Bad Example

It will be, or at least should be, astonishing if President Obama escapes the appellation of future historians as the most lawless president in this nation's history.

Any law he doesn't like he simply disregards and somehow he gets away with it. I can't imagine any other president, certainly no Republican president, flouting the law like Mr. Obama does without the media hounding him out of office.

His latest foray into rule by executive fiat is his decision to suspend anti-fraud measures built into the Affordable Care Act:

President Barack Obama’s health care requires that applicants applying for tax subsidies for health insurance prove that their income was somewhere between 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The bill also requires that applicants prove that they weren’t receiving employer-provided insurance.

But HHS decided last week to suspend these anti-fraud measures.

The administration will now “rely on self-reported data,” the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein writes.

“You read that correctly. A man who earns $50,000 per year and gets insurance through his employer could log on to the new government website and say he earns $20,000 and gets no insurance through his employer, and the government would not even attempt to confirm that the information is accurate before forking over generous taxpayer subsidies,” Klein adds.

If you thought Medicare and Medicaid fraud was bad, wait until Obamacare goes into full effect sans its anti-fraud provisions.

True, as the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff and Sandhya Somashekharand explain, anyone caught defrauding Obamacare could be fined up to $25,000 and be forced to “repay any excess subsidies they received.” But how are you going to catch them?

“With this news coming after the employer mandate delay announcement, the Obama administration has now openly conceded that it is in way over its head when it comes to implementing this unworkable law,” Klein notes.

The Affordable Care Act is the law, as regrettable as that may be, and we are, or should be, a nation of laws. Disregarding ACA's provisions is a violation of the presidential oath of office in which the president vows to uphold the Constitution and, by implication, the laws of the land. It would be as if Congress passed the Clean Air Act or the Civil Rights Act and a Republican president simply refused to enforce it.

In the wake of the president's announcement that he will suspend the employer mandate in Obamacare and now the announcement that he will suspend the requirement that income must be verified before subsidies are granted, how can any Republican member of Congress be expected to vote for any legislation advanced by the Democrat party given that no one knows whether any provisions in that legislation would ever be enforced by the executive? It seems to me that unless democrats win the House in 2014 no legislation will go anywhere in Congress for the next three years and that the only way Mr. Obama is going to get anything done is by executive dictat, just as is done in third-world banana republics.

Mr. Obama is setting a terrible example for American citizens by encouraging disrespect and disdain for the law. How many citizens will be tempted to rationalize to themselves that if the president can decide which laws to honor so can they, and commence their foray into lawlessness by lying about their income in order to receive insurance subsidies or by cheating on their taxes? If the president is seen as contemptuous of both the democratic process and the rule of law why should the average citizen feel any differently?

Pants on Fire

I'm currently reading a book on L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, and the picture it paints of the man is far from flattering. According to the author, Lawrence Wright, Hubbard was a compulsive, pathological liar. He embodied a number of other vices as well, but his lies were prodigious. He made up his life's story as he went along and lied to anyone about anything.

I thought of Hubbard's reflexive mendacities as I read a news story the other day that revealed that the State Department had been lying to us about Secretary John Kerry's whereabouts on the day that Egyptian armed forces were defenestrating the Muslim Brotherhood thug Mohammed Morsi.

Just in case there were one or two holdouts, like Japanese soldiers clinging to some Pacific atoll years after the war was over, who still believe that this administration can be trusted to tell the truth about anything here's the background:

CBS reported that on the day Mohammed Morsi was being ushered out of his office Secretary of State John Kerry was seen aboard his yacht in Nantucket.

On the surface, this seemed an inappropriate place for the Secretary of State to be reposing with matters of such moment unfolding in the Middle East, in fact it's reminiscent of President Obama's mysterious absence on the night of the Benghazi horror. So, the media asked the State Department spokeswomen, Jen Psaki, for a clarification of the Secretary's whereabouts on that historic day.

Ms Psaki was adamant that Secretary Kerry was definitely not aboard a boat on Wednesday and had spent the day working the phones on the Egyptian crisis:

“Since his plane touched down in Washington at 4 a.m., Secretary Kerry was working all day and on the phone dealing with the crisis in Egypt,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “He participated in the White House meeting with the president by secure phone and was and is in non-stop contact with foreign leaders, and his senior team in Washington and Cairo. Any report or tweet that he was on a boat is completely inaccurate.”

Unfortunately for Ms Psaki, the CBS people had photographic evidence of Mr. Kerry's nautical preoccupations which forced the State Department to quickly undertake some awkward backing and filling:

As regime change was unfolding in Egypt, Secretary of State John Kerry spent time on his boat Wednesday afternoon in Nantucket Sound, the State Department acknowledged to CBS News on Friday, after repeatedly denying that Kerry was aboard any boat.

“While he was briefly on his boat on Wednesday, Secretary Kerry worked around the clock all day including participating in the President’s meeting with his national security council,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, naming a series of Egyptian and international officials Kerry had spoken with on Wednesday.

Psaki’s acknowledgment marked a stark reversal from previous denials that Kerry was on any boat whatsoever.

A “CBS This Morning” producer spotted Kerry on his boat Wednesday afternoon on Nantucket, where Kerry has a vacation home. When “CBS This Morning” senior producer Mosheh Oinounou tweeted about the sighting, Psaki issued a denial, calling the tweet “completely inaccurate” and said Kerry has been “working all day and on the phone dealing with the crisis in Egypt.”

I suppose Secretary Kerry could well have been monitoring developments in Cairo from his yacht. Where he was isn't really the point. The point is that his representative, Ms Psaki, chose to lie to us about where he was. It was as if the lie was automatic - ask her a question and, like a gumball machine, she pops out a completely fabricated reply as a matter of course.

Even State's clarification raises questions. If Kerry was on his boat in Nantucket for even part of the day how was he in Washington all day from 4 a.m. on? These people lie so facilely that one wonders if they tell the truth when they're just talking to each other.

If L. Ron Hubbard were alive today he'd be ideally suited for a job in the Obama administration.

Nation of Mutts

David Brooks has written a column on immigration titled A Nation of Mutts. The title refers to the demographic changes that will overtake the U.S. as a result of large-scale Hispanic immigration.

Among the things he foresees is this:

Let’s make some educated guesses about what the New America will look like. It will almost certainly be economically dynamic. Immigration boosts economic dynamism, and more immigration would boost it more. There would also be a lot of upward striving. Immigrant groups tend to work harder than native groups. They save more. They start business at higher rates than natives.

I hope Brooks is right about this, but I'm not so sure. I don't understand how the new wave of immigrants is going to bring economic prosperity rather than its opposite. Historically, immigration was much different than what has been the case over the last thirty years in at least two ways: Previous immigrants were often better educated, especially if they came from Europe, and they did not place a burden on the economic resources of the community.

When my paternal grandparents emigrated here in 1910 from Ireland, for example, there were no welfare benefits awaiting them. They were supported by ethnic associations and churches. We're facing a possibility today, though, in which tens of millions of immigrants will be made eligible for all sorts of taxpayer-funded programs and benefits the cost of which will far outweigh whatever the immigrants contribute.

Brooks adds this:

We could also see more ethnic jostling between groups. The most interesting and problematic flashpoint might be between immigrants and African-Americans. We now have this bogus category, “minority,” in which we lump the supposed rainbow coalition of immigrants and blacks. But, in fact, tensions between “minority” groups could soon be more plainly obvious than any solidarity.

Brooks is doubtless correct that we face a future sharply divided along class/culture lines. Educated, industrious people of all races and ethnicities will mix and adapt and do okay, but they'll live in gated fortresses, sealed off and protected from the teeming masses in the cities whose neighborhoods will become like little Sarajevos, in which a Hobbesian war along ethnic lines of everyone against everyone will make life there an exercise in purgatorial suffering. Then, too, there'll be the constant threat of social upheaval in which the underclass will rise up to seize by whatever means they can that which the elites have and they want.

Since the underclass will far out number the educated and hard-working middle and upper classes they'll be able to use the levers of democracy to strip the haves clean. If that doesn't work, or even if it does, they may well augment political extortion with social violence and take wealth by force.

It may be chauvinistic to say it, and it's certainly not politically correct, but we've become the greatest nation in history because our society was built by people steeped in both protestant Christianity and, to a lesser extent, European traditions and ideas. It has been the dominance of that heritage that has made America unique and special. We're still living on the cultural momentum imparted to us by our forebears, but by all appearances that momentum has been petering out now for several decades.

Large-scale Hispanic immigration will accelerate that process, as Brooks avers. No Hispanic culture has ever achieved what Anglo/European cultures have achieved. They have no ethnic memory of the kinds of rights and values that are enshrined in our founding documents. They have no allegiance to the traditions and history of this nation. They bring with them a third world mindset, a desire for whatever benefits they can garner from our government, and historic resentments against the Yanqui for grievances both real and imagined.

It's not a pretty picture, but that'll be the world our children and grandchildren will be living in unless we adopt a sensible immigration policy and be rid of the notion that millions of people can be amicably absorbed overnight into our way of life just by allowing them to live here.

Silver Linings

One of the benefits of the recent revelations of nefarious doings at the White House, IRS, NSA, EPA, and State Department for which we can actually be thankful is that they've sent many Americans back to classic books like 1984, Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged, and to movies like Lives of Others for their summer reading and viewing.

These are all good choices and any government iniquities that motivate Americans to familiarize themselves with such works are not without their compensations.

For my part I decided to pick up Friedrich A. Hayek's classic work The Road to Serfdom, a title I thought particularly apposite given the worldview of those who are currently directing our national path and given the trajectory they appear to have placed us upon.

Almost every page of this book, written in England in 1944 at the height of the terrible struggle with the totalitarian socialists of Germany and Italy and only a decade after the deliberate starvations of millions of Ukrainians by the totalitarian socialists in the Soviet Union, contains numerous lapidary phrases warning us of the freedom-stifling nature of socialist central planning and the control-freak mindset of its proponents.

Reading Hayek one must keep in mind his immediate context of the war against Hitler, but that aside, one could almost think he's writing about twenty-first century America. The book is written as a warning to the West that the road embarked upon by socialists leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. He uses the term socialism to describe those who seek to eliminate competition and to plan the economy of societies, but in our context he might have as well used the term leftists or progressives. For example, he writes:

It [socialism/progressivism] may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular means by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only means by which by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body.

This is a pretty good description of the thinking of the ideological left in modern America and of many in the Democratic Party. Obamacare is one fruit of that thinking and, should they gain control of the House of Representatives in 2014, there's little doubt in many minds that the energy industry and public education will also be directed to an even greater extent than they are today by Washington bureaucracies.

People who seek the power to micromanage the course of our nation and to organize our corporate life down to the merest detail are an enormous threat to individual liberty. The fact that they wish to diminish our freedom in the name of doing what's best for us or increasing our security makes their ambitions more seductive but no less insidious.

As Benjamin Franklin observed, "A people who would sacrifice freedom in order to gain security deserve neither freedom nor security," and will ultimately wind up with neither. That timeless piece of wisdom could serve as a summary of Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Good Grief

I don't want to make too much of this and don't want to suggest that this group of women is representative of all pro-choicers, but neither do I want to dismiss it as irrelevant. There's a lesson in it somewhere.

In the Texas statehouse where abortion legislation was being decided a group of pro-life demonstrators joined in singing Amazing Grace. A counter-group of young pro-choice women tried to drown them out by allegedly chanting "Hail Satan."

I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions about what that tells us about at least these pro-choicers.

Actually, it's difficult to tell exactly what the pro-choicers are yelling on this video. It sounds to me like they're shouting "God is dead," but a CNN reporter claimed that it was a paean to Satan and the young lady at the end certainly seems to agree:

Very sad.

Independence Day

As we watch the Egyptians celebrate the overthrow of a dictatorial tyranny in Cairo it might be good as we celebrate the day on which we asserted our own freedom from tyranny to consider what freedoms our Founders secured for us that are being jeopardized today.

Over the last five years we've seen several assaults by the Obama administration on the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the press (1st amendment); the freedom to bear arms (2nd amendment); the freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, and the freedom to not have our privacy invaded without probable cause (4th amendment).

Moreover, the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed under the 5th amendment continues to be flouted by those who wish to deny that protection to the unborn, and the rights of the states to determine their own destiny as long as it doesn't conflict with the power granted specifically to the federal government (10th amendment) continues to be eroded by an ever-metastasizing federal state.

Mr. Obama has professed that the U.S. takes no side in the Egyptian struggle between the people yearning to be free and a tyrant fighting to keep his boot on their necks. It's odd that he would say this since he had no reluctance to side with the people when they were seeking to depose Hosni Mubarak a couple of years ago.

Our president has also expressed his deep concern that the Egyptian military stepped in to show Mohammed Morsi the door. I wonder if his concern is rooted in a presentiment that Americans, too, might be willing to tolerate only so many amputations of their freedoms, and that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design to reduce them (our rights) under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

This is what we're witnessing in Egypt. Let's pray on this Independence Day that it doesn't come to that here.

Liberal Lynch Mob

Our national media have chosen to make the George Zimmerman trial a national spectacle. There are dozens of interracial shootings every year, but this one has been seized upon to inculcate some sort of lesson about our collective soul. The left, perhaps desperate to demonstrate that white racism is still alive in America, have seized upon the Zimmerman/Martin shooting to press home the point even if they have to fabricate evidence and twist the events of that evening to fit their narrative of evil whites murdering innocent black kids.

To this end the media and others on the left have acted like nothing so much as a lynch mob. Ben Shapiro at breitbart.com provides the litany of transgressions against decency and justice that have been heaped upon Zimmerman from the very beginning of his ordeal:

On Monday, CNN showed George Zimmerman’s Social Security number and other personal information live over the air, including address, date of birth, and phone number. Officer Doris Singleton was testifying when the prosecutors showed a narrative report including Zimmerman’s information.

That immediately launched a round of tweets by Zimmerman haters celebrating knowledge of that information.

This is hardly the first time Zimmerman’s personal information has been distributed by those who oppose him. During the initial coverage of the Zimmerman trial, Spike Lee retweeted the home address of what he thought was Zimmerman’s home address. It turned out to be the wrong address. Roseanne Barr then tweeted Zimmerman’s parents’ home address. “If Zimmerman isn't arrested I'll rt his address again. maybe go 2 his house myself,” Barr tweeted.

This isn't the first element of media bias in the Zimmerman case, either. The Associated Press originally reported that Zimmerman was white. That falsehood was repeated for days by the media, heightening the racial aspect of the case.

The media also broadcast photographs of Zimmerman from a 2005 arrest rather than current photos, and conversely broadcast photographs of Martin as a pre-teen, not the 17-year-old he was at the time of the killing (the media's photographic choices actually impacted witness testimony during the trial).

NBC News manipulated tape of Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem that Zimmerman had targeted Martin because he was black, rather than responding to 911 dispatcher questions. CNN also isolated audio of Zimmerman purportedly calling Martin a racial slur during the call -- an allegation that ended up being completely false.

Both ABC News and NBC News also alleged that Zimmerman's injuries did not exist, releasing badly-pixellated photographs from the night of the incident. As trial testimony has shown, Zimmerman was indeed injured during the incident with Martin.

Shapiro could also have included the bounty that was placed on Zimmerman by the execrable New Black Panthers in Florida, the threats they made against his life, and the fear that his entire family has been living in since the shooting.

I don't know whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense when he shot Martin or whether he initiated the fight between Martin and himself, but many on the left already have their minds made up. If you're white, or even, as in Zimmerman's case, approximately white, and you harm a young black man then you're ipso facto guilty of racist motivations and therefore deserve to be treated with all the contempt society can summon regardless of what the actual facts of the case might be.

Of course, the reverse is not true because everyone knows that when blacks harm whites, an event which occurs with startling frequency in this country, that's never motivated by racism because blacks can't be racists because racism is something that only whites are afflicted with, and if you disagree with this that's proof that you yourself are a racist, and even if the black aggressor does hate whites it's understandable because blacks' ancestors were slaves two hundred years ago, etc., etc.

And so it goes in the wonderful Wonderland world liberal social thinking has created.

Davis Is No Hero

Kirsten Powers, a liberal commentator who served in the Clinton administration no less, explains in a blistering column at the Daily Beast why there's nothing laudatory in the twelve hour filibuster undertaken by Texas state senator Wendy Davis last week and why the people who should be praised are the Republicans in the legislature. She begins her column with this:

It’s amazing what is considered heroism these days.

A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

People actually cheered this. When Davis' filibuster was stopped, spectators voiced their anger.

Powers invites us to consider what Ms Davis and her supporters are demanding the legal right to do:

According to the Parents Connect website, if you are in the 25th week of your pregnancy, “Get ready for pat-a-cake! Baby’s hands are now fully developed and he spends most of his awake time groping around in the darkness of your uterus. Brain and nerve endings are developed enough now so that your baby can feel the sensation of touch.” Let’s be clear: Davis has been called a hero for trying to block a bill that would make aborting this baby illegal.

In addition to the limit on late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 after the Gosnell horror. The New York Times warned that the Texas bill “could lead to the closing of most of Texas’s 42 abortion clinics.”

That sounds familiar. In 2011, the Pennsylvania ACLU claimed a post-Gosnell bill “would effectively close most and maybe all of the independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania.” Last month, a Pennsylvania news site reported that “several” abortion clinics have closed, which isn’t quite the Armageddon the abortion-rights movement predicted.

For the pro-choice extremists there must be absolutely no restrictions placed on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. Given this mindset it's no wonder that condemnations of Kermit Gosnell's infanticides were hard to find on the left. For many of these folks there simply is no reason why a woman should balk at killing her child at any time up to the moment of its birth, or even after it has been born for that matter.

Powers adds:

One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent. In many European countries, you can’t get an abortion past 12 weeks, except in narrow circumstances. Gallup reported in January that 80 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, and 64 percent think it should be illegal in the second trimester.

If the majority of Americans oppose elective late-term abortion, why do we have Davis complaining to CBS’s Bob Schieffer that the male politicians who are championing the late-term abortion ban are “bullying women”? Maybe it’s she who is bullying the rest of us into supporting a view that is mocked by scientific advancement; namely 3-D sonograms. Maybe we should be thankful for the men and wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a “human right.”

A question that I think needs to be raised is why do so many women in our society see nothing wrong with killing a late-term baby? Have we so completely bought into the materialists' argument that human beings are just animals, merely a couple of scoopfuls of atoms, that we believe unwanted babies to be no different than unwanted kittens?

The irony of people who claim to champion human rights protesting a law that would extend the most fundamental right, the right to life, to the most powerless among us is not lost on Powers:

Human-rights movements have traditionally existed to help the voiceless and those without agency gain progressively more rights. Yet in the case of abortion, the voiceless have progressively lost rights at the hands of people who claim to be human-rights crusaders. Abortion-rights leaders have turned the world upside down. They want us to believe that a grown woman is voiceless, that she has less agency than the infant in her womb who relies on her for life.

A woman has so little agency, we are told, that she is incapable of getting an abortion before the fifth month of her pregnancy. To suggest she should do so is a “war on women.” It’s an insult to women dressed up as “women’s rights.”

I can think of no better way to conclude this post than with Powers' own conclusion to her column:

On ABC’s This Week, Peggy Noonan responded to the chants of “I stand with Wendy” by noting, “What she is ... standing for is something we would recognize as infanticide, late-term abortion, the taking of a little child’s life.” Standing for that is not heroic, and it is not something to be cheered.

Weaker and Meeker

Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets in cities across the country the last few days to protest the fascist government of the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohammad Morsi.

The Obama administration has come in for some serious criticism as well, as the pics at Twitchywill show. Here's one:

Mr. Obama gave us to believe in 2008 that the reason the Arab world didn't like us was because of George Bush and his bullying ways. We were assured that a more deferential, conciliatory America, one led by a president eager to bow to Arab leaders and to help tyrants like Morsi tighten his grip over the Egyptian people, would be loved and appreciated in the Arab world.

Before the confetti had been swept up from his first Inaugural Ball Mr. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having said many deferential and conciliatory things. The world swooned. Peace was at hand. That was yesterday, before Libya, before Syria, before Iran, before Morsi. Now the Arab world disdains us, or at least our president, and the Europeans, in the wake of the NSA spying revelations, are growing distinctly chilly. The world chortles as the Russians, the Chinese, and the Ecuadorans each in turn thumb their noses at our president as he implores them to remit Edward Snowden into our custody.

We've managed to offend our friends and have failed to instill respect in our enemies. The Middle East is coming undone. We're promising to send military aid to the rebels in Syria, the very people who are beheading; Christian priests.

Meanwhile, we are dismantling our own military and are eager to dismantle our nuclear deterrent as well. Our enemies are growing in strength, belligerency and boldness while we deliberately make ourselves weaker and meeker.

Is this the "smart power" we were promised that an Obama administration would bring to bear on foreign affairs?

Memoir on Pauperism

Everything you need to know about poverty and why public welfare does little to alleviate it and often makes it worse all in 36 pages written 178 years ago by one of the most insightful observers in the history of the world - Alexis de Tocqueville.

If you're concerned about truly helping the poor you really should read Tocqueville's essay, the full title of which is Memoir on Pauperism: Does Public Charity Produce an Idle and Dependent Class of Society? He writes it after studying poverty in England, the most affluent nation in the world at the time.

Here are a couple of quotes. Talking about how poverty is a relative condition he writes that:

"...in the [medieval period] the number of those not totally absorbed in self-preservation was extremely small. Their life was brilliant, ostentatious, but not comfortable. One ate with one's fingers on silver or engraved steel plates, clothes were lined with ermine or gold, and linen was unknown; the walls of their dwellings dripped with moisture, and they sat in richly sculptured wooden chairs before immense hearths where entire trees were consumed without diffusing sufficient heat around them.

I am convinced that there is not a provincial town today whose more fortunate inhabitants do not have more true comforts of life in their homes and do not find it easier to satisfy the thousand needs created by civilization than the proudest medieval baron."

That is orders of magnitude more true today of the people we call poor than it was in Tocqueville's day. Poor people today, at least in the western world, have every physical need met and have access to comforts and luxuries that would have been the envy of the richest aristocrats in Tocqueville's world. He also observes that,

"There are two incentives to work: the need to live and the desire to improve the condition of life. Experience has proven that the majority of men can be sufficiently motivated to work only by the first of these incentives. The second is effective only with a small minority."

Finally, in explaining the difference between private and public charity and why the former is far better than the latter he says:

"Individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid which he had no right to demand and which he may have had no hope of getting, feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between the two classes....

This is not the case with legal charity (i.e. public welfare). The latter allows the alms to persist but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of part of his surplus without consulting him, and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him and that cannot satisfy him in any case."

Every one of the Memoir's thirty six pages is laden with Tocqueville's wisdom borne of careful observation and is as relevant for our times as it was for his. I urge readers to give it a look if they're interested in an excellent primer on why public welfare does more harm than good. The sooner we end it, at least as it is currently practiced, the better everyone will be.

Debasing the Discourse

The other day Texas Democrats, led by a senator named Wendy Davis, filibustered the state senate in order to prevent a vote on a bill that would have put several restrictions on a mother's right to kill her unborn child. The restrictions were uncontroversial except one that would have prevented late term abortions when the child is able to experience pain. Senator Davis evidently felt that it's an injustice to prohibit women from relieving themselves of an unwanted child, even if the child is able to feel itself being ripped apart.

Anyway, Governor Rick Perry had this to say about Senator Davis:

Who are we to say that children born in the worst of circumstances can’t grow to live successful lives? In fact, even the woman who filibustered the senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman, she was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate. It is just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.

I don't know about you, but as I read those words they sounded more to me like a gracious compliment bestowed upon a political opponent than some horrid insult. But that's not how some progressives have interpreted his statement which seems to have induced an acute case of the vapors among a number of pro-choice lefties. NRO's David French cites some examples:

“Perry Launches Vicious Attack On Texas Lawmaker” — so declares the Huffington Post on its front page. The story itself claims Texas Governor Rick Perry jabbed new feminist hero Wendy Davis “for being a teen mom.”

Davis herself reacted with outrage, declaring in a statement: "Rick Perry’s statement is without dignity and tarnishes the high office he holds,” she said. “They are small words that reflect a dark and negative point of view. Our governor should reflect our Texas values. Sadly, Gov. Perry fails that test.”

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, was similarly upset: "Rick Perry’s remarks are incredibly condescending and insulting to women,” Richards said. “This is exactly why the vast majority of Texans believe that politicians shouldn’t be involved in a woman’s personal health care decisions. Women are perfectly capable of deciding whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or raise a child, and they don’t need Rick Perry’s help making that decision."

Daily Kos writer Joan McCarter: "Texas Gov. Rick Perry is digging his hole deeper with women, and decent people, with his War on Women, and he’s making it really ugly, and really personal about his new nemesis, Sen. Wendy Davis."

"Vicious attack"? "dark and negative"? "condescending and insulting"? "war on women"? "ugly"?

It's hard to believe that any of these ladies to the time to read what Rick Perry actually said. If they did, and this is how they understood him, then perhaps we need to question their reading comprehension skills. If they did read his words, and comprehended them but responded in this fashion for political advantage, then they're dishonest and mean-spirited. If they didn't read him but just said these unflattering things about him because they consider him an ideological enemy, then they are both mean-spirited and simple-minded. In any case, there's no charitable way to interpret what these women write.

This, though, is what we've too often seen from contemporary liberalism. The tactic is to avoid engaging one's opponent in a spirit of mutual respect, but rather to attack, distort, smear and destroy. We've recently seen this employed even on the Supreme Court. In the majority decision handed down in the Windsor case which overturned at least part of the Defense of Marriage Act last week, Justice Kennedy, rather than make an erudite argument based on the Constitution, chose instead the path of personal invective by labeling anyone who disagrees with him on the issue of gay marriage as deserving of contempt. This, despite the fact that DOMA was voted for by most congressional Democrats, signed by Bill Clinton, and supported, as one commentator put it, until the day before yesterday by Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, the defenders of traditional marriage, the august Justice Kennedy sniffed, are motivated by nothing more than a “bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group” and thus, he concluded, DOMA does not deserve to stand.

His brilliant colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, offered an incisive riposte to Kennedy's smear in his minority opinion:

To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement… It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Unfortunately, people like Kennedy and the women who attacked Governor Perry don't seem to care about all that. Their tactic works, after all. It gives them a frisson of moral superiority while crippling their foes and relieves them of the burden of having to construct compelling arguments. The fact that it degrades themselves, their institutions, the political process, and our public discourse is evidently not a matter of much concern to them.

For It Before They Were Against It

There is no class of people, taken as a whole, who are less respected than the political class, and understandably so. Politicians are seen as venal and unprincipled, and they frequently seem eager to confirm that judgment. Take, for example, the recent reaction on Capitol Hill to the Supreme Court's ruling that essentially overturns much of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Politico has a piece on it that begins this way:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.” He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”

Reid claims it always struck him as absurd yet he voted for the act in 1996. Others who were eager to be seen praising the decision were taking a stance 180 degrees at variance from where they stood ten or fifteen years ago. Senators Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Ben Cardin, Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, Steny Hoyer, and Rosa deLauro, Democrats all, are praising this blow to DOMA even though every one of them supported and voted for it in 1996.

Bill Clinton even signed the bill into law and he, too, is rejoicing at it's demise:

“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” Clinton said in a statement also signed by Hillary Clinton.

President Barack Obama placed a phone call to anti-DOMA activists congratulating them on their victory, but as recently as 18 months ago he was insisting that marriage should be restricted to a union of a man and a woman.

People can certainly "evolve," as president Obama was said to have done, especially if their beliefs are only superficially held in the first place, but it's amazing that so many individuals in one party could evolve so rapidly on a principle that's so fundamental. The rapid change in our elected officials' "convictions" does little to disabuse the average voter of their cynicism about politics and their contempt for leaders who have both eyes perpetually fixed on the political windsock and whose sole principle seems to be to think, say, and do whatever works to keep them in power.

Undergrad Major and IQ

Pamela sent along a link to a graphic she helped design that's quite interesting. It correlates one's college undergraduate major with IQ. In other words, the average IQ of undergraduate biology majors is 121.

It would've been higher, I suppose, but I was a biology major.

Anyway, I'm not sure how we know Darwin's IQ, and I have my doubts about Mr. Obama's, but, nevertheless, you can see if you fall into the range for others in your undergraduate field of study.

Go to the link for a full-sized view of the chart.

Image compliments of Bachelor of Education Degrees

Pot Pourri

Miscellaneous thoughts on sundry topics:

Glen Beck called Senator Marco Rubio "garbage" the other day. He didn't call his immigration reform proposal garbage, a claim which would have been almost an understatement, rather he called Rubio himself garbage, and that is reprehensible.

Glenn, you can dehumanize people with insults or you can assure your audience that you're a Christian, but you can't do both. Please either apologize to Rubio or stop giving Christians a black eye by telling your listeners that you yourself are one.

-------

The military and our congresspersons are aghast that sexual assaults and other rudenesses are occurring in the military services. Why is anyone surprised? We hypersexualize our culture, marinate our young men in a pornographic view of women from the time they're in kindergarten, raise them in families without fathers, take them at an age when they're in hormonal overdrive and throw them together with women in close quarters in the military, putting some in positions of authority over women, and then we're shocked that they don't respect women. What did we expect would happen when we decided a) that fathers are unnecessary, b) that a sexualized culture is healthy and cool, and c) that it'd be a great idea to integrate women into the armed forces?

Heck, when the Commander in Chief (President Clinton) can abuse, molest, and even rape women, and his entire party, most of the mainstream media, and half the country is eager to give him a sly wink and a pass why should we be shocked that the same thing happens in the ranks?

-------

The Boy Scouts of America have decided to admit openly gay young men into their organization. Other than opening the door to one day having gay scout leaders and one day unifying the boy scouts and girl scouts and thereby destroying what has heretofore been a great pair of organizations I don't have too much of a problem with the BSA's move, but I do have a question. Part of the Boy Scout oath is that the young man swears to be "morally straight." Has the morality of homosexuality been settled, and I didn't hear about it? If it hasn't been settled then isn't there a bit of a problem with boys whose sexual morality is still problematic promising to be morally straight? Just wondering.

I also wonder what the substantive difference is between allowing post-pubescent boys who are sexually attracted to other boys to join the scouts and allowing sexually maturing boys who are attracted to girls into the Girl Scouts.

-------

George Zimmerman is on trial for being a racist. The formal charge is 2nd degree murder but the reason his case is national news when hundreds of interracial crimes are committed every month in this country without every popping up on the national radar is that Zimmerman is (relatively) white and he killed a black kid named Trayvon Martin. Usually in these interracial affairs it's the other way around so the novelty of this case leads some to the conclusion that Zimmerman must be a racist otherwise why would he have shot a defenseless black kid. Black kids shoot each other, or they shoot whites, but whites don't shoot blacks unless they're racists.

Turns out though that Trayvon told his friend on the phone shortly before being shot that he was being watched by a "cracker." The term "cracker" may sound innocuous to you and me, but it is, in fact, a racially derogatory term used by blacks to describe whites. So, it sounds like maybe young Trayvon had some racial hangups himself, and may consequently have been motivated to do exactly what Zimmerman alleges he did, which is beat the bejabbers out of Zimmerman until the "cracker" managed to employ his gun to save his life.

Speaking of racial hangups among blacks read the tweets here and ask yourself in which racial community in this society most of the racism resides.

-------

And since I'm on the topic of race what's up with this Paula Deen story? Why does she feel the need to grovel in pursuit of expiation by society's arbiters of correct thinking for having used a racially insensitive expression? Why not just say you're sorry and that people should just get over it instead of making an embarrassing spectacle of yourself?

It's a strange world in which we live. Congressman Anthony Weiner can tweet pics of his private parts to underage girls, say he's full of regrets, and then run for mayor of our largest city and secure a commanding lead in the race, but if he'd tweeted a racial epithet he'd be the subject of our daily three minutes hate and would never, ever get a single vote from anyone in New York.

Well, maybe not, now that I think of it, since Weiner's a Democrat and Democrats are allowed to do pretty much anything they want. Deen, on the other hand, must not be a Democrat or her public abasement would have been over long ago, if indeed it had ever gotten started.

-------

Is Edward Snowden a hero or traitor? I don't know what I think about what he did, but he sure is providing us with a vivid illustration of the maxim that no one respects weakness. The Obama administration, determined to appease just about everybody and offend nobody except our closest allies, requests cooperation in extraditing Snowden first from China, then Russia, and now Ecuador and all three tell Mr. Obama and his Secretary of State to please be so kind as to take their request and stick it where only a colonoscopy will find it. They've done their assessments of Mr. Obama, evidently, and concluded that he's an inconsequential lightweight.

Mr. Obama, for his part, has assured everyone that he's not going to "scramble jets" over the Snowden affair and there's every reason to believe him when he says it. After all, if he wasn't willing to scramble jets during the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans we can certainly believe he's not going to scramble them over Snowden.

-------

When pro-choice Democrats resorted to mob rule and filibuster on Wednesday to prevent passage of a bill in the Texas state legislature that would impose some sensible restrictions on abortion President Obama sent a tweet that essentially gave the mob a big attaboy. Here's what the Texas bill would have done:

1. Increase abortion facility safety standards to the level of ambulatory surgical centers to shut down Gosnell-like abortion providers in Texas,
2. Require the 18,000 RU-486 abortions performed each year be done according to FDA safety standards,
3. Require physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after botched abortions and have privileges at a local hospital, and
4. Ban abortions on unborn children beginning at 20 weeks after fertilization, when scientific evidence clearly shows babies can feel pain.

The Democrats, including the president, evidently think that it's just hunky-dory to have abortions performed in Gosnell-level sanitary conditions and after the child has reached the stage when it can feel pain. Anything that gets the deed done is good enough for Democrats who ironically tout themselves as the party that cares for the weak and underprotected.

Imagine the media reaction had this been a pro-life mob and the filibuster were conducted by, say, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin. But, since they were pro-choice Democrats acting like barbarians to bring the legislative process to a halt, and since it was a Democrat president egging them on, hardly a ripple of concern was expressed by our supine media.

It's easy to fall into the fear that we're living in the twilight of representative, democratic government and every day is darker than the day before.

-------

Nice But Not Wise

Mona Charen writing in the Washington Examiner offers us a few examples of how Mr. Obama has done exactly the sorts of things for which he was highly critical of Mr. Bush. There's a word that describes someone like this, but at the moment I can't think of it.

Anyway, Charen opens her piece by saying that she'd like to write a complimentary column on the president praising him for his efforts in the war on terror, etc., but there are three obstacles standing in the way:

One is the memory of the casual smears candidate Obama directed at President Bush. The second is the rank abuse of power his administration has demonstrated, which undermines one's trust that the trove of information the government is sifting will be used only to disrupt possible terror attacks. The third is the administration's pattern of lying -- which undermines any reassurances the president proffers that "nobody is listening to your telephone calls."

The remainder of her column fills in the details. For instance:

Candidate Obama did more than dissent from President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He asserted that the decision itself was dishonest -- based "not on principle but on politics." He said the war was a "cynical attempt by arm-chair warriors to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats." What that agenda might have been (is removing terror-sponsoring aggressors an "ideology"?), candidate Obama didn't say.

Regarding the larger war on terror, Obama denounced Bush for advancing a "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide." His administration, he pledged, would provide law enforcement the tools to deal with terrorists "without undermining our Constitution and our freedom." He denounced "illegal wiretapping of American citizens," "tracking citizens who do nothing more that protest a misguided war" and "ignoring the law when it is inconvenient."

"That is not who we are," he scolded.

There are, sadly, even more presidential prevarications in Charen's column. She concludes with this:

The president assures us that "no one is listening to our phone calls," and that may be true. But this administration also assured us that no sweeping data collection on American citizens was going on, that the IRS was not unfairly singling out conservatives, that the Justice Department had not attempted to prosecute journalists, and that the Benghazi attack was the response to a video.

It would be nice to trust the president, but it wouldn't be wise.

This, I surmise, is why Americans are so troubled by the NSA eavesdropping. It's not so much the infringement on our privacy, although there is that, but even more it's that the president has squandered away the trust of the people. An administration which uses the power of the IRS and the Department of Justice to punish political enemies is not the sort of administration that can be trusted not to use the NSA for the same purpose.

Prager on the Multiverse

Dennis Prager has a fine piece on the multiverse theory at National Review Online. It's interesting that a social commentator has written a column on an esoteric metaphysical/scientific topic in a political journal of opinion like NRO. Perhaps it's indicative of the broad relevance of this hypothesis to everyone interested in deeper matters than what Kim and Kanye named their baby.

Prager starts with this:

Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants — from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, and Columbia, among other American and European universities — included believers in God, agnostics, and atheists.

It was clear that the scientific consensus was that, at the very least, the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life. It appears that we live in a “Goldilocks universe,” in which both the arrangement of matter at the cosmic beginning and the values of various physical parameters — such as the speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction, and the expansion rate of the universe — are just right for life. And unless one is frightened of the term, it also appears the universe is designed for biogenesis and human life.

This is indeed indisputable. Prager cites several scientists on the matter:

Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”

Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that “the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.” As the website explains, “This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

But instead:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

There would be no life of any sort in the entire universe.”

How do those at pains to attribute all this to serendipity account for it? Some say that one cannot posit an Architect of the universe who designed it this way intentionally because such an explanation is not scientific. This is a dodge of course. It can only be true if we equate science with metaphysical naturalism, but if science is the pursuit of truth wherever the evidence leads then it's foolish, as William James once noted, to discount some truths, if they're really there, just because we're following a rule that doesn't allow us to see those kinds of truths. Prager puts it this way:

Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life.

Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.

So what other moves are available to the naturalist who blanches at the prospect of a finely-tuned universe?

They've put forward the notion of a multiverse — the idea that there are many, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes.

If there are an infinite number of universes and if all logically possible laws of physics are exemplified in that ensemble then every possible universe, no matter how improbable, must exist somewhere in that infinite assortment. Ours is a possible universe, of course, so, no matter how unlikely, it exists. No big deal. But, as Prager observes, there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes — nor could there be, since contact with another universe is impossible.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design — or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by “enough time” — is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.

There are several ironies in this. One is that scientists who demand empirical evidence for the claim that a Designer exists avoid the evidence, the fine-tuning of the cosmos, by embracing a hypothesis for which there is not only no empirical evidence but for which there couldn't be empirical evidence.

Another irony is that trying to negate astronomical improbabilities by invoking astronomical numbers of worlds pretty much destroys the ability of science to rule out anything on the basis of probability.

For example, suppose there is a one in a quadrillion chance that someone playing a roulette wheel will pick the same number ten times in a row and win all ten times. Which is more likely, that the game was rigged or that the player defied the odds? If we live in a multiverse consisting of far more than a quadrillion universes it could be that we live in a universe in which the one in a quadrillion event actually happens. We cannot conclude that the wheel was probably rigged because in the multiverse anything that is possible to happen will happen in some world, so how do we know that our world isn't the one in which this event happens?

In other words, in the multiverse, unless something is logically impossible it's inevitable that it occur somewhere. Why not here? Ironically, for the atheist who takes refuge in the multiverse in order to avoid the Fine-Tuner, miracles, the bete noire of atheists, are inevitable in some world so why think ours is not that world?

Moreover, as critics of the multiverse hypothesis have pointed out, there's no known mechanism for pumping out these universes but if something is generating them it must itself be fine-tuned. Since this universe-maker transcends the worlds it creates it must be super-natural so how is it any more fit as an object of scientific speculation than an Intelligent Designer?

If you have the time you might want to watch this lecture by Robin Collins, one of the world's foremost philosophers working on cosmic fine-tuning and the multiverse theory.

Webinar to Promote In the Absence of God

As you may have heard I have a novel out titled In the Absence of God. One of the best-known booksellers in the region is doing a free webinar on Thursday the 27th at 1:00 on the ten books he recommends to pastors and laymen for summer reading, and I'm told that Absence has made the cut.

If you'd like to listen in on Thursday you can register here for the program, and you can get more details on it here.

If you're headed for the shore this summer Absence would make great beach reading. Click on the link at the top right of this page to learn how you can obtain a copy.

The Birds Do It

Meghan Laslocky is an author who writes on themes of love and sex, which puts her among about 95% of the people who write books. She has an article at CNN in which she argues that it's perfectly normal for people to cheat on their spouses and that there's really nothing wrong with it. Monogamy is not natural, she believes, and infidelity shouldn't be condemned.

Her main points can be summarized as follows: Since humans have a yearning for sexual variety which in earlier ages could be satisfied by the fact that spouses often died young leaving the survivor to seek out other partners, we should be sympathetic to those who are unable to remain faithful to one person for a lifetime. Moreover, most birds and mammals are not monogamous. Since we don't judge animals for being promiscuous and since humans are animals just like any other we shouldn't think harshly of marital infidelity:

Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration. No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that.

You'll have to read the details at the link, but let's tease out the two arguments outlined above. The first is a good example of how naturalism extinguishes morality. Laslocky argues that there's nothing wrong with animals trysting with more than one partner, and, since humans are just animals, there's nothing with humans doing the same.

Of course this argument hinges on the claim that humans are just animals, a claim that's true if naturalism is true, but is clearly false if, in fact, we're created in the image of God and endowed by Him with a set of moral duties which we are obligated to fulfill. If naturalism is true then anything goes. If there is no God then there are no moral duties and we really are just animals, but Laslocky nowhere defends the claim that naturalism is true. She just assumes it.

Put differently, Laslocky assumes the most dehumanizing view of man, reduces him to a brute, and thereby justifies his capitulation to animal lusts and desires that have caused enormous pain and suffering wherever that capitulation is practiced and condoned (Perhaps one of the finest illustrations of this in modern literature is Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men).

Her second argument goes like this: Because humans tend to be promiscuous therefore promiscuity is not wrong. The implied premise is that whatever is, is not wrong. This, of course, is nonsense. Humans are also inclined toward greed, selfishness, violence, rapine, hatred, and bad manners. Does Laslocky want to maintain that "Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior" toward those who are selfish, greedy and violent, we should recognize that a more saintly life "is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration"?

Because we cannot achieve perfection are we to therefore cease striving for it, cease expecting it, and just acquiesce to whatever desires come over us? A society that lives by Laslocky's rule that whatever desires we cannot tame may as well be indulged would be barbaric.

Somewhat ironically she feels it necessary to clarify for her readers that she herself doesn't live the way one might think:

Moreover, one's perspective on monogamy is not necessarily an indicator of one's personal practices. Many people have incorrectly assumed that because I've read, thought, and written about the problems with human monogamy that I am myself promiscuous.

For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor am I, as many commenters on this Yahoo post suggested, a Satanist or a whore.

One wonders why she feels it necessary to point this out since if she were any of these things there'd be nothing wrong with it since by her reasoning, there's nothing wrong with anything our desires drive us to do.

She concludes by appending that, so far from being any of the things her critics accuse her of, she's "just a woman with a healthy respect for science," but this is disingenuous.

Science can tell us how and why people do what they do, but it has nothing whatsoever to tell us about what people ought to do. It can tell us neither that people ought to be monogamous or polygamous or that people ought not to judge those who deviate from either of these. The word ought simply has no place in science which cannot tell us that anything is morally acceptable or unacceptable.

Nevertheless, it is precisely these sorts of judgments that are implicit throughout her column. Ms. Laslockey uses scientific facts, but when she employs those facts in the service of making moral claims she's going beyond the limits of science and is traipsing about in a metaphysical meadow. For her to imply that she's just doing science is misleading.

She may have a healthy respect for science but one wishes she had the same respect for logic.

Now's Their Chance

Jonah Goldberg issues a challenge to the youthful supporters of President Obama who are largely responsible for his election in 2008 and reelection in 2012.

His challenge amounts to something like this: You inflicted him on the rest of us now show us you meant it. You thrilled to his speeches and swooned over his promises. You elected him to impose his health care plan on the nation and reelected him even after it was becoming clear what that legislation would mean to you as consumers. So now it's time to be a grown up and buy your overpriced, unnecessary insurance so that Obamacare at least works a little bit for those it's supposed to help.

Goldberg puts it a little less bluntly than this, perhaps, but that's pretty much his message:

Okay, young’ns, here’s your chance....

Whenever curmudgeons like yours truly suggested that young people were getting caught up in a fad or that Obama was simply buying votes at the expense of taxpayers, you’d have a fit. You’d insist that millennials are not only informed, but eager to make sacrifices for the greater good.

Well, here’s your chance to prove it: Fork over whatever it costs to buy the best health insurance you can under Obamacare. Just in case you forgot, under Obamacare healthy young people such as yourself not only need to buy health insurance in order for the whole thing to work, but have to be overcharged for it. If you don’t pay more — probably a lot more — than what you could get today on the market in most states, Obamacare will come apart like wet toilet paper.

Estimates vary and depend on how much you make and where you live, but if you’re buying health care yourself, your out-of-pocket costs will probably be at least a couple hundred bucks a month, give or take. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s “subsidy calculator” estimates that a 26-year-old nonsmoker making $30,000 a year will pay $2,512 a year for the “silver plan.” Although, if you fill out all of the paperwork, the feds could send you a check for about $500. If you smoke — you don’t smoke, do you? — the premium rises to over $4,000. (The subsidy stays the same.)

Also, the more you make, the more your insurance will cost because the subsidies will get smaller.

Of course, the above is a pretty rosy scenario. The more young people who don’t sign up, the higher the premiums will have to be to cover the costs of those who do. Many experts think the sky’s the limit to how high prices will go.

And as prices go up, the whole thing might go down. Actuaries call this the “death spiral.” The old and sick race to sign up, but the young and healthy opt to stay out. That causes prices to go up, and more people to drop out. And since the fine for not signing up is so much lower than premiums, lots of people will just wait until they’re sick before buying insurance.

Now, that might be the smart play — for cynics. But you’re not cynical. You didn’t vote for Obama and cheer the passage of Obamacare because it was the cool thing to do. You did your homework. You want to share the sacrifice. You want to secure the president’s legacy.

And now’s your chance to prove it.

I wonder if the rapturous countenances will still be beaming once it all starts sinking in.

Bad Options

Global warmists are in a swivet over the fact that despite their sophisticated models and dire forecasts the climate isn't doing what they've been warning us it would do. Evidently the only damage being inflicted by global temperatures is to the credibility, professional reputations, and self-esteem of the climatologists and those who gave them their implicit trust. A piece by Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller elaborates:

In an interview with the German news publication Der Spiegel, meteorologist Hans von Storch said that scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be “fundamentally wrong.”

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,” Storch told Der Spiegel. “A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

This is good news, of course. Scientists had predicted that an increase of only two degrees Celsius, which we were expected to encounter within twenty to thirty years, would result in widespread food shortages, unprecedented heat waves, and more intense cyclones. This bleak forecast precipitated urgent calls by environmentalists for President Obama to do something before the trend became irreversible. As an aside, why is it up to the United States to "do something"? We're not the biggest polluter, after all.

Anyway, despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have not substantially diminished in the last fifteen years, the expected temperature surges have failed to materialize. Why?

“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.”

“The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added.

When Storch says that neither possibility is "pleasant for us" he means by "us" his fellow climatologists. No matter which of the two options is correct a lot of people have a lot of egg on their faces right now. Storch then puts his finger on exactly why it is that his fellow scientists are looking so chagrined:

“Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth,” said Storch. “The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency under the title ‘Sie erwärmt sich doch’ (‘The Earth is getting warmer’). Pamphlets like that aren’t going to convince any skeptics.”

“It’s not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them,” Storch said. “The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.”

Exactly so. I hope Al Gore reads Storch's comments.

Of course, the stasis we're experiencing may be a temporary phenomenon. It may turn out that after a year or two temps will skyrocket. Who knows? But that's the point, no one knows. For people like Gore and others on the left to demand that nations cripple their economies by stifling energy production on a hunch that they know is irresponsible at best.

It may be that modest temperature rises over the next few decades will indeed make life more difficult in the third world, but the life of third worlders will be infinitely more difficult if the people of the first world, upon whom the world's poor are so heavily dependent, deliberately and recklessly impoverish themselves.

Red Lines

President Obama announced last week that the Assad government has crossed his "red line" by using chemical weapons against rebel forces in the ongoing civil war in Syria and that we will now be deepening our involvement by supplying the rebels with arms.

This has a familiar, and disturbing, echo about it. As the Washington Post reports:

Despite months of laboratory testing and scrutiny by top U.S. scientists, the Obama administration’s case for arming Syria’s rebels rests on unverifiable claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, according to diplomats and experts.

The United States, Britain and France have supplied the United Nations with a trove of evidence, including multiple blood, tissue and soil samples, that U.S. officials say proves that Syrian troops used the nerve agent sarin on the battlefield. But the nature of the physical evidence — as well as the secrecy over how it was collected and analyzed — has opened the administration to criticism by independent experts, who say there is no reliable way to assess its authenticity.

The technical data presented by the three Western powers is of limited value to U.N. inspectors trying to determine whether Syria’s combatants used chemical weapons during the country’s 25-month-old conflict. Under the United Nations’ terms of reference, only evidence personally collected by its inspectors can be used to fashion a final judgment.

But no inspectors have been allowed inside Syria, so Western governments have relied on physical evidence smuggled out of the country by rebels or intelligence operatives. Precisely who acquired the evidence and what methods were used to guard against tampering may be unknowable, according to experts experienced at investigating chemical weapons claims.

Does this not sound familiar? The Bush administration's justification for launching a military assault on Iraq was based on arguments, largely circumstantial, that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction, primarily chemical weapons, to be used against its enemies in the region. The left at the time, including Barack Obama, scoffed at the arguments and accused President Bush of having lied to justify his use of military force. We could go back even further to the event that triggered our entrance into the Vietnam war which proved so costly in American blood and treasure - the Gulf of Tonkin incident which historians now seem to agree President Johnson fabricated as a rationale for war.

The left was incensed by these flimsy pretexts. Mr. Obama was too young to have been concerned about Vietnam, but he was strenuously opposed to Mr. Bush's war in Iraq and was among those who scorned the argument that the White House had reliable intelligence which supported the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical agents.

Now Mr. Obama himself has made the use of chemical agents a justification for military involvement and is claiming that Syria has transgressed his red line, but can offer no dispositive evidence of that transgression. Nevertheless, he's getting us involved in a conflict that can only turn out badly for us no matter who ultimately prevails.

Moreover, by supplying weapons to the rebels, if that's all we do, the most we can expect will be a stalemate between the contending forces with the killing going on into the indefinite future. Surely the Soviets and the Iranians will not allow the rebels to gain the upper hand, so simply supplying arms, without any other kind of intervention, will accomplish nothing other than to prolong the conflict. This may be the White House strategy, of course - to facilitate a long war between al Qaeda and Hezbollah and let them slaughter each other, but the toll on Syrian civilians will be enormous in such a scenario.

If something like this is indeed what comes to pass it'll be interesting to see whether we'll be hearing chants of "Obama lied, people died" from the left as we did, mutatis mutandis, during the Iraq war.

In any case, there's a more basic question to be raised about all this. Most Americans, polls show, agree with Mr. Obama that if Assad uses chemical weapons that should trigger American involvement, but why should it? What's the difference whether Syrian government forces kill tens of thousands of their people with artillery barrages and aerial bombings of towns and villages or whether they do it by launching a chemical agent into the town square? Why is one method of mass killing any more intolerable than another?

It's ironic that it was the left in the late 60s and early 70s which insisted that we had no business getting mired in a civil war in Vietnam, but today the most left-wing president in our history is about to get us involved in another civil war, on the same side as al Qaeda no less, that cannot turn out well.

It's also ironic that we have far better reason to take strong military action against Assad's chief supporter, Iran, but have so far shied away from doing so, despite the other red line that Mr. Obama drew when he said in 2008 that we will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If it weren't for Iran, Assad wouldn't be able to survive, so if we want to help unseat Assad and at the same time stifle Iran's determination to bring about Armageddon perhaps Iran should be our target and not Assad.

What Mr. Obama Believes

On his recent trip abroad Mr. Obama delivered himself of some very dubious assertions thereby giving us a glimpse into both his worldview and the regrettable superficiality of his thinking. In Berlin he informed a crowd of 4500 (down substantially from the 200,000 admirers at his 2008 appearance) that "the global threat of our time is climate change."

The Hill reports the relevant passage:

“With a global middle class consuming more energy every day, this must now be an effort of all nations, not just some. For the grim alternative affects all nations — more severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise. This is the future we must avert,” Obama said.

“This is the global threat of our time. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate before it is too late. That is our job. That is our task. We have to get to work,” he said, according to a White House transcript.

The greatest threat to the planet, Mr. Obama is evidently convinced, is not Islamic fanaticism. It's not nuclear weapons in the hands of psychopaths. It's not famine, disease or the breakdown of civilized behavior around the globe. It's climate change.

All the other threats are plainly visible every day to anyone who reads the news, but if any significant, permanent change is occurring in our climate it's happening with exquisite stealth.

Before Mr. Obama can expect anyone to give credence to his Gorean alarmism he needs to answer three questions: What is the actual evidence that the climate is changing significantly? How much change would it take to bring about the catastrophes he postulates? What are the geophysical, ecological, and social pros and cons of whatever change is occurring? Apart from a discussion of these questions his claim that global climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet is as vapid as the rest of his speech in Berlin.

In Northern Ireland Mr. Obama outraged the entire Catholic universe when he said this:

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

I'm sure his Irish listeners were wondering who is this man who presides over a nation whose public schools are declining into educational decrepitude to go to another nation and lecture them about how they arrange their education practices? Would Mr. Obama dream of criticizing Muslims, either here or abroad, for their madrassas which are undoubtedly the most divisive schools on the planet? Would he dream of telling black students at black colleges that their schools encourage division and stifle cooperation? Would he go to New York and tell Jews that their schools contribute to social mistrust and alienation?

Of course he wouldn't, but we learned some time ago that logical rigor is not prominent among the president's gifts. Like many another socialist, Mr. Obama pays lip service to diversity, but in fact desires bland uniformity. For the left diversity is good only to the extent that it serves as a thumb in the eye of traditional ways of arranging society - families, lifestyles, moral values, etc. When it's the tradition itself that's diverse, as in the tradition of having private parochial schools, then it's divisive and socially unhelpful.

Maybe Mr. Obama needs to spend a little less time in the company of his vice-president and more time honing his thinking skills.

Do You Trust This Man?

Ron Fournier a liberal columnist at National Journal wrote a piece we quoted from a few days ago that was very critical of Barack Obama. This week he sounds even more upset that the man in whom he had invested so much hope seems so untrustworthy:

Especially when it comes to the presidency, Americans tend to trust their guts, and in Obama's case, lately, something doesn't feel right. Can I trust this guy?

There is a common element to the so-called Obama scandals—the IRS targeting of conservatives, the fatal attack in Benghazi, and widespread spying on U.S. journalists and ordinary Americans. It is a lack of credibility.

In each case, the Obama administration has helped make controversies worse by changing its stories, distorting facts, and lying.

The abuse of trust may be taking a toll on President Obama's reputation....

A month into Obama's presidency, 74 percent of Americans answered "yes," saying the terms "honest and trustworthy" applied to him .... This month, only 49 percent of Americans say Obama is honest and trustworthy. That is a 9-point drop since May 17-18. Obama still may be able to recover. But he would need to take immediate steps to show accountability, transparency, and credibility.

No more slow-walking the truth as the White House did with the cause of the Benghazi attacks and with the names of West Wing officials notified about IRS targeting. No more lies, such as the IRS claiming for months that the targeting did not take place, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denying the existence of the NSA programs weeks before they were revealed.

No more doublespeak such as the president earnestly claiming, "Your duly elected representatives have consistently been informed" of the NSA programs. He knew that wasn't quite true, or should have known.

Obama needs to take action, too.

The IRS scandal needs to be aggressively investigated, with the seizure of White House and Obama campaign e-mails as well as interviews, under oath, with members of Obama's team. Those responsible for the abuse must be punished....

There is no time to waste. Obama already has earned the ignominious distinction of running against Bush's surveillance programs, then adapting it as president, and expanding it. Does he also want to repeat his predecessor's credibility crisis?

All good advice, to be sure, but Fournier is basing it on the assumption that the White House has nothing to hide. Yes, the president should clean house, but what if it's his house that turns out to be dirty? In fact, it seems to me that given what the president has to lose in terms of his credibility by not being forthcoming about these matters it's overwhelmingly in his interest to find the guilty parties and get rid of them.

That he doesn't do this creates a presumption that perhaps the guilty parties are too close to home and that publicly humiliating them would induce them to divulge information unflattering to the president about why they undertook to do what they did. If the president doesn't clean up the mess then the American public is warranted in assuming that it's because he himself is part of it.

The Hummingbird's Tongue

This clip on how hummingbirds extract nectar from a flower is just a small excerpt from a wonderful new video by Illustra Media on birds:

The title of the video is Flight: The Genius of Birds. Watching it one marvels at the astonishing engineering of these creatures and the gorgeous beauty and diversity that pervades the avian world.

One also suspects that those who insist that this engineering and beauty are the accidental product of blind, undirected forces and processes must make quite an effort to suppress their doubts that intelligent agency played a role.

Jihadis Needn't Fear the Eye of Sauron

We've been assured and reassured by our political leaders in Congress, the White House, and at the NSA that we have nothing to fear from the intrusive surveillance they're conducting on every electronic communication of every American. The goal, we're promised, is to keep us safe, it's for our own good, it has prevented terror attacks in the past, and we can trust them.

Well, maybe so, although when government tells its citizens that it's doing something for their own good we can be quite certain that we're about to lose another chunk of our liberty. When this administration tells us that we can trust them we feel a little like the young woman about to have her chastity debauched by the smooth-talking rake. Where is the evidence, after all, that these people can be trusted to be honest about anything?

At any rate, Mr. Obama's assurances might have a little more credibility if it weren't for the fact that one of the places our intrepid snoops refuse to aim their antennas is the very place one is most likely to find future terrorists incubating - Islamic mosques.

Investors Business Daily informs us of this puzzling exception:

The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are. That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee. Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

Rather than violate the politically incorrect taboos against ethnic profiling our liberal protectors instead eavesdrop on every American in the country except the very people most likely to present the greatest threat. It's analogous to airport security strip-searching children and grandparents and allowing sullen Arabic-speaking men with box cutters to board the plane unchallenged.

Perhaps it makes sense to the policy makers in the White House to scrutinize your mail and mine to nip in the bud any atrocities we may be plotting against our countrymen while fastidiously averting their eyes from the very communities which have spawned so many of these crimes in the past, but it doesn't make any sense at all to most normal Americans.

Evolution Always Wins

In the movie Man of Steel Superman is getting a sound thrashing from a female villain whose power appears to be superior to his. In the course of administering the drubbing she says to him:

"The fact that you possess a sense of morality and we do not gives us an evolutionary advantage and if history has proven anything it is that evolution always wins."

Well, this got me to thinking. It does seem that being unburdened by a sense of moral obligation to others would confer an evolutionary advantage. Behavior unrestrained by conscience or guilt would seem more likely to promote the survival and thus the reproductive success of those who exhibit it.

So why, then, does morality exist? Why do we have a conscience and experience guilt? Why do we have such a strong sense that some things are right and others are wrong? Why would a sense of moral duty have ever evolved? Such things would seem to be handicaps in the struggle for survival and thus have little evolutionary utility.

I'm sure the Darwinian sachems have an explanation for this, as they do for almost everything which challenges the doctrines of their creed, no matter outlandish the explanation may seem to those not imprisoned behind the bars of a materialist metaphysics, but I'd like to hear it.

I'd like to hear how, if evolution always wins, morality, conscience, and guilt increase our fitness for survival. I suspect that any explanation that's forthcoming will involve a certain amount of magic wand-waving, the fortuitous occurrence of dozens of genetic mutations at just the right time, and lots of vague speculations about how prehistoric societies probably benefited from the presence of those individuals who subordinated their own interests to the interests of others.

Aside from the scientific veneer that usually overlays such accounts the story will doubtless have all the characteristics normally associated with a fairy tale, not the least of which will be a requirement that we suspend our credulity while undirected, blind processes work their magic.

Anyway, here's the scene from Man of Steel. Apologies for all the extra stuff that I couldn't figure out how to get rid of:

Get More: Movie Trailers, Movies Blog