Teaching Evolution

A recent article in Science Daily has received a lot of attention, mostly because it has revealed some surprising statistics about American high school biology teachers. The article, or rather the research the article reports, implicitly raises a lot of questions, most of which are left unanswered. I'd like to make some of those questions explicit because I think they're important. The article begins with this paragraph:

The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.

"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in the January 28 issue of Science.

Well, how are supporters of "reason itself" and "scientific methods" losing battles in America's classrooms? The article never says. It simply implies that since a lot of biology teachers are refusing to indoctrinate their students that therefore reason and science are taking a beating.

The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

There's something wrong with this? Evolution can be fully proven? Creation can be fully discredited? What do these words even mean? What is meant here by the words evolution, creationism, proven and fully discredited? The article doesn't tell us. It just allows the reader to wander in confusion through this thicket of imprecise and undefined terminology.

Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.

The researchers found these teachers commonly use one or more of three strategies to avoid controversy. Some teach evolutionary biology as if it applies only to molecular biology, ignoring an opportunity to impart a rich understanding of the diversity of species and evidence that one species gives rise to others.

More vagueness. What is a species, exactly? Is the evidence that species, whatever they are, evolve into other taxa unambiguous and dispositive? Is there no reason to question it? We're not told, but the answers to these questions matter if we're to properly assess the significance of the statistics the researchers are reporting.

Using a second strategy, some teachers ... "tell students it does not matter if they really 'believe' in evolution, so long as they know it for the test," Berkman and Plutzer said.

How many teachers do that? Many of them or just one?

Finally, many teachers expose their students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, and let them make up their own minds.

This is unfortunate, the researchers said, because "this approach tells students that well established concepts can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions."

Do the authors mean to say that we do our students a disservice when we show them both the pros and the cons of a particular explanation in science? What are the well-established concepts the researchers have in mind here? The concept that evolution is a purely natural process? The concept that evolution has been "fully proven"? The concept that change happens? What?

Berkman and Plutzer conclude that "the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments." As a result, "they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists."

This claim about undermining the authority of experts leading to hindering scientific illiteracy is very odd. Studies have shown that it's precisely those students who have strong beliefs in creation or intelligent design (they're not the same thing despite repeated attempts by the media to conflate them in the public mind) are often the students in any biology class who also have the best understanding of Darwinian evolution. The students who simply accept the evolutionary point of view without question often know the least about it.

Berkman and Plutzer say the nation must have better-trained biology teachers who can confidently advocate for high standards of science education in their local communities. Colleges and universities should mandate a dedicated undergraduate course in evolution for all prospective biology teachers, for example, and follow up with outreach refresher courses, so that more biology teachers embrace evolutionary biology.

Does this mean that deviant biology teachers will be subjected to some sort of aversion therapy, like the sociopath Alex in Clockwork Orange, or "reeducation" such as Winston Smith was forced to undergo in 1984? What if this doesn't work, do Berkman and Plutzer think we should employ electroshock treatments to correct the thinking of recalcitrant educators?

"Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the scientific literacy of future generations," they conclude.

Indoctrination of students doesn't lead to scientific literacy. It merely makes them uncritical parrots of whatever their masters want them to say. What leads to scientific literacy is teaching them to impartially evaluate evidence, which is precisely what these researchers don't want. Perhaps they know that the more students are encouraged to sift the evidence and subject it to critical analysis the less inclined they are to buy into the Darwinian paradigm.

Asininity

According to No Left Turns a fifth-grader in California had to hire a lawyer last week in order to overcome the public school's unwritten prohibition on singing religious songs in a talent show. Meanwhile, a Michigan public school this week voluntarily amended their no weapons-in-school policy so as to permit Sikh students to carry daggers on their persons.

Let's try to understand this. A student talent show competitor is not allowed to sing a song with a Christian theme because expressions of religious sentiment are proscribed in our public schools, but a Sikh is allowed to bring a weapon to school because it's an expression of religious devotion.

This is the sort of wretched reasoning that contemporary liberalism has foisted upon us. Is it any wonder that politicians are embarrassed to identify themselves as liberals?

Multiculturalism Has Failed

British Prime Minister David Cameron, following the lead of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's speech last year, declares that the doctrine of state multiculturalism has failed.

Cameron argues that we must distinguish between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islamic extremism. A lot of people in the West hope that such a distinction, a distinction between liberals, moderates, and extremists in Islam, is realistic, but I wonder whether Muslims themselves see this as a legitimate distinction.

Reports like one at The Daily Caller offer hope that many do.

The Thrill Is Gone

BillT writes to call our attention to the recent Morning Joe segment in which Chris Matthews, the man who once said that listening to President Obama sent a tingle up his leg, expresses his anger over the administration's willingness to throw Hosni Mubarak under the bus. He states that the way the administration has handled the Egyptian crisis makes him ashamed as an American.

This, of course, doesn't mean that the White House is losing Matthews who speaks for a lot of liberal Democrats and independents, but I'm sure it gives them pause. In the exchange with Pat Buchanan at the end of the segment Matthews sounds like a neo-con:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Matthews is disturbed that President Obama seems to abandon so quickly and insouciantly a friend of thirty years, but he shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Obama has done it before. Ask Jeremiah Wright.

Obligatory Super Bowl Post

I don't wish to be a killjoy, but when people ask me who I think is going to win a pro football game I always answer that such prognostications are just guess-work and that I have no idea. Predictions amount to little more than a statement about which team a person thinks would win most often if the two teams played each other 10 times in a season. Trying to pick the winner of any particular game is futile given that many, perhaps even most, pro games are decided by four things, none of which have much to do with talent and coaching - turnovers, penalties, in-game injuries and biorhythms - and none of these are predictable.

I don't mean to suggest that talent and coaching are irrelevant, only that, unless the disparity between the two clubs is great, they're often of secondary importance in deciding the outcome of the game.

A team whose biorhythm is peaking will often clobber an equally talented team whose biorhythm is tanking. In fact, an inferior team at its biorhythmic peak will often defeat a more talented squad whose biorhythm is ebbing. That's why there are stunning upsets. That's why a team can lose badly to an opponent in one game and play them again later and beat them.

So tell me which team in today's Super Bowl will have significantly fewer turnovers, significantly fewer penalties, fewer injuries to key players, and a biorhythm on its upward swing, and I'll predict that that team will probably win. But who can tell those things?

Bishnu Shrestha and the Forty Thieves

Strategy Page has an amazing article about a retired Indian Gurkha soldier named Bishnu Shrestha. Shrestha was a passenger on a train that was set upon by a gang of some forty thieves (which sounds like a story out of The Arabian Nights). The odds, evidently, were still in Shrestha's favor. Here's the lede:

For the last five months, India has been celebrating and honoring a retired Gurkha soldier (Bishnu Shrestha) who, singlehandedly killed three bandits, wounded eight and drove off another 30. Snce then Shrestha has been given medals, cash and accolades for his outstanding valor and prowess. The Indian Gurkha regiment he recently retired from persuaded him to return to active duty so he could receive a cash award and a promotion. Bishnu Shrestha's father had also served with the same unit, and retired from it 29 years ago.

If you read the rest of Shrestha's story at the link continue to read about the Gurkha fighting in Afghanistan who was arrested by the British authorities who couldn't do enough to mollify the Taliban and demonstrate to them their eagerness to appease. Sadly, the British are not the people they once were. I can't imagine Winston Churchill or Maggie Thatcher being so obsequiously solicitous of Taliban sensibilities, although I guess I can imagine Neville Chamberlain doing it.

Repressing Dissent

David Klinghoffer over at NRO considers the alarming trend toward religious discrimination in taxpayer supported institutions. He notes that the recent case of Martin Gaskell, the eminently qualified astronomer who was denied a job supervising the University of Kentucky's astronomical observatory because emails showed that the committee charged with filling the position feared he was one of those nutty Christians who believed in intelligent design.

Gaskell sued and the university chose to pay a $125,000 settlement. Committee emails revealed that one of Gaskell's colleague's complained that Professor Gaskell was “potentially Evangelical,” a condign disqualification if ever there was one.

A supporter on the committee, an astrophysicist, protested that the committee was about to reject Gaskell “despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant.”

Klinghoffer writes:

This is no isolated incident. An enormous, largely hidden transformation has taken place in what we mean when we speak of “science.” For centuries, the free and unfettered scientific enterprise was fueled by a desire to know the mind of God. “The success of the West,” writes historian Rodney Stark in his important book The Victory of Reason, “including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.” Now, increasingly, voicing such a desire is likely to get you excluded from the guild of professional scientists.

He goes on to give some other egregious examples of how academia blacklists and persecutes those who demur to the scientific establishment's metaphysical orthodoxy:

Last month, a top-level computer specialist on the NASA’s Cassini mission to Saturn, David Coppedge, got fired after he sued JPL for religious discrimination. Coppedge had occasionally chatted with interested colleagues about the scientific case for intelligent design, which made good sense since JPL’s officially defined mission includes the exploration of questions relating to the origin and development of life on Earth and elsewhere. For this, his supervisor severely chastised him for “pushing religion” and humiliated and demoted him.

At Iowa State University, astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez was refused tenure, despite a spectacular research publication record, because of a book he co-authored arguing that life is no cosmic accident.

At the Smithsonian Institution, supervisors harshly penalized evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for editing a pro–intelligent design essay in a peer-reviewed technical-biology journal. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel examined the 2005 case, finding that Smithsonian colleagues investigated his religious beliefs and created a “hostile work environment” aimed at “forcing [him] out.”

Similar incidents have occurred at the University of Idaho, George Mason University, and Baylor University.

Such heresy-hunting has the effect of intimidating skeptical scientists who are in increasing numbers growing doubtful of materialist dogma. The Darwinian materialists find the intelligent design arguments difficult to counter so they're seeking to stifle and repress them by making their proponents afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job or future promotions.

This is, of course, how the losing side, or at least the side that deserves to lose, always behaves. Like dictators in the Middle Eastern countries we read about in today's news, materialistic Darwinists have long managed to suppress opposition by exercising a kind of tyranny over what will be allowed to be said and taught. Now, however, they find their power and authority fading with almost every new discovery, and, like those Middle Eastern despots, they're striving desperately to stave off the collapse of their belief system by ratcheting up the repression.

It may work for a while, but eventually the despots and dogmatists will pass on and those who succeed them will wonder how their theories and arguments could ever have had such a tenacious hold on them.

Racism, Hate, and Violent Rhetoric

Progressives rallied recently in Palm Springs California to protest the billionaire Koch brothers who are strong supporters of libertarian causes. It was their support of the tea party in particular which presumably roused the ire of the gentle progressives gathered in Palm Springs. When next one hears from progressives, as we do from Van Jones in the prelude to this video, about right-wing hate it might be good to remember how at least some ordinary liberals talk when they think they're among friends:

I don't know how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas managed to get dragged into this, but no matter. It's amusing to hear lefties accuse tea party members, without a single shred of evidence, of being racist when there's ample evidence that there's plenty of racism circulating among your average progressive.

I wonder what the reaction would be if at a tea party rally there were calls to "string up" say, Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor. Given that we all know, of course, what that reaction would be why has this video not been shown on our cable news nets or dissected by the writers of the New York Times?

Never mind. It's a silly question.

Meanwhile, Robin of Berkeley explores the strange way of thinking that pervades the left on matters ranging from victimhood to infanticide to vitriolic rhetoric. Give her article a look and ask yourself as you read whether you don't agree that some of these people just seem to suffer from an empty soul.

Inhuman

Lest anyone doubt the cruelty of the people who would rule Afghanistan (and some of those jockeying for power in Egypt) if we are unable to accomplish our task there this report should quell their doubts. In a story that could have come right out of Kaled Hosseini's Thousand Splendid Suns we're told that:

Horrific video footage (the video is at the link but the violence is edited out) has emerged of Taliban insurgents stoning a couple to death for alleged adultery in northern Afghanistan.

Hundreds of villagers can be seen on the video standing around as the woman, Siddqa, is buried up to her waist in a four foot hole in the ground.

Two mullahs pass sentence before the crowd begins to throw rocks at her head and body as she desperately tries to crawl free.

But the 19-year-old collapses to the ground, covered in blood - but miraculously still alive.

At this point a Taliban fighter shoots her three times in the head with an AK-47. The crowd can be heard shouting allahu akbar as she is killed.

Her lover, Khayyam, is then marched in front of the crowd with his hands tied behind his back. He is blindfolded with his own tunic and crouches down close to the ground as he tried to protect his body from the stones.

But he is battered to the floor by a barrage of rocks. He can be heard sobbing before eventually falling silent.

The stoning - the first to be documented on film since the Taliban were ousted from power - took place in the district of Dashte Archi, in Kunduz, last August.

Officials said that Siddqa had run away after being sold into an arranged marriage for $9,000 against her will.

She ran away to be with Khayyam, who was already married and had two children, and the pair eloped to Pakistan.

But it is understood that they returned to their home village after being reassured by leaders that they would be unharmed.

It was a terrible mistake. They were dragged from their families' homes at 2 am by Taliban fighters and then put before a kangaroo court before being executed.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid defended the stoning.

He told the BBC: "Anyone who knows about Islam knows that stoning is in the Koran, and that it is Islamic law. There are people who call it inhuman - but in doing so they insult the Prophet. They want to bring foreign thinking to this country."

Heaven forbid that anyone should bring foreign thinking to Afghanistan. If they did the place might progress all the way to the 10th century.

Anyway, as you contemplate this horrifying execution of a 19 year-old girl think of Jesus' words to those who were about to stone a woman under very similar circumstances: "The one among you who is without sin should throw the first stone".

Adultery is a very serious matter, to be sure, but the Taliban spokesman is right. To execute people for it, and in such a cruel and savage manner, is indeed inhuman.

Elsewhere, Iran has hanged a Dutch-Iranian woman arrested for participating in the protests that followed in the wake of their phony election in the summer of 2009. If the demonstrations in Egypt inspire anyone else in the Mid-East let's hope they inspire the Iranians to try once again to rid themselves of a regime that's at least as bad as, and probably much worse than, that of Hosni Mubarak.

Looming Disaster

Brian Riedl at NRO explains why Congress needs to rein in spending and do it quickly. Relying on recent Congressional Budget Office projections, Riedl writes:

This more realistic “current-policy” budget baseline reveals a ten-year deficit of $13 trillion. The annual budget deficit never falls below $1 trillion, and reaches $1.9 trillion by 2021. At that point, the $25 trillion debt would exceed the size of the entire economy – and even that assumes a return to peace and prosperity.

These deficits are driven by spending. Even if all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, tax revenues (historically 18.0 percent of GDP) would climb to 18.4 percent by 2021. Yet federal spending (historically 20.3 percent of GDP) is projected to soar to 26.4 percent by 2021. By that point, 100 percent of rising long-term deficits will result from above-average spending. There is no long-term revenue decline.

He also adds these very sobering notes:

* Between 2008 and 2021, the annual cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is set to rise from $1.2 trillion to $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation);

* Letting the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 would close just 5 percent of the budget deficit over the next decade. The $736 billion price tag is a fraction of the $21 trillion cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid over the decade;

* Between 2009 and 2021, the national debt would increase by $150,000 per household. By 2021, net interest alone would cost $1 trillion – nearly one-half of all tax income revenues; and

* Over what would be President Obama’s eight years in office, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.9 trillion— triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President Bush.

These spending and deficit figures are unsustainable. In order to avert an economic crisis, Congress must substantially rein in non-defense discretionary spending, enact multi-year caps, and then begin fundamental Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reform. Small budget tweaks and freezes are no longer sufficient. If this means also trimming the Pentagon then so be it. Having a first rate military will do us no good if we can't afford ever to use it when we need it.

If Congress fails to do this, and if President Obama fails to go along with significant spending cuts, they will be responsible for deliberately driving the entire nation over an economic cliff. There can be no question that entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare need to be reformed or eliminated. The only question should be about the best way to do this. Anyone in Congress or among the commentariat who seeks to obstruct reform and calls for maintaining the status quo should be considered to have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously.

UPDATE: Already Senate Democrats have announced that they are not interested in reforming Social Security in any meaningful way. Over the next decade Social Security will run up a deficit of a half a trillion dollars, and the President in his State of the Union scarcely mentioned it. Are these people simply in denial or do they actually want to turn us into an economic basketcase?

Wallace Vs. Darwin

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

In a piece at Evolution News and Views Flannery writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Poverty in America - Another Perspective

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

Here it is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone else care to weigh in on this topic?

Presidential Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Egyptian Uprising

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

Here's the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

Government Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

Unthinkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those Stupid Republicans

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

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

Seriously, that's what he said.

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

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

What an embarrassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shocker from Florida

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

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

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

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

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

And also this:

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

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

Presidential Snoozer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The central elements of the missed opportunity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be Careful What You Hope For

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best and Worst on Immigration

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

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

Re: Poverty in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalists Fib

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

Here's the story:

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

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

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

But that’s no longer Evans’ story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing What's in it

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

Sexton explains the reason for these waivers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confronting the Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good and Evil

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

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

If only you bastards would let us do it.

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

In other words, shut the hell up.

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

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

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

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

Inciting Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sick Joke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Busy Place

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

The globe is a busy place.

Oh, Boy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral Abolitionism

Richard Garner is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Ohio State University. He's also a moral abolitionist. To find out precisely what that means read what Professor Garner says in the piece below excerpted from an essay in Philosophy Now:

Free thinkers and skeptics throughout history have entertained the suspicion that morality is a mistake, a scam, a fiction that we make up; but few others have welcomed this idea with open minds. Recent discussions of the topic can be traced to the work of the philosopher John Mackie, who defended his ‘moral error theory’ by criticizing a widely held understanding of morality called ‘moral realism,’ the belief that morality is something ‘real’ that we discover, not something we have made up.

Mackie called his own view ‘moral skepticism,’ but he was unskeptical enough to open his 1977 book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong with the ‘dogmatic’ assertion that “there are no objective values.” Just as atheists claim that the beliefs of theists about the objective existence of a god are in error, moral error theorists claim that the beliefs of moral realists about the objective existence of moral rules, prohibitions, virtues, vices, values, rights, and duties are also in error, and for the same reason – what they are talking about doesn’t exist.

In other words, if God doesn't exist morality is a sham because there's nothing to ground it, a claim with which we entirely agree, and have been stressing at Viewpoint for the entire seven years of our existence. We've repeatedly called upon atheists to either admit that their talk of moral duties is nonsense or to give up their atheism (the preferred solution) and embrace theism.

Garner, unfortunately, chooses the first path. Citing the work of people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens he dismisses belief in God as out of the question and acknowledges that morality is an illusion (he calls this the moral error theory, i.e. it's an error to believe that there are objective moral values and duties.). Since morality is an illusion we should abolish moral discourse from our lives to the extent that we can (moral abolitionism):

So what must we do if we want to abandon morality, even temporarily? It is useless to ban ‘evaluative’ words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, and ‘ought’. Such words have far too many morally neutral and perfectly unproblematic uses. It is not these words that cause trouble, but the use of any word in that special way that implies objective values or objective moral rules that are independent of human decisions, desires, agreements, or demands. But if abolishing, or even restricting, morality involves more than changing our vocabulary, what does it involve? How do we even get started?

First we can just take some time to observe ourselves in the act of making moral judgments and to notice what happens when the thought that someone is evil or deserves to suffer arises. Eventually we will be ready to try keeping some of those thoughts to ourselves. This itself is an accomplishment, but it is not yet to suppress the thought. For that we need to learn how to reject moral judgments that pop into our mind. We can neutralize some of them by displacing them with non-moral thoughts, such as the thought that we could be biased, or mistaken about some detail, motive, or prudential calculation. Or we could remind ourselves that we are conducting an experiment to see if we can back away from moralizing without all Hell breaking loose.

As (and if) we move in the direction of moral abolitionism, we will see that we are in no way limited in our ability to express and communicate our attitudes, feelings, and requirements. Instead of telling others about their moral obligations, we can tell them what we want them to do, and then we can explain why. We can express annoyance, anger, and enthusiasm, each of which has an effect on what people do, and none of which requires language that presupposes objective values or obligations. The moral abolitionist is equipped, as we all are, with habits, preferences, policies, aims, and impulses that can easily play the roles usually assigned to moral beliefs and thoughts.

Garner is at least a lot more consistent than the New Atheist writers he cites who deny that God exists but who nevertheless think they can still cling to the traditional moral assumptions inherited from their fathers.

Even so, Garner appears to be under the sway of his own set of illusions. He seems to think that we can avoid "all hell breaking loose" if, when people behave cruelly or selfishly, we can wag our finger at them and angrily inform them that they're doing something of which we don't approve. I doubt many will find that very compelling. Moral suasion, the attempt to convince people that their behavior is wrong because it violates God's law and as such is under divine sanction, is, in Professor Garner's world, to be replaced by attempts to convince people that they're offending good manners. What Jared Loughner did in Tucson isn't "evil", according to the moral abolitionist, it's just something that most people didn't like much and wished he hadn't done. But if this is all we can say about Loughner's crime then we're trivializing it.

It may not be obvious, but what Professor Garner is endorsing is the sort of thinking that leads to a might-makes-right view of ethics. Since there are no rights and wrongs, no objective values or obligations, each person is free to do whatever he has the power to do. This is the promised land of liberation from the shackles of religion that the New Atheists are so excited about, but it is, in fact, the fast lane to its own hell. Their enthusiasm is rather like the zeal people have historically shown for tyrannies while those regimes were still in their nascent stages. It's not until all the implications of their ideology are developed and the strong man rises to the top and commences his slaughters that the people realize what a horror they had been abetting, but by then it's too late.

If God does not exist then indeed morality would be an illusion, but breaking free of that illusion, as Professor Garner proposes, leads only to holocausts, gulags and Gomorrah. The consequences of atheism are literally dreadful.

There's much more to Garner's article at the link. It's worth reading as a good example of where atheism, followed consistently, leads one.

Who's Poisoning the Rhetoric?

In the wake of the Tucson murders we've been subjected to a relentless barrage from the left-leaning media of accusations that conservatives had fostered a climate of hate in this country that made such horrific acts of violence all but inevitable. Despite the seriousness of these charges and their ceaseless asseveration, precious little in the way of plausible and specific evidence has been adduced.

On the other hand, finding examples of hate speech on the left is about as difficult as finding sand on a beach. It's simply a matter of turning on the television or radio to a station that carries a liberal talk show. Here are a few examples gleaned form the airwaves by the Media Research Center:

Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)

Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)

Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?...When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!...Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)

Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)

Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” (Mike Malloy)

Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)

Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)

Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)

Each of these kind thoughts sprung from the enlightened lips of a progressive Democrat.

Then there was the Democrat congressman from Tennessee named Steve Cohen who evidently didn't listen to President Obama's speech in Tucson the other day. On the floor of the House he called Republicans liars, compared them to nazis, and managed, not unsurprisingly, to sound a little addlepated while doing it:

This sort of thing has been spilling forth from liberal sources for decades, but few on the left have been interested in holding their fellow lefties accountable for it. They're much more avid about condemning Sarah Palin for offering her followers the advice, "don't retreat, reload". One would think from the howling at MSNBC and other left-wing bastions this past week that she was actually passing out ammo to Jared Loughner at the Tucson Safeway.

To his credit Anderson Cooper at CNN held Cohen's feet to the fire in this interview:

Maybe reasonable people on the left side of the political spectrum are beginning to recognize the virulence of much of the rhetoric that emanates from their fellow liberals and are becoming embarrassed by it. That would be a good thing. For too many, though, the rule they follow is, if conservatives put crosshairs on a political map it's despicable, virulent hate speech. If liberals say the things quoted above it's bold, robust political dialogue. Some rule.