The Guilty Parties

David Brooks, writing for the New York Times, puts his finger on the reason why so many states have such a bleak economic future - their public employees unions and the Democratic Party that has been bought and paid for by those unions. Here's the heart of Brooks' column:

New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year.

New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.

California can’t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on its schools).

States across the nation will be paralyzed for the rest of our lives because they face unfunded pension obligations that, if counted accurately, amount to $2 trillion — or $87,000 per plan participant.

All in all, governments can’t promote future prosperity because they are strangling on their own self-indulgence.

Brooks concludes with this indictment:

This situation, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, has been the Democratic Party’s epic failure. The party believes in the positive uses of government. But if you want the country to share that belief, you have to provide a government that is nimble, tough-minded and effective. That means occasionally standing up to the excessive demands of public employee unions. Instead of standing up to those demands, the party has become captured by the unions. Liberal activism has become paralyzed by its own special interests.

Brooks' article is informative but if you're looking for an exhaustive treatment of the problem read the paper by political scientist Daniel DiSalvo to which Brooks links.

Here's a summary: Your chances of enjoying as high a standard of living as your parents did are severely curtailed by the fact that your state pays its retired employees benefits that are about as hefty as those employees paychecks were when they were working. In order to meet these obligations you and your future employer, if you ever have one, will have to be heavily taxed and you will thus have less money to live on than your parents did.

This state of affairs came about because state legislatures are often controlled by liberal Democrats who count public workers as part of their political base and who've been very compliant in acceding to their legislative wishes.

So, there you have yet another good reason to vote for the Democrats' opponents on the first Tuesday in November.

Are God and Darwin Compatible?

Is Darwinism compatible with orthodox belief in God? Philosopher of science Jay Richards has released a new book in which he discusses the reasons why the answer to this question is "no."

I haven't seen the book, but I'm sure that the main reason why the two are incompatible has nothing to do with evolution as such and has everything to do with the metaphysical view called materialism. One can be an orthodox theist and still believe that God employed and directed an evolutionary process in order to produce living things, but Darwinism doesn't allow for such a belief. Darwinism insists that there were no forces but natural forces, no direction, no guidance, no intelligence involved in the evolution of life's diversity.

In other words, the Darwinian view is that there's no need for a superintending mind to front-load the evolutionary development of life or to direct it at any point along the way. God is superfluous. Nature can, and did, do it all, according to the Darwinian.

Thus, a theist can be an evolutionist, but it's hard to see how a theist could be a Darwinian evolutionist.

Richards' book looks like it would be very useful in helping laypeople to understand why this is so.

Good Campaign Ad

Would that we'd see more campaign ads like this one. No sneering, sinister, disembodied voice offering half-truths and innuendo. No slamming one's opponent for things that have no bearing on his/her suitability for office. Just a simple, straightforward challenge to debate the issues.

"Melissa" is Melissa Bean, the Democrat incumbent in the Illinois 8th District.

Actually, Mr. Walsh has probably won the "debate" already since an ad like this is going to be seen by far more people than a debate would. If Ms Bean continues to evade a debate that in itself is going to turn off a lot of voters who are already fed up with politicians who have forgotten to whom they're supposed to be answerable.

Liu Xiaobo

The Nobel Peace Prize committee, after inexplicably squandering its prize on Al Gore and Barack Obama, has this year bestowed its Peace Prize on someone who actually merits it. The recipient is the Chinese freedom advocate and political prisoner Liu Xiabo. City Journal says that:

Liu Xiaobo is only one among many so-called Chinese dissidents, but he happens to be the most articulate and the most unbending. He has been offered many opportunities to leave China and live comfortably on some American campus. Liu, however, knows that the good fight must go on, and he has no desire to lose contact with his fellow Chinese citizens or squander his legitimacy by going into exile. Moreover, Liu has articulated most explicitly what many Chinese want: a normal life in a normal country. What Liu calls “normal” is genuine democracy and free markets, not the corrupt Chinese version of those concepts.

The Chinese apparently have a very attenuated sense of irony. Outraged that one of their political dissidents should be given international honor they've now retaliated by confining Liu's wife to house arrest.

You can read about Liu's fight for human rights here. The bio will also give you a pretty good idea why you should not allow yourself to think that China is on the way to being anything like a free and open country.

Brave souls like Liu and so many others whose names we'll never know struggle in anonymity to bring a flicker of the light of freedom into the nightmarish darkness of oppressive regimes like those in China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and much of Africa. Most of these people will never be recognized in this life, but they are heroes and saints all the same. What Gore and Obama ever did to be ranked among them is something I'll never understand.

Naive

I received several emails taking exception to my claim that people who are different are less likely to be "bullied" in a Christian school than a secular school. One of the more forceful objections included this explanation:

[T]he article states later that this would be much less likely to happen at a Christian school than a secular school. I am sorry to say that I have been in both settings and this is entirely and utterly false. As a Christian I would greatly appreciate if Christian schools, like [my college] and my Christian high school fought against things like intolerance of homosexuals while acknowledging they are in the wrong. Unfortunately, this is just the opposite at a Christian school and it is naïve to think otherwise. [My college] is a place for hatred of homosexual students, almost to the point where there is no way these students can come out of the closet to receive the proper help they need.

In my high school and many other Christian high schools within my area, the small minority of homosexual students were treated so poorly on our school grounds that I felt ashamed to call my fellow students Christians as they mistreated these individuals. Conversely, in the time I spent at a public high school, gay students were treated with respect and not necessarily liked, but no students were harassed in the ways I have seen in Christian settings.

The bottom line is that I have seen far too many hypocritical Christians in my life to say that gays are safer or treated better in a Christian setting than a public school setting. While I agree that there are many things to be improved about the public school system, the harassment of homosexuals is really not one of the issues. This case was a rare exception of an intolerant bigot doing something harmful to a college roommate that caused his death. As Christians we need to look ourselves in the mirror and do what we can to act more CHRIST-LIKE every day of our lives, and that includes treating homosexuals with the respect they deserve.

If this writer is correct it is very disappointing, but is he correct? Is it naive to think that people who deviate from the norm are treated with more respect in Christian environments than in secular settings? I hope not, but I invite others to share their opinion. If the experience shared above is typical then, it seems to me, Christian schools have a lot of work to do to teach their students what it means to be a Christian.

I know anecdotes don't prove anything, but I'll share one anyway. I have attended and taught at both secular and Christian colleges over the last 45 years. It was common in the secular schools to walk into a lavatory and find anti-homosexual graffiti on the walls, but I can't recall ever seeing that in the Christian colleges at which I've taught (In fact, I can't recall seeing much graffiti at all in these schools). What does that mean? Maybe nothing, or maybe it just means that the custodial crews are more efficient in cleaning the lavatories in the Christian schools, but it also might be a reflection of the different atmospheres toward one's fellow human beings in the two types of schools.

One thing I think I can say about this, though, is that if Christians torment someone for being homosexual they're violating the principles laid down by the Christ whom they claim to follow and upon which they claim to base their lives. However, if secular students bully a gay kid those students aren't violating any principle of secularism. There's no principle that one can derive from a secular or atheistic worldview that could provide any reason to think that demeaning people who are different from and weaker than oneself is wrong. All that's being violated is an arbitrary code of conduct that reflects the tastes and predilections of the administration of the school.

Honeybee Collapse

For years scientists have been mystified and agriculturalists have been alarmed by honeybee die-offs. The collapse of the population of these essential crop pollinators in North America, estimated at about 20% of the bees, has variously been blamed on a mite, on pesticides, and on cell-phone radiation.

Now, it seems, scientists have finally discovered the real cause - a virus working synergistically with a fungus in the gut of the bees. Neither the virus nor the fungus are harmful by themselves but together they're apparently lethal.

You can read about this discovery here.

Can You Be Happy in a Vat?

David Sosa has an interesting column at The Stone in which he writes this:

In 1974, Robert Nozick, a precocious young philosopher at Harvard, scooped “The Matrix”:

"Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think that it’s all actually happening [...] Would you plug in?"

Nozick’s thought experiment — or the movie, for that matter — points to an interesting hypothesis: Happiness is not a state of mind.

“What is happiness?” is one of those strange questions philosophers ask, and it’s hard to answer. Philosophy, as a discipline, doesn’t agree about it. Philosophers are a contentious, disagreeable lot by nature and training. But the question’s hard because of a problematic prejudice about what kind of thing happiness is.

Sosa concludes that hooking oneself to the machine would not make one happy and that he doesn't think it should be done. For my part, I don't think he makes a persuasive case, but read his argument at the link and see what you think.

In my opinion, refusing to be connected to the machine only makes sense given a theistic worldview which includes immortality. If there's no life after death then I can see no reason why one shouldn't allow oneself whatever pleasures, no matter how existentially empty, one can glean from the time we are here. In a world in which materialism and naturalism are true, connecting to the machine makes perfect sense. At least to me.

Re: The Culture of Death

A reader responds to our post on The Culture of Death with an account of her own experience:

Maybe someone should break both of Virginia Ironside's legs and then hold a pillow over her head and see how she likes it. I'm thinking she wouldn't be in favor. This is a situation that pregnant women today are frequently facing. If the child is found to have a disability, it is recommended that the mother terminate the pregnancy. It is such a ridiculous notion.

I was born with Spina Bifida, a birth defect of the spinal cord. My form of Spina Bifida was closed, so the doctors didn't discover it until I couldn't walk normally at age two. However, had my case been the norm, it would have been discovered during an ultrasound, and my mother would have been given the option to abort me. There would have been no explanation of how it is possible for someone to live a long productive life with Spina Bifida.

I think of the story of Gretchen Voss' abortion. This woman chose to abort her child because she thought the child would suffer. Suffering is a fact of life. I've met so many people with the exact same diagnosis that are not only living happy lives, they're walking. By aborting her child, Voss denied him the right to live. Sure, the child may have suffered, but he may not have, too. Even in that suffering, most children with Spina Bifida are the happiest children you'll ever meet. They love living life because they see it in such a different way than everyone else, especially when it comes to walking.

I "suffer" with extreme back and leg pain on a daily basis (even just sitting in class in difficult). I struggle some days to get out of bed, to stand up, to walk, but I am more grateful for it than almost anything else. It reminds me that I'm living. I've never once stopped and asked "why me?" This so-called "suffering" doesn't make me regret life; it makes me a stronger person who thrives in life.

If we continue to do this, to kill babies that we believe will be born into "suffering," will we not just be continuing Hitler's work? Hitler wanted the ideal race, the survival of the fittest. If it was wrong for Hitler, it is just as wrong for us. These babies deserve a chance at life. To take that away is not merciful, it is inhumane.

Here's a question about what Virginia Ironside said on the video at the link: If it would have been legal for a mother to have had the baby ripped apart moments before it was born, as it is according to our current laws, why is it wrong for a mother to kill it by asphyxiation moments after it's born? And if it shouldn't be illegal to kill it moments after birth why not, if the child's suffering is the reason for ending its life, when it's three years old? Or twelve? Do you see the slippery slope we've put ourselves on? Ms Ironside is coldly but rationally working out the logic of legalizing abortion on demand.

Making Friends in the Middle East

A very bright and well-informed student writes to suggest that America's foreign policy vis a vis the Muslim world is wrong-headed, and he offers an alternative:

There is a way for the middle east to become prosperous and friendly to the U.S. These steps include not bombing civilians (which have become too frequent due to drone strikes), becoming a neutral party (which it is obviously not) in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not supporting military dictators in the region (like the U.S. did with Saddam Hussein and Musharraf). If we didn't look out for our own interests overseas and rather focused on building a truly free and independent middle east we could see large improvements in the region.

Here's my reply:

I don't think this is true. Those Muslims around the world who hate us will hate us no matter what we do. We liberated the Kuwaiti Muslims from Saddam, but still millions of Muslims hate us. We rescued the Kurds from Saddam (albeit clumsily and late) and saved the Bosnian Muslims from genocide, but still millions of Muslims hate us. We liberated 25 million Iraqi Muslims from Saddam's tyranny and 25 million Afghan Muslims from Taliban tyranny, and still millions of Muslims hate us. We are the main hope of Iranian Muslims who look to us to somehow rescue them from the tyranny of the mullahs and ayatollahs, but still millions of Muslims hate us. We gave hundreds of millions of dollars to help Muslims in the Indian Ocean basin recover from a calamitous tidal wave, we send doctors and teachers and relief workers all through the Muslim world to bring relief to suffering Muslims, we spend millions to spare African Muslims from starvation and the scourge of AIDs, and still millions of Muslims hate us.

They do not hate us because we have done too little to help Muslims. Nor do they hate us because civilians have died in the wars we've fought in the Middle East (After all, far more civilians have died at the hands of their fellow Muslims who intentionally murdered them than have died by the inadvertent bombing of innocent civilians by Americans). They hate us for two reasons in particular:

First, we are all that stands between them and the destruction of Israel, and second, we ourselves are not a Muslim nation and they see our culture and our freedoms as a threat to their values and religion. The radicals among the world's Muslims dream of a world-wide caliphate and they are prepared to kill anyone - Christian, Jew, or Muslim - who prevents them from realizing their dream.

Banned in Berkeley

There's not much that's frowned upon in the far left-wing precincts of Berkeley, California, but "Robin of Berkeley," a former secular lefty herself, suggests that there is one thing that will earn you the contempt of that fair city's enlightened citizens - a profession of belief in God. According to Robin, God is not just dead in this city named for a pious Irish prelate and philosopher, He's openly despised. She goes on to conclude that this contempt for God has had consequences that should surprise no one. Here's the heart of her column:

"God is dead," according to the existentialist Nietzsche. He might as well have been talking about Berkeley, California.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a trip out west and spend a few days on Telegraph Avenue. Then wander over to the downtown area, Shattuck and University. If you're really the daredevil, do so after dark, when the mean streets look positively Kafkaesque.

When I say God is dead in Berkeley, I don't mean just that parts of the city look like a hellhole. I'm referring to the militant anti-God vibe.....

While it's perfectly acceptable in Berkeley to live openly as a bisexual, transgendered, or crossdresser, don't dare divulge a love for God. If you do so, expect public disapproval, even contempt.

And yet, why don't residents see the obvious: that's there's a connection between abandoning God and the un-Godliness of Berkeley's streets? The streets are filthy and uncivil; the crime rate spirals out of control. Because if God and His followers are chased out of town, what is left?

The radicals would argue that without a pesky, oppressive God, people are liberated. With no repressive authority spoiling the fun, the world becomes idyllic. But when you obscure the sunshine, only darkness remains. Seal the windows, close the blinds, and what do you have? People alone in a pitch-black world, with nothing to shield or soothe them.

And the estrangement is palpable not just in Berkeley, although the alienated are concentrated here. The militant atheists are saturating the media, the schools, the entire culture with its witch's brew. The Left, as always, is at the helm. Obama covers up crosses at Notre Dame University; he deletes the Creator from the Declaration.

Obama and the Left want our country untethered from the steadfast grip of God. Spiritually impoverished, lost in space, the masses will cling to the teat of the government. Bereft of the Divine, they're shackled to the Gospel of Obama.

There are inevitable, and disastrous, consequences for slamming the door on God. See for yourself. Come walk the streets of Berkeley, or the nearby cities: San Francisco, Oakland, or Richmond. Look deeply into people's eyes and behold the anger, the desperation...or see nothing at all.

Because when a city, or a nation, buries God, what is left is an excruciating, unfathomable void. And in the ever-widening chasm, dark forces -- the evil squatters -- take up residency.

Pretty powerful indictment coming from a former member of the atheistic left.

Does Evil (Still) Exist?

Ron Rosenbaum raises some good questions about the ontological status of evil and the free-will/ determinism debate in an article in this month's First Things.

His column begins with this:

At the close of the final 2010 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship seminar series in Cambridge this June, after writer Rob Stein’s informative discussion of “Conscience,” as everyone began packing up, one of the moderators, Sir Brian Heap, turned to me and asked (presumably because I’d once written a book entitled Explaining Hitler): “Did Hitler have a conscience, Ron?” Having spent a decade examining that very issue, which was at the heart of my book, I was able to reply, crisply and cogently: “Um, well, I’m not sure . . . I mean, it all depends.” Yes, it all depends. It all depends on how you define conscience, and how you define conscience depends on how you define evil, the cancer for which conscience is the soul’s MRI.

Evil has gotten a bad name lately. It always was a name for some sort of badness, yes; but lately the word sounds antiquated, the product of a less-sophisticated age. Evil belongs to an old, superstitious world of black and white, and we all know now that everything is gray, right? It belongs to a world of blame in which the Enlightenment tells us that “to understand all is to forgive all”—no blame, just explanation. There are some who argue it’s an unnecessary word: Having no ontological reality, no necessary use, it’s merely a semantic trap, a dead end.

After a century that saw the slaughter of more than a hundred million souls, we seem to be insisting on one more casualty: the word evil. Perhaps because by eliminating its accusatory presence and substituting genetic, organic, or psychogenic determinism, we escape the accusatory finger it points at the nature of human nature. Things go wrong with our genes, or our amygdalas, or our parenting, but these are aberrations, glitches. The thing itself, the human soul, is basically good; the hundred million dead, the product of unfortunate but explicable defects, not the nature of the beast.

But there are losses to the glossing-over process that has made the concept of conscious evil so unfashionable. If we could rescue free-will evil from the various determinisms that have been substituted for it, we could also set free will—the freely made choice to do good or evil—free again. Doing so would reestablish the possibilities of freely chosen courage and nobility, of altruism and self-sacrifice, rather than reducing them to some evolutionary biology survival stratagem. We diminish and marginalize the idea of evil because we don’t want to face the accusatory consequences that the free choice of evil—a choice contrary to conscience—entails.

Further on in the piece Rosenbaum poses this perplexing moral question: "Can someone be evil if he thinks he’s doing good, no matter how deranged his thought process? It has troubled everyone from Plato to Augustine and their heirs, but it remains a genuine problem—because most people we think of as doing great evil think of themselves as doing the right thing."

Chew on that one for a moment and then click on the link to the essay. There's lots there to make you think.

Tough Ad

Wow:

I wonder how much play this ad is getting across the country. It's amusing that in Pennsylvania, where I live, the Democratic candidate for governor is running ads critical of the "politicians in Harrisburg," but Harrisburg is pretty much controlled by Democrats. Another Democrat candidate for the federal legislature is explicitly identifying himself as a conservative. How many Democrats are identifying themselves as liberals, or even as Democrats? Why do they feel they have to deceive the voters in order to win? Why are they willing to deceive the voters in order to win?

Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

The Culture of Death

The video below illustrates how people start to think when the society in which they live loses its belief that human persons are made in the image of God. Once we abandon the sense that we participate somehow in the transcendent, when we lose the sense that human beings are a little lower than the angels and begin to believe that we're not much different than cattle, we find ourselves on a fast track toward a culture of death.

The speaker in this video is a British advice columnist named Virginia Ironside. The clip picks up just as she has opined that, "If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother." She then adds: "If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would."

Watch it to get a sense of how the progressives on the left think:

What's particularly chilling to me about this clip is not just that Ms Ironside is willing to murder her child to end the child's suffering, but the complete lack of anguish that she seems to feel at the prospect. She's apparently no more conflicted about smothering her suffering child to death than she would be about changing the unfortunate tyke's nappy.

Once people begin to think as this woman does, once they can contemplate murdering a child with even less emotion than most people would show in contemplating euthanizing an injured kitten, society is on the road back to Auschwitz.

Here's another example of how we are being assaulted with sickening images of death and how we are becoming desensitized to the idea of putting to death those who resist the fashionable left-wing solutions to environmental and other problems. I don't recommend you do it, but if you have a strong stomach you might go here and watch the video made to "encourage" people to participate in the effort to reduce their carbon footprint. How much deeper into the sewer of depravity and dehumanization can we sink before people demand that we reverse course?

Thoughts on a Tragedy

By now you've doubtless heard the tragic story of Tyler Clementi, the young Rutgers student who was secretly taped by his roommate, Dharun Ravi, while engaged in a homosexual encounter. Ravi and a friend named Molly Wei then placed the tape on the internet to mock Clementi to the whole world. Mortified, Clementi leapt off the George Washington bridge to his death in the river below.

This awful story is being cited by some as a sign of a need for increased tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, but I think there's something larger at issue that we should not ignore.

We might frame the issue with several questions: Why did Ravi and Wei think they had the right to do what they did? Why did they want to humiliate Clementi? Why were they so indifferent to this boy's feelings that they were willing to profoundly embarrass him, hurt him, and laugh at his pain?

I think a case can be made that Ravi and Wei are not an aberration but are rather a synecdoche for a culture that has lost not just the will, but the ability, to teach it's young the difference between right and wrong behavior and how to respect other people. Sure, we tell them about tolerance and respect, but we've abandoned the ability to give a reason why it's wrong to be intolerant or to treat people like Clementi was treated. We can no longer give a reason why we should treat others with dignity, respect and kindness, and the reason we can't is because we've secularized our public life, including especially our schools.

The scrubbing of our public life of all traces of religion means, among other things, that our young people must be exposed only to secular influences, anything carrying the faintest whiff of religion is to be strictly forbidden.

Many schools have become moral wastelands, and many students never get any moral instruction at all. A crucial element of a student's development, his or her moral development, goes unattended and stunted. To be sure, students are admonished that it's wrong to cheat on tests and "inappropriate" to sexually harass girls, and that such behaviors will not be tolerated. Many students refrain from these for fear, perhaps, of being penalized by the school, but they're never convinced that those behaviors are actually wrong because they're never given a reason for thinking they're wrong. Indeed, they can't be given a reason because secularism has no reason beyond a tepid assertion that "they're just not nice."

Moreover, schools almost inevitably send students mixed messages about these matters. Teachers, for example, insist to their students that bullying is wrong, but then the student goes to biology class and learns that he's essentially an animal engaged in a Darwinian struggle for survival and for breeding partners, and that the strong outcompete the weak, and that all of our behavior is determined by our genes anyway, so there really is no right and wrong.

Some teachers try to convince students that the materialistic, hedonistic, consumer culture that encourages them to judge others by their appearance and their clothes is fundamentally arid and empty, but even if the educators were capable of offering a plausible alternative to the culture they deplore, they wouldn't be allowed to do so because the only genuine alternative is a religious alternative. The only coherent critique of the hedonistic materialism that holds so many of our young people in its seductive grip is a religious critique, and we've decided as a society that such alternatives are to be assiduously ignored.

Students are immersed in a culture of consumerism that promotes self-centeredness and narcissism. It encourages young adults to treat others as means to their own happiness. Nevertheless, occasionally the young person is able to discern a barely audible voice whispering in his ear that he should indeed care about others and treat others with respect. But soon enough he turns on the television and sees someone like Simon Cowell applauded by all and sundry - and very handsomely rewarded - for nothing more than humiliating people on American Idol, and that tiny voice is easily forgotten.

I want to close with an irony about the tragedy of Tyler Clementi and others like him. The secular culture sedulously promotes the need for tolerance and acceptance. It persistently reminds us that gays are not to be discriminated against in any way, and that there's nothing wrong with being gay. Yet it's precisely in secular settings where gays are most at risk of being tormented to the point of suicide. And not just gays. It is in secular settings almost always where teens feel driven to despair by the treatment they receive from their fellow students.

On the other hand, Christians often believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it's outside the will of God. Yet, a young gay man or woman is much less likely to be treated at a Christian school with the kind of cruelty that many gays are subjected to in the secular hells in which they find themselves. They're much more likely to be treated with dignity, respect and kindness - with genuine love - at a Christian high school or college than at a secular school.

Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it's because at a Christian school students are enjoined to view each person as a child of God, as someone whom God loves. Secularism, or more properly naturalism, simply sees each individual as nothing but "a machine made of meat." In which environment would you feel most comfortable if you were a little different from your peers?

Tax Cuts and Your Job

There's a big debate in Washington currently over whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended only for those making less than $250,000 a year or whether they should be extended for everyone.

The Democrats argue that those making over $250,000 can afford to have their taxes raised. They claim that taxing them at rates similar to what they paid in the Clinton years would bring billions of dollars into the treasury and help reduce the deficit.

Republicans argue that the way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending, not raise taxes. Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 would mean raising costs on many small businesses and doing so would force them to layoff workers and/or not hire new employees. Unemployment would go up, fewer people working would mean fewer people paying taxes, and thus not only would there be no appreciable increase in revenue to the government, economic growth would be suppressed.

This difference between the parties is really the fundamental difference between economic liberals and economic conservatives. Liberals favor higher taxes, conservatives favor less spending. Liberals desire big government with lots of programs and high taxes to pay for them. Conservatives believe we should live within our means, that high taxes stifle economic growth, and that workers and employers should be permitted to keep as much of the money they earn as possible.

With this background in mind this column by economist Robert Samuelson, who writes for both Newsweek and The Washington Post, both of which are liberal journals, is interesting. Samuelson thinks that the extravagant spending of the last two years of the Bush administration and the meteoric increase in spending of the first two years of the Obama administration, did, in fact, keep us from falling into an economic depression. But there's something else deep in the column that bears upon what we said above.

First, though, here's what he says about Bush's TARP and Obama's Stimulus:

When Obama took office in early 2009, the economy and financial markets were in virtual free-fall. By summer, they were not. Only a rabid partisan can think that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the reversal. His forcefulness helped calmed the prevailing hysteria.

True, many recovery policies came from the Federal Reserve, and others -- notably, the unpopular Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) -- began under the Bush administration. Obama's contributions included the "stimulus program," a rescue of the auto industry and a "stress test" for 19 large banks. The stress test explored whether banks needed big infusions of capital. Most didn't.

The process was messy, and, although many details can be questioned, the overall impact was huge. Without government's aggressive response, gross domestic product would have dropped 12 percent instead of 4 percent and 16.6 million jobs would have been lost instead of 8.4 million, estimate economists Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. Unemployment would have hit 16 percent. These numbers, too, can be disputed (they seem high to me), but the direction is certainly correct.

So, Samuelson believes both TARP and the Stimulus were bungee cords tied around the waist of a plunging economy, but, and here's the crucial point relating to taxes, Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000 will be catastrophic:

The right's sweeping indictment of Obama is wildly exaggerated. It is not, however, entirely misplaced.

Confidence is crucial to stimulating consumer spending and business investment, and Obama constantly subverts confidence. In the past year, he's undone some of the good of his first months. He loves to pick fights with Wall Street bankers, oil companies, multinational firms, health insurers and others. He thinks that he can separate policies that claim to promote recovery from those that appeal to his liberal "base," even when the partisan policies raise business costs, stymie job creation or augment uncertainty -- and, thereby, undermine recovery. His health-care "reform" will make hiring more expensive to employers by mandating insurance coverage. The moratorium on deep-water oil drilling kills jobs; the administration's estimate of employment loss is up to 12,000.

Obama's proposal to increase taxes on personal incomes exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) is the latest example of his delusional approach. It satisfies the liberal itch to "get the rich." Well, the rich and most other taxpayers will ultimately have to pay higher taxes to help close budget deficits. But not now.

Raising taxes in a weak economy doesn't make sense. Just consider this astonishing fact: These affluent households represent almost a quarter of all consumer spending, according to Zandi. Increasing their taxes, he estimates, would cost 770,000 jobs by mid-2012. Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan's Survey of Consumers, says his data suggest that uncertainty about the extension of the Bush tax cuts has already caused affluent buyers to cut their spending.

Some small businesses would also be affected, because many (sole proprietorships, partnerships and subchapter S corporations) file their taxes on personal returns. Higher taxes would discourage hiring and expansion. No one knows by how much, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that higher business taxes would affect 725,000 returns with about $400 billion of business income. Some of these are partnerships of doctors, lawyers and accountants. Others are contractors, restaurant owners, florists and plumbers.

If this is a sober assessment of Obamanomics and its effects I wonder how bad the Republican critique is that makes it "wildly exagerrated." I don't know how it can be any more of an indictment than this.

Anyway, the Democrats who control Congress have made the uncertainty Samuelson mentions even worse by delaying a vote on whether to extend the tax cuts until after the November election, presumably so that congresspersons running for reelection wouldn't pay a price for their vote at the polls and others who are defeated in the election would not be reluctant to vote for the tax increase in a lame-duck session.

This is why Americans despise government. Congress has time to call Stephen Colbert to "testify" in a hearing, wasting taxpayer money and making a mockery of the process, they have time to adjourn early so they can get back to their districts and campaign, but they don't have time to let businessmen know whether they'll be paying higher taxes next year. With that uncertainty looming over them businesses are not going to be hiring any time soon, so if you're looking for a job and can't find one, thank your local Democratic congressman. Better yet, just vote for his or her opponent on November 2nd.

J. Alfred Prufrock and the GZ Mosque

Joseph Bottum, the editor of First Things, has an essay in the October issue that is about as incisive a piece of commentary on the Ground Zero mosque controversy as I've seen - well, at least outside our posts on Viewpoint.

Here's a sample:

Nearly everyone in America seems to have opined on this situation already. Cheering it, fearing it, sneering at those who object, mocking those who favor the building of the mosque. President Obama was for it, before he was against it: first giving a speech about religion and our constitutional system so high-minded that it was audible only to bats — and then, as criticism mounted, hurriedly explaining that he wasn’t actually lending his support to the project. That is not what he meant at all. That is not it, at all. The man is turning into J. Alfred Prufrock, here before our eyes.

Perhaps New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg deserves credit, then, for saying straight out, and sticking to his position, that the mosque “is as important a test” of “the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime.” Indeed, he added, “We would be untrue to the best part of ourselves — and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans — if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.”

And yet, there’s something in that Bloombergian line that puts one’s back up. Something condescending, superior, and hectoring. Something of the school marm and, more to the point, something of the 1950s high-liberal technocrat who just doesn’t like the messiness of human interaction. And if we could reach down to the root of the mayor’s error, we would have some understanding of how religion actually works in a constitutional democracy.

Obama as Prufrock. Pretty funny. Anyway, read the whole thing, it's not long, and it's very good.

Standing in the Schoolhouse Door

Columnist Cal Thomas writes about the new documentary film, Waiting for Superman, and states that it should be "mandatory viewing for every member of Congress."

One of the things the film does, intentionally or otherwise, is show how the Democrat party has trapped poor children in deplorable schools from which there's no escape and in which there's no hope. The Democrats do this by quashing all attempts to give these children the financial means, through vouchers for example, to attend private schools or more affluent schools in the suburbs.

Why do they do this? Because they're in thrall to the teachers' unions, and those unions see educational choice as a threat to their job security. The more children who opt out of public schools the fewer teachers that'll be needed to staff those schools.

Thomas writes:

As a synopsis on the Fandango movie site says, this film "explores the tragic ways in which the American public education system is failing our nation's children. ..."

Not only do we see children and their parents on the edge of their seats during a lottery that will determine who gets the educational equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card, we also watch the crestfallen faces of those who don't draw the magic numbers for decent schools, a better education and, thus, a hope for the future. Is this how a poor child's destiny should be decided, by lottery?

President Obama, of course, along with almost every other Democrat in Washington, sends his children to private schools like Sidwell Friends, but then they can afford the $31,069 tuition. Most parents can't.

Thomas continues:

During a recent appearance on the "Today" show, a woman in the audience asked President Obama why he selected a tony private school for his daughters over D.C. Public Schools.

He said Sasha and Malia could not receive the same level of education from D.C. Public Schools that they get at Sidwell Friends.

The president said because of his position "we could probably maneuver" to get them into one of the better public schools, but he said the "broader problem" is that parents without "a bunch of connections" don't have such options.

Nice try, but if he wanted to place his daughters in a public school, no connections would be needed. Jimmy Carter sent his daughter, Amy, to a public school when he was president. The issue for the Obamas and everyone else with school-age kids is which school provides them the best education?

The poor do not have a choice, other than a lottery. This is immoral.

Indeed it is, and it's also ironic. Democrats stand foursquare for choice when it comes to giving a woman the right to kill her child, but they're foursquare against choice when it comes to giving a woman the right to give her child a decent education.

Thomas compares Dems to modern day George Wallaces. Wallace, you might recall, was the Governor of Alabama in the 1960s who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to keep black kids from entering the school:

Members of Congress -- mostly Democrats -- are channeling the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who in 1963 stood in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from entering. Today, certain members of Congress are metaphorically standing in schoolhouse doors, preventing the poor from leaving.

The mystery is why the poor continue to believe that the Democrats are the party looking out for their interests.

Looking for Revenge

Evidently, Iran is convinced that the U.S. and Israel are behind the widespread Stuxnet malworm infection that has slowed their nuclear weapons program to a crawl, and debkafile thinks that the Iranians are preparing to retaliate militarily:

Tehran is bent on military action to settle scores with Israel and the United States whom it suspects of planting the malignant Stuxnet cyber worm in the computer systems of its nuclear, military and strategic infrastructure, debkafile's military and US sources report. The timeline of this attack revolves around the state visit to Lebanon President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has scheduled for Oct. 13-14, during which he will tour the Israeli border. Preying heavily on Iran too are the personal sanctions the United States has just imposed on its top military brass and ministers.

This last development is also interesting. It seems to have been timed to coincide with the chaos being produced in Iran by Stuxnet:

President Barack Obama signed an executive order imposing sanctions on eight top Iranian officials, accusing them of serious human rights abuses, including the killing, torture, beating and rape of Iranian citizens since the country's disputed 2009 presidential election.

This was the first time Washington had singled out top Iranian military and security figures for personal penalties:

Obama only signed the sanctions order this week, whereas the eight officials' crimes occurred more than a year ago in the wake of their crackdown on political opponents who charged the regime with falsifying the election. It would seem therefore that the US president acted with the intention of further dividing Iran's leaders and adding to the perplexity and demoralization besetting them over their powerlessness to bring the destructive cyber worm under control.

I find it difficult to believe that Iran would be so foolish as to launch overt military strikes, even through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, when such strikes would provide just the pretext needed by Israel and/or the United States to take out the Iranian nuclear program altogether. On the other hand, the Iranians may be in a panic, and panicked men do foolish things.

Re: Why They're Leaving

A few readers think I overstated the problems with public schools in a couple of posts I did this past week (See here and here). Many more readers, though, shared experiences that confirmed my fears that taxpayer subsidized schools are on a downward trajectory that's going to result in an increasing number of students looking for alternative educational opportunities. I don't think the numbers of such students will be high in affluent districts, of course, but I do think they'll be significant in predominately middle and lower class communities.

Here's another story of one family's personal travail with school administrators who seem from this account to be about as obtuse and bereft of common sense as anyone could possibly be:

I grew up in a small public school (I graduated with 75 students). Although my high school education was better than most, with teachers that required college level work and advanced classes, it still wasn't the "ideal" environment. My school had a zero tolerance fighting policy. One would think that to be a good thing, but not when it is taken to the extreme.

When I was in ninth grade a girl tried to start a fight with me after school. I walked away, so she grabbed my hair. She threw me to the ground and proceeded to kick and punch me. I have Spina Bifida, and was always weaker than the other kids growing up. My father always told me not to just stand there and take it, but to fight back. I hit that girl hard enough that day that she let go of me, and I got up and walked away.

The next day I was called to the principle's office. He let me off reluctantly with an administrative detention. The other girl received the same punishment. My father fought this, but was simply told that there was no tolerance for any fighting. When he wanted to see the video from the hallway camera, the administration was forced to admit that the cameras were just there to "scare students," not to actually record anything.

Last year my younger brother was also involved in a "fight" during his senior year. He didn't fight back, but let the kid punch him repeatedly while walking down the hall (which I'm sure was quite humorous as my brother is 6'2" and 250 pounds).

One of the teachers saw this and reported it to the principle. My brother and the other student involved received 3 days in-school suspension. When my father approached the principle this time, he was told the same thing, "no tolerance." The teacher involved apologized to my brother for reporting the incident. She also approached the administration asking why he was being punished for nothing. In anger, she asked if a student just stood in front of their locker while someone punched them, would they still be punished. The answer was yes.

So what lesson did these administrators and their ridiculous "no tolerance" policy teach students? It's this: If you're the innocent victim of an assault you're just as guilty as the aggressor. I wonder if this "logic" would be extended to female students who were victims of sexual assault? Would the administrators give them the same punishment as their assailants received?

When I think of the perverse concept of justice that this school is teaching it's students I have to wonder how people with advanced degrees could be so dull-witted.

Good Trade

Have you wondered why Democrats are not campaigning on the one accomplishment that they can boast of having achieved since they've been in power, i.e. passage of health care reform? Maybe their reticence is due to their awareness of how unpopular that legislation is with voters. The reason it's unpopular, of course, is that according to every study I've seen it'll result in higher costs to consumers and reduced access to care. One way the "reform" will reduce our access to quality health care is by exacerbating the impending shortage of physicians. Reuters has a report on a recent study that shows this dispiriting outcome to be hovering in the near distance:

The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday. The group's Center for Workforce Studies released new estimates that showed shortages would be 50 percent worse in 2015 than forecast.

"While previous projections showed a baseline shortage of 39,600 doctors in 2015, current estimates bring that number closer to 63,000, with a worsening of shortages through 2025," the group said in a statement.

"The United States already was struggling with a critical physician shortage and the problem will only be exacerbated as 32 million Americans acquire health care coverage, and an additional 36 million people enter Medicare."

Doctors will be caught in a squeeze between caps on what they can charge their patients and the increasing cost of their own education. When medicine is no longer as profitable as it used to be fewer people will be attracted to the field. This is simple common sense, but it's apparently arcane enough to have eluded the grasp of the Democrats who voted for the bill.

We can console ourselves, though, with the realization that many more Americans will have medical coverage. They may not be able to find a doctor, but they'll have coverage. That probably seemed to the Democrats who passed this legislation like a good trade.

Cheers.