Palestinians into bondage, or white South Africans were once again imposing apartheid on blacks, it'd be all we'd be hearing from our media megaphones, but Arab Muslims enslaving black Christians elicits little more than a yawn from our "compassionate" elites. They're evidently too preoccupied with climate change and the January 6, 2021 riot to concern themselves with genuine human rights atrocities.
Here are a few excerpts from Jacobs' article:
Oppressed blacks are only of interest to our elites when the oppressors are white.
In his column, Jacobs informed us that black Africans are still being bought and sold by slavers, but you may have been unaware of this human rights atrocity because there's very little interest in doing anything about it in Western nations or the press.
Perhaps Western indifference is due to the fact that the perpetrators are mostly black or Arab Muslims, a favored class among Western media liberals due to their status as an historically "oppressed" group, and the victims of this odious trafficking are largely Christian, and thus not deemed worthy of the attention of our secular media.
If Israelis were selling Palestinians into bondage, or white South Africans were once again imposing apartheid on blacks, it'd be all we'd be hearing from our media megaphones, but Arab Muslims enslaving black Christians elicits little more than a yawn from our "compassionate" elites. They're evidently too preoccupied with climate change and the January 6, 2021 riot to concern themselves with genuine human rights atrocities.
Here are a few excerpts from Jacobs' article:
Every day across the African continent, black men, women and children are captured, bought, and sold into slavery with the Western world paying scant attention. Human rights groups have marched and battled against abuses noticeably less cruel and evil than human bondage, yet no major organization has attempted to free today’s black slaves, much less taken meaningful steps to raise awareness about their plight.Jacobs goes on to discuss two factors impeding any effective action that might eliminate this horrific practice, or at least diminish it. You can read about these and more of what Jacobs has to say about this modern plague at the link, and although his article was written in 2019, there's little indication that much has changed since then.
For instance, in Mauritania, although slavery has been legally banned five times since 1961, it nevertheless persists with tens of thousands of blacks continuing to be held in bondage. While it is forbidden in the Qur’an for Muslims to enslave fellow Muslims, in Mauritania, racism trumps religious doctrine — as it did in the West — as Arab and Berber Muslims enslave African Muslims.
Americans first heard about Islamist slave raids in Nigeria when Michelle Obama made it a cause célèbre with her “#BringBackOurGirls” hashtag, but interest quickly faded, and Boko Haram continued to kidnap hundreds of Christian girls into jihad slavery. So cruel are the events of their captivity that some girls prefer death as suicide bombers to the life of a slave.
Today, Fulani Muslim herdsmen raid Christian villages, massacring their inhabitants. President Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim, has done relatively little to stop the assaults, even in the face of demands for action from the White House.
In Algeria, sub-Saharan Africans fleeing violence and poverty are enslaved by Algerian Arabs as they attempt to cross the Mediterranean into Europe. According to the Global Slavery Index (GSI), 106,000 black Africans are estimated to be enslaved in Algeria.
Migrant women and children of both sexes risk being forced into sexual slavery, while men perform unskilled labor.
The GSI estimates as many as 48,000 migrants are enslaved in Libya, with survivors reporting torture and sexual slavery.
Oppressed blacks are only of interest to our elites when the oppressors are white.
Wednesday, February 16, 2022
Watergate Redux
In what should be the biggest domestic story of the year Special Counsel John Durham has produced hard evidence of what everyone has known but couldn't prove - the Clinton campaign illegally hacked into Donald Trump's computers, even after he was elected president, in an effort to fabricate a connection between him and Russia that would destroy his presidency.
This isn't quite the same as the president's men breaking into the offices of the DNC at the Watergate hotel in the early 70s, but it's very close.
Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times has the story:
I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that hacking private, and perhaps top secret, computer info for the purposes of making it difficult, if not impossible, for the president to fulfill his constitutional duties should be a crime and should warrant prison terms similar to those meted out to the Watergate conspirators.
And it's not just Mr. Joffe who's in trouble. Whoever put him up top this and whoever knew about it in the Clinton campaign is also not sleeping well these days. One such miscreant appears to be a lawyer named Michael Sussman. Among other things,
This means that there will almost certainly be others in the campaign who must've known what was going on, who were actively involved in the criminality, and who will eventually be charged. The big question is, did Hillary herself know about it and did she give the green light to what Donald Trump and others are labeling acts of "treason."
It's hard to believe that underlings would've done this without her approval, but the Clintons have a long history of being able to evade legal sanction for shady behavior - for example, the case of Ms. Clinton's use of an unprotected personal computer to conduct offical state department business and the subsequent "wiping" of the hard drive to delete evidence - so we'll see.
But whether Hillary is prosecuted or not, it's clear that others in her circle will be. It'd be helpful if media outlets other than Fox News and talk radio showed some interest in this. They certainly would if it had been the Trump campaign caught hacking into President Biden's computer traffic.
This isn't quite the same as the president's men breaking into the offices of the DNC at the Watergate hotel in the early 70s, but it's very close.
Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times has the story:
Special counsel John Durham alleged in a court filing Saturday that the Clinton campaign paid for a tech company to hack servers in former President Donald Trump’s residences and the White House to gather derogatory information on him during the 2016 campaign and while he was president.Evidently, Mr. Trump was correct when he alleged repeatedly during the campaign and his early presidency that his campaign had been spied upon. The media, which scoffed at the allegations, has once again been shown to be embarrassingly unreliable.
In the filing, Mr. Durham says the government has evidence that an unnamed tech executive “exploited” an arrangement with the government to monitor Mr. Trump’s internet traffic at Trump Tower, Mr. Trump’s Central Park West apartment, the executive office of the president and an unnamed healthcare provider.
The tech executive was only identified in court filings as “Tech Executive-1”. In previous filings by Mr. Durham, “Tech Executive-1” referred to Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and internet data expert.
“Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the [Executive Office of the President] for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” Mr. Durham writes.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that hacking private, and perhaps top secret, computer info for the purposes of making it difficult, if not impossible, for the president to fulfill his constitutional duties should be a crime and should warrant prison terms similar to those meted out to the Watergate conspirators.
And it's not just Mr. Joffe who's in trouble. Whoever put him up top this and whoever knew about it in the Clinton campaign is also not sleeping well these days. One such miscreant appears to be a lawyer named Michael Sussman. Among other things,
Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement to the FBI about a now-debunked claim of a secret communication channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. He has pleaded not guilty, [but] Saturday’s filing alleges that Mr. Sussmann worked with a technology executive, an internet company and the Clinton campaign to assemble and convey the allegations to the FBI.The fact that Sussman has been found to have billed the Clinton campaign for his work gives the lie to his earlier insistence that he was spying on Trump on his own. Martha Stewart, of all people, went to jail for five months for lying to federal investigators. Sussman might be looking at much more time than that.
Mr. Durham said that billing records show that Mr. Sussmann “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign” for his work on Russian bank allegations.
In July 2016, Mr. Sussmann, the tech executive [Joffe] and “U.S. investigative firm” hired by “Law Firm 1” on behalf of the Clinton campaign worked with researchers at Internet companies to put together data and white papers.The rest of Mr. Mordock's article is a bit too complex to explain in detail in a VP post, but the gravamen of the piece is that it appears that the Special Counsel has dispositive evidence that several people were illegally spying on the President of the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign which funded their efforts to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.
Mr. Durham said the tech executive used the researchers to “mine internet data” to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying Mr. Trump to Russia.
Mr. Durham also alleged that Mr. Sussmann relied on [internet] traffic from Trump Tower, Mr. Trump’s apartment building and the health care provider to give the FBI additional allegations about Mr. Trump.
Those allegations included claims that Mr. Trump and his associates were using rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations, Mr. Durham wrote. The special counsel said he found no support for this allegation.
This means that there will almost certainly be others in the campaign who must've known what was going on, who were actively involved in the criminality, and who will eventually be charged. The big question is, did Hillary herself know about it and did she give the green light to what Donald Trump and others are labeling acts of "treason."
It's hard to believe that underlings would've done this without her approval, but the Clintons have a long history of being able to evade legal sanction for shady behavior - for example, the case of Ms. Clinton's use of an unprotected personal computer to conduct offical state department business and the subsequent "wiping" of the hard drive to delete evidence - so we'll see.
But whether Hillary is prosecuted or not, it's clear that others in her circle will be. It'd be helpful if media outlets other than Fox News and talk radio showed some interest in this. They certainly would if it had been the Trump campaign caught hacking into President Biden's computer traffic.
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
Not to be Taken Seriously
The Washington Free Beacon informs us that according to Johns Hopkins University 503,804 Americans have died from COVID since President Biden took office on Jan. 20, 2021. That is almost 100,000 more than the number of Americans who died from COVID under former president Donald Trump.
On average, more than 1,300 Americans have died from COVID every day that Mr. Biden has been president.
I for one am not going to blame these deaths on the president. There's not much he could've done to prevent them.
Nevertheless, in October 2020, when roughly 200,000 Americans had died from COVID, then-candidate Biden declared that any leader who presided over that many deaths "should not remain as president of the United States of America."
So, over twice the number of Americans have died since Mr. Biden unfairly blamed 200,000 deaths on Mr. Trump. Moreover, Mr. Biden has had at his disposal to fight the virus vaccines developed under Mr. Trump's direction which Mr. Trump did not have.
If Mr. Trump did not deserve to be president, does Mr. Biden? If Mr. Trump was actually responsible for these deaths, as Mr. Biden implied, how much more should Mr. Biden hold himself to account for over twice the number of deaths?
Of course, the media also are culpable. If things were reversed, had Mr. Trump said about someone what Mr. Biden said about him, the media would be harassing every administration spokesperson who dared to show his or her face in public demanding that Mr. Trump live up to his own standard and resign.
As it is our supine media can't be bothered to hold Mr. Biden accountable for anything, fixated as they are on the only thing they can talk about which doesn't make Mr. Biden look bad, the January 6th riots.
It's hard not to conclude from this that neither the president nor the progressive media are to be taken seriously by serious people.
On average, more than 1,300 Americans have died from COVID every day that Mr. Biden has been president.
I for one am not going to blame these deaths on the president. There's not much he could've done to prevent them.
Nevertheless, in October 2020, when roughly 200,000 Americans had died from COVID, then-candidate Biden declared that any leader who presided over that many deaths "should not remain as president of the United States of America."
So, over twice the number of Americans have died since Mr. Biden unfairly blamed 200,000 deaths on Mr. Trump. Moreover, Mr. Biden has had at his disposal to fight the virus vaccines developed under Mr. Trump's direction which Mr. Trump did not have.
If Mr. Trump did not deserve to be president, does Mr. Biden? If Mr. Trump was actually responsible for these deaths, as Mr. Biden implied, how much more should Mr. Biden hold himself to account for over twice the number of deaths?
Of course, the media also are culpable. If things were reversed, had Mr. Trump said about someone what Mr. Biden said about him, the media would be harassing every administration spokesperson who dared to show his or her face in public demanding that Mr. Trump live up to his own standard and resign.
As it is our supine media can't be bothered to hold Mr. Biden accountable for anything, fixated as they are on the only thing they can talk about which doesn't make Mr. Biden look bad, the January 6th riots.
It's hard not to conclude from this that neither the president nor the progressive media are to be taken seriously by serious people.
Monday, February 14, 2022
Flores' Complaint
Former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores is suing the NFL, claiming it's racist because the percentage of black head coaches and front office personnel does not approximate the percentage of players in the league.
Since 70 percent of NFL players are black, and anywhere between 3 percent and 34 percent of coaches and executive personnel are black, Flores believes that constitutes prima facie evidence that the league is “racially segregated.”
But if an underrepresentation by blacks in the head coaching ranks and management is evidence of racism, doesn't it follow that an underrepresentation of whites on the playing field is also evidence of racism? Shouldn't the numbers of white and Hispanic players be proportional to their numbers in the general population?
If the answer is that sports are a meritocracy and blacks are over-represented on the playing field because they've demonstrated superior ability in the skills required to play the game, why can't the same argument be made for the higher percentage of whites in coaching and management?
Why should performance on the field be a meritocracy but the grueling, pressure-packed work of being a head coach be subject to racial quotas?
Moreover, since head coaches are usually hired out of the assistant coaching ranks, Flores himself has contributed to the problem he deplores since 75% of the assistant coaches he hired while coaching the Dolphins were white.
Perhaps the NFL needs to be more punctilious in striving for racial equity, but why stop at racial equity? Why not consider gender equity as well? Is it not overwhelming evidence of sexism that NFL coaches and players are 100% male? Why should that be tolerated?
All of these questions and others have been raised by numerous observers, including Jake Bequette at The Federalist.
Flores seems miffed that he was fired by the Dolphins who made him a millionaire for his services. It might be worth mentioning, by the way, that the man who fired him, general manager Chris Grier, is himself black. In fact, as The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, who I suppose I should note, though I shouldn't have to, is also black, notes (paywall) that:
Riley adds that,
We'd doubtless be upset to learn that our local hospital hired its surgeons this way, why should we think that Supreme Court justices or NFL coaches should be?
Since 70 percent of NFL players are black, and anywhere between 3 percent and 34 percent of coaches and executive personnel are black, Flores believes that constitutes prima facie evidence that the league is “racially segregated.”
But if an underrepresentation by blacks in the head coaching ranks and management is evidence of racism, doesn't it follow that an underrepresentation of whites on the playing field is also evidence of racism? Shouldn't the numbers of white and Hispanic players be proportional to their numbers in the general population?
If the answer is that sports are a meritocracy and blacks are over-represented on the playing field because they've demonstrated superior ability in the skills required to play the game, why can't the same argument be made for the higher percentage of whites in coaching and management?
Why should performance on the field be a meritocracy but the grueling, pressure-packed work of being a head coach be subject to racial quotas?
Moreover, since head coaches are usually hired out of the assistant coaching ranks, Flores himself has contributed to the problem he deplores since 75% of the assistant coaches he hired while coaching the Dolphins were white.
Perhaps the NFL needs to be more punctilious in striving for racial equity, but why stop at racial equity? Why not consider gender equity as well? Is it not overwhelming evidence of sexism that NFL coaches and players are 100% male? Why should that be tolerated?
All of these questions and others have been raised by numerous observers, including Jake Bequette at The Federalist.
Flores seems miffed that he was fired by the Dolphins who made him a millionaire for his services. It might be worth mentioning, by the way, that the man who fired him, general manager Chris Grier, is himself black. In fact, as The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, who I suppose I should note, though I shouldn't have to, is also black, notes (paywall) that:
It’s certainly possible that the Dolphins organization is guilty of discriminatory hiring practices. But is it plausible? “Dolphins owner Stephen Ross ran the ‘blackest’ organization in the NFL,” sportswriter Jason Whitlock observed in a recent column. “At one time, his head coach, general manager, assistant general manager, defensive coordinator, and several members of his ownership group were all black.”Bequette asserts that the racial disparity that Flores' is upset about results, at least in part, from the league's imposition of the "Rooney Rule," which requires teams to interview at least one black candidate for any major coaching or executive vacancy:
At what point did Mr. Ross become a bigot? When he decided to fire Brian Flores?
The absurdity of this practice can be illustrated by simply applying it to NFL roster vacancies. Imagine if every NFL team were forced to invite a white cornerback into training camp every season. No NFL team has started a white cornerback since Jason Sehorn in 2002.Riley also makes the point that, if Flores' goal is to get more blacks hired as head coaches then his lawsuit is surely counterproductive:
A white cornerback who fulfilled a team’s obligation under a “Sehorn Rule” would feel insecure and teammates would feel resentful, even if the player was qualified for the position and seriously considered for the job.
In a statement released by his lawyers, Mr. Flores said the lawsuit is not about “my personal goals.” Rather, “my sincere hope is that by standing up against systemic racism in the NFL, others will join me to ensure that positive change is made for generations to come.”Like others who invoke “systemic racism,” Mr. Flores and his supporters point to statistical disparities as proof of discrimination, and progressives, both black and white nod in agreement, but why assume that disparity is prima facie proof of racism? Why not assume that there are other factors involved, like interpersonal skills, education, etc.
Maybe, but the reality is that lawsuits such as this one could hamper efforts to increase the number of black coaches in the NFL. Teams might be less likely to hire someone they can’t fire without being labeled racist.
A similar phenomenon played out in faculty hiring at colleges and universities after affirmative action was implemented in the 1970s. Schools were reluctant to hire a professor who might not make tenure, lest they be accused of discrimination and face expensive lawsuits and unfavorable press.
Unlike among white academics, only the sure things got job offers, which reduced the overall number of minority faculty hires.
Riley adds that,
Progressive icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent 27 years on the Supreme Court while hiring only one black law clerk. Was she guilty of discrimination, or was she simply choosing from a pool of candidates that, for whatever reason, included relatively few blacks?Bequette concludes his piece with this:
Head coaches in the NFL more recently have tended to follow a certain career path. An insightful article last month by the sportswriter Shalise Manza Young noted that, since 2016, three-quarters of the 40 head coaches hired had worked as offensive coordinators. In 2021 only seven of the league’s 33 offensive coordinators were black.
Ms. Young then pointed to another potential factor in the racial makeup of pro football coaches: old-fashioned nepotism. “By the NFL’s own data for its 2020 diversity and inclusion report, nine of that year’s 32 head coaches were related to a current or former coach in the league, whether by blood or marriage,” she wrote.
The same applied to the league’s 63 coordinators and position coaches, 53 of whom were white.
The league brought this upon themselves when they jumped in bed with the social justice radicals after the Kaepernick saga and doubled down after the George Floyd/BLM riots. They deserve this lawsuit and everything that’s coming to them.Racial bean-counting and pandering in the NFL, like Mr. Biden's declaration that he will appoint only a black woman to the Supreme Court rather than the best qualified candidate that he can find, whether male or female, black or white, guarantees that whoever is selected will be suspected of having been selected not because the selectee was the most brilliant and best qualified individual for the job but because the individual had the requisite skin color and anatomy.
The rest of America would do well to abandon the obsession with racial optics and skin-deep assessments of our fellow countrymen, or we’re heading toward the all-out racial conflict that the radical left seems obsessed with fomenting.
We'd doubtless be upset to learn that our local hospital hired its surgeons this way, why should we think that Supreme Court justices or NFL coaches should be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)