Forty Years Later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

The Princess

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

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

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

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

RLC

Explosive Film

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

The Atheist Delusion

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

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

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

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

RLC

Liars Club

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

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

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

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

RLC

Re: Documenting Hate

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

RLC

Yikes!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

As We Forgive

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

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

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

RLC

Lysenkoism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

Documenting Hate Is Hateful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

Internecine Warfare

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

Maybe the GOP should use it.

Hot Air has the details.

RLC

Bad Cells

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

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

RLC

Rappin' with Dicky Dawkins

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

Who thinks of this stuff?

HT: Uncommon Descent

RLC

Open Letter to the Religious Right

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the comments are pretty good as well.

RLC

What's Happening in Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

Surprising Truth Is No Surprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RLC

Intramural War

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more on the conflict at the link.

RLC

<i>Fitna</i> Update

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

RLC

Amateur Atheists

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

Haught writes:

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

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

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

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

RLC

Lyme Vaccine

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

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

RLC