Ten Things

Gavin McInnes is a libertarian who believes that there are some things liberals get right. He's correct about this, of course, although I don't know that he's correct on the specific things he mentions in this article. At any rate he lists ten examples of issues on which he agrees at least somewhat with the liberal position.

It's an amusing read, the tone of which he establishes at the outset:

[U]nlike extremist Muslims and Hasidic Jews, some of the things [liberals] believe are actually correct. For example:

1. AMERICAN FOOD PORTIONS ARE TOO LARGE
2. CEO SALARIES ARE TOO HIGH
3. OBAMACARE IS A GOOD IDEA
4. WAR IS BAD
5. WOMEN WHO GET PREGNANT FROM A RAPE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ABORT
6. GAYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED
7. BLACKS ARE VICTIMS OF SYSTEMIC RACISM
8. BIG BUSINESS HAS TOO MUCH INFLUENCE ON CAPITOL HILL
9. MACHINE GUNS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL
10. DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL

When you read McInnes' rationale for each of these you'll probably find yourself agreeing with more of them than you might have expected to.

Welfare State

This chart, courtesy of The Blaze, will probably ruin your day. It provides a stark illustration of the explosion in dependency on the federal government from 2009 to 2011. Keep in mind that it doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.

Today there are over 110 million people in the U.S. currently receiving some form of government welfare. That's up from 97 million in just three years. According to the article at The Blaze, Medicaid has increased from 34 million people in 2000 to 54 million today and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) has grown from 17 million to 45 million.

Moreover, spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach nearly $800 billion over the next decade. Not only citizens, but non-citizens are eligible for food stamps paid for by the American taxpayer:

USDA has acknowledged a formal partnership with Mexico to boost food stamp enrollment amongst non-citizens, migrant workers and foreign nationals. In a ‘radio novela’ USDA even depicted an individual who resisted food stamp enrollment (saying her husband earned enough to take care of them) but who was successfully pressured into enrollment.

Why not? It's only money. If we need more we can just print it.

Even Some Libs Are Outraged

How dishonest are the Obama super pacs' campaign ads? They're so bad that even the folks at CNN and MSNBC are disgusted by them. It takes a lot to make Mika Brzezinski recoil from anything associated with President Obama, but after the ridiculous "felon" business and the Bain capital attacks, the latest ad where a steel worker seems to blame his wife's death from cancer on Mitt Romney, she's apparently had enough:

Here's Wolf Blitzer at CNN raking Bill Burton over the coals for producing such an egregious piece of propaganda. The video is a little long, but it shows the ad and it affords a good idea of what the controversy is all about and why the ad is inaccurate. Even more, it shows that the folks at these liberal outlets are not happy with what's being done on behalf of Mr. Obama's candidacy:

Christian Terrorism

An academic by the name of Mark Juergensmeyer foists this bit of flapdoodle upon readers at the blog Religion Dispatches:

The killing spree by Wade Michael Page on the Sikh Gurudwara in Milwaukee that left seven dead including Page’s own death in a hail of bullets is an act of Christian terrorism. Page was a member of a skinhead band, End Apathy, that advertised the evils of multiculturalism and advocated white power.

It is fair to call Page a Christian terrorist since the evidence indicates that he thought he was defending the purity of white Christian society against the evils of multiculturalism that allow non-white non-Christians an equal role in America society. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Norwegian militant, Anders Breivik, Page thought he was killing to save white Christian society.

Though there is no evidence that Page was a pious Christian, that is true of many religious terrorists. If the hard-talking, swaggering al Qaeda militants can be called Muslim terrorists, certainly Page can be called a Christian terrorist.

This is just silly. Muslim terrorists often are indeed very pious and claim to be acting in the name of Allah and Islam. As far as is known at this point Page has made no such claims, but the silliness doesn't end there.

Despite acknowledging that there's no evidence that Page (or McVeigh or Breivik) was a "pious Christian," despite the fact that - as far as I know - there's no evidence that any of these men were Christians in any genuine sense at all, nor that they were acting on behalf of "white Christian society," the writer goes on at some length repeating his assertion that Page was acting on behalf of "white Christendom."

I hope this is not the sort of thinking that passes for erudition in Mr. Juergensmeyer's field of sociology. It amounts to this: Page was an American, America is somewhat Christian, ergo Page "was killing to save white Christian society." Not only does this chain of "reasoning" perpetrate a brutal abuse of Aristotelian logic, it also demonstrates either an amazing ignorance on the part of a sociologist as to what Christianity actually is, or it evinces an astounding level of intellectual sloppiness on the part of someone who fancies himself an intellectual.

In either case, to suggest that Page is to Christianity what the al Qaeda terrorists were to Islam is ridiculous, and to insist that people like Page are somehow spawned by Christian belief is perverse.

Class and No Class

American Olympic hurdler Lolo Jones finished fourth the other night. Jones is a 29 year-old Christian who has publicly acknowledged that she's "saving herself" for marriage. This has made her an object of derision in some precincts on the left, particularly at the New York Times. Times writer Jere Longman wrote this about Jones:

Essentially, Jones has decided she will be whatever anyone wants her to be — vixen, virgin, victim — to draw attention to herself and the many products she endorses.

He went on to compare her to tennis player Anna Kournikova as just an empty suit.

Why? Why be so unkind to a young woman who has done nothing but succeed with class and grace throughout her career? I can't prove it, but I suspect that what's at play is the same irrational disdain that causes people to despise Tim Tebow and Carrie Prejean. They're good people who are trying to live according to the values prescribed by their Christianity and the secular world hates them for it. Their willingness to share their faith and values publicly is an indictment of a secular culture that devolves daily into deeper levels of sleaze and violence. If Jones had been involved in the debauchery taking place in the Olympic village she'd probably be ignored and the media would turn its attention back to women in bikinis playing volleyball on the beach.

Rob Doster at National Review offers this opinion:

Naturally, Jones was stung by the coverage, making an emotional appearance on the Today Show the morning after her loss and offering a passionate self-defense. “I have the American record. I am the American record holder indoors, I have two world indoor titles,” she said. “Just because I don’t boast about these things, I don’t think I should be ripped apart by media. I laid it out there. I fought hard for my country and I think it’s just a shame that I have to deal with so much backlash when I’m already so brokenhearted as it is.”

No, like Kournikova, Jones is merely a world-class athlete who has failed to check the right boxes to satisfy the Times’s sensibilities.

As this episode has made clear: They might not be champions, but both Jones and Kournikova are far better at their craft than Longman is at his.

They're far better at being human beings, too, I might add.

Speed Gene

Former Olympic sprinter Michael Johnson created a bit of a kerfuffle a few weeks ago when he opined that "a ‘superior athletic gene’ in the descendants of West African slaves means black American and Caribbean sprinters will command the sport at the London Games."

He was certainly right about who's commanding the sport in the 2012 Olympics (and just about every prior Olympics as well), but then Johnson went on to add that, "It’s a fact that hasn’t been discussed openly before. It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?"

Well, Michael might not be aware of the can of worms such a discussion would open. There are a couple of reasons why the dominance of athletes with West African ancestry is not often mentioned, at least not above a whisper, in the United States.

If Johnson is correct - and it seems to me as obvious as the noon day sun that he is - that the disproportionate success of black athletes is due to a genetic advantage enjoyed by the descendents of slaves, then the logical implication is that the disproportionate success in other areas of life enjoyed by other groups must also be largely due to their gene pools. The further unfortunate implication is that other disproportions, for example the disproportionate numbers of blacks who commit violent crimes, might also have a genetic basis.

These conclusions are certainly impolitic in contemporary American society, and no one wants to call attention to them on pain of being called a racist. Yet if athletic ability is genetic why not regard intellectual ability or a proclivity to violence as genetic? And if we should talk, as Johnson wants us to do, about the genetic gifts of Olympic sprinters, should we not also discuss genetic liabilities as well?

This gets very dicey. If over-representation is an indication of genetic inheritance then does that mean that under-representation in fields requiring, say, analytical and mathematical abilities, fields in which participants of African descent are sparse, indicate that people of African descent are genetically disadvantaged?

Are Asians and Jews, two groups which are probably over-represented in intellectual disciplines like science, genetically superior to those groups which are under-represented?

You can see the treacherous ground onto which such questions would lead us and why there's reluctance for people to mention out loud that the dominance of American and Caribbean blacks in certain sports must be genetic.

Of course, one reason why no one wants to talk about this is because, it's feared, it'll play into the hands of racists, but I don't know why it should be allowed to do so.

In any family there are diverse gifts and aptitudes. The expectations and hopes we have for one child aren't the same as we have for another. A child born with a hearing disability may not be as strong a musician as her older sibling. A successful athlete may not do as well in the classroom as the less athletic sibling. Children are often born with different intellectual and physical aptitudes and abilities. That doesn't mean that any of these children are more valuable and more loved than the others. If Asians aren't particularly good sprinters but often excel at intellectual challenges they shouldn't be deemed less valuable for that and neither should those who have amazing athletic ability but are not the equal to Asians in the classroom.

In fact, it's the refusal to recognize differences that leads to racial animosities. If blacks are underrepresented in a particular field, the assumption is that it must be white racial prejudice that has excluded them, whether it is or not, and thus the remedy must be quotas, affirmative action, race-norming, and equal representation. These solutions, however, not only create mistrust between groups, but they also breed resentments among those who get to where they are because they have the ability to do it.

It also hampers and frustrates those who lack a physical or intellectual ability because they can't meet society's expectations for them.

Johnson said:

All my life I believed I became an athlete through my own determination, but it’s impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn’t left an imprint through the generations. Difficult as it was to hear, slavery has benefited descendants like me – I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us.

You may be right Michael, but you're raising an issue that our society is simply not mature enough to handle.

Curiosity's Motivation

You may have been wondering as you watched the amazing story of how NASA scientists landed the exploratory vehicle Curiosity on the surface of Mars why we were spending $2.5 billion to investigate the Red Planet. What was the chief purpose of the mission? Almost every spokesperson I heard talk about this said that what they hoped to achieve was to discover whether life could have at one time been present on Mars.

Okay, that's an interesting question, but $2.5 billion? Well, yes, when you understand that what's at issue here is not just a matter of scientific exploration but most importantly the need to buttress a major metaphysical or religious worldview.

David Klinghoffer explains:

Make no mistake, NASA has committed $2.5 billion to this little project in large part to satisfy a need in the culture of Big Science -- a culture that extends far beyond the professional ranks of actual scientists -- for validation of a particular worldview. In that worldview, life arises and evolves spontaneously -- it must do so -- reflecting no purpose or design, given a handful of (not especially elevated) ingredients and enough time.

In this Darwinian picture, life is nothing special. Countless men and women stake the meaning of their own lives, or rather the meaning they imagine and invest in their lives, on this idea. Yet two empirical problems intrude. First, the more science learns about the inner space of the cell with its "machinery" (for want of a better word), the more profoundly special life appears to be. Second, the Darwinian view requires, since life is so prosaic, that it should have arisen all around the cosmos, in intelligent and other forms, and probably in our own solar system too other than on Earth alone. Yet persistent efforts by SETI to detect evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence have conspicuously failed.

Turning from these discouraging data, NASA offers hope in the form of Curiosity and its mission. To shore up a beleaguered philosophical perspective, Darwinian materialists would be delighted -- no, tremendously relieved -- by the discovery of past or present Martian microbes. Failing that, they would receive news that life's "ingredients" have been found on Mars with reverent gratitude.

It's interesting that NASA is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to essentially seek confirmation of what is basically a religious doctrine, i.e. materialism. I wonder how much the government would be willing to spend to investigate the claim that there's a massive wooden barge frozen on Mt. Ararat. That would also confirm a major metaphysical belief, and there's at least some tenuous evidence that such an artifact is actually there, but I doubt that there'd be funds available to investigate that. Taxpayer money can only be used to support attempts to discredit traditional religion, not to reinforce it.

Anyway, Klinghoffer goes on to discuss why the discovery of evidence of Martian life would have no effect whatsoever on intelligent design theory and would really settle nothing in the debate between IDers and materialists. Give it a look.

How to Play Offense

Wayne Allyn Root, former Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate and graduate of Columbia University the same year as President Obama schools Mitt Romney on how to react to the Democrats' scurrilous attacks on his integrity, particularly the campaign being waged by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who has accused Romney of having paid no taxes for the decade between 2000 and 2010, and demanding that he release his tax returns (while refusing to release his own returns):

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then - Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia has ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s President of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

You'll have to go to the link at The Blaze to read Root's theory. If you don't like it how do you answer the questions Root poses?

Meanwhile, why is it that the Democrats are campaigning by slandering Romney, portraying him as the human incarnation of Lucifer, but are almost completely silent on why Mr. Obama deserves a second term? Why are they so willing to make the most outrageous slurs against Romney, suggesting he might be a "felon," holding him responsible for the death of an out-of-work steelworker's sick wife, as a new ad does, accusing him, with no evidence, of having paid no taxes for ten years, as Senator Reid is doing, but have nothing positive to say about Mr. Obama's last three years in office? Is dishonesty what now wins elections with the American electorate?

Splitting the Tasks

Debkafile has a reputation for being a little unreliable, but nevertheless this particular report makes sense. It's also interesting:

An authoritative US military source told debkafile Sunday, Aug. 5 that the American armed forces are standing ready for war with Iran. Without going into the thorny question of who should lead the operation to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, the US or Israel, it is understood that one of the US Air Force’s tasks will be to destroy Iran’s Shehab-3 ballistic missile batteries which have Israel and Saudi Arabia within range.

This task is not as formidable as Iranian spokesmen would have the world believe. Tehran’s entire stock of those missiles is no more than 30-40. That quantity is not nearly enough to take on the entire gamut of potential wartime foes, the United States Middle East bases, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey. They would quickly be picked off by American Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Israeli Arrow guided interceptor rockets, which are synchronized through the advanced US X-Band radar systems installed in the Israeli Negev and southeast Turkey.

There's more info on this at the link. I'm a little surprised that there's not more talk in the media about the impending war with Iran. It seems that if it happens, which it almost certainly will, it'll catch many Americans by surprise.

God and Quantum Physics

University of Delaware physicist Stephen Barr at Big Questions Online poses this thought-provoker: Does quantum physics make it easier to believe in God? Here's his prelude to his answer:

Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn’t provide an argument for the existence of God. But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or “physicalism”), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today’s world.

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities --- if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just “machines made of meat.”

Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things. No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism --- at least with regard to the human mind --- is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

How, one might ask, can quantum mechanics have anything to say about the human mind? Isn’t it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces? It is; but while minds cannot be measured, it is ultimately minds that do the measuring. And that, as we shall see, is a fact that cannot be ignored in trying to make sense of quantum mechanics. If one claims that it is possible (in principle) to give a complete physical description of what goes on during a measurement --- including the mind of the person who is doing the measuring --- one is led into severe difficulties. This was pointed out in the 1930s by the great mathematician John von Neumann. Though I cannot go into technicalities in an essay such as this, I will try to sketch the argument.

Barr goes on to show in what follows how, if there are no non-physical minds, i.e. if everything is material or physical, then the laws of quantum physics lead to the absurdities of the Many Worlds Hypothesis. He closes with this:

In the Many Worlds picture, you exist in a virtually infinite number of versions: in some branches of reality you are reading this article, in others you are asleep in bed, in others you have never been born. Even proponents of the Many Worlds idea admit that it sounds crazy and strains credulity.

The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.

If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?

In other words, the most common sense interpretation of quantum phenomena suggests that materialism is false and that mind is an ontologically real substance. If that's the case then there's good reason to think that the appearance of design in the cosmos is not appearance only, but rather a genuine product of intentional, conscious creative activity. And if that's the case we're on the threshold of acknowledging the existence of a Mind that sounds very much like the Mind described in Genesis 1.

If you have even just a basic understanding of quantum theory you'll find the rest of the article very interesting.

Stifling Business

Often someone will observe that government regulations are stifling business, but it's sometimes unclear as to exactly how and why. Rep. Tom Price has a column in the Washington Times in which he dots the i's and crosses the t's.

The cost is $1.75 trillion. That’s the price of complying with Washington red tape — and that’s not a misprint.

While the federal government has the responsibility to establish reasonable regulations to help protect the American people, federal rule-making is so costly and cumbersome that it actually impedes job creation and economic growth.

That grim reality comes into focus when one looks at the Federal Register, the official compilation of federal regulations. It’s only July, yet this year’s edition already is 41,662 pages long. Complying with these new rules will cost $55.6 billion and require 114.1 million paperwork hours to complete. That is money and time lost on unproductive activity — all done to avoid the punishing arm of an intrusive federal government.

President Obama boasts that he has taken major steps to improve America’s regulatory climate. The truth is that his administration has expanded the federal government’s reach and oppression. He has instituted four times the number of major regulations of President George W. Bush, and they cost five times as much.

A “major regulation” is one that federal agencies estimate will create an economic impact of more than $100 million annually. Since taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama has instituted 106 major new federal regulations, adding more than $46 billion in compliance costs for American families and businesses. That’s $46 billion taken out of a productive economy. No wonder jobs aren’t returning.

Follow the link for specific examples of regulations that are making it economically impractical for companies to hire new workers. Here are two of the biggest:

One of the most egregious red-tape initiatives of this administration is the Dodd-Frank law. According to the House Committee on Financial Services, just 224 of Dodd-Frank’s 400 rules have been written, and they already consume 7,365 pages. It will take job creators 24.2 million hours every year just to comply with the first half of Dodd-Frank regulations.

Another outrageous example is the president’s health care law, which greatly expands the government’s reach into every American’s life. This disastrous law will result in a minimum of $17.1 billion in regulations imposed on the private sector and $7.2 billion in compliance costs borne by the states.

Add to the regulatory burden the highest (or second highest) corporate tax rate in the world (35%) and it's little wonder that real unemployment continues to hover around 15%. That number could be substantially reduced with a few strokes of the presidential pen, but it'll never happen as long as Mr. Obama occupies the White House. High taxes and onerous regulations are embedded in his political marrow.

Simply Uninformed

Perhaps the person who posted this picture on the internet, along with the superimposed commentary, is still an adolescent in which case he/she may have an excuse for the ignorance and lack of thought it seems to evince:

After all, who does the poster of this pic think runs the food banks and homeless shelters? Readers of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? The secular Marxist/Leninists? Most ministries to the poor in this country are staffed by Christians. Most charitable giving is given by Christians. Many hospitals and retirement homes were founded and run by Christians.

A week before this unfortunate picture was circulated on the internet Glenn Beck held an event in Texas which included a day of service in which thousands of people from all over the country came to Texas to work among the poor, painting their houses, delivering food, etc. Fourteen tractor trailers loaded with food were sent off to 11 cities to help feed people.

Perhaps the poster of the above message didn't know about this, which is understandable since the major media hardly mentioned it - tens of thousands of people gathering to recapture a sense of community without the government being involved is evidently not something they deem newsworthy - but it happened, and perhaps our uninformed friend should visit this site to see a few pictures of part of the "Day of Service" and to find out what it is Christians are actually doing. Maybe he/she will be chagrined enough to want to take down the photo.

Drive-Thru Hero

Some people are so earnestly self-righteous that they just can't help embarrassing themselves. This particular example, a man named Adam Smith, is an adjunct professor at a college in Arizona and also CFO/Treasurer at Vante Corp. His idea of standing up for his convictions is to harangue a young woman, an employee at Chick-fil-A who has nothing to do with her employer's views on gay marriage.

Nor, by the way, are the CEO's personal views on gay marriage the views of Chick-fil-A as a corporation. CFA doesn't discriminate in their hiring nor in whom they will serve, but a lot of news coverage is treating CEO Dan Cathy's remarks about his personal beliefs as though they were corporate policy.

Anyway, this guy is so infatuated with his own moral superiority that he videotapes himself preparing to lecture a young employee on the hatefulness of her CEO's stand for traditional marriage and how he doesn't know how she can live with herself working for this company:

This noble warrior against hate then posted the video on YouTube where it outraged many, including his bosses at Vante who fired him yesterday, probably for being an obnoxious jerk.

Malevolent Design

Evolution News and Views has a Drew Berry TED Talk notable not only for the beauty of his art but also for its philosophical implications.

Berry is a biologist and computer animator and the structures and processes his videos illustrate are breathtaking. This particular video is also interesting, though, because the last couple of minutes shows via animation how malaria infects a human body. In my opinion, this animation poses difficulties for both creationists and Darwinian naturalists.

The creationist has a problem because he wants to say that an omnibenevolent God designed this, but if so why would a good God design such a manifestly horrible organism as the malaria parasite? The creationist may have an answer, to be sure, but the fact that he needs to answer this question suggests that his theory doesn't neatly accommodate phenomena such as this. Moreover, his answer may sound contrived or ad hoc to some.

The problem for the Darwinian naturalist is trying to come up with a plausible pathway by which the parasite and its behavior might have evolved solely by chance. Any explanation the naturalist proffers sounds like just so much pixie dust and magic wand waving.

The advocate of intelligent design, however, has no problem with this at all. Philosopher David Hume argued in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion that the existence of such organisms as the malaria parasite is strong evidence against the existence of a benevolent designer, but even if the designer is malevolent it's still an intelligent designer. Once it's accepted that the universe does indeed seem to be the product of intelligent agency then the discussion can move on to questions about the nature of that agent. In other words, the biological world certainly appears to be designed, just as the intelligent design theorist postulates, but whether the designer is benevolent or malevolent is not something upon which the ID advocate, qua scientist/philosopher, takes a stand.

Most IDers would, in their personal lives, seek to offer a theodicy similar to that of the creationist, but the important point is that ID, as a scientific or philosophical hypothesis, doesn't rely on any such theodicy being offered because it makes no claim as to the identity or moral nature of the designer. It merely makes this simple assertion: the world, both physical and biological, shows manifest evidence of having been intelligently designed. That some designs appear to be malicious is no more an argument against the design hypothesis than is the belief that nuclear weapons are horrible an argument against their having been designed.

Anyway, watch the video and marvel at what you see.

So Why Did He Do It?

Mona Charen reminds us of the climate of opinion surrounding the welfare reform debate in 1996. It's worth remembering:

Once safely elected, Clinton downgraded welfare reform, and, in fact, increased funding for all of the traditional welfare programs in the federal budget. But when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, they took the initiative. By 1996, after vetoing two welfare reform bills, Clinton was advised by Dick Morris that if didn't sign the legislation, he wouldn't be re-elected; it was that important to voters. Immediately after signing the bill, Clinton's approval rating on welfare jumped by 19 points.

The law changed the old AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, to TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In place of the open-ended entitlement to benefits for unmarried women and their children, the law imposed a five-year limit and the requirement that those able to work seek employment. In 2005, the work requirements were strengthened.

The prospect of asking welfare recipients to seek work struck most liberals in 1996 (including Obama) as degrading, cruel and doomed to failure. Three high-ranking Clinton administration officials resigned in protest. The New York Times called the reform "atrocious," objecting that "This is not reform, this is punishment." Tom Brokaw, interviewing the president, said "all the projections show that ... (the reform) will push, at least short term, more than a million youngsters ... below the poverty line." The Children's Defense Fund called the law "an outrage ... that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children ... and leave a moral blot on (Clinton's) presidency." Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan called the law "the most brutal act of social policy we have known since the Reconstruction. ... In five years' time, you'll find appearing on your streets abandoned children ... in numbers we have no idea." Sen. Edward Kennedy, with characteristic understatement, called the bill "legislative child abuse."

Well, what really happened? Welfare caseloads declined by 50 percent within four years of the law's passage and by 70 percent by the time Obama took office. The overwhelming majority of those who left welfare rolls did so because they found jobs -- and not just the worst jobs, either. By 2001, a Manhattan Institute study found, only 4 percent of former welfare mothers were earning minimum wage. The poverty rate declined from 13.8 percent in 1995 to 11.7 percent in 2003. Black child poverty dropped to its lowest levels in history. Childhood hunger was cut in half. It was the greatest social policy success of the past 50 years.

Sounds like just the sort of success story that both liberals and conservatives would want to take credit for, so why did President Obama undermine this manifestly successful program by issuing an executive order negating the work requirement? Charen thinks it's part of his plan to increase dependency on government:

Obama is trying to persuade Americans that while he has expanded food stamps to unprecedented levels, extended unemployment insurance to 99 weeks, vastly increased the already overwhelmed Medicaid program, created a new trillion dollar entitlement with Obamacare and expanded the size of the federal government to a percentage of gross domestic product not seen since World War II, that he is not the dependency president. [But] by stepping back into history to embrace the Democrats' nemesis -- unrestricted welfare -- he has clinched the argument for the opposition.

Some have suggested that what Mr. Obama is doing is reestablishing a kind of plantation slave culture, making the people on the government plantation completely dependent on the government for their every need. I don't think the comparison works, though. The slaves on the plantation at least were required to work.

Doing My Part

I went to Chick-fil-A today to do my part for free speech and traditional marriage. The nearest franchise to my home is about twenty minutes away, and I had never eaten there before. When I got there about 11:00 they were busy, but I got waited on almost right away. I placed my order, waited a couple of minutes to get my sandwich and drink, turned around to leave and the line stretched about thirty yards behind me down the mall. People were pouring in. I'll be surprised if the restaurant didn't run out of food. I understand it was like this all across the country today.

So what's it all mean? Well, at least this: People are getting tired of being told by liberal Democrats what's right and what's not. They're tired of being told that they have to not only tolerate gay marriage, but that they have to embrace it, and they dare not speak out in opposition to it.

Average people, the "silent majority," is fed up with the liberal thought police and political correctness, and when they have a chance to show their displeasure and stick their thumb in the eye of our political ayatollahs, they'll do it.

I also learned that Chick-fil-A makes a very tasty sandwich, and I think I'm going to go back.

Altruism and Atheism

In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado massacre one of the things we've learned is how a number of young men shielded their girlfriends from the bullets with their own bodies, some of them dying in the process.

These wonderful and amazing acts of altruistic heroism raise a question. On naturalism (atheism) what sense does it make to give up your life to save someone else's, particularly someone to whom you bear no genetic kinship? If the whole purpose in life is to produce offspring and pass one's genes into future generations then it seems that, on atheism, the morally correct thing would have been for these men to have hidden behind their girlfriends and let them take the bullets.

In other words, the atheist has no basis for saying that what these men did was "good" or admirable. The atheist, of course, can be glad there are altruistic heroes in society since he may one day benefit from another's selflessness, but if someone were to have acted selfishly in that situation by hiding behind his girlfriend, the atheist would have no basis for saying that that would be in any way a bad or wrong thing to do.

What most people consider noble, the atheist has no grounds for thinking noble at all and considerable grounds for thinking foolish, yet I'm sure most atheists do think the actions of these men in that theater were noble. That's why it's so difficult to live consistently as an atheist.

Liberal Solutions

This article in The Daily Caller affords us an example of why liberal/progressives are so hard to take seriously, or at least would be if they didn't have the power to impose their "solutions" on the rest of us.

African-American students find themselves in disciplinary trouble in school at rates out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. This is taken by progressives, including the president and attorney general, as strong evidence of institutional racism. It's evidently racist to expect blacks to behave at the same standard as do whites and Asians.

So what's the solution? For the left it's to allow blacks to go unpunished for offenses that will get whites and Asians suspended, or conversely, punish whites and Asians more severely for relatively minor offenses so that disciplinary actions like detentions, suspensions, and expulsions are more in line with those of black students.

Think of it as race-norming for bad behavior:

President Barack Obama is backing a controversial campaign by progressives to regulate schools’ disciplinary actions so that members of major racial and ethnic groups are penalized at equal rates, regardless of individuals’ behavior.

His July 26 executive order established a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

“African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline,” said the order, titled “White House Initiative On Educational Excellence.”

Because of those causes, the report suggests, “over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects.”

Of course not everyone sees the wisdom of giving black misbehavior a pass:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bader is a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and has sued and represented school districts and colleges in civil-rights cases.

“It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

A similar program in Maryland was approved by the state board of education last week:

The state’s board of education established a policy demanding that each racial or ethnic group receive roughly proportional level of school penalties, regardless of the behavior by members of each group.

The board’s decision requires that “the state’s 24 school systems track data to ensure that minority and special education students are not unduly affected by suspensions, expulsions and other disciplinary measures,” said a July 25 Washington Post report.

“Disparities would have to be reduced within a year and eliminated within three years,” according to the Post.

The state’s new racial policy was welcomed by progressives, including Judith Browne Dianis, a director of the D.C.-based Advancement Project. “Maryland’s proposal is on the cutting edge,” she told the Post.

Indeed it is on the "cutting edge" since the Advancement Project is a law firm that litigates race-related questions and stands to profit from laws and regulations that create race-related legal disputes. No wonder Ms Dianis is enthusiastic. The Project's website claims that:

“The combination of overly harsh school policies ... has created a ‘schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track,’ in which punitive measures such as suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests are increasingly used to deal with student misbehavior.... This is a racial justice crisis, because the students pushed out through harsh discipline are disproportionately students of color.”

Reading this can be disorienting for anyone who thinks rationally, but that's what we get when we keep electing these people to public office.

Never mind that 7 out of 10 black students come from fatherless homes whereas only 3 out of 10 whites/Asians do. Couldn't that be the reason for the disproportionate misbehavior. Evidently not. It's no doubt racist to assume that blacks are misbehaving at greater rates than other groups. The real problem, the liberals are convinced, must be that blacks are being punished more harshly than whites by racist school officials. Thus, schools must prove that they're not punishing blacks at higher rates than other groups even if black misconduct is higher than that of other groups, which anyone who has ever spent any time at all in public education knows is the case.

What's racist is the tacit assumption of everyone involved in this farce, from President Obama on down, that blacks simply can't be held to the same standards as everyone else, that they're simply not capable of conducting themselves in the same fashion as others. I can't think of anything more insulting to black people than this, but it's precisely what's implicit in this policy.

Nor can I think of anything more likely to cause non-black students to view their black counterparts with derision and contempt than to allow them to go unpunished for infractions for which others are punished simply because they're black.

These policies make it almost certain that our urban schools will continue to decline into chaos. It's no wonder that anyone who can, black, white and brown, is fleeing them.

Banning Guns

John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime and bête noir of those who want to ban firearms regardless whether or not it would actually do any good, offers a few interesting observations in the wake of Mr. Obama's call to ban semi-automatic weapons. His concluding paragraphs are especially good:

But despite Obama’s frightening image of military weapons on America’s streets, it is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new ban on “assault weapons” would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime.

Indeed, banning guns on the basis of how they look, and not how they operate, shouldn’t be expected to make any difference. And there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists that find the original federal assault-weapons ban to have reduced murder or violent crime generally.

There is no evidence that the state assault-weapons bans reduced murder or violent-crime rates either. Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people.

In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.

Nevertheless, the fears at the time were significant. An Associated Press headline warned, “Gun shops and police officers brace for end of assault weapons ban.” It was even part of the presidential campaign that year: “Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban.” An Internet search turned up more than 560 news stories in the first two weeks of September 2004 that expressed fear about ending the ban. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the fact that murder and other violent crime declined after the ban ended was hardly covered in the media.

If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that [patrons were] prohibited to carry guns into the theater.

The whole column is worth reading.

Many years ago I favored gun control. I even contributed to the Bradys' organization Handgun Control Incorporated and appeared on a local tv cable show to advocate for restrictions on rapid-fire weapons. But I was gradually convinced of three things: 1) People have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones, 2) where responsible citizens are allowed to own and carry weapons crime decreases, and 3) unless guns cease to be manufactured everywhere in the world no legal measure to limit them will accomplish anything other than to insure that the right of self-defense will be eroded.

When these three facts of life came together for me it completely reoriented my thinking.

This is not to say that there aren't reasonable restrictions which would pass constitutional scrutiny (evidently, anything is constitutional nowadays) and which could theoretically be legislated. I just believe that few of them would actually work in the real world, but what they could do is put the right to self-defense on a slippery slope that would eventually result in having that right abrogated altogether.

Until the millenial kingdom arrives that's a right we should fight to keep.

Indecision

It's hard to imagine that a president would have not one, not two, but three opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden and pass on all three, but that's apparently what President Obama did according to two-time New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter.

The Daily Caller discusses an excerpt from Miniter's forthcoming book Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him:

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears.

Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

The Obama campaign has portrayed the President in his decision to give the go-ahead to the SEALs as steely, gutsy and determined, but like so much else about this White House it seems that the actual wizard behind the curtain isn't at all what his minions portray him to be. Even so, I'd like to know exactly why the President declined to go after OBL on the first three occasions. Maybe he had a good reason, something more compelling, I hope, than just Valerie Jarrett's advice.