Who's Telling the Truth?

We have repeated here claims made by others that Barack Obama voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have prevented abortion facilities from treating infants who survived abortions as though they were medical waste. The bill was in response to a case where a facility was discarding living children and allowing them to die.

Senator Obama was asked about this on Saturday evening by a reporter and claimed that those making this allegation are simply lying about his vote.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker adduces the record of the vote, however, and states that it's Obama who's lying. Lifson certainly seems to have the goods to back up his claim. He links the reader to the bill, the amended bill, and an almost identical bill that even NARAL supported that passed the U.S. Senate and which Obama says he would have supported had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time.

Lifson also shows the record of Obama's committee vote on the bill in the Illinois senate. It shows him voting for the amendment that would have granted protection for Roe v. Wade, a protection he insisted on, but after the amendment passed he voted against the bill itself, in effect denying protection to born infants.

The video of Obama insisting that the National Right to Life Committee is lying about his record is astonishing if in fact it is Obama who is misrepresenting the facts. Such convincing prevarication, if that's what it is, must make even Bill Clinton envious.

Despite Lifson's evidence, though, I'm still not prepared to conclude that Obama is consciously lying. It's possible, I suppose, that despite his degree from Harvard he's really not too bright and didn't know what he was voting for. It's also possible that the senator simply forgot this vote (although having voted "present" so much of the time one would think he'd remember the votes he actually did take a stand on). Nevertheless, if he sticks with his story that pro-life groups are lying about his vote against protecting new borns, he's either going to have to explain why the paper trail only seems to support his accusers or else forfeit altogether the presumption of integrity.

RLC

Doing Business the Old Way

William Voegeli at No Left Turns traces Senator Obama's rhetoric on fixing the social security problem. It turns out that despite what he said last year about Senator Clinton's reluctance to address social security, he himself appears to have no intention of fixing it at all.

This quote from last November is pretty funny given Senator Obama's numerous equivocations and tergiversations on other issues:

In an interview with National Journal on November 6, 2007, Obama said, "[The] American people have a right to judge how clear and how consistent have the candidates been in their positions. Because if they're not clear and consistent, then it's pretty hard to gauge how much they're going to fight on these issues. You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her. . . . [The] voters should be concerned that she is running the textbook, classic Washington campaign, which is to avoid giving clear answers and getting pinned down, for fear that somehow you're going to be tagged, either in the primary or the general election. I think that's an old way of doing business."

What Senator Obama calls the old way of doing business looks remarkably like his new way of doing business.

Read the whole article at NLT to see how the senator has retreated from each solution to the social security problem he's proposed until arriving at a position that is essentially no solution at all.

RLC

The "White" Party

Howard Dean said the other day that, "If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican party."

The "white" party. Good one.

Dean white party
by dollarsandsense123

Whatever the opportunities may be for blacks within the Democratic party I think a good case can be made that Democrat policies have been a disaster for blacks over the last forty years. Entitlement programs, to take but one example, have fostered a dependence on government that made black males superfluous in the lives of many poor women. This led to a disproportionate number of illegitimate births and single parent families. It also pushed black men into lives of promiscuity, drug abuse, and violence. The rarity of stable black two-parent families perpetuates poverty across the generations and spawns a host of dysfunctionalities, including misogyny and crime.

None of these problems existed in the black population to anywhere near the extent they do today prior to LBJ's Great Society of the 1960s. Black opportunity was severely and cruelly attenuated in the first half of the twentieth century, yet blacks had stronger families and much lower levels of male violence then than we find today. Six trillion dollars has been transferred from the American taxpayers to the American poor in the last fifty years, but poverty remains as obdurate as ever.

Mr. Dean may boast about the occasional bone Democrats throw to their African American serfs, like medieval royalty tossing coins from their carriages to the paupers in the streets, but Democrat policies have not only failed to alleviate their abject circumstances, they actually exacerbate them.

Why blacks stay in a party that keeps boasting about how it helps them while in fact doing little to give them the kind of opportunities they really need (e.g. committed, two-parent families, choice in schools, a sense of self-reliance) is one of the big mysteries of modern politics.

RLC

Sure

And what will the pretext be when they invade Ukraine?

HT: Ramirez

RLC

Never Mind

Given the recrudescence of Russian imperialism and conquest here's one campaign ad the Obama people are probably going to quietly abandon:

I wonder how many of these promises Senator Obama will be repeating over the next couple of months. Events have a way of making idealists look naive.

RLC

Back to the Fifties

Just when you thought Russia had outgrown its appetite for other peoples' territory it invades Georgia and then threatens Poland with nuclear destruction. What was Poland's offense? It has accepted American missiles designed to shoot down incoming ICBMs.

As Powerline pithily puts it:

Yesterday the U.S and Poland announced that after 18 months of negotiations, they have reached on an agreement whereby the U.S. will furnish Patriot missiles to Poland and will locate a missile interceptor base in that country.

This outraged Russia, which believes that it has the right to point missiles at its neighbors, but its neighbors have no right to defend themselves against those missiles.

Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, blustered that "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike-100 percent".

He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." That would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, Nogovitsyn said.

This is a little bit like the U.S. threatening Cuba or Venezuela with a nuclear attack because they install Russian made anti-aircraft systems.

All that remains to complete this unpleasant trip down memory lane is for Putin to go to the United Nations and bang his shoe on the lecturn, and for our own home grown Russian apologists to tell us how this is all our fault.

I don't know at this point whether Poland really has much to fear from the Russians, but if I were a Ukrainian I'd be very, very concerned.

RLC

The Prince and the Pariah

Kathryn Lopez at NRO writes an insightful piece on the reaction to the John Edwards scandal and asks a few incisive questions:

The reaction of the American Left to John Edwards's sex scandal is nothing short of flabbergasting. Since when is sex outside of marriage a disqualifier for merely speaking at a political convention? Since when is having sexual relations with that woman in your office anything wrong? Since when do we judge?

The difference here seems to be that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. So only fatal disease makes the bonds of marriage sacred?

Although the last thing I want to look to be doing is making excuses for adultery - what he did was wrong - the John Edwards incident begs Americans to look in the mirror. If we think what John Edwards did with Rielle Hunter is wrong, why do we think it's wrong? Because marriage is at the foundation of our society and we should do what we can to protect every last one? Or simply because having fun while your wife is fighting a fatal disease is a lousy thing to do?

I don't know how we can condemn John Edwards when Americans have been known to cheer for cheaters in movies, watch celebs do it all the time as a form of perverse entertainment, and even insist we're not sure what exactly "marriage" means.

There's another question about this sordid business that K-Lo doesn't ask but might have: Why is Edwards banished from the Democratic convention but Bill Clinton is awarded a prominent role to play? Edwards isn't a past president, to be sure, but he's not nobody either. Surely his infidelity was no worse nor more embarrassing to the party than the revelations of Clinton's priapic predilections, including credible allegations of rape and sexual assault. People say they're upset that Edwards lied to them about his affair, but so did Clinton - under oath, no less. Yet Clinton will be feted and honored like a prince of the party while Edwards is left to slink home a political pariah.

Liberals sure seem confused when it comes to morality in general and sexual morality in particular.

HT: Jason.

RLC

God's Politics

It's a good thing to be able to find silver linings in dark clouds, but Jim Wallis at Sojourners reminds me of the guy who has been wiped out by thugs and yet praises them for not punching him in the nose during the robbery.

The Democrats have come forward with their platform plank on abortion, and Wallis is delighted that they affirm the right of a woman to choose to have a child if she wants it:

The Democratic platform has taken an important first step. They took an important step beyond the traditional position on Roe vs. Wade by also supporting a woman's decision to have her child.

Why, isn't this wonderful. The Democrats recognize that a woman should be supported in her decision to bear a child that she's carrying. The big tent Dems recognize that a pregnant woman shouldn't feel obligated to have an abortion, and Wallis sees this as a noteworthy act of good will instead of the window into the liberal heart of darkness that it is.

Republicans have long made a strong opposition to abortion a central issue in their platforms and campaigns. Yet their symbolic commitment to making abortion illegal, even with a Republican in power, hasn't made any change in the rate of abortions in America.

Somebody needs to inform Mr. Wallis that it takes a lot more than having a pro-lifer in the White House to get Roe v. Wade changed. The way to reduce the number of abortions is to let each state decide it's own policy, and that means we must have Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe, and that takes more than just a pro-life president, although it certainly does take that.

Of course, it is now up to the Democratic candidate to interpret the platform and shape the issue. In an interview with Christianity Today, Barack Obama said, "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it."

It's passing strange that in talking about Barack Obama's views on abortion Mr. Wallis neglects to mention that as an Illinois state senator Mr. Obama actually voted against a bill that would have prevented infanticide.

Is Jim Wallis really the non-partisan prophet he fancies himself or is he just carrying pro-choice water? It's hard to believe that passing up an opportunity to castigate a politician who voted to let babies die a slow death is God's Politics.

RLC

Big Fish

ABC's Brian Ross has some interesting thoughts on the capture in Afghanistan of an MIT graduate named Aifia Siddique. The woman is apparently a major terrorist and the data obtained from her apprehension provides a "treasure trove" of information on al Qaeda operations both abroad and within our borders. There are also some possible links to the Democrat convention in Denver this month:

When she was arrested in Afghanistan last month, Aafia Siddique allegedly had in her possession maps of New York, a list of potential targets that included the Statue of Liberty, Times Square, the subway system and the animal disease center on Plum Island, detailed chemical, biological and radiological weapon information that has been seen only in a handful of terrorist cases, as well as a thumb drive packed with emails, ABC News has learned.

That haul of information has led multiple government sources to describe Siddique, a 36 year-old MIT graduate, as a potential "treasure trove" of information on terrorist supporters, sympathizers or 'sleepers' in the United States and overseas.

"She is the most significant capture in five years," said former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who said she lives up to her reputation as an alleged terrorist 'Mata Hari.'

Exit question for liberals: Suppose the authorities had good reason to believe she had knowledge of a mass terror attack planned against the Democratic convention in Denver. Thousands of Democrats' lives hung in the balance. Should she have been waterboarded if that was the only way to elicit the information?

RLC

What Hillary Wants II

Maureen Dowd knows precisely what Hillary wants and skewers her for it in this essay in the International Herald Tribune. Dowd writes:

While Obama was spending three hours watching "The Dark Knight" five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring "Aloha attire" and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

You can almost hear her mind whirring: She's amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn't eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.

Now they've made Barry's convention all about them - their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can't win! He can't close the deal! We told you so!

Hillary's orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.

Hillary feels no guilt about encouraging her supporters to mess up Obama's big moment, thus undermining his odds of beating John McCain and improving her odds of being the nominee in 2012.

She's obviously relishing Hillaryworld's plans to have multiple rallies in Denver, to take out TV and print ads and to hold up signs in the hall that read "Denounce Nobama's Coronation."

Read the rest at the link.

During the nineties when the Clintons were in power they could do no wrong. The left apologized and defended everything they did. Hillary was a heroine, a wonderful role model for women. But now she stands in the way of the coronation of a young charismatic black man who's much more reliably left than they perceive her to be, and she's quickly becoming the crazy aunt in the attic. They can't get rid of her, but they certainly wish she'd go away.

Here's a challenge for the historically minded: Name one Democrat who attained a position of prominence in the last forty years but is no longer in that position today, who is still admired in the Democratic party. I can think only of Al Gore, but he doesn't really count since he's probably more prominent today than he was as Vice President.

RLC

Voting for Infanticide

Senator Obama is striving to appear more moderate on a number of issues than his voting record permits. One of those issues is abortion/infanticide. As an Illinois senator Obama voted against a bill that would have prohibited facilities performing abortions to let infants which survived the attempt to kill them die from exposure. His vote was, in essence, a vote for infanticide, but his campaign is arguing that Obama voted against the bill only because it lacked certain provisions which would have protected Roe v. Wade.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air concludes, though, that Obama is not telling the truth about this. Not only did the bill contain the relevant provisions, Morrissey tells us, Obama himself chaired the committee that had them inserted.

Nevertheless, even if this were not so, how does anyone justify voting against a bill that would have protected the lives of babies who would otherwise be left to die from lack of care?

RLC

Sgt. Luis Rosa-Valentin

Last spring my brother's wife's nephew suffered terrible wounds in Iraq. An IED took both of his legs, an arm, and his hearing. Ever since, he has been in Walter Reed hospital trying to get his life back together. He's an outstanding young man with a great attitude, as can be seen in this NBC News segment on him which aired on last night's newscast:

His name is Sgt. Luis Rosa-Valentin, and as you can imagine he will have a lot of expenses even after the assistance the military is providing. My sister (who is 60!) is training for a marathon which is a fund raiser for wounded soldiers and Marines. I copied the following from a letter she sent out and thought that some Viewpoint readers might like to help:

Luis is the proud father of a small daughter. His mother, who is a school teacher, had to leave work in order to be with Luis at Walter Reed while he recovered. Because his parents live within a 50 mile radius of Walter Reed, they are not eligible for the stipend available to immediate family members who travel to see their loved ones in the hospital. His parents' home, where he is currently staying on the weekends, must be renovated to accommodate a wheelchair. There will be months of rehab and expenses that the family will take on that the government will not cover.

For this reason, I have started a benefit fund for Luis and his parents at Fulton Bank and am asking all those who supported me in the past, as I prepared for and ran the marathon, to dig deep and agree to sponsor me one more time, as I run in honor of Luis.

As usual, the race is a 26.2 mile course. It will be run on Sunday, October 26th. You can show your support with a pledge per mile, or a flat sum donation, in care of the Luis Rosa-Valentin Benefit Fund at any Fulton Bank. You can take it directly to any branch, or mail it to Fulton Bank, 1 Market Square, Manheim, PA 17545. Direct your contribution to the attention of Cherie Melhorn.

I have never met Luis, but have learned a good deal about him as I planned this fund raiser during the past few weeks (You can learn more about him by accessing this web site). In addition to being a devoted father, he was dedicated to the military that he loved, and proud to serve his country. Barely out of high school when he joined the army, he knew that this was all he had ever wanted to do as a career. In spite of his injuries, he has no regrets about his decision, and says he would do it all over again if he could. His attitude is so positive, saying that he is very happy to be alive. He feels he has a whole lot of life ahead and he plans to live it. His Aunt Nora (my brother's wife) recently told us that his motto is "Know God. No fear." Luis has sacrificed so much for us, I am proud to run this race on his behalf.

Luis has an amazingly positive outlook on his future, and it's just remarkable that our country produces so many young men like him.

RLC

Greatest Woman

Peter Lawler at No Left Turns notes that Mother Teresa is considered the greatest woman of the 20th century and invites us to ponder this question: Who was the greatest female artist, novelist, poet, or philosopher of the 20th century?

Well, my vote for novelist and philosopher goes to the same woman: Ayn Rand - not because I'm particularly fond of either her main ideas or her books, but because no woman that I can think of has been more successful as a writer or more influential as a thinker. Atlas Shrugged, I read somewhere, has sold more copies in the U.S. than any book other than the Bible, and Randian devotees can be found everywhere in government and business.

I don't know that this is a good thing, but there you have it. Anybody have any other nominations?

RLC

We're All Georgians

I took my daughter to see John McCain live at the townhall meeting yesterday in York, Pa. It was quite a show with warmup speeches by Senators Arlen Specter and Joe Leiberman and former governor Tom Ridge. When he took the stage Senator McCain chose to give a disquisition on the situation in Georgia. It was ironic that while Senator Obama vacationed in Hawaii and President Bush was taking in the Olympics in Beijing, it fell to Senator McCain to address the Russian aggression against the small democracy of Georgia:

It wasn't hard to imagine Obama being more polished, but it was almost impossible to imagine him giving a speech on any matter of foreign policy whose content was comparable to this one. The speech was directed at the conflict in Georgia, but it certainly made Senator Obama, who wasn't even mentioned, seem diminished and irrelevant.

RLC

What Does Hillary Want?

I was listening to the local talk radio show the other day and the host asked his guest the question, "What does Hillary want?" The question was prompted by the New York senator's hot and cold behavior toward the Obama campaign. The guest on the show said that she wanted recognition at the convention, etc., but I think this is all short term stuff. What Hillary wants, of course, is to be president, and as long as we keep that before us her strange behavior makes complete sense.

Assume with me that I am correct about her goal. Assume, too, that the Clintons really are as Machiavellian as even the liberal press is beginning to suggest. If so, then she probably sees that her best chance of reaching her goal is to have Obama lose in November.

If he does, Senator Clinton will have an almost uncontested road to the nomination in 2012, and McCain, if he wins, may well choose to serve only a single term. Thus, she may be running against a non-incumbent 2012. If Obama wins in November it would kill her hopes of ever becoming president since her chances of unseating him in the 2012 primaries would be nil.

Thus, it is in her interest to see to it that Obama loses, but she must give the impression that she's working in support of his campaign in order not to alienate the Democratic base. She must walk a tightrope, publicly supporting Barack and privately undermining him.

In light of this strategy, what we should look for from her in the weeks ahead is lip-service to the Obama election campaign, but lukewarm effort on his behalf. We might also anticipate a few stilettos to Obama's political ribs from Hillary's surrogates, not least her husband, but most of the damage will be inflicted outside of the public's view.

RLC

What's to Like?

A couple of days ago I wrote that a particular column by Jonah Goldberg, "tends to make postmodernism seem arrantly bad. It's not, but lots of it is...."

My friend Jason wrote to inquire what it was about postmodernism that I thought congenial. Here's my reply:

You ask a good question, Jason: What is there to like about postmodernism? The answer is not much, but there are a couple of things. First, though, I agree with you that postmodernism is a dead end, but like everything (even communism!) it's not completely bad.

I think, for example, that the postmodern critique of the "Enlightenment project" is partly correct. Modernity adopted the Enlightenment view that the world could be objectively known through our reason and known with certainty. It holds that the scientific method is the only way to genuine knowledge. Modernity thus tended to diminish the role of faith and led to religious skepticism.

Postmodern thinkers reject the idea of "objective" knowledge and argue that what we "know" is largely conditioned by our historical, social, cultural, economic perspective. I think they're right about that. They're also skeptical of the power of human reason to yield certainty and also our ability to experience the world as it really is. It's much more open to faith and very skeptical of "scientism". I think they're at least partly correct about these things as well.

Finally, I think they're right that people are persuaded to change their minds more by story, testimony, music, art and film than they are by logical argumentation. In other words, people are more effectively reached through their hearts than through their heads. This has profound implications for evangelism, of course.

It could be objected that none of what I've said I agree with here is really new and that therefore it's a bit of a stretch to call these ideas "postmodern" as if they were recent discoveries. I agree. I tell my students that what is new about postmodernism is not good, and what is good is not new. Even so, these are frequently assumed to be elements of the postmodern mindset, and since I agree with them I have to say that I don't think that what is usually meant by "postmodernism" is entirely misguided.

The problem with postmodernism is not that it doesn't contain some good but rather that the good is far outweighed by its problematic consequences. For example, postmodernism leads, in my view, to epistemological, moral and metaphysical nihilism.

What I mean by that is this: Since postmodernism relativizes and subjectivizes truth then the idea of truth loses all meaning. Truth is whatever one, or the group with which one identifies, feels most strongly about. From this it's but a short step to the conclusion that there is no real truth, just feelings.

If this is so, then there's no real truth about morals and thus morality becomes subjectivized as well. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me and nothing is right for everyone. It's all a matter of how we feel about things.

Further, if there's no objective truth, something which is true regardless of how anyone feels about it, then the claim that God exists is not objectively true. If we cannot say that God exists (except in our own personal world) we have no ground for meaning in our life. Life is just a series of pointless events and then we die.

Thus postmodernism leads to the conclusion that nothing has meaning, nothing has value, nothing matters. The consequences of this are far more corrosive to individual life and to our social well-being than the positive aspects of postmodernism mentioned above are beneficial to it.

RLC

Coin Flips

One of the cosmic parameters that scientists have determined must have an extremely precise value if the universe is going to exist at all is one called the dark energy density. This refers to an exotic form of energy that must be present in the universe but which is undetectable by direct observation. The value is fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power and the odds against it having emerged by chance are, according to science writer Paul Davies, the same as the odds of getting 400 consecutive heads on a coin flip.

This is pretty stunning, especially when the necessary values of other parameters are taken into consideration. Davies is impressed by the sheer improbability of a universe so exquisitely precise having arisen by chance, but not wanting to explain how the astronomically improbable becomes actual by positing an intelligent creator that no one can detect, he instead posits a near infinite number of "pocket" universes that no one can detect. With so many universes existing, and assuming the universes would all be different (but why make that assumption?), the odds of one like ours appearing would improve to the point of an almost certainty.

This is called the multiverse hypothesis, and as we've noted before, this is an act of intellectual desperation, but let's play along. Assume there are a near infinite number of universes exhibiting a near infinite variety of physical constants, laws, and other states of affairs. If so, then any possible state of affairs would have to exist somewhere among them. The existence of a maximally great being is a possible state of affairs, therefore in at least one of our pocket universes it must be true to say that a maximally great being exists. But if a being is maximally great it must exist not just in one universe but in every universe, otherwise it's not maximally great. Thus if there are a near infinite number of universes there must exist a maximally great being (i.e. God) which created them all.

In other words, resorting to the multiverse hypothesis to escape the conclusion that our universe is intentionally designed is like trying to disprove the existence of gravity by tossing a ball into the air. One winds up demonstrating the very explanation one sought to avoid.

RLC

Another Blow to the Principle of Mediocrity

There's an assumption made by scientists who study the cosmos that our sun, planet, solar system, galaxy, and our location in these are all pretty much the norm in the universe. There's nothing special about where we are or the conditions which exist in our galactic neighborhood. Our planet and our place in the universe are, it has been said, mediocre.

Unfortunately, for adherents to the Principle of Mediocrity, this idea has become more difficult to maintain of late, having suffered numerous insults at the hands of research scientists themselves over the past several decades. Books like Rare Earth and Privileged Planet summarize their findings and make a powerful case that the earth is special indeed in a host of important ways.

Now comes news that not only are planets like our earth probably quite rare in the universe so are solar systems like ours. Science Daily reports on an article scheduled to appear in an upcoming edition of the journal Science:

Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.

The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened -- like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.

Solar systems must be similar to ours if life is going to flourish in them. For instance, ours is a relatively stable system compared to what almost every other system is like. Also, the large gas giants in the outer regions of our solar system act as vacuum sweepers attracting meteors and comets into their bosoms and protecting the earth from their impact. The distribution of the planets and the size of the sun ensure that gravitational effects do not exert a destructive influence on the earth's orbit. The list goes on, but read what Science Daily says:

The [computer] simulations suggest that an average planetary system's origin is extremely dramatic. The gas disk that gives birth to the planets also pushes them mercilessly toward the central star, where they crowd together or are engulfed. Among the growing planets, there is cut-throat competition for gas, a chaotic process that produces a rich variety of planet masses.

Also, as the planets approach each other, they frequently lock into dynamical resonances that drive the orbits of all participants to be increasingly elongated. Such a gravitational embrace often results in a slingshot encounter that flings the planets elsewhere in the system; occasionally, one is ejected into deep space. Despite its best efforts to kill its offspring, the gas disk eventually is consumed and dissipates, and a young planetary system emerges.

"Such a turbulent history would seem to leave little room for the sedate solar system, and our simulations show exactly that," said Rasio. "Conditions must be just right for the solar system to emerge."

Too massive a gas disk, for example, and planet formation is an anarchic mess, producing "hot Jupiters" and noncircular orbits galore. Too low-mass a disk, and nothing bigger than Neptune -- an "ice giant" with only a small amount of gas -- will grow.

"We now better understand the process of planet formation and can explain the properties of the strange exoplanets we've observed," said Rasio. "We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special."

"The solar system had to be born under just the right conditions to become this quiet place we see. The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different."

The more we learn about the cosmos and about life the more difficult it is to think that it's all just a fortuitous accident and the easier it is to think that conscious purpose lies behind it all.

Artist's rendition of the formation of the solar system

Graphic representation of the solar system (not to scale)

RLC

Bedrock

Marriage between a man and a woman may have had value fifty years ago, but today it's just one option among several. Children can get along just as well without dad around. The family is a quaint anachronism. Those are opinions one heard frequently in the seventies and eighties but less so today. The research being done on the importance of a two parent family is just too hard to ignore. Rebecca Hagelin talks about what we've learned about the family and why it matters that children live with both parents. Here's an excerpt:

Adolescents in intact families, for example, perform better on a number of measures when compared with their counterparts in non-intact families. As family expert Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation notes, children in intact families "have better health, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems." Their peers in non-traditional households, meanwhile, "are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and emotional problems, lower academic achievement, and drug use."

This is not to say that being raised in an intact family is a guaranteed ticket to success, or that children in non-traditional families have no hope of doing well. But as a group, the odds strongly favor the children raised in intact families. It's really a question of giving our children the best possible chance to succeed. Cohabiting couples may wish it were otherwise, but in general their lifestyle doesn't serve their children -- or the wider society in which they are raised -- as well as the traditional family does.

In our headlong rush to escape traditional morality and social structures we've jettisoned the wisdom of two millenia because a) we wanted to and b) a few social scientists told us it was outmoded and unnecessary. Dumb.

HT: Jason.

RLC

Fighting in Georgia

If trying to figure out what's going on with the current fighting between Russia and Georgia has you puzzled Strategy Page has a succinct primer on the situation there. Read it, and in four minutes you'll know more about the conflict than 99 out of 100 of your fellow Americans.

UPDATE: This letter from the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, on the genesis of the conflict there is a must read. Read it and you'll know more than 499 out of 500 Americans.

RLC