Bowing to Them Didn't Help

Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, has some strong words for the worldview of his fellow liberals in a column at The New Republic, a liberal opinion journal. He notes that in the Arab world the U.S. is actually more unpopular and less respected under President Obama, who made it a point to be the unBush, than it was under President Bush.

In an article titled What Obama and American Liberals Don’t Understand About the Arab Spring Hamid writes:

It is worth noting that Bush’s short-lived embrace of Mideast democratic reform—despite his deep personal unpopularity throughout the region—did not appear to hurt the Arab reform movement, and, if anything, did the opposite. This is something that reformers themselves reluctantly admit.

In 2005, at the height of the first Arab spring, the liberal Egyptian publisher and activist Hisham Kassem said, “Eighty percent of political freedom in this country is the result of U.S. pressure.” And it isn’t just liberals who felt this way. Referring to the Bush administration’s efforts, the prominent Muslim Brotherhood figure Abdel Moneim Abul Futouh told me in August 2006, “Everyone knows it....We benefited, everyone benefited, and the Egyptian people benefited.”

Liberals had often told the world—and, perhaps more importantly, themselves—that the Bush administration’s destructive policies were a historic anomaly. When a Democrat was elected, America would undo the damage. For many liberals, including myself, this was what Obama could offer that no one else could—a president with a Muslim name, who had grown up in a Muslim country, who seemed to have an intuitive understanding of the place of grievance in Arab public life.

But, after President Obama’s brief honeymoon period, the familiar disappointments returned. In a span of just one year, the number of Arabs who said they were “discouraged” by the Obama administration’s Middle East policies shot up from 15 percent to 63 percent, according to a University of Maryland/Zogby poll.

By the time the protests began in December 2010, attitudes toward the U.S. had hit rock bottom. In several Arab countries, including Egypt, U.S. favorability ratings were lower under Obama than they were under Bush. Indeed, an odd current of “Bush nostalgia” had been very much evident in Arab opposition circles. In May 2010, a prominent Brotherhood member complained to me: “For Obama, the issue of democracy is fifteenth on his list of priorities....There’s no moment of change like there was under Bush.”

Liberals want Arabs to like us. Conservatives want Arabs to respect us. The former will never happen no matter what we do. The latter will happen to the extent that we remain strong and adhere to our principles of encouraging freedom and democracy around the world. In the Arab world as elsewhere, the people will always follow the strong horse and despise the weak one, but strength is not a virtue among liberals. It is to many of them a symptom of imperialism, hegemony, and inegalitarianism.

Thus the current administration has chosen to "lead from behind," to give the world the impression that we see ourselves as a nation in decline and that the last thing we want to do is promote and push our values onto other cultures. It's feared by our leadership that such would be taken as an insult, but to those who have given or risked their lives in Tahrir Square American political values are, as they were for the Chinese at Tiananmen Square, a source of hope and inspiration.

Arabs don't like us, the call us kafir (infidel), but it is to us - not Russia, not China, not other Arab countries - they turn when they yearn for freedom and need help.

Read Hamid's column. It really is insightful.

Tempest in a Teapot?

My good friend Byron writes to chastise me for posting the story of Governor Beverly Purdue of North Carolina who recently suggested that we suspend elections so that politicians could concentrate on solving our problems without having to worry about what the voters would think. Byron thinks that I go too far in averring that Ms Purdue's comment is symptomatic of an inclination toward totalitarianism in the heart of many progressives. Here's the gravamen of his complaint:

Really, why even write about this? You say that there is a totalitarian impulse deep in the heart of many a liberal. Maybe that is a quote that someone ought to distance themselves from, for that matter, as it strikes me as remarkably rude to accuse nearly half of your fellow citizens of such nefarious impulses. And, frankly, unfounded, I'd say. I'm glad, Dick, that you did say you were not accusing anyone of really planning such a move (to cancel elections) as some fellow conservative bloggers do imply (yes, I've seen them, alarmist, conspiratorial blogs suggesting this is really what Obama has in mind.)

So, if you admit this isn't really any plan of anybody, and is just a dumb comment, why try to make a point out of it, as if it stands for something significant? You've joined the chorus of those making undue political, partisan hay out of this tepid tempest in a teapot. I have a limited amount of time to read on-line each day and I turn to Viewpoint for important insights about important stuff. You have better things to write about. Please stop wasting our time by exposing goof-ball stuff that is said here and there as if it matters. If ten more influential people agree with her, if she shows no remorse, if you even show reasonably that this is some significant trend, I'll eat my words.

For now, though, it seems to me that you've needlessly dignified her comments and you ... have offered just more Hot Air over something that will be forgotten next week. (I suspect you will think I am unfair for saying you are wasting time writing about this kind of nonsense, that your bigger point is that liberals have these tendencies.

You have made that point before, but you should know that drawing this implication from a statement that, if asked, nearly every other elected Democrat would disagree with, is a stretch. No, they may not think it necessary to renounce her---why bother, it's crazy talk, and we all know it! But if you polled other leaders if they, too, want to cancel elections, you won't find many, I'm sure. Which is to say this lurking desire for totalitarianism you accuse your neighbors and friends of is not as dangerous or maybe not as real as you alleged.)

In my defense I offer the following points:

It's manifestly true that there's a penchant on the left for controlling people's lives and that the further left along the ideological spectrum one travels the greater is the desire for control. This seems to me to be inarguable. The yearning to regulate what we can say, what we can eat, what kind of light bulbs we use, what our thermostats should be set at, what kind of car we drive, where we can pray, where we can send our kids to school, and much else emanates from the left. Each of these represents a chipping away of human freedom and each is a step, if only a tiny step, in the direction of total government control of our lives.

Secondly, if a particular post is a "waste" of one's time then the obvious course is simply to move on to something else. To write a lengthy email saying how a post was a waste of one's time seems itself to be rather a waste of one's time. No one is going to find every post on any blog worth reading.

Oddly, Byron himself has a fine blog on which he writes, sometimes at great length, about books. I think it would be very peculiar if a reader who found one of his posts to be of little interest to complain that an essay about a certain genre of books wasted his time. I'm sure Byron would advise his correspondent to just not read it.

Thirdly, Bev Purdue is not a nobody in the Democrat party. She is the governor of a major state. What she says is just as important, and just as revealing of the sorts of ideas circulating among her peers as are the thoughts of, say, Arizona's governor. Jan Brewer. Anyone that high up in the party hierarchy represents, and gives voice to, the ideas of a constituency of millions.

Fourthly, even if it's true that no other party leader would admit to sharing her views, as Byron alleges, that doesn't mean much. What people think and what they will admit to are often two different things. It's an article of faith among liberals, for example, that the number of racists in this country is far greater than the number of people who'll admit to being racist. Of course people won't admit to wanting to suspend elections, just like they won't admit to being racist, even if they'd like to see it done. They realize that they'd look like kooks if they did.

Finally, I write about things that interest me. That's what a blog is for. I don't write about what I think would interest somebody else. If a reader thinks that calling attention to the thinking of a major politician in this country is not important, that's up to them, but I think it is important, and, as President Bush once said, I'm the decider.

Raptor Cuisinart

The American Bird Conservancy highlights what certainly appears to be a double standard in the enforcement of our wildlife laws. According to a Conservancy press release:

The United States Attorney in North Dakota has charged seven oil companies in seven separate cases with violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the illegal killing of 28 migratory birds. Yet, American Bird Conservancy – the nation’s leading bird conservation organization – reports that the wind industry, despite killing more than 400,000 birds annually, has yet to face a single charge.

The oil-related bird deaths, which included members of twelve different species, occurred between May 4 and June 20, 2011. The statutory maximum sentence for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is six months in federal prison and a $15,000 fine. The date for the initial appearances for the seven companies is set for September 22, 2011, in United States District Court, Bismarck, North Dakota.

“I commend the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department for enforcing the law in these cases. Oil pits are a known hazard to birds and the solutions to prevent these bird deaths are straightforward to implement,” said American Bird Conservancy President George Fenwick. “It is perplexing that similar prosecutions have yet to be brought against the operators of wind farms. Every year wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds, including eagles, hawks, and songbirds, but the operators are being allowed to get away with it. It looks like a double standard.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimated in 2009 that about 440,000 birds were being killed by wind turbines. With an anticipated twelve-fold wind energy build-out by the year 2030, bird mortality is expected to dramatically increase in the coming years, absent significant changes in the way wind farms are sited and operated. Based on studies, one wind farm in California is estimated to have killed more than 2,000 eagles, plus thousands of other birds, yet no prosecution has been initiated for violations of federal laws protecting birds.

Wind turbine blades kill big birds by whacking them. They also kill thousands of bats by creating sudden low pressure which causes the bats' lungs to explode, but wind turbines are "green" energy producers so apparently they get a pass. Meanwhile, those nasty oil companies responsible for the demise of a couple dozen ducks must be punished to the full extent of the law. The bureaucratic mindset really is a thing to behold.

Here's a video showing how large, soaring birds like raptors are especially vulnerable to the turbine's blades:

There are many threats to birds in the modern landscape: Cell phone and radio towers, tall buildings, feral cats, cars, toxins etc. but few things threaten the large birds like wind turbines.

At any rate, the question is why single out oil companies for stiff fines for the harm they cause, which is relatively minor, and give every other source of harm, many of them far more serious, a shrug?

Reservations Concerning the Death of Awlaki

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with people like Dennis Kucinich and the ACLU, but when Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen last week by a U.S. military missile strike I think we created a problem and those who brought the problem to our attention have a legitimate point.

First, though, I give credit to President Obama for green-lighting the CIA's and the U.S. military's war on terror and for targeting terrorists wherever they're found around the world. I don't think anyone on the right or the left foresaw in 2008 that he would pursue such an aggressive policy. Terrorists are a cancerous tumor in the body of civilization and their eternal reward, whatever it is, needs to be expedited.

Second, I give the military credit for finding and killing Anwar al-Awlaki. He was a particularly virulent form of cancer, and I admire the skill and effort made to track him and bring an end to his lethal activities against the American people.

But that brings me to the problem. Awlaki and a companion who was also killed in the attack were American citizens, and I have serious misgivings about handing the president, any president, the power to simply execute, without some form of due process, any American citizen deemed to be a threat to the country.

Frankly, I'm surprised that neither the progressive left nor the tea party right seems overly concerned about this since the former was extremely upset about mistreatment of non-citizen enemy combatants at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and the latter has a very deep commitment and fidelity to the Constitution.

Nevertheless, people on both sides of the ideological divide seem to be averting their eyes from the camel's nose insinuating itself into the tent of our constitutional protections and creating an opening for real executive abuse by some future president.

By all means the Awlakis of the world should be put out of business, but we need some sort of standard or procedure, involving all three branches of government, not just administration lawyers, that would insure that such operations do not create a precedent for the erosion of constitutional safeguards, particularly the Fifth Amendment which guarantees that no American citizen will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The enemy today may be a terrorist, but tomorrow it could be anyone who opposes a president or his policy, whether foreign or domestic. It could be the rich, or the religious, the Wall Street protestor or the abortion clinic demonstrator. We must not allow our government to start us down the road that leads us there.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I don't know exactly what provisions can be put in place to prevent this, or how they may be established, but Washington is full of such experts, including one in the Oval Office. We should be demanding that they get about the business of building a firewall around the protections guaranteed to American citizens in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. There is bipartisan consensus that the death of Awlaki was necessary. There should also be bipartisan consensus on the need to find a way to insure that such measures don't become a habit.

Re: Yousef Nadarkhani

We received a lot of feedback about Friday's post on the impending execution of Yousef Nadarkhani. Carol did some research and has come up with additional thoughts on the situation. She writes:

I think it's important to remember that this ordeal has been going on since October of 2009 when Nadarkhani was arrested for a charge of illegal protest when he questioned Islamic control over religious instruction at his children's school. This charge was increased to apostasy and evangelizing Muslims, which is a capital offense in Iran.

It is also important to recognize the others who have been affected by this situation. Not only has Nadarkhani been imprisoned during these past two years of trials and appeals, but his wife was also convicted and sentenced to life in prison. What is happening with their children? Are they with living with loving relatives, or are they being persecuted for their faith as well?

And human rights lawyer, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah, deserves respect for his courage to defend Nadarkhani despite charges of "actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime." He has been sentenced to 9 years in prison and barred from practicing law for the next decade. There are probably many other (unnamed) people involved, and (untold) sacrifices being made, to defend Christianity in Iran.

A Washington Times editorial reports that "When asked to repent of Christianity, Nadarkhani said, 'repent means to return. What should I return to?' The court replied, 'return to the religion of your ancestors, Islam.' Nadarkhani answered, 'I cannot.' He also wrote from prison, 'Let us remember that beyond beautiful or painful feelings, only three things remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. It is important for believers to make sure which kind of Faith, Hope, and Love will remain.'

As of this writing I have yet to hear anything of Nadarkhani's fate. Perhaps the international exposure of this travesty will prevent the Iranians from harming him. What they'll do to his wife and lawyer, however, is anyone's guess. Iran may be the most obvious modern witness to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who established both the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in our young nation. We can be thankful that we don't live in a country under the thumb of intolerant religious, or ideological, bigots.

No One Died in Watergate

Frank Miniter at Forbes writes an excellent account of the whole sordid Fast and Furious affair and concludes that the extent of the attempt to cover up Department of Justice responsibility could make this the administration's Watergate scandal.

I respectfully disagree, however, with that comparison. No one was killed as a result of the Watergate break-in, but over 200 Mexicans and two American law enforcement officers have been murdered with some of the thousands of guns the Department of Justice intentionally put into the hands of drug thugs and murderers.

Miniter argues that the only plausible explanation for why the administration compelled gun store owners to violate the law and sell semi-automatic weapons to people who could not pass a background test was to give the president a rationale for imposing stricter gun-control laws.

This is a bit hard to believe because one recoils from thinking that an American president would do something so despicable, so stupid, and so self-serving. Yet, Miniter seems correct in saying that there seems to be no other plausible rationale.

At any rate, here's his lede:

Why a gun-running scandal code-named “Fast and Furious,” a program run secretly by the U.S. government that sent thousands of firearms over an international border and directly into the hands of criminals, hasn’t been pursued by an army of reporters all trying to be the next Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein is a story in itself.

But the state of modern journalism aside, this scandal is so inflammatory few realize that official records show the current director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), B. Todd Jones — yes the individual the Obama administration brought in to replace ATF Director Kenneth Melson Aug. 30 in an effort to deflect congressional criticism — also has questions to answer about his involvement in this gun-running scandal.

Fast and Furious was an operation so cloak-and-dagger Mexican authorities weren’t even notified that thousands of semi-automatic firearms were being sold to people in Arizona thought to have links to Mexican drug cartels. According to ATF whistleblowers, in 2009 the U.S. government began instructing gun store owners to break the law by selling firearms to suspected criminals.

ATF agents then, again according to testimony by ATF agents turned whistleblowers, were ordered not to intercept the smugglers but rather to let the guns “walk” across the U.S.-Mexican border and into the hands of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.

Read the whole article. If you're too young to remember Watergate and don't know what it was about at least you can get in on the cutting edge of history with this scandal. In an administration that's beginning to look as if it's hip deep in scandals, this one, we better hope, seems to be the worst.

Effective Compassion

WORLD magazine, founded by Marvin Olasky, author of The Tragedy of American Compassion, has an annual contest called The Hope Award for Effective Compassion. First prize is a $25,000 gift to the organization selected from among all the nominees to be the most effective at turning lives around. The stories of these organizations are truly remarkable as they show how private effort can change people and turn losers into winners.

These organizations, though, enjoy a decided advantage over many charities, and certainly over government-run welfare programs. Each of these organizations places responsibility on the individual and each of them stresses the crucial importance of religious faith.

There are four finalists vying for the award and their stories can be found by following the links found at their home page.

Here's a brief excerpt from one of the stories:

In a warehouse nearby, Hope Now graduate Eddie Martinez stood over a long Trail-Gear warehouse table, making sure components for car kits are in the proper place. Messer calls Martinez "steady Eddie," saying he shows up on time and works hard. Martinez is proud that in his seven months on the job he hasn't missed a day.

Martinez—once involved with gang members and drugs—says the Hope Now program taught him how to manage his money and work with people. After graduation, he first worked for the sanitation department of the City of Fresno (an employer that regularly hires Hope Now graduates). When Martinez did well, he says Hope Now staffer Bill Murray helped him find better positions: "Every job they give me, I try to give it 100 percent, every time."

Hope Now executive director Roger Feenstra says cultivating relationships with men like Martinez is key: Feenstra has found that giving an "at-risk" man a job without giving him help to succeed often leads to failure. The pastor and former president of a Christian bookstore chain admits that he didn't know much about gang members when he came to Hope Now, but he quickly learned: "You relate to them like any other person. They need love and respect."

Feenstra says his staffers offer encouragement, accountability, and help with simple steps like getting a Social Security card, learning how to drive, tying a tie, and filling out a job application: "We do things a dad would do." Murray—the vocational counselor—says a Christian man's friendship is sometimes overwhelming to clients without fathers: "You tell them that you're proud of them and they just melt."

If you go to the site you can read the articles on each of the four finalists and cast your vote to help pick the winner of the $25,000 prize.

Just Joking

North Carolina's Democrat governor Beverly Purdue recently suggested that we should suspend elections so that Congress wouldn't have to worry about pressure from the voters and could actually give themselves to the task of solving the nation's problems. When her suggestion got out she was immediately pilloried by conservative media (if the liberal media found her suggestion offensive I didn't hear much about it from them). Her staff reacted to the criticism by saying she was just joking, but that's certainly not evident from the audio of her speech. It sounds to me like she was dead serious:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air puts her comments in historical perspective:

We have had a number of depressions, including the Great Depression, in our history. We fought two world wars and a decades-long Cold War against an existential threat. During all of these times, the US held its normal Congressional elections. In 1862, Republicans lost 22 seats in the midterm elections, and in 1864, Lincoln faced a tough challenge to continue his role as Commander in Chief.

Both elections took place in the middle of the Civil War, while hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying on battlefields. Comparatively speaking, this is just a rough patch in the road.

We don’t put aside democracy in tough times. In fact, the tougher the times, the more accountability we need from our government, not less. As my friend and radio partner Mitch Berg wrote, “The dumb part? That a bunch of politicians, relieved of the pressure of having to justify their political existences to voters, would “solve” anything.”

Any politician arguing that our government needs less or no accountability to its constituents and citizens is a politician whose constituents should send into ignominious retirement at the first possible moment.

Ms Purdue's remark exemplifies the inclination toward the totalitarian solution that lurks in the hearts of many progressives. President Obama has himself said on occasion that he wishes he could simply bypass Congress and rule by fiat. It'd be easier to get things done.

Now, I'm not suggesting that either the governor or the president have any nefarious motivations for these comments. I'm sure they're just frustrated by the lack of progress in Washington, but what I do think is that among many progressives and liberals there's a feeling that separation of powers and the American constitution are seen as impediments to progress more than as welcome safeguards against tyranny.

This is a dangerous view even when held by good people. Bad views held by good people make it easier for evil people to impose tyrannical policies upon a nation.

Liberal Minds at Work

From time to time over the years we've had reason to feature on these pages examples of political correctness that reach so far into the realm of the goofy as to make us feel almost embarrassed for the perpetrators, who, we believe, despite the stupidity of their attempts to insure that no one anywhere is ever given any reason by anyone to ever feel in any way offended, are actually not unintelligent people.

Perhaps, though, we must now abandon that belief and recognize that we're approaching the outer limits of PC buffoonery and that the people who are taking us there can't possibly have what philosophers refer to as a "properly functioning cognitive apparatus".

This excerpt from a story from across the pond provides a summary of the details:

From the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz to Meg, the good witch from the Meg and Mog children's books, witches have always dressed in black.

But their traditional attire has now come in for criticism from equality experts who claim it could send a negative message to toddlers in nursery and lead to racism.

Instead, teachers should censor the toy box and replace the pointy black hat with a pink one, while dressing fairies, generally resplendent in pale pastels, in darker shades.

Another staple of the classroom - white paper - has also been questioned by Anne O'Connor, an early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.

Children should be provided with paper other than white to draw on and paints and crayons should come in "the full range of flesh tones", reflecting the diversity of the human race, according to the former teacher.

Finally, staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer "black" or "brown".

The measures, outlined in a series of guides in Nursery World magazine, are aimed at avoiding racial bias in toddlers as young as two.

According to the guides, very young children may begin to express negative and discriminatory views about skin colour and appearance that nursery staff must help them "unlearn".

There's more on this depressing inanity at the link. I'll bet next these good progressive "experts" will be launching a complaint against God for populating bright cheery skies with white clouds and gloomy, foreboding skies with dark ones. Rumor has it that they're already gearing up to get kindergartens to replace bright white lights in the classroom with black lights lest the little tykes be inclined toward racism by the color of their light bulbs.

Martyr in Iran

A 32 year-old Iranian pastor is fighting for his life in Iranian courts. His crime? He converted to Christianity as a teenager. He was arrested two years ago and charged with apostasy, a capital offense punishable by hanging under Islamic law, or at least as that law is being interpreted by Iran's clergy.

Yousef  Nadarkhani

The Iranian courts have given Yousef Nadarkhani a choice: either recant and renounce his Christian faith or hang. Here's the crux of the story which can be found in more detail at the link:

The case began in October 2009 when Nadarkhani protested at the local school of his two sons. The government had recently passed a law stating that Islam must be imposed on children in local school, and even on Christian children. Nadarkhani publicly protested at the school, stating the law was unconstitutional because it did not allow the free practice of religion. His protest caught the attention of the police and government.

Following investigation, the court in Rasht has ruled that Pastor Nadarkhani was not a practicing Muslim adult before becoming a Christian. However, the court has decided that he remains guilty of apostasy because he has Muslim ancestry. Pastor Nadarkhani’s lawyer, Mr Mohammed Ali Dadkhah, has made it clear to the court that the repeated demand for recanting is against both Iranian law and the constitution. The court replied that the verdict of the Supreme Court must be applied, regardless of the illegality of the demand.

The death sentence for apostasy is not codified in the Iranian Penal Code. However, using a loophole in Iran’s constitution, the judges in Rasht based their original verdict on fatwas by Ayatollahs Khomeini, the “father” of Iran’s revolution in 1979, Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and of Makarem Shirazi, currently the most influential religious leader in Iran.

Watch:

The clergy who interpret Islamic law in Iran have decreed that no person of Muslim ancestry can ever convert to another religion, and if they do they must be killed. Here's a question for American Muslims: Either these mullahs are misinterpreting Islamic law, or they are interpreting it correctly. If the former, then do you agree that their demand is barbaric? If not, why not? If the latter, do you hold that a law that calls for execution for one who converts to Christianity is barbaric? If not, why not?

More on Poverty in America

I don't know anyone who doesn't want to help the disadvantaged, but sometimes the disadvantaged make it awfully hard to want to help them.

A woman named Tracy, who herself has intimate acquaintance with those who fall below the poverty income threshold, writes to comment about our post titled Poverty in America and the subsequent follow-up. She says:

I agree with the comments the reader made about people who are considered poor in America who are abusing the system. I also believe they should be given a higher economic class status. The people who are considered poor are living better than the average working person. I know if you were to enter some of their homes you would think they worked for a living, or you might consider them living the good life.

The reason I can relate to this is because I know someone who takes advantage of the system and enjoys doing it. She has never worked a day in her life, is over thirty and has a beautiful home. I asked her one day out of curiosity why she has doesn’t want to work? This is what she stated, “Why work when you can get free money, food and someone else can take care of you, I would be considered a fool to work”.

Surely such people are in the minority yet these anecdotes are heard so frequently that it's little wonder that so many people are demanding that government reform the welfare and entitlement system. As Tracy points out, people who are themselves working hard and struggling to support their families should not have to see their tax dollars go to subsidize the existence of people like the acquaintance she describes above.

Government has two obligations with respect to the poor: To provide a safety net so that no one who, through no fault of their own, needs public help goes without it, and to use our hard-earned tax dollars in the wisest, most efficient, most efficacious manner possible. At present our federal government is failing to meet either of these responsibilities.

Moral Individualism

A couple of weeks ago New York Times columnist David Brooks addressed himself to a phenomenon that has been one of the major preoccupations of this blog since its inception in 2004: The loss of what we might call a moral dictionary to whose authority individuals might submit their own moral judgments.

Brooks writes:

During the summer of 2008, the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith led a research team that conducted in-depth interviews with 230 young adults from across America. Smith and company asked about the young people’s moral lives, and the results are depressing.

The interviewers asked open-ended questions about right and wrong, moral dilemmas and the meaning of life. In the rambling answers, which Smith and company recount in a new book, “Lost in Transition,” you see the young people groping to say anything sensible on these matters. But they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary to do so.

When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all, like whether they could afford to rent a certain apartment or whether they had enough quarters to feed the meter at a parking spot.

“Not many of them have previously given much or any thought to many of the kinds of questions about morality that we asked,” Smith and his co-authors write. When asked about wrong or evil, they could generally agree that rape and murder are wrong. But, aside from these extreme cases, moral thinking didn’t enter the picture, even when considering things like drunken driving, cheating in school or cheating on a partner. “I don’t really deal with right and wrong that often,” is how one interviewee put it.

The default position, which most of them came back to again and again, is that moral choices are just a matter of individual taste. “It’s personal,” the respondents typically said. “It’s up to the individual. Who am I to say?”

Rejecting blind deference to authority, many of the young people have gone off to the other extreme: “I would do what I thought made me happy or how I felt. I have no other way of knowing what to do but how I internally feel.”

Many were quick to talk about their moral feelings but hesitant to link these feelings to any broader thinking about a shared moral framework or obligation. As one put it, “I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn’t speak on behalf of anyone else as to what’s right and wrong.”

Smith and company found an atmosphere of extreme moral individualism — of relativism and nonjudgmentalism. Again, this doesn’t mean that America’s young people are immoral. Far from it. But, Smith and company emphasize, they have not been given the resources — by schools, institutions and families — to cultivate their moral intuitions, to think more broadly about moral obligations, to check behaviors that may be degrading.

Dennis Prager places his finger on the reason for the anomie Brooks describes among the young:

What is disconcerting about Brooks’s piece is that nowhere in what is an important column does he mention the reason for this disturbing trend: namely, secularism. The intellectual class and the Left still believe that secularism is an unalloyed blessing. They are wrong. Secularism is good for government. But it is terrible for society (though still preferable to bad religion) and for the individual.

One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than “yummy” and “yucky.” They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

With the death of Judeo-Christian God-based standards, people have simply substituted feelings for those standards. Millions of American young people have been raised by parents and schools with “How do you feel about it?” as the only guide to what they ought to do. The heart has replaced God and the Bible as a moral guide.

And now, as Brooks points out, we see the results. A vast number of American young people do not even ask whether an action is right or wrong. The question would strike them as foreign. Why? Because the question suggests that there is a right and wrong outside of themselves. And just as there is no God higher than them, there is no morality higher than them, either.

Prager's right. In a secular society there's no moral authority higher than one's own feelings which means that, since everyone's feelings are different, what I ought to do is whatever I feel like doing and can get away with. No one can say that I'm morally wrong if I choose to be selfish or cruel.

Thus, after a dozen or so jihadis flew planes into the World Trade Towers on 9/11 college profs in some major universities found that many of their students were reluctant to condemn the act. These students, weaned on moral relativism and subjectivism, simply lacked the moral resources to say that it was wrong to murder thousands of people.

Our secularized young are deeply confused and morally adrift. This confusion was illustrated by students in a class at Yale who had been hesitant to condemn the 9/11 attack, but who, when asked by their prof whether it would be wrong to wantonly kill a thousand whales or buffalo, agreed almost unanimously that it would be.

I take solace in the thought that every older generation despairs of the young.

Fading Confidence

Gallup has a new poll out that shows that the confidence of Americans in their government is hitting historical lows. For example, the polling organization found that:

• 82% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.
• 69% say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high and up from 63% in 2010.
• 57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010 and well exceeding the 43% who have little or no confidence in the government to solve international problems.
• 53% have little or no confidence in the men and women who seek or hold elected office.
• Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, similar to a year ago, but up significantly from 46 cents a decade ago and from an average 43 cents three decades ago.
• 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.

This last view is much more pronounced among Republicans (61%) and independents (57%) than among Democrats (28%), although when George W. Bush was president, Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to view government as a threat.

Nevertheless, it shows that there's growing alarm about the intentions of those who are entrusted to run the country and increasing fears that they're succumbing to the temptation to circumvent constitutional safeguards and freedoms in order to avoid legislative opposition to their agenda.

Cupcakes and Racism

The College Republicans at U.C. Berkeley (I know. I was surprised that there are Republicans at Berkeley, too) are having a bake sale that has some students very upset. It turns out that white students will be charged $2 for a cupcake, Asian students will be charged $1.50, and African American students will be charged $.75.

There are cries of "racism" being bandied about over this, but it's not clear from the article at the Blaze in what, exactly, the alleged racism consists:

"I’m ashamed to know that I go to the same school with people who would say stuff like this,” student Skyler Hogan-Van Sickle wrote Facebook. “I’m really trying to figure out how someone can be this hateful.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 200 students responded to the event, mostly in opposition. One threatened to burn the table and set the cupcakes on fire. At least four student groups sent complaints to campus administrators, and a student-only meeting was set for Friday evening to discuss it.

Anyway, the ostensible purpose of the price differential is to highlight the young conservatives' belief that preferential treatment based on race is inherently unjust. Their eye is on the University's practice of offering preferential consideration to minorities in admissions. Making it easier for one group to get into college based on their race is unjust, they argue, in the same way that charging people for cupcakes based on their race is unjust.

Read the article and tell us what you think. If you maintain that the bake sale is racist please explain how it differs in a relevant way from racial preferences in admissions.

Darwin's Religious Beliefs

Students often inquire as to what Darwin's religious beliefs were or whether stories of a deathbed conversion are true. A piece at The American Thinker by Richard Weikart addresses the first question, and, as to the second, there's simply no evidence to substantiate the claim that Darwin ever had a change of heart.

Here's Weikart's summary of his essay:

So, what lessons can we draw about the relationship between religion and evolutionary theory from Darwin's own trajectory? First, as he developed his evolutionary theory, he moved from Christian belief in a personal God to a deistic position to agnosticism. It is not clear to what extent his religious views shaped his evolutionary theory, or vice-versa. It seems reasonable to think they developed in tandem.

Second, he rejected any divine intervention or even divine purpose in his evolutionary scheme. Third, he rejected the religious basis for morality. None of these points is good news for those trying to refashion Darwin into a religious believer whose evolutionary theory is no threat to religion, especially to traditional forms of Christianity.

Agnosticism is in fact atheism. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in God, and, since agnostics lack such a belief, they're atheists. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist like, say, Richard Dawkins, is that the Dawkins type atheist (What I call a "hard" atheist) asserts flatly that God does not exist or most probably does not exist. The agnostic, like Darwin, (what I call a "soft" atheist) does not make such a strong claim, but says that although God may indeed exist, there's not enough evidence to warrant believing that He does.

The only substantive difference between the hard and soft atheist is that, theoretically if not in actual practice, the soft atheist is more open to, and less dismissive of, theism than is the hard atheist.

Re: Troy Davis

A reader named Bill, having read the post on The Execution of Troy Davis, refers me to a column by Ann Coulter who lays out the facts of the case in her characteristically (and regrettably) acerbic style. It's not hard to see why none of Mr. Davis' appeals went anywhere. He certainly didn't have much going for his claim that he was innocent. Here's her lede:

For decades, liberals tried persuading Americans to abolish the death penalty, using their usual argument: hysterical sobbing.

Only when the media began lying about innocent people being executed did support for the death penalty begin to waver, falling from 80 percent to about 60 percent in a little more than a decade. (Silver lining: That's still more Americans than believe in man-made global warming.)

Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years.

But unless members of the public are going to personally review trial transcripts in every death penalty case, they have no way of knowing the truth. The media certainly won't tell them.

It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.

If you're interested in the official account of what transpired that night twenty two years ago (why does justice take so long?), and why none of the dozen or so courts which heard his appeals were moved to change the original verdict, read the rest of Coulter's column at the link.

Perhaps the most interesting fact that Coulter adduces was that all of the state's thirty four witnesses, and seven of the twelve jurors, were black. So much for the hoary old chestnut that since Davis was black and the twenty nine year-old policeman he murdered was white there must be white racism afoot in the court's verdict and sentencing.

Metamorphosis

A new video is out from Illustra Media that is both a paean to the beauty and wonder of butterflies and a challenge to Darwinian explanations of how these astonishing creatures could have arisen. The video is titled Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies. Here's the trailer:

More information, including information on ordering the DVD or Blue-ray version, can be found here.

As you watch the process of metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly unfold keep in mind that there are essentially two basic explanations of how this process arose in the first place. Either it came about as a result of a series of blind, unguided, purposeless genetic mutations which by chance conferred a survival advantage on the caterpillar, or it came about as the result of intelligent, intentional engineering.

Which of the two requires the greater miracle and the biggest leap of faith to believe?

Faster Than Light

Ever since Einstein it has been a dogma of physics that nothing can exceed the speed of light, and for decades every time the principle has been tested it has been confirmed. Until now. Jason Palmer, Science and Technology reporter at BBC News, has the story:

Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC [Large Hadron Collider], have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light. Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

Neutrinos are so tiny that they can pass through the entire earth without striking a single atom, which enables scientists to send a beam of them in a direct line to the detector some 440 miles away.

The speed of light is the universe's ultimate speed limit, and much of modern physics - as laid out in part by Albert Einstein in his special theory of relativity - depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it. Thousands of experiments have been undertaken to measure it ever more precisely, and no result has ever spotted a particle breaking the limit.

But Dr. Ereditato and his colleagues have been carrying out an experiment for the last three years that seems to suggest neutrinos have done just that.

In the course of doing the experiments, the researchers noticed that the particles showed up a few billionths of a second sooner than light would over the same distance. The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 15,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that, in scientific circles, would count as a formal discovery.

Dr. Ereditato has asked the world scientific community to investigate his result to try to find their error, if there is one, because much of the superstructure of modern physics will need to be revised if the result stands.

But the group understands that what are known as "systematic errors" could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit, and that has motivated them to publish their measurements. "My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved," Dr Ereditato said.

But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy, and of course the consequences can be very serious."

We note in passing that this is a refreshing example of scientific humility. A well-established hypothesis stands to be over-turned but rather than trumpet their revolutionary discovery, the Cern team is asking for confirmation from other investigators or a theoretical explanation that would account for their anomalous result. Would that all scientists were as sober and circumspect in the conclusions they draw from their data.

Size of the Universe

Mike sends along a video of writer Francis Chan giving us a visual illustration of how vast our solar system, our galaxy and the universe are. It's literally awesome:

Here are some homework questions: In the last scene, a view of the entire universe, what's the black region outside the mass of galaxies that makes up the universe? It can't be space because space is a property of the universe. Is there really anything there or is there nothing? If the latter, what exactly is nothing? Does it go on forever?

Back in the U.S.S.R.

In a resolute effort to convince us that the attempt to fine hotels for using poorly fitted sheets on their beds was not a bizarre fluke of legislative perversity but rather typical of the sort of mindlessness one finds throughout the state of California, the good fathers of San Juan Capistrano are fining a couple $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and have threatened to fine them another $500 for each future gathering:

City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about fifty.

The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.

“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”

According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.

“There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”

The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July.

It's this sort of threat to personal freedom that causes people to say they want to take back their country from the progressive bureaucrats who would have been quite at home working as Kremlin apparatchiks and who have no regard for the constitutional protection of religious expression or the right to do what they wish in the privacy of their own home.

I wonder if the Fromms had been hosting fund-raisers for the Democratic party whether they'd have been hassled for it. I rather doubt it.