Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Connections

The development of grain-based biofuels has provided us with some great illustrations of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The shift to corn-based ethanol to wean us away from our dependence on oil certainly seems like a good idea - after all, what could go wrong? Ethanol is easy on the environment and will allow us to wean ourselves away from our dependence on petroleum and Middle Eastern sources of supply.

Well, it's not that simple. Ethanol and other bio-fuels are made from grain. The increased demand for these commodities drives up their price which is good for farmers, but bad for consumers, and absolutely disastrous for the third world poor who rely on grains like corn for food.

Here's an example I came across recently which shows how tinkering with one part of the economic web produces consequences completely unanticipated and unwanted elsewhere in the system: The increase in corn price due to demand for biofuels recently caused a large poultry operation to lay off hundreds of workers because they could no longer afford to buy feed for their chickens. Evidently chicken food is no longer chicken feed.

Paul Krugman lays out the problem in a bit more detail and spares us the bad puns in the New York Times:

Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels. The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a "scam."

This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly "good" biofuel policies, like Brazil's use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue.

There's a lot of other interesting stuff in Krugman's piece. For example, did you know that we are in a world food shortage partly because the Chinese, having moved toward a market economy, are becoming more affluent? This means they're eating more meat which increases the demand for feed grain on the world market which means the price goes up, and poor people in the third world have to go with even less food for themselves and their families than the meager portions they were previously able to scrabble together.

What's the lesson? Exploit the oil reserves we have off-shore and in Alaska that Democrats in Congress have placed off-limits. Increasing the supply of oil would drive down its price which would lower agricultural and transportation costs associated with grain and provide a boon to the poor both at home and abroad. Indeed, reducing their cost of living may be the best way to bring relief to people who exist on the edge of starvation.

So why are Democrats, the self-proclaimed party of compassion, opposed to drilling?

Check out Krugman's column at the link.

RLC

After-Action Analysis

Bill Roggio explains what happened with the Iraqi assault on the Mahdi army in Basrah:

Eleven days after Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched Operation Knights' Assault in Basrah, the picture of the fighting in the city has become clearer. Maliki launched the operation after giving limited notice to Multinational Forces Iraq, and an inexperienced Iraqi Army brigade from the newly formed 14th Division cracked during the opening days of the fighting. The Iraqi Army [then] rushed forces into Basrah, including Army and elite police units, to stabilize the fighting, and six days after the operation began, Muqtada al Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down in Basrah, Baghdad, and the South.

There's much more here.

RLC

The Darwin Fish

It may seem odd at first, but the 17 minute film Fitna puts Jonah Goldberg in mind of the "Jesus fish" commonly seen attached to cars and jewelry. More precisely, it puts him in mind of those who seek to deride Christianity by sporting a "Darwin" fish, a fish symbol with four tiny legs and the name Darwin supplanting Jesus.

Given the history of how early Christians used the fish symbol (The letters for the Greek word fish form an acronym for the Greek words Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior) as a sort of password or silent identity badge and who often paid for their conviction by dying horrible, brutal deaths, the Darwinist knock-off is more fatuous than clever, but that's often the case with those who mock Christianity. Most of the people who amuse themselves by laughing at a symbol of Christian suffering would not dare mock the Star of David or some symbol of Islam, and this is Goldberg's point.

He puts it this way in his concluding sentences:

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it's that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Read the whole thing. It's pretty good.

RLC

Islamo-Fascism Awareness

This week is Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week on campuses across the nation. The aims of the observance are simple - to educate students about the threat posed by global Islamism and to urge students of all ethnicities and religions to renounce genocide and hate. David Horowitz, the founder of IFAW, discusses what is happening on more than 100 campuses this week here.

Horowitz writes:

The centerpiece of this year's campaign is the Declaration Against Genocide. The Declaration calls on "student governments and Muslim groups" to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas, and repudiate the saying of the prophet Mohammed that redemption will only come when Muslims fight Jews and kill them, when the rocks and trees cry out Oh Muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him. The charter also affirms such radical notions as:

  • The right of all people to live in freedom and dignity
  • The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all
  • The equal dignity of women and men
  • The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion.

Students around the country will try to spread the call for this generation to respect the innate dignity of every human being.

One hundred Muslim Student Associations were asked a month ago to sign the Declaration. None of them have. That is because the Muslim Student Associations are not religious or ethnic or cultural groups. They are political arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of al-Qaeda and Hamas. As documented in a series of Frontpage articles and in the pamphlet The Muslim Student Association and the Jihad Network, the campus MSAs are part of the "soft jihad," the movement which provides moral and economic support to the terrorists and seeks to undermine the foundations of western civilization.

When students refuse to repudiate murder, when they refuse to endorse basic human rights for all people, then we have reason to fear that the night is falling rapidly upon us. Go to the link and read about IFAW.

RLC

Monday, April 7, 2008

A Shared Pain

A very dear friend of mine recently shared with me and several others a personal story of heartache and grief that he's been enduring. Since his story is one to which so many others can relate, I asked him if it would be okay to put it on Viewpoint. He replied, in effect, that if it could provide some measure of solace to just one person undergoing similar trials, it'd be worth it. He didn't ask for it, but I promised him anonymity so I've changed the name of his son. Here's what he wrote:

To my closest friends and family,

As you know, the past months have been a battle for my wife and I. In recent days I have been reflecting on the situation in my journal. I don't know why, but I felt compelled to put into writing the heart of the struggle for me. I'm sharing it with you so that you will see the inside of my heart. I hope this will help you understand what this battle has been for me. I'm not sure why this is even important to me, but it is. I hope you will take the time to read this and then, just keep it in prayer:

Dear Journal,

I have been an advocate for marriage and family for a long time. I suppose the roots of my passion go back to my childhood. I grew up in a family of seven children. While not a perfect family, I grew up thinking we were. We always had vacations, we worshipped together, we were spared the typical dysfunctional elements that families often bear - alcoholism, infidelity and serious illness. My Dad was a preacher and he believed very much in marriage and family. He helped instill these values in me.

After I married, I fathered four sons of my own. While not as large as my family of origin, having four children was somewhat uncommon. There were times we would walk into a mall or restaurant and feel the stares of people. Birth control had become increasingly available and popular. Population control was in vogue. Young couples were encouraged to have only two children. I guess I was breaking the rules. Then too, having four boys was out of the norm. The perfect family was two children---one boy and one girl. We were not the normal family, but I was convinced that we were a family to be proud of.

I entered college after my wife and I had children. As part of my studies, I chose subjects to research or write on that pertained to marriage and family. Woman's liberation had emerged, and in my opinion was an attack on the traditional family. I was particularly engaged in the arguments against working moms--something that became increasingly popular and common during those years as well. I read articles and wrote papers on the dangers of working mothers and the statistics that indicated woman in the workforce contributed to infidelity and divorce. My wife was in agreement with me and never worked outside the home. She devoted her time and energy to provide an awesome home environment for both myself and my children.

While growing up I had never personally experienced a broken marriage. Neither my parents, none of my aunts nor uncles, nor any of my grandparents on either side, had ever divorced. The first deviation from this pattern and norm came while I was in my first year of college. My Dad's brother, my uncle, had an adulterous affair. He had two daughters---my cousins. I lived only a short distance from my uncle when I discovered that he was cheating on his wife, my aunt. It angered me. I confronted him about it and begged him to stop and to make his marriage work. The entire situation hurt my grandparents deeply as it ended in a divorce and the selling of long-time family-owned farm property.

Not many years afterward, while I was still in college, I got a phone call from my twin brother. I will never forget his first words. He asked me if I was sitting down. Choking back tears he informed me that he discovered that his wife, a long-time friend of my wife and I, as well as being my sister-in-law, was having an affair and indicated she wanted out of the marriage. Again, as an advocate of marriage and family, I offered my help and counsel. I had several conversations with my sister-in-law, presenting evidence that I had amassed in my head of the long-term damaging effects of divorce upon children. They had two children, my niece and nephew. I had first witnessed the devastating effect of divorce on my two younger cousins, now I watched in horror as the pain ripped through the lives of my even younger niece and nephew. My sister-in-law not only ended up leaving her husband, but, seemingly out of guilt, also left my brother with the two children. My parents were devastated as divorce now wreaked the same havoc in their family that it had in my grandparent's family.

The epidemic continued. Several years later, I learned that a younger brother of mine, a man ordained in the ministry, had an affair with his church organist. Again, I felt my heart break, and I offered my help and advice. Thankfully, they were able to mend their marriage, but they never fully recovered. Now, years later, they have filed for divorce. They have four young-adult, unmarried children. Several of the children have been involved in drug usage. None of them are interested in Christian discipleship or the Christian life-style.

Enough is enough, but it wasn't over yet. After I graduated from college I entered the full-time ministry myself. With my passion for family and marriage I started immediately in ministry to offer help to troubled marriages. I continued to read book after book and article after article to gain information to help protect marriages. I began to preach several series of sermons on marriages and even taught marriage seminars. My wife and I conducted additional marriage retreats for couples. There were times we took troubled married spouses into our home. Despite my efforts, of course, I encountered marriages that failed. Through my counseling office door came person after person who either was in a troubled marriage or had been affected by one as a child. I grew quite familiar with the stories of adult children of divorce. The more I heard first hand and learned, the more my heart broke and the more passionate I became to help save marriages.

Then came a real bomb shell, although it would be small compared to what would come later. Another brother of mine who attended the church I pastored, informed me that his wife had cheated on him. This was a woman who he had met in the same Bible college I had attended. They had partnered together in ministry and had even served on staff at the same church early in their marriage. They had four children whom they had home-schooled. Immediately I tried to intervene and help them. Both came for counseling, both seemed to want to work through their issues, though at unmatched intervals. Finally, after months and months of chaos, fighting, lying and screaming, the thing ended in divorce. Helplessly, I watched my parents suffer through grief and watched once again as my nieces and nephews were thrown into the divorced parent whirlpool. The years ahead of them held in store drug use, addiction and even arrest.

On September 7th, 2008 the atomic bomb dropped. While on the way home from an enjoyable evening out, I received a phone call from my daughter-in-law asking if she could spend the night at our house. When I questioned why, her voice quavered and she said: "Rick (my son) is having an affair." Immediately my mind was flooded with all the history of the above. I went into shock. My wife and I made an immediate trip to their house. There, I met face to face the denial, the excuses, the lies and the dishonesty that I had seen in the faces of many, many people from the past. This time it was my own son wearing the mask. The real Rick, the son I had known all his life, was strangely absent. I didn't know the person who was trying to convince me that what he was doing was unavoidable. Married seven years they had just had their first baby. There hadn't been any evidence of a troubled marriage. How could I, a marriage counselor have missed this? How could this be happening? I offered one hour of counseling every day for the next week. Surely this would end, it would stop. This was insanity! My son only attended two sessions with me. He walked out angrily during the second one when I confronted him with the immorality of his behavior.

Now it's been seven months. Things have only gotten worse. The affair has matured into a living together arrangement. The "other woman's" husband has left her. She has two small children. Rick has refused to go to counseling or seek help. His wife, my daughter-in-law is on the verge of a nervous breakdown after months of incredible and insane treatment, arguments, lies and deception. She is doing her best to be a mother to their son, now one year old. Recently, she moved out of the house they bought and remodeled together and put it up for sale. Rick has supposedly filed for divorce. He has rejected all possibility of reconciliation at this point. He will not listen to his father's advice and is in complete denial of the consequences of his choices.

As a pastor, a father and a marriage advocate and counselor, the actions, behaviors and decisions of my son are an absolute nightmare. There are mornings I wake up telling myself this can't be happening and there are nights I don't sleep. Marriage and family, the very thing that I have invested much of my life protecting and promoting, has failed to take root in a member of my first congregation--my family. My son has made friends with the very enemy I have spent a lifetime trying to defeat. I think of this like a father who might be the founder of a safe-haven for pregnant girls who discovers his own daughter is planning to have an abortion, or as a father who travels the country preaching against drunk driving only to discover that his daughter has been arrested for DUI.

I don't know what the outcome of all this will be. There is salvation in the Lord and sometimes those who fail become the strongest allies of reform. As for myself, I am determined to sound the alarm and preach the message. By God's grace I will never cease to be an advocate of marriage and family. If anything, this has strengthened my resolve. At the end of my life, I hope there are at least a few people who, because of my message and example decided to make their marriage work. Perhaps a few will even decide to take up the torch themselves. God knows, we need Christians who will champion the cause.

RLC

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Charlton Heston

Actor and former National Rifle association president Charlton Heston has passed away at the age of 84. Heston had the leading role in a number of classic films, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Planet of the Apes, Solyent Green and many others, but my personal favorite was The Agony and the Ecstacy in which he portrayed Michaelangelo opposite Rex Harrison's Pope Julius II. Pope Julius commissioned the great artist to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which, to those who have been lucky enough to see it in person, ranks as perhaps the greatest achievement of one man in the history of art. The historical accuracy of the movie has been questioned, but it's still a wonderful film, and the interplay between Heston's Michaelangelo and Harrison's Julius is outstanding.

Heston was a great figure in America's culture and culture wars during the second half of the twentieth century and conservatives will always be grateful for his memorable contributions to both our film heritage and to our political debates over the second amendment.

See the link for more details.

RLC

Saturday, April 5, 2008

<i>Absolut</i> Insult

I don't drink vodka, but if I did I'd never touch a drop of Absolut vodka after they pandered for Mexican business with this ad touting an absolut (perfect) world:

The really sad thing about this ad is that the map reportedly came from John McCain's office. Anyway, the story behind the ad can be found here. One commenter notes that Mexicans don't really want to push the border this far north. It'd mean they'd have to travel further to sneak in.

Just kidding, by the way, about McCain and the map.

RLC

Perspective

A friend e-mails that he saw a billboard in Michigan that read something like this:

FIVE YEAR DEATH TOLL

-- Military personnel killed in Iraq: 4,000

-- U S. citizens murdered in the country: 83,500

-- U. S. citizens killed in auto accidents: 210,000

-- U. S. citizens killed in home accidents: 340,000

-- Infants killed in their mother's wombs: 6,400,000

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the statistics, but they sound about right. Isn't it just a little bit ironic that judging by the amount of attention in the media some of the same people who are most outraged over the first statistic seem only perfunctorily concerned about the next three and are zealously committed to perpetuating the last?

RLC

Europe Needs Us

Europe needs America, argues Martin Kettle in the Guardian. The one thing worse for Europe, he writes, than fighting a war with America as an ally would be to fight one without America:

Although the defects and failures of the current [European] strategy are obvious, the only serious alternative to the unilateral bring-the-troops-home mentality is to try to get the existing strategy to evolve into something more credible, shared and effective. The next US president will certainly press that case. Nicolas Sarkozy certainly had a stirring answer to it when he told the assembled houses of parliament this week that the return of the Taliban and al-Qaida to Kabul was unacceptable and that France was therefore, albeit belatedly, committing a thousand troops to Kandahar. But how many European nations are prepared to follow suit?

For years now, Nato nations have been committed to reach a minimum defence spending target of 2% of GDP. Yet 20 of them, including Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, have fallen far short. Among the six that have reached the target, the shares of four (including Britain and France) are in decline. Inevitably, that means the US carries ever more of the load and becomes ever more sceptical about taking Europe seriously.

For years also, European nations have talked about the importance of avoiding duplication in equipment and weapons. But the talk has largely remained just that. It is barmy that Europeans have four different models of tank, compared with America's one; 16 different types of armoured vehicles as against America's three; or 11 types of frigate to America's one. Once again, Europe's failure highlights the US predominance.

As Kettle says, the U.S. is carrying much of the financial burden of NATO which has essentially been a free-rider since WWII. It would be well for the critics of America's generosity abroad, both domestic and especially European, to keep this in mind when next they're tempted to complain about our relatively "meager" contributions to things like tsunami relief efforts, etc.

RLC

Friday, April 4, 2008

Forty Years Later

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and media commentators have throughout the day been making references to King's I Have a Dream speech and talking about keeping King's dream alive.

I'd like to, but I'm afraid that King's dream is pretty much moribund. The dream was, in part, that someday his children would be "judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." The dream was that we would live in a color-blind society where people would look past one's race and pigment to one's values and achievement. Unfortunately, modern liberalism has made that all but impossible.

So far from making race an irrelevancy, liberalism has made it a matter of crucial importance.

Affirmative action, race-based scholarships, minority set-asides, race-norming, school busing, welfare, etc. were all attempts to compensate blacks - a kind of reparations, if you will - for the abominations of the past. What they actually accomplished for black people can be debated, but they surely stoked white resentments and pushed further into the distance the day when skin color doesn't matter.

Moreover, the Democratic party has exploited race since the 1960s by instilling in blacks a kind of plantation mentality.

They promised African-Americans they'd take care of them as long as blacks promised to remain on the Democrat plantation. Having the necessities of life provided for them by the government, blacks over the last forty years of the twentieth century have been given little incentive to cultivate the virtues that enable people to rise out of poverty and cope and compete in the wider world.

As long as there were jobs available which didn't require any special level of education, blacks who were interested could find work, but lacking the encouragement and incentive to develop their minds, having liberals constantly make excuses for black failure, they found themselves unable to succeed in universities and adrift in the sophisticated information workplace that evolved in the 80's and 90's. Unable to meet the demands of the jobs that were opening up, liberals prescribed for them even more government help, which Democrats were quick to promise. But the more government took care of their needs the further behind many African-Americans fell and the less able they were to fend for themselves.

We're sometimes surprised to find a thirty year-old who still lives at home, unable to muster the will and discipline necessary to make a decent living and raise a family on his own. We wonder at the attitude some have that their parents owe them support, and we're puzzled, sometimes, why the parents allow them to live that way. We ask ourselves if it wouldn't be better for everyone involved if the offspring were placed on the receiving end of a little "tough love."

Yet, that's a pretty accurate metaphor for how we've treated minorities in this country for the last forty five years. Our policies have created a deep dependency upon the "parent" government, and whenever the effects of this dependency are manifested in the short-comings of the dependents their failures are often seen as proof that government is just not doing enough to help.

African-Americans are encouraged by demagogic leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and thousands of lesser known characters, as well as their white abettors, to believe that white society owes them big time, and liberals respond to the demands of these grievance-mongers by trying to make life as easy for the "oppressed" minorities as possible. Unfortunately, few propose placing demands on them or holding them to the same standards of performance that would be expected of whites or Asians because to do so would be racist, or at least insensitive to the historic difficulties blacks have had to endure.

So what happens? Liberal whites harbor the self-actualizing attitude, albeit tacitly, that African- Americans are the white man's burden and African-Americans develop a corresponding racial inferiority complex along with all the simmering resentments that naturally accompany such an outlook on life. The attitudes of both the liberal and the black are demeaning and degrading and neither is helpful, so how do we break out of this pattern into which we have been locked ever since the sixties?

The way out is to hold blacks to the exact same standards in every aspect of life that others must meet. Black crime, educational failure and family disintegration can't be swept under the rug, yet many whites consider it impolite to mention these vices in racially mixed company, as if it were somehow an insult to blacks to point them out. The resulting silence about them translates into a kind of tolerance, or even acceptance. Nevertheless, these dysfunctions must be consistently acknowledged and confronted as sources of failure in the black community, and grievous impediments to any hope of future black success. As long as we ignore them, or make excuses for them, blaming them on poverty, or not enough police, or bad schools, the problems will never be solved.

We must also establish the conviction that advancement or achievement should be based on nothing other than ability - not race, not gender, not who your daddy was - just merit.

Some will object that "merit" is just a racist code word - a claim that reeks of self-deprecation. Some will protest that too many blacks will fail to meet tough standards and expectations. But many others will rise to the challenge who otherwise wouldn't, and their example of accomplishment and self-worth will be contagious in their families, and will reverberate through their neighborhoods. Some will unfortunately be left behind, but the situation is critical, and we can no longer allow the feel-good nostrums of liberalism to dissuade us from doing what must be done to change the sense of black inferiority that liberalism has spawned.

What sort of standards are we talking about? Here are two just for starters: First, black kids should be expected to stay in school, get good grades, graduate and go on to get some post-secondary education. Dropping out should not be accepted in the black community. Second, black couples should be expected to wait until they're married to have children and once they're married to stay married. Illegitimacy must lose it's sanction in black society because it's a heavy anchor on black aspirations.

Those two things alone would constitute an enormous first step toward reversing the blight of black poverty and failure in America.

Like Martin Luther King, a lot of us have a dream, too. We dream of the day when what matters most in a man is what values he holds - what kind of morals he lives by, his ambitions, his attitudes toward his family, his community, and his country. We dream of a day when the things that we share in common are more important than the things which make us different. We dream of a day when the color of one's skin matters no more than the color of one's eyes, and when everyone, regardless of ethnicity, recognizes that the best way to guarantee a united, cohesive future is to share grandchildren.

Even so, if that day is ever going to come, liberalism is just going to have to get out of the way.

RLC

Thursday, April 3, 2008

The Princess

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous essay on attaining and holding political power which he titled The Prince. His overriding principle was simple: Use whatever means necessary to hold on to your power, but, importantly, do it in such a way that no one knows how treacherous you really are. Assuming that Senator Clinton has studied her Machiavelli and is duly persuaded by his trenchant grasp of human nature, here's what I think will happen this summer:

Mrs. Clinton will do whatever she can, fair or foul, to persuade the superdelegates to support her at the convention, but should it become clear at any point along the way that she will lose the nomination she'll suddenly become a team player, drop out of the race, and endorse Senator Obama. Then, behind the scenes, she'll launch a determined effort to sabotage Obama's campaign and promote a McCain victory in November. She cannot do this overtly, of course, because it would destroy her standing in the Democratic party, but she can do it covertly, and I'm quite sure she will.

Why do I think this? Because if Obama wins the presidency he could well reside in the White House for eight years, but if McCain wins he's likely, because of his age, to serve only a single term. Moreover, if Obama loses in November it will likely finish him as a presidential contender, especially if McCain wins big. Having given the appearance of a gracious loser, then, Hillary will have the inside track to the nomination in 2012. It'll be "her turn" and her reward for having "played ball" this year, even though the knife in Obama's political ribs will bear her fingerprints.

If she can't get the nomination this summer, it's in her interest to see Obama lose in November, and I think the smart money would be on her advancing her perceived interest even to the detriment of the interests of her party. It'll work for her, however, only if she can pull it off surreptitiously.

RLC

Explosive Film

Israel Matzov informs us that there's another film on the way that may make Fitna seem tame by comparison:

A Dutch news service is reporting that amidst all the outrage over Fitna, which was released last week, a second, more explosive video is due out on April 20. That video will feature the 'prophet' Mohammed as a pedophile.

While the cabinet is losing sleep over MP Geert Wilders' unpublished Koran film ... Ehsan Jami plans to launch a cartoon film featuring the Prophet Mohammed as a pedophile.

Jami, born in Iran, announced that his film, The Life of Mohammed, is due for release on 20 April. On TV programme Netwerk, the young politician (22) showed a screen-shot in which the Prophet, with a visible erection, takes a child to a mosque to have sex. On the mosque is a swastika.

The fragment is a reference to the relationship between the prophet and the 9 year old Aisha as described in the Koran, according to Jami. His cartoon portrays all kinds of other perverse and violent verses, he added.

For those who think this crosses the line it must be noted that the Prophet was in fact betrothed to a girl named Aisha when she was six or seven. He consummated the marriage when she was nine. Not having heard anything else about the film I can't vouch for whether it's fair toward Mohammed or not. It may be trash for all I know. I can say, though, that Jami is one intrepid fellow.

RLC

The Atheist Delusion

The Guardian features a longish but generally interesting column by John Gray critiquing the New Atheists. In the course of the essay Gray quotes Martin Amis' claim that, "Opposition to religion already occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally."

It's not clear what Amis means by "religion", but if he's referring to the belief that there is a transcendent, personal creator of the universe who has invested the creation with moral value then he's simply wrong. On both counts.

There just is no good argument against the belief that such a being exists. There are, however, good arguments for believing that such a being does exist. I modestly suggest that one such argument can be found here.

The link takes you to an unpublished manuscript. If you wish to access it simply click on the "open" button.

RLC

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Liars Club

Hillary Clinton's recollections of imaginary sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia have damaged her standing with voters still quaint enough to hope for honesty from their politicians. The fabricated Bosnia escapade, however, is not the only manifestation of the Senator's superficial relationship with reality. When Hillary worked for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings in the 1970s she was fired by her boss, a Democrat congressman, for lying, unethical behavior, and generally acting like a Clinton.

I don't know if the media is going to make anything of this story, but if she continues to jeopardize the Second Coming of the Anointed One by remaining in the race, they probably will. The problem is that Senator Obama has recently undermined his own reputation for sinlessness by denying he ever saw a survey that has his name on it and which reveals him to be so far to the left on issues like abortion and gun control that he's in danger of falling off the earth.

He has also discredited himself by repeatedly misrepresenting John McCain's statement about spending 100 years in Iraq.

Six months ago the Democrats looked like there was no way they could lose in November. It doesn't look that way now.

RLC

Re: Documenting Hate

There are a couple of interesting responses on our Feedback page to yesterday's post titled Documenting Hate Is Hateful. Check them out.

RLC

Yikes!

Here's another report warning of the danger of cell-phone use. I have no way of evaluating the validity of the study, but the guy who did it is a neurosurgeon of considerable distinction:

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence - exclusively reported in the IoS in October - that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Professor Khurana - a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers - reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

Maybe this will help motivate you to cut down on your cell-phone use. Or not.

RLC

As We Forgive

Most people are familiar with the Rwandan genocide perpetrated by the Hutus against the Tutsis in 1994 during which one million Tutsis were brutally slaughtered (See Hotel Rwanda or Beyond the Gates for a cinematic glimpse of the horror). Twelve years later an absolutely amazing thing began happening in Rwanda.

A program of reconciliation was established in which tens of thousands of the Hutu murderers are being released from prison and put to work helping the Tutsis cope with the devastation they helped to inflict. They're building homes and delivering services, in some cases to some of the same families whose loved ones they killed.

A documentary on the reconciliation program titled As We Forgive is being released later this month, and the story of the film can be read here. It's almost literally incredible. There's also a link to the trailer on the page, but I had trouble getting that to work. At any rate check out the story. It sounds like it will be a powerful piece of film-making.

RLC

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Lysenkoism

Biola University recently sponsored a ceremony in which a number of people associated with the soon to be released film Expelled were recognized. One of the guests was executive producer Walt Ruloff who began with a short presentation. GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent reports:

[Ruloff] talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were not, and are not, allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy.

Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for "creationists." In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Isn't it ironic that the Darwinians tell us that Intelligent Design is the "science stopper?" It reminds me of the story of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet biologist who rejected Mendelian genetics and pushed an environmentally-based theory of inheritance that conformed nicely with communist dogma. He exerted great influence over Soviet agricultural practices during the Stalinist era:

Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko's work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.

Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965, his influence on Soviet agricultural practice declined by the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko's agricultural practices in favor of modern agricultural practices after the crop yields he promised failed to materialize. Today much of Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent.

Today's Darwinian KGB agents in the university are the intellectual heirs of those who enforced Lysenko's genetic orthodoxy. The movie Expelled, from all accounts, makes this plain.

RLC

Documenting Hate Is Hateful

Geert Wilders' film Fitna is causing a lot of hand-wringing among many of his country's leaders, including the Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende. People are complaining that Fitna is hateful and will incite Muslims to violence. Balkenende says it "threatens the nation."

In light of this reaction Andrew Walden at The American Thinker writes:

Nothing makes people want to see something more than banning it, or even better yet, telling them they may not be able to handle it (remember the Blair Witch Project?). On that basis, the new film Fitna, must be pulling in internet viewers by the tens of millions.

Everyone who's anyone in the "world community", from the Dutch Prime Minister to the OIC to the EU to the UN, is telling the world this is mighty hateful stuff.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is denouncing the internet premier of Fitna, claiming, "The right of free expression is not at stake here,"

But Ban seems to imply there may be limits [for he goes on to say that], "...there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence."

Let's see. A 15 minute video clip which documents Muslim hate and violence is condemned because, presumably, to document hate and violence is itself hateful and incites violence. By this reasoning, it would have been wrong to document the suffering of slaves in the South because to do so would have incited hostility of southerners toward the North.

I wonder if medical technology in Europe has advanced to the point where spinal implants are possible.

RLC

Internecine Warfare

This ad was developed, evidently, by a Clinton supporter in order to show his fellow Democrats the sort of thing they're in for from the Republicans if they nominate Obama. It's actually pretty good as propaganda, but to accuse the GOP of intending to use something like this when even in 2004 they never ran footage of 9/11, and despite the fact that McCain has not commented at all on Rev. Wright's peculiar views, is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, keep in mind that this was developed by a Democrat:

Maybe the GOP should use it.

Hot Air has the details.

RLC

Monday, March 31, 2008

Bad Cells

This video is an animation of the chain of events that occurs when the body rids itself of a diseased cell. It happens in our bodies millions of times every day. Mike Gene has a step by step description of what you're seeing here at Telic Thoughts.

It's remarkable what unguided evolution can accomplish. Imagine how complex and sophisticated a process like this would be were it intentionally designed.

RLC

Rappin' with Dicky Dawkins

Richard Dawkins raps on how we need to purge all unbelievers and heretics from the citadels of learning. Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers and even Charles Darwin himself join in the fun. We're even shown historical footage of William Jennings Bryan KO'ing Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial, though Bryan's victory was pyrrhic.

Who thinks of this stuff?

HT: Uncommon Descent

RLC

Open Letter to the Religious Right

Joe Carter is about seven for nine in this open letter to the Religious Right. The letter could have used a little proof-reading, but it's otherwise both entertaining and wise, although I'd want to dissent from a couple of things he says.

In any event, here are the first three of his nine pieces of advice to religious conservatives:

One-- As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can't imagine that on the Day of Judgment I'll hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant--you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse." More likely we'll all be asked why we didn't spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the pandemic of AIDS. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put the first things first.

Two -- Being Right doesn't mean we are always right. I know we claim we understand that but it would probably help if we acted like we believed it as well.

Three -- We have ideological enemies (such as Islamo-fascists) and we ideological opponents (such as secular liberals). While our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. That's a crucial distinction that we should always keep in mind. While we have to love them all, we shouldn't lump them all together.

Some of the comments are pretty good as well.

RLC

Sunday, March 30, 2008

What's Happening in Iraq?

Reading the newspaper reports of the current flare-up in Iraq and watching the evening news gives the impression that Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi army is clobbering the Iraqi military and police and that things are falling apart in that woeful country.

But then we read someone like Bill Roggio who has done outstanding reporting all through the war, and a quite different picture emerges.

Here are several important facts gleaned from Roggio's Long War Journal:

-- Close to 1000 Mahdi fighters have been killed, wounded, or captured in the last four or five days. This amounts to between 1% and 2% of their fighting force, which is a heavy attrition rate.

-- Despite media palpitations over Iraqi security personnel defecting, the number of such defections in Baghdad is about 15 out of a force of about 50,000. There may have been more in Basra but the numbers are unknown.

-- People in some of the affected towns feel secure enough at this point to demonstrate in support of the government's crackdown on the Mahdi army, and the governing coalition in Baghdad supports it as well.

-- American involvement seems limited. It consists mostly of embedded advisors in Iraqi units, scattered special forces operations, and air strikes.

-- Al Sadr is calling for a cease-fire. Why would he do that unless he realizes that if this battle continues he's going to soon be left without a functioning fighting force and is going to have to take off for Iran again to avoid arrest or worse?

Here's a good rule of thumb: Things are usually not nearly as bad as the Old Media makes them appear to be.

RLC

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Surprising Truth Is No Surprise

Most of my adult life I've heard people stereotype conservatives as rich, greedy, and hard-hearted. The portrayal started with professors I had in college, some of whom I was personally close to, and continued among my professional colleagues during my early years in education. I continue to find the charge laid at conservatives' feet by liberal columnists and bloggers today.

But, like a lot of things I heard from my professors in college, this turned out to be quite the opposite of the truth. George Will explains why in this excellent article in the Washington Post to which my friend Byron called my attention.

Will quotes from a book by Arthur Brooks which we discussed at Viewpoint about a year and a half ago. Here's part of his column:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government .... The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism ... is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

As we noted in the earlier post, none of this should be understood to mean that conservatives are more generous than liberals. Both groups are generous, but the difference is that conservatives are generous with their own money whereas liberals are generous with other people's money.

RLC

Intramural War

Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal summarizes the fighting taking place in Iraq. It appears that media reports that the Iraqi army is falling apart are grossly over-stated.

Fighting in Basrah, Baghdad, and throughout much of the South continues as Iraqi security Forces and Multinational Forces Iraq press the fight against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed terror groups. The Iraqi Army has moved additional forces to Basrah as the US and Iraqi military have conducted significant engagements in Shia areas of Baghdad. The Mahdi Army has taken significant casualties. The US military has denied the Mahdi Army has taken control of checkpoints in Baghdad.

Several hundred Iraqis are reported to have been killed during the fighting since the operation began on March 25. A large majority of them are Mahdi Army fighters, according to the press reports. The US and Iraqi military have killed more than 70 Mahdi Army fighters in Shia neighborhood in Baghdad alone over the past three days.

The Times Online claimed the Iraqi Army and police have abandoned checkpoints in Baghdad, but the US military denied the Mahdi Army is in control of police and Army checkpoints in Baghdad.

"All checkpoints and ISF [Iraqi security forces] buildings are in ISF and/or Coalition control. No checkpoint is in enemy control," said Lieutenant Colonel Steve Stover, the Public Affairs Officer for the 4th Infantry Division and Multinational Division Baghdad in an email response to questions from The Long War Journal. "There were several cases where the ISF needed our assistance (and more often than not - did not) and either CF 9 (Coalition forces) ground or air responded and either reinforced or took back in a couple instances the CP or IP (Iraqi Police) building - none of that happened today."

The Mahdi army, actually a militia, is a Shiite group being trained and influenced by Iran and vying for control of the government. The Iraqi forces under the authority of the Shiite-dominated Maliki government are inflicting heavy casualties. This is an intra-mural fight among Shia that everyone pretty much knew was inevitable, but it has little to do with the coalition surge despite claims by some in the media that it casts doubt on the surge's success.

There's more on the conflict at the link.

RLC

Friday, March 28, 2008

<i>Fitna</i> Update

The outfit hosting the movie Fitna received serious threats and decided to remove the video. It can, however, be seen here.

RLC

Amateur Atheists

Theologian John Haught makes the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight in an essay which appears in the February 26th issue of The Christian Century.

Haught writes:

For many years I taught an introductory theology course for undergraduates titled "The Problem of God." My fellow instructors and I were convinced that our students should be exposed to the most erudite of the unbelievers. Our rationale was that any mature commitment that intelligent young people might make to a religious faith should be critically tested by the very best opponents.

The recent books by Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris and Christopher Hitchens would never have made the required-reading list. Their tirades would simply reinforce students' ignorance not only of religion but also of atheism. The new atheists do little more than provide a fresh catalogue of the evils wrought by members of the theistic faiths.

It's true that when reading their books one gets the feeling that the authors believe if they can just discredit religion in the eyes of their readers they will have disproven the existence of God. It's not very sophisticated polemics, but there you have it.

Anyway, Haught offers a number of reasons supporting his conclusion that the New Atheists are philosophical incompetents, and it makes for very entertaining reading.

RLC

Lyme Vaccine

One of the most insidious maladies afflicting those who live in the northeastern U.S. is Lyme disease. Approximately 20,000 cases a year. It's both puzzling and irritating that one hears during the summer months daily news reports about the number of cases of West Nile virus, but rarely is the far more prevalent, dangerous and debilitating Lyme disease ever mentioned.

Anyway, it looks now as if a vaccine for the spirochete that causes the disease is on the near horizon. Read about it here.

RLC

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Fitna

We recently posted about the courage of Geert Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament, who has put together a 15 minute video titled Fitna that exposes the horrors of Islamic extremism. Wilders film has somehow managed to get onto the internet even though a lot of services declined to host it. I couldn't embed it, but it can be viewed here. Much of the footage will be familiar to those who've been getting their information from the blogosphere for the last couple of years, but for those still relying on the old media much of it will be new.

Be advised that some of what you'll see is very rough, but it's important that every citizen of this country be aware of the nature of the struggle we're engaged in and that every citizen, therefore, watch it. It may well cost Wilders his life to have brought it to you.

UPDATE: The outfit hosting the movie Fitna received serious threats and decided to remove the video. It can, however, be seen here.

RLC

The Wright Stuff

I know this may upset some faithful readers, but I have to confess that I weary of talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity battering his listeners with the details of the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio for three hours every day for weeks. Wright's ravings are certainly significant and they do tell us something important about Obama, but Hannity seems obsessed with making sure we get the message and refuses to let go of our lapels until we nod obligingly that we have indeed absorbed the lesson.

It's almost enough to make me hope that I never hear another word on the subject, but then along comes a trio of essays by three of the best writers in contemporary journalism, and I'm hooked. I have to read them each to the end. So should you.

The first is by Mark Steyn at NRO. Steyn is a deft and funny writer whose wordcraft is a delectation. Steyn commences his skewering of Obama's defense of Wright with this:

"I'm sure," said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, "many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree, flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of "spiritual advisers" at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States - and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. "The government lied," he told his flock, "about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Does he really believe this? If so, he's crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he's profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you'll know that it's within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you're told that it's just whitey's latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it's out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.

Read the whole thing. It's worth a week of Sean Hannity.

Christopher Hitchens doesn't hold back about much and his feelings toward Barack Obama are no exception. He concludes his essay at Slate with this:

To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

Read the rest of it, if for no other reason than to enjoy the honey-like flow of Hitchens' prose.

Perhaps the most important of the three is penned by Pat Buchanan, another man not celebrated for pulling punches and prettifying the unpretty. Thus when he turbned his journalistic gaze toward Barack Obama's defense of Jeremiah Wright it was a foregone conclusion that there would be a lot of politically inconvenient truths contained in the result:

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks - with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas - to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

All three of these columns are not only good reading, they're important reading. Turn off talk radio and take twenty minutes to digest them.

RLC

Dire Outlook for the NORKs

Strategy Page gives us an update on the situation in communist North Korea. It's pretty grim, especially now that a number of countries have decided to stop the flow of food aid which only went to feed the military and the government anyway:

March 20, 2008: In the north, destitution is the rule. South Korean economists have downgraded their estimates of per capita income in North Korea. It's now believed to be under $1,000 a year (it's over $25,000 in the south). Power and food shortages have left many farms unable to work on the Spring planting.

As seen from space, North Korea is dark at night, while South Korea is lit up. The newly elected, conservative, president of South Korea has told the north that food aid would no longer be automatically sent. The north would have to be more cooperative in areas of economic development and nuclear disarmament. The new South Korean government further irritated the North Korean officials by increasing radio broadcasts to the north that told people up there about why more free food and fuel was not going to arrive until the North Korean government kept its earlier promises to South Korea.

To back up this, South Korea released photos it had taken (with special long range cameras) near the DMZ, clearly showing Red Cross food aid being transferred to the military in 2006 and 2007. The previous South Korean government, following a decade long "sunshine policy" had discussed these photos privately with North Korean officials. There was never any response. So the new South Korean government released the photos.

The north has been caught diverting food aid to the military dozens of times since 2003, and has ignored foreign criticism of this. As a result, many nations will not contribute food aid to North Korea any more. The food shortage is so severe this Winter that lower ranking government officials had their food rations cut. This had never happened before.

The North Korean armed forces have lost the power struggle with the "economic reformers" in the government. Many senior generals have been forced to retire in the past few months. The military has been stripped of many of its economic assets, mainly because of mismanagement and corruption. The police have been given the power to arrest military personnel for "economic crimes" and corruption. Meanwhile, the growing use of narcotics in the north (by those getting rich in the black market and along the Chinese border) has resulted in harsher penalties. From now on, anyone caught with more than a quarter pound of narcotics will be executed.

The North Korea military has been declining for over a decade, and the government has apparently concluded that there's no point in putting a lot of money into the military when the economic situation is so dire.

On the Chinese border, North Koreans are so desperate to get out that they are selling themselves into slavery (or, rather, indentured servitude, where they work for free for a period of time to work off the money used to get them past the border guards). North Korean refugees are increasingly suffering from stress related disorders. This is the result of increasing police activity back home.

North Korea has entered into a trade deal with Uganda. North Korea will supply weapons and training for Ugandan police, while the African nation will export food and silk. More importantly, North Korea announced new economic reforms. The government is giving in to Chinese demands that economic reforms, like those that made China rich in the last three decades, be implemented in North Korea. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to delay providing proof that it has halted its nuclear weapons program. The new reforms will take at least a year to show some results, and in the meantime, the food, corruption and public order situations will get worse.

What a bleak picture. It almost makes you think Strategy Page is describing the misery of African Americans in Jeremiah Wright's America.

If Marx were alive today to survey the fruits of his life's work he'd probably burn all his books. Marxism has been applied in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Africa, North Korea, Eastern Europe, and China. In every case either Marxism had to be abandoned or the country languishes in poverty and squalor. The only people left today who still have hope that Marxism is an answer to the world's problems are people, like American college professors, who've never lived under it.

RLC

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Arrested Development

The rule of thumb for some people, even some who are chronologically older than twelve, is that when they don't have an argument, or worse, when their argument is completely incoherent, the best course is to conceal the fact by piling on the personal invective. Darwinian Larry Moran is evidently a good example of the type.

Michael Egnor tells us a little bit about Professor Moran's style:

University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran takes issue with my characterization of his vicious personal attacks on Dr. Jonathan Wells. Dr. Wells has pointed out that superb recent research on bacterial resistance to antibiotics was independent of Darwin's theory. Dr. Moran said of Dr. Wells:

"...the right people hate IDiots...Wells makes a virtue out of lying for Jesus...He should be an embarrassment to the intelligent design creationist cult except that the members of that cult are all incapable of separating fact from fiction when it comes to science...When I first saw the Wells article I seriously wondered whether Jonathan Wells was mentally stable..."

Dr. Moran has a low view of people who question his evolutionary views from the perspective of design. In 2006 he said of students who support the inference to design in biology:

"Flunk the IDiots...40% of the freshman class [at UCSD] reject Darwinism... the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism...UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place...[T]he University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education."

In fairness to Dr. Moran, though, he no doubt feels threatened. His life's work and credibility, everything he's ever said to his students, is under assault, and he feels bitter toward those responsible. So he lashes out, flailing ineffectually and incoherently, at the perceived cause of his distress. The man's world is collapsing all around him so we shouldn't judge his juvenile screed too harshly.

RLC

Defining Our Terms

Jonathan Wells takes the occasion of a nasty dispute involving some vitriolic Darwinians to clarify the meaning of key terms in the contemporary debate over origins. Wells succinctly clears up the difference between Darwinian evolution, Darwinism, microevolution and macroevolution. Confusion often reigns in the popular media over these terms, largely because the first, Darwinian evolution, is often used a synonym for each of the others even though each of the others means something entirely different.

RLC

Inside the Bridge

The March 12 missile attack on Taliban leadership gathered in a house in Pakistan was orchestrated from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Phil Peterson was at the command center (called the Bridge) and describes the operation as he witnessed it there:

The March 12 strike originated from intelligence gathered on the ground from a subordinate unit seeking information on the Haqqani Network. After full-motion video and other "special intelligent collection capabilities" were performed, the Bridge confirmed this particular compound was indeed a safe house for insurgents. Analysts continued to scrutinize the area looking for any signs of life, the presence of women or children, and activity in neighboring structures. Other disciplines, such as law and weapons, are consulted as well.

In this case, intelligence assets reported no presence of civilians in the area over the previous five days, making the decision to launch a strike urgent. Full-motion video captured and projected on to the center projection screen -- known as "Kill TV" -- several individuals performing sentry duty in and around the Haqqani Network compound's boundaries.

At 9:40 PM local time, Coalition forces declared an imminent threat from the compound and gathered in the Bridge to discuss the possibility of striking the compound. Due to its location inside Pakistan, the proposal was sent up the chain of command to US Central Command and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). After discussing the latest intelligence reports, rechecking and confirming their accuracy, the commanding general ordered the strike.

While everyone was working the "pre-strike," they gathered in groups of 2-3 people, larger groups at times, and in the minutes leading up to the strike, everyone was working to make sure their data and intelligence was correct. In the final seconds, all eyes were on Kill TV, some people were sitting while others were standing, to see the real time video of the impending strike.

There was no cheering or high fives; only a hushed "ohhh" from a few people when the strike was made.

The strike was completed and work resumed as usual. Personnel returned to their workstations and the designated section began the process of contacting Pakistan officials to let them know about the strike. Analysts continued studying the streaming video images looking for signs of life in and around the area while other teams at offsite locations were doing the same and then feeding their conclusions to the Bridge commander.

There's more at the link.

RLC

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Four Questions

The media continues to trivialize our politics by treating the presidential campaign as though it were a board game in which gaffes, scandals, missteps and debate zingers all get tallied up to delight the talking heads and newspaper columnists. Meanwhile, the voting public wishes they'd grow up and start doing their job. They can begin by pressing the candidates to answer some urgent questions and holding their feet to the fire until they do. Here are four questions with which each candidate should be confronted at the earliest opportunity, and they should be badgered with these questions every time they make a public appearance until they answer them:

1) The National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding, the consensus seems to be that Iran is still engaged in the production of a nuclear device. The Iranians have threatened to use such a weapon against Israel once they have it. What will you do if Iran (or North Korea, for that matter) persists in pursuing a nuclear weapon? Please do not answer that you will sit down and talk with their leaders. The question presupposes that all such diplomatic efforts have failed. How far are you prepared to go to stop Iran or North Korea from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

2) The sub-prime mortgage crisis and the falling dollar have placed us on the verge of a global economic recession. What, precisely, will you do about the crisis we are facing? Please don't answer with platitudes about "hope" and "change" and "yes, we can". What measures will you take, that the Bush administration has not taken, to fix the problem?

3) Illegal immigrants are flooding into this country and placing enormous burdens upon our schools, hospitals, justice system, and welfare system. What, if anything, do you propose to do to stop the flow of illegal immigration? Please be specific. Telling us that we must secure our border is vague and unhelpful. Please state exactly what you propose to do, if anything, to secure the border.

4) Please name a Supreme Court justice, current or former, who would be most similar to a nominee that you would select for the court or federal bench should the opportunity arise during your presidency.

If the media neglect to ask these questions and to demand answers they will have failed to meet their responsibility to the public. If the questions are asked, but the candidates refuse to give clear answers then the candidates will have failed the voters, who will be given little upon which to base a responsible vote.

RLC

Al Gore, Call Your Office

There's a scientific tsunami welling up on the horizon and it bodes ill for those who've been for the last several years forecasting impending doom due to global warming. The data seem to show that for the last decade, even though greenhouse gas emissions have increased, global temperatures have not. In fact, they appear to be declining according to this piece in The Australian:

Catastrophic predictions of global warming usually conjure a notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

There's much more to this story at the link, including an interesting discussion of the impact this news is going to have when it finally sinks in. You read it here first.

RLC

A Dutch Hero

Stephen Brown writes an encomium to one of the bravest men in the Western world and certainly in Europe. The man is Dutch Minister of parliament Geert Wilders who has been living for two years under the threat of death from Islamists who want to kill him because he refuses to submit to the dhimmi status that most of his colleagues have accepted.

Wilders has produced a 15 minute film about Islam which no European venue will show for fear of Muslim retaliation. Wilders is determined, nonetheless, that people see it and will probably put it on the internet. Read about this man's courageous efforts in Brown's essay.

UPDATE: Apparently even some United States based internet hosting companies are getting cold feet. The Jawa Report posts a conversation with Network Solutions about why they refused to host Wilders film.

RLC

Shocking

Here's a stunning revelation: Senator Clinton's memory of events on her trip to Bosnia in the 90s is completely at variance with what actually happened.

Why didn't she just say, "I have no recollection of that"? After all, she's had considerable experience with that semantic construction.

In any case, incoming sniper fire is not the sort of thing one would be likely have a hazy memory of, I shouldn't think. Half the Democratic party is excited about the prospect of four, or even eight, more years of such prevarications from the Clintons, and probably 90% of the party would vote for her in November if she were nominated. It makes one wonder.

RLC

Monday, March 24, 2008

Personal Jesus

Obamamessiah.com offers up a somewhat unnerving video of Barack Obama set to Depeche Mode's Personal Jesus:

Check out the site. It's a little spooky to see how people are responding to Obama's candidacy. Maybe it's time to dust off your copy of Eric Hoffer's classic analysis of mass movements titled True Believer.

HT: Michelle Malkin

RLC

Sunday, March 23, 2008

It's All in the Mindset

Those interested in the racial "discussions" triggered by the video of Jeremiah Wright's angry tirades against white America will find an essay by Ed Kaitz at The American Thinker a very important contribution. It starts with this:

Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off. I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war. Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season ....

Follow the link and read the rest. It's really very good.

RLC

Breaching the Wall of Separation

Apparently one California high school teacher thinks that religion has no place in the public school classroom unless it's to serve as an object of criticism and ridicule. One of his students, however, has decided he isn't going to put up with this breach of religious neutrality and is taking the self-appointed de-programmer to court:

Capistrano Valley High School sophomore Chad Farnan sued his Advanced Placement European history teacher, James Corbett in December. Corbet, a San Clemente resident and 35-year educator, is accused of fostering hostility toward Christians and promoted "irreligion over religion," therefore violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, says that Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience." He railed against Christianity and traditional Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit.

Court papers cite statements tape-recorded by Farnan such as "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies - that's interfering with God's work" and "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." The Christian legal group that filed the lawsuit, Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom, released additional quotes Monday attributed to Corbett, including "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

The complete audiotapes, however, have not been released for independent review. Corbett's attorney said the statements were taken out of context.

I'm sure. Corbett is a 61 year-old who teaches AP European history and AP art history. He's also faculty adviser to the Free Thinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship student club, whatever that is.

RLC

Typical White Person

Barack Obama has taken some heat for referring to his grandmother as "a typical white person" because she felt threatened by a black man in what was in fact a threatening situation. Even so, I think too much is being made of Obama's choice of words, and I urge the Senator's critics to dial back the outrage. It seems to me to be making mountains out of molehills.

Nevertheless, if Barack's Texas grandparents' attitudes are typical of white people in general, I think Obama is handing whites, perhaps unintentionally, a compliment. Consider this excerpt from Obama's book reported by Judith Apter Klinghoffer:

. . At a bank where she worked [in the early '60s], Toot (his grandmother's nickname) made the acquaintance of the janitor, a tall and dignified black World War II vet she remembers only as Mr. Reed. While the two of them chatted in the hallways one day, a secretary in the office stormed up and hissed that Tood should never, ever, "call no nigger 'Mister.'" Not long afterworlds, Toot would find Mr. Reed in a corner of the building weeping quietly to himself. . . .

They (grandparents) decided Toot would keep calling Mr. Reed "Mister," . . . . Gramps began to decline invitations from coworkers to go out for a beer, telling them he had to get home to keep the wife happy.

Klinghoffer writes that Obama goes on in the book to tell a story about his 11 year old mother who played in the front yard with a young Black girl. Neighborhood Children gathered outside the picket fence shouting: "Nigger lover!" and "Dirty Yankee!" The grandmother tried to get them into the house. The grandfather went further:

Gramps was beside himself when he heard what had happened. He interrogated my mother, wrote down names. The next day he took the morning off from work to visit the school principal. He personally called the parents of some of the offending children to give them a piece of his mind.

No, his grandfather did not say that he could no more disown racist whites than disown the white community. The grandmother, he dismisses as a "typical white (racist) person" explained their attitudes thus:

Your grandfather and I just figured we should treat people decently, Bar. That's all."

Obama's grandparents weren't typical of whites in Texas in the early sixties, but I think it something of which whites should be proud to be told by the Senator that the attitudes his grandparents had then are typical of the attitudes most whites have now.

RLC

Saturday, March 22, 2008

The Resurrection Narratives

One of the arguments against the belief that on the first Easter Jesus actually did rise from the dead is that the records of that alleged event (the New Testament gospels) were written much later, perhaps a hundred years or so after the event was supposed to have happened. The greater the temporal distance between the event and when it was written down, the thinking goes, the less reliable the written testimony is considered to be.

There are lots of reasons for rejecting this argument, but I came across one recently while reading Anglican theologian N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope that I don't remember ever hearing before, although I'm sure others have.

Wright points out that throughout the gospel narratives the authors constantly cite Old Testament precedents and prophecies and tie them to the life of Jesus. This indicates that some time had elapsed after Jesus' death during which the community of believers was able to reflect on the events of his life before those events were written down. This reading back into the Old Testament runs right up through the crucifixion narratives. Thus we may surmise that these stories about Jesus were put into the form we have them in today some time after Jesus' death.

But then a striking thing happens. Once the accounts move on to the events surrounding Jesus' resurrection there are no references to Old Testament sources, prophecies and fulfillments. Their absence strongly suggests, Wright maintains, that the accounts of the resurrection were written down or otherwise fixed even before the accounts of the rest of Jesus' life. It suggests, too, that the resurrection narratives were established soon after the event and before the community of disciples had the opportunity to search the texts for prophetic allusions and echoes.

Here is what Wright says:

This is all the more remarkable when we note that from as early as Paul, the common creedal formula declared that the resurrection, too, was "according to the scriptures," and Paul himself joins the rest of the early church in ransacking the psalms and prophets to find texts to explain what just happened and set it within, and as the climax to, the long story of God and Israel. Why do the gospel resurrection narratives not do the same? It would be easy for Matthew to refer to one or two scriptural prophecies that were being fulfilled, but he doesn't. John tells us that the disciples did not yet know the scriptural teaching that the Messiah would rise again, but he doesn't quote the texts he has in mind.

These accounts were fixed very early, it appears, and then later, when the gospels were being written, attached to those narratives in order to form a more complete picture of who Jesus was. If this is so, they should be granted a much greater reliability than some critics have been willing to give them.

Have a wonderful Resurrection Day.

RLC