No Plan at All

Economist Tino Sandanjani at Super Economy gives us some helpful perspective on the question of whether allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would do anything to alleviate our deficit problem. He begins by making an important distinction, one that doesn't often get made in media discussions of the looming fight over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts:

Don’t confuse the “Bush Tax Cuts” with “Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich”. Obama’s plan to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts only for those making $250,000 per year will raise one quarter as much revenue as the entire tax cut.

Over the next decade, the total Bush tax cuts reduce revenue by about 1.7% of GDP per year (0.4% of which represents tax cuts for those making more than $250,000). During this period the deficit is expected to average about 6.7% of GDP.

Over ten years, the deficit is expected by the Congressional Budget Office to be about $13 trillion dollars. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich as President Obama proposes will raise $0.7 trillion. Repealing all Bush tax cuts would raise $3.3 trillion. In addition, if all tax cuts are repealed, the U.S will save $0.7 trillion in interest on debt.

The Bush tax cuts on the rich (the part Obama wants to repeal) barely makes a dent in the deficit. If you include the cuts for the middle class, the Bush tax cuts are a non-negligible cause of the deficit, but even then not the main cause.

[The] claim - common among the left - that the Bush tax cuts would “basically solve the deficit problem” is an exaggeration, seventy percent of the ten year deficit and an even larger part of the long term deficit would remain even if all Bush tax cuts are repealed, since the main cause of the fiscal imbalance is expanding expenditure as a share of GDP.

For the long term deficit the Bush tax cuts are even less important. The tax cuts represent about 1.7% of GDP in increased revenue per year, while the federal deficit on its current path is projected to explode to above 10% of GDP by 2026.

Let me finish by citing the Congressional Research Service:

“The Obama Administration has proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for high income taxpayers and permanently extending the tax cuts for middle class taxpayers.... This proposal is projected to increase tax revenues by ... $678 billion over 10 years, but still leaves federal debt on an unsustainable path.”

All of which is to say that higher taxes are not the answer to our deficit problem. The problem is caused by too much spending. Raising taxes will do little to solve fix it and may even exacerbate it, if, as is usually the case, raising taxes motivates people to shelter their money. The only way we can avoid the day of fiscal reckoning is to reduce entitlement spending, which means reforming social security, medicare, and welfare, none of which the Obama administration has shown any appetite for.

It may be that a new administration in Washington will fail to avert calamity, and that in a year or two we'll wind up like Greece, but it's almost certain that the current administration will fail to take the steps necessary to avert it. Mr. Obama has given us no insight at all into what he would do in a second term to restore us to fiscal health. He seems to have no plan other than to "tax the rich" which, as Sandanjani shows above, is no plan at all.

Not the Man He Claims to Be

Whenever someone ventures the claim that President Obama is a socialist his allies in the Democratic party and the media race to deride the assertion, citing the lack of substantive evidence that Mr. Obama is anything other than a mainstream Democrat. That, one might plausibly argue, is in itself confirmation of the charge of socialism, but, be that as it may, there's now what amounts to direct evidence that Mr. Obama was in the 1990s a member of a socialist third-party, something he and his surrogates have consistently and vigorously denied.

Stanley Kurtz lays it all out in an article in the current issue of National Review which he summarizes in a post at National Review Online.

The party is the New Party, and though there's nothing illegal about having been a member, there's something disreputable about having persistently denied one's affiliation and having tried to hide that connection from the American electorate. It's just one more indication that Mr. Obama is not the man he wanted the American public to think he was during the 2008 campaign.

Here's Kurtz' lede:

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is not a socialist, but just thought it'd be fun to become a dues-paying member of the socialist party. Who knows?

Solar Transit

Jason sends along this three minute NASA video of the solar transit recently made by Venus. The video appears to be shot with a variety of filters producing a beautiful effect. Take a look:

When the News Reached the Bunker

Scott Walker decisively defeated the Wisconsin public employees unions and their Democratic surrogates on June 5th. Late that night word reached the offices of the president's reelection committee. Someone managed to smuggle out video of what happened next:

Progressive MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, discussing the debacle with Nancy Pelosi, notes that the Democrats can't win without union support and that legislation like Wisconsin's will kill the unions. She's only partly right. Wisconsin's legislation affects only public employee unions and not even all of those (police and firefighters are exempt). Even so, if PEUs lose strength it'll certainly diminish the ability of the Democratic party to elect candidates to office.

It should be noted that the strength of union support depends on their ability to compel employees to join and pay dues. Until Walker's reforms, union membership was mandatory and union dues were automatically deducted by the state from the employee's paycheck. The employee had no say in the matter. The state then gave the dues to the union which returned much of the cash in the form of political contributions and other forms of support to Democrats.

It was a hypocritical scam perpetrated on the taxpayers. I say hypocritical because it was foisted on the taxpayers by the party that proudly calls itself "pro-choice." Apparently, they believe you should be able to choose whether you will kill your unborn child, but not whether you will belong to a union.

In any event, Act 10 has done away with that system and allows people to choose whether they wish to join the union or not. As a result thousands of people, to the dismay of Democrats, have voted with their feet. The Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, a labor organization representing 17,000 public-school teachers, has seen 6,000 members leave its ranks in the last year.

The state chapter of AFSCME, the union that represents state, county, and municipal workers, has suffered the loss of 30,000 members in the same span, although many of these losses were due to government layoffs. Even so, when Walker first proposed his fiscal reforms in early 2011, AFSCME’s Wisconsin membership stood at 62,818. By February 2012, membership had shrunk to 28,745.

Look for the trend to spread across the nation and for more video of enraged Democrat party officials to appear on You Tube.

The Next Step

Debkafile has a story outlining what their sources tell them will be the next step in the war of nerves with Iran:

U.S. President Barack Obama has again persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to hold off attacking Iran’s nuclear program in the coming months by promising a new set of severe sanctions against Iran. U.S. administration officials assured debkafile’s Washington sources that Israel’s leaders were won over by the Obama administration’s promise to ratchet up U.S. and Europe sanctions against Iran if the next round of negotiations with the six world powers in less than two weeks gets bogged down again.

These are the new sanctions hanging over Iran as reported by our sources:

• On July 1, the Europeans will activate the embargo that left pending on Iranian oil exports and banks.
• In the fall, the US administration will bring out its most potent economic weapon: an embargo on aircraft and sea vessels visiting Iranian ports. Any national airline or international aircraft touching down in Iran will be barred from US and West European airports. The same rule will apply to private and government-owned vessels, including oil tankers. Calling in at an Iranian port will automatically exclude them from entry to a US or European harbor.

This sanction would clamp down an air and naval siege on the Islamic Republic without a shot being fired.

If the U.S. imposes this embargo they wouldn't need to confront ships or aircraft heading to or from Iran. They'd simply deny these craft any future access to sea and air ports in the U.S. and Europe. The result, hopefully, would be that no one will want to trade with Iran if it means loss of access to American and European markets.

Let's hope that some of these measures convince Iran to back off their plan to build nuclear weapons. I'm not optimistic that they will, but I do applaud the administration for trying everything it can before it sends in the bombers.

Debkafile has more on this story at the link.

A Lost People

Celebrated science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury died Tuesday at age 91. David Klinghoffer remembers a passage from his Martian Chronicles in which humans escape a doomed civilization on earth to colonize Mars and in the process wipe out the native Martians. Writes Klinghoffer:

The Martians, his protagonist Jeff Spender explains, saw their religion and their science as compatible, "each enriching the other." Not so the men of Earth as Bradbury imagines it in the near future:

That's the mistake we made when Darwin showed up. We embraced him and Huxley and Freud, all smiles. And then we discovered that Darwin and our religions didn't mix. Or at least we didn't think they did. We were fools. We tried to budge Darwin and Huxley and Freud. They wouldn't move very well. So, like idiots, we tried knocking down religion.

We succeeded pretty well. We lost our faith and went around wondering what life was for. If art was no more than a frustrated outflinging of desire, if religion was no more than self-delusion, what good was life? Faith had always given us answers to all things. But it all went down the drain with Freud and Darwin. We were and still are a lost people.

When people have no hope that their lives really mean anything, when they believe that they exist for no greater purpose than to indulge their senses and leave offspring, then culture collapses in a swirl of degenerate diversions, as Suzanne Collins illustrates so vividly in The Hunger Games. Jean Paul Sartre, who once wrote that his project was to "draw the full conclusion from a consistently atheistic position" writes in Nausea, "I was thinking (as he sat in a cafe) ... that here we are eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence, and that there's nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing."

Perhaps we, too, are a "lost people," but still too absorbed in our amusements to realize it.

Most Americans at Odds with Most Scientists

A recent Gallup poll of slightly more than 1000 adults reveals that despite the monopoly Darwinists have in public education they've made scant progress in persuading Americans that evolution is a purely naturalistic process in which God had no part:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. Thirty-two percent of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process which is up from 9% thirty years ago.

Why, despite the best attempts of secularists to indoctrinate students with naturalistic Darwinism do so many still resist? I think there are a couple of reasons. First, a lot of high school biology teachers are not on board with the indoctrination process. Many of them are not convinced themselves that the evolutionary process could have proceeded apart from some intelligent guidance.

Second, the more students learn about biology the less credible it seems to them that the amazing structures and processes in the cell are the result of chance. The enormous complexity and high information content built into biological structures fairly shouts that intelligent input has somehow been inserted into the process. And the more science discovers about how life is organized the more astonishing it all seems.

Indeed, it might be said that the greatest impediment to the acceptance of naturalistic Darwinism is science itself. This is as true in cosmology as it is in biology. When scientists have to resort to something like the multiverse hypothesis to avoid the conclusion that the incomprehensibly precise tuning of the parameters and values stitched into the universe are intentionally engineered they lose a lot of people who are inclined to think that the simplest explanation is that there's just a single universe rather than an infinity of such worlds. And if there's no good reason to believe there are other worlds there's very good reason to think that intelligence underlies this one.

The Walker Win

The Wisconsin recall election should never have happened in the first place. It's an abuse of the process to attempt to recall a duly elected official over a policy dispute. The recall is for office-holders who've betrayed the public trust, not to punish people for implementing policies which a segment of the electorate doesn't like.

The opposition to Walker has been ugly, consisting as it does mostly of unions and liberals. Death threats and insults have been received by virtually every supporter of the governor, and still are.

Nevertheless, the Governor refused to bend or be intimidated, and he has prevailed. The power of the public employee unions to coerce taxpayers into paying an ever-increasing share of their income to subsidize ever-increasing salaries, health care, and pensions for government workers and public school teachers has been diminished with the failure of this recall.

Walker's win is a win for Wisconsin, to be sure, but it's also a win for much of the rest of the nation. His success will encourage other governors and legislators in other states to likewise rein in their public employee unions and return their states to a sensible, responsible fiscal footing. Those which don't, like California, will gradually slide into insolvency.

I also believe that it very well may put Wisconsin in play in November. The state went for Mr. Obama by fourteen points in '08 and exit polls yesterday showed that a substantial number of voters who pulled the lever for Walker still plan to vote for the president this fall, a result that strikes me as inexplicable, but those same exit polls also showed Walker and his opponent at 50/50 when in fact Walker is winning by almost 8 points as I write this.

Even if Wisconsin stays blue in November, though, the results there suggest that other states in which Mr. Obama eked out a much narrower victory in 2008 than he did in Wisconsin might well be undergoing a red shift. Mr. Obama no longer has the cachet he had in '08 and he's confronting a much more formidable candidate in Mitt Romney than he faced in John McCain.

Moreover, the electoral news since 2008 has been almost uniformly bad for the Democrats. Several GOP governors and Senator Scott Brown won in off-year elections, some in traditionally Democratic states, then came the landslide defeats the Democrats suffered in 2010, and now the bitter pill in Wisconsin. Add that momentum to the state of our economy and the growing perception that Mr. Obama has proven singularly unsuited for the job he's in, and one must assume that the atmosphere in the Obama reelection campaign is pretty gloomy this morning.

Mr. Obama's only solace, perhaps, is in the fact that there are still a lot of people riding in the wagon who will vote for the candidate most likely to crack the whip on those who are pulling it.

A Brief History of Thought

In his bestselling book A Brief History of Thought French humanist philosopher Luc Ferry asserts that the paramount philosophical question throughout the history of civilization has been the question of how we find meaning in life when death looms for all of us.

He calls this the question of "salvation," and in his book he surveys the answers proffered by the ancient Stoics, Christians, Enlightenment thinkers, Nietzsche and the post-moderns, and comes, after much meandering, to the disappointingly tepid conclusion that salvation consists in loving others until we die. In considering others, he argues, we achieve a kind of transcendence without the metaphysical baggage of God.

Ferry himself anticipates the complaint that his conclusion is unsatisfying:

You might object that compared to the doctrine of Christianity - whose promise of the resurrection of the body means that we shall be reunited with those we love after death - a humanism without metaphysics is small beer. I grant you that amongst the available doctrines of salvation, nothing can compete with Christianity - provided, that is, that you are a believer.

So why does Ferry settle for what is really a hopeless, meaningless "humanism without metaphysics"? Because he simply can't, or won't, bring himself to believe that there's more to reality than matter and energy:

If one is not a believer - and one cannot force oneself to believe, nor pretend to believe - then we must learn to think differently about the ultimate question posed by all doctrines of salvation, namely that of the death of a loved one.

Ferry is correct, of course, that one cannot compel belief, either in oneself or another, but what he might be asked is whether he sincerely wants the Christian message to be true. Regardless of his disbelief, does he hope that he's wrong? Many if not most people who claim not to believe that we'll in some sense exist beyond death and that "we shall be reunited with those we love after death" by their own admission do not want such a notion to be true. They don't believe the Christian proclamation, and they don't want the world to be the sort of place where such claims are in fact correct.

I suspect that the person, on the other hand, who wants those propositions to be true, who is open to them, is much more likely to find belief slowly creeping over him than those others whom C.S. Lewis describes in The Great Divorce as having, "their fists clenched, their teeth clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouths for food, or their eyes to see." They refuse to allow themselves even to hope that there really is salvation in the Christian sense.

Ferry doesn't seem to be this sort of person, though. He writes at the end of his book:

I find the Christian proposition infinitely more tempting [than any of the alternatives] - except for the fact that I do not believe in it. But were it to be true I would certainly be a taker.

He seems to recognize, even though he doesn't explicitly say it, that unless what we do in this life matters forever, it doesn't matter at all. If death is the end of individual existence then nothing we do has any genuine meaning or significance.

If Ferry's being honest with his readers and himself, if he really is open to "the Christian proposition," then I suspect he's closer to faith than he might realize.

The Bigger Danger

In a recent column Dennis Prager argues for the fairly obvious proposition that leftism is a religion, but in the course of his argument he asks a very interesting question.

Specifically, he wonders why people on the left fear big corporations but are enthusiastic about big government.

The left is generally supportive of Occupy Wall Street which is hostile to big business and reviles the Tea Party which fears big government. So which fear has most justification? Here's Prager:

No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20-30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago -- big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death -- big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca Cola kill five million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes -- the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide -- committed by big governments.... That the left demonizes "Big Pharma," for instance, is an example of leftwing thinking. America's pharmaceutical companies have saved millions of lives, including millions of leftists' lives. And I do not doubt that in order to increase profits, they have not always played by the rules. But to demonize big pharmaceutical companies while lionizing big government, big labor unions and big trial law firms, is to stand morality on its head....

There is yet another reason to fear big government far more than big corporations. ExxonMobil has no police force, no IRS, no ability to arrest you, no ability to shut you up, and certainly no ability to kill you. ExxonMobil can't knock on your door in the middle of the night and legally take you away. Apple Computer cannot take your money away without your consent, and it runs no prisons. The government does all of these things.

But, we're often told, big business is greedy and greed victimizes and hurts the masses. A powerful government, on the other hand, is necessary to keep business from exploiting the poor and to insure an equitable distribution of a nation's goods. Prager's not impressed with the objection:

To which the rational response is that, of course, government also does good. But so do the vast majority of corporations, private citizens, church groups, and myriad voluntary associations. On the other hand, only big government can do anything approaching the monstrous evils of the last century.

As for greed: Between hunger for money and hunger for power, the latter is incomparably more frightening. It is noteworthy that none of the twentieth century's monsters -- Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- were preoccupied with material gain. They loved power much more than money.

The left craves power through big government, the right craves freedom, including freedom in the marketplace. Which of the two is more dangerous?

On Wisconsin

Tomorrow's recall election in Wisconsin is arguably the most important political event this year aside from the presidential contest in November. Governor Scott Walker is being challenged by Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett in a recall attempt because Walker has stripped the public employees unions of a lot of their power to extort ever-increasing benefits from the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin.

As a result Walker has in two years turned the state from economic infirmity to fiscal robustness. John Fund at National Review summarizes Walker's accomplishments:

Walker can claim to have wiped out a $3.6 billion deficit without raising taxes or seeing service cutbacks. Indeed, property taxes fell statewide by 0.4 percent last year, the first time they’ve fallen since 1998. The average homeowner’s property tax bill would have been about $700 higher if the previous rate of increase had continued. The state now expects to have a surplus of $150 million at the end of the current budget cycle.

Voters can see Walker’s reforms working at the grassroots level as well. Brown Deer, a suburb of Milwaukee, is saving $1 million in pension and health-care costs. More flexible work rules enabled the city to make changes in teacher schedules. “We had many teachers tell us, let’s save everybody’s job,” Brown Deer superintendent Deb Kerr told the Chicago Tribune. “We didn’t cut programs. We didn’t raise class sizes. And we maintained our level of staffing.”

At least 52 local school districts are saving an average of $220 per student because they can now shop around for health insurance for their employees. Before the reforms, unions forced the schools to do business exclusively with WEA Trust, the group run by the state’s largest teachers’ union.

The jobs picture is also improving. Last year, the state added 24,000 new jobs. Chief Executive magazine reported in 2010 that Wisconsin ranked 41st out of 50 states in terms of the ease of doing business. In its new survey, the state has jumped to 20th place, the fastest surge in the history of the magazine’s survey.

Separately, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce survey just found that 62 percent of the members it surveyed plan to create jobs in Wisconsin by year’s end. A full 95 percent of CEOs surveyed said the state is headed in the right direction. “The word is out from Main Street to Wall Street that Wisconsin is the place to create jobs and expand,” says Kurt Bauer, the president of WMC.

So why are the Democrats trying to recall him after only two years of his term? One of the things Walker has reformed is collective bargaining (See here for a summary of what's in the new law). Another is that public employees will now have the freedom to choose whether they want to belong to a union or not. Both of these reforms have outraged liberals who believe that union membership should be compulsory for public employees like government workers and teachers and that unions should have the right to bargain for perks and benefits with the same people to whose political campaigns they contribute.

Both of these practices are unjust and Walker has shown a lot of courage in ending them. Now he's paying the price for that courage by possibly being booted out of office by those who feel entitled to demand that taxpayers pay for benefits far in excess of anything anyone in the private sector enjoys. It's the same mindset that was on display so obscenely in the GSA scandal.

If Walker wins tomorrow, and polls have consistently shown him to be ahead, the defeat of the progressives will reverberate across the national political landscape. This is why the left is so angry that President Obama declined to campaign for Mayor Barrett. There's a lot at stake and the leader of their cause was AWOL. If Walker wins, buy some popcorn, sit back and watch the recriminations fly.

China's One-Child Policy

The plight of the courageous blind activist Chen Guancheng has confronted the world with some uncomfortable facts with which it would rather not have been confronted. One of these is the repressive nature of China's one-child policy. Some liberals in the West would rather not have to talk about it because it's a form of population control to which they're not altogether opposed themselves, at least in theory, but which is in practice extremely cruel.

Robert Zubrin summarizes the history of the policy in an article in the Washington Times:

In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control-system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of "The Limits to Growth" and "Blueprint for Survival" - publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda - and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the reports' method of using computerized "systems analysis" to predict and design the human future.

Fascinated by the possibilities, Mr. Song returned to China and republished the Club's analysis under his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and original thinking. In no time at all, Mr. Song became a scientific superstar.

Seizing the moment to grasp for greater power and importance, he pulled together an elite group of mathematicians from within his department and, with the help of a powerful computer to provide the necessary special effects, issued the profoundly calculated judgment that China's "correct" population size was 650 million to 700 million people - which is to say, some 280 million to 330 million less than its actual 1978 population.

Mr. Song's analysis quickly found favor at top levels of the Chinese Communist Party because it purported to prove that the reason for China's continued poverty was not 30 years of disastrous misrule, but the very existence of the Chinese people. Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and his fellows in the Central Committee were very impressed by the pseudo-scientific computer babble Mr. Song used to dress up his theory and even more impressed by the possibilities that arrogating the power to permit or deny children would provide to the state.

Thus began the most forceful population-control program since Nazi Germany. Qian Xinzhong, a Soviet-trained former major general in the People's Liberation Army, was placed in charge of the campaign. He ordered all women with one child to have a stainless steel IUD inserted and to be inspected regularly to make sure they had not tampered with it. To remove the device was deemed a criminal act. All parents with two or more children were to be sterilized. No pregnancies were legal for anyone under 23, whether married or not, and all unauthorized pregnancies were to be aborted.

Women who defied these injunctions were taken and sterilized by force. Babies would be aborted right through the ninth month of pregnancy, with many crying as they were being stabbed to death at the moment of birth. Those women who fled to try to save their children were hunted, and if they could not be caught, their houses were torn down, and their parents thrown in prison, there to linger until a ransom of 20,000 yuan - about three years' income for a peasant - was paid for their release.

Babies born to such fugitives were declared to be "black children," illegal non-persons in the eyes of the state, without any right to employment, public schooling, health care or reproduction. Millions have been confiscated from their mothers and placed in "orphanages" where, if not adopted in short order, they are left to expire without food in "dying rooms."

Zubrin has more details at the link. I can't vouch for the accuracy of his claims, but I know Viewpoint has a few Chinese readers, and I invite them to weigh in on the matter via the "Contact Us" key.

Bad News on the Doorstep

May was a disastrous month, both for the economy and perhaps for Mr. Obama's reelection prospects. Larry Kudlow writes about it at National Review:

You would think $1 trillion in spending stimulus and $2.5 trillion of Fed pump-priming would produce an economy a whole lot stronger than 1.9 percent GDP, which was the revised first-quarter number. And you’d think all that government spending would deliver a whole lot more jobs than 69,000 in May.

But it hasn’t happened.

The Keynesian government-spending model has proven a complete failure. It’s the Obama model. And it has produced such an anemic recovery that frankly, at 2 percent growth, we’re back on the front end of a potential recession. If anything goes wrong — like another blow-up in Europe — there’s no safety margin to stop a new recession.

And that brings us to the grim May employment report, which generated only 69,000 nonfarm payrolls. It’s the third consecutive subpar tally, replete with downward revisions for the two prior months. It’s a devastating number for the American economy, and a catastrophic number for Obama’s reelection hopes. All momentum on jobs and the economy has evaporated.

Inside the May report, the data is just as bad. The unemployment rate rose slightly from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. The so called U6 unemployment rate, tracking the marginally employed or completely discouraged, increased to 14.8 percent from 14.5 percent. And labor earnings are barely rising at 1.7 percent over the past year, almost in line with the inflation rate. In fact, through April, after-tax, after-inflation income is scarcely rising at 0.6 percent for the past year.

"Don't blame me. It's all his fault."

Why is the news so bad? One reason is fear of a massive tax increase when the Bush tax cuts expire in January:

If all the Bush tax rates go up, incentives will go down and liquidity will leave the system. You can’t pick up a newspaper these days and not find a story about how the fiscal cliff is elevating uncertainty and slowing U.S. growth. House Speaker John Boehner asked Obama for help in extending the Bush tax cuts this summer. But Obama said no. Instead, he wants to raise marginal tax rates on successful upper-income earners, capital gains, dividends, estates, and many successful corporations.

A business tax cut would help enormously, but it’s nowhere in sight. Neither is the Keystone Pipeline, which is a surefire job-creator.

A second uncertainty facing businesses is the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare due in a few weeks. If all those crazy tax-and-regulation mandates are deemed unconstitutional, it’s Katy bar the door as businesses put profits to work and hire. But they’re not going to move until they see that court decision.

Then there’s the whole European mess with the threat of banking contagion from Spain, Greece, and Italy. That could blow up the whole world economy if it goes completely sour. The Europeans should guarantee all bank deposits, interbank loans, and bank debt until this story is straightened out. But they’re not. So the problem festers.

The President's policies - his intention to raise taxes, to prevent energy development, to impose Obamacare - are like a clog of matted hair in the economic pipeline. The president is determined to establish Eurosocialism on our shores and gives the impression that he cares little what price must be paid to achieve it.

Cure for Incurable Optimists

Do you know someone whose disposition is so positive and sunny that it's irritating? Are they a Pollyanna? Do they resemble Voltaire's Candide? No matter how bad things look do they always cheerily affirm that things really couldn't be better? If so, you might want to link them to this slide show by a prominent economist. In his view we're facing within the next few months an historically unprecedented worldwide economic cataclysm, and worse, there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Even if you don't understand all the graphs, slides 22 to 30 pretty much sum things up.

Have a great day.

Talking about Nothing

Physicist Lawrence Krauss argues in his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing that we need not think that the universe requires a transcendent cause, that it could have simply arisen out of nothing. Thus, Krauss maintains, there's no reason to think that there's a God who caused the universe to exist.

Philosopher Edward Feser, a Thomist scholar, writes a piece at First Things in which he exposes Krauss' philosophical naiveté and lack of understanding of the things about which he writes.

Krauss wants to argue, according to Feser, that the answer to the question of what caused the universe can't be God because then we can ask the question what caused God. This argument, however, Feser dispatches in a couple of paragraphs by showing how the classical Aristotelians, the Neo-Platonists and Gottfried Leibniz long ago showed that the ultimate cause of the universe cannot itself be something that requires a cause.

Leibniz, for instance, argues that God is not a contingent being whose existence is somehow caused by something else. If he were he would be part of the contingent world and not God at all. God is ab defino a necessary being which is the ultimate cause of all contingent entities. Apart from the existence of this being no contingent things (things which could possibly not be and which depend upon something else for their existence) could exist.

Feser then addresses Krauss' main point:

Krauss’ aim is to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” without resorting to God — and also without bothering to study what previous thinkers of genius have said about the matter. Like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, and Peter Atkins, Krauss evidently thinks that actually knowing something about philosophy and theology is no prerequisite for pontificating on these subjects.

Nor is it merely the traditional theological answer to the question at hand that Krauss does not understand. Krauss doesn’t understand the question itself. There is a lot of farcical chin-pulling in the book over various “possible candidates for nothingness” and “what ‘nothing’ might actually comprise,” along with an earnest insistence that any “definition” of nothingness must ultimately be “based on empirical evidence” and that “‘nothing’ is every bit as physical as ‘something’”— as if “nothingness” were a highly unusual kind of stuff that is more difficult to observe or measure than other things are.

Of course, “nothing” is not any kind of thing in the first place but merely the absence of anything. Consider all the true statements there are about what exists: “Trees exist,” “Quarks exist,” “Smugly ill-informed physicists exist,” and so forth. To ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn’t the case that all of these statements are false. There is nothing terribly mysterious about the question, however controversial the traditional answer.

The universe exists and the question is, why? What caused it to exist? Whatever the ultimate cause that cause itself must be something whose existence is not contingent and therefore necessary. That is, it not only must exist, it cannot not exist and cannot be caused by anything else to exist. Such a being, if not the God of traditional theism, is something very much like him.

For a detailed treatment of this issue read Paul Herrick's reply to atheist philosopher Keith Parsons here.

Making Your Blood Boil Dept.

I shouldn't post on this stuff because it just makes my blood pressure go up, but let's go ahead and bust the cuff on the old sphygmomanometer. This article is from National Review:

The federal government is handing out $4.2 billion a year to illegal aliens.

This isn’t some service benefit that illegal aliens are receiving, like taxpayer-subsidized health care or education. And it’s not a tax deduction or a non-refundable tax credit, which would require recipients to actually pay taxes in order to receive the benefit. It’s a refundable tax credit, a taxpayer-funded check from the federal government. And the government requires no proof that the recipient is actually eligible under the law, which illegals are not.

Abuse of this tax benefit is one of the most ridiculous examples of fraud adding to our federal deficit today. Equally harmful, it is acting as a powerful incentive for more illegal aliens to come to America.

While illegal aliens don’t qualify for legitimate Social Security numbers, the IRS allows them to apply for Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). The overwhelming majority of returns with ITINs are filed by illegals. This is how they fraudulently apply for and receive these checks.

This tax credit was designed to help working families offset the costs of raising children. But illegal aliens — who don’t possess valid Social Security numbers because they are not authorized to work in this country — are able to receive these tax credits by simply providing an ITIN and claiming to have children. So, American taxpayers are writing checks to illegal aliens — $1,000 per child, $4.2 billion per year total.

An investigative reporter in Indianapolis recently uncovered cases in which illegal aliens were claiming the child tax credit for nieces and nephews who did not even live in the United States. Some received more than $10,000 from the federal government.

One admitted that his address was used by four other illegal aliens who don’t even live there. They claimed 20 children were living in one mobile home and received returns, including the additional child tax credit, totaling $29,608. But only one child actually lives at the residence; the other 19 live in Mexico and have never even visited the United States.

There's more at the link to push your systoles and diastoles into the red and put you at risk of cardiac arrest. I have to go lay down.

Hope for Stroke Victims

Medical technology continues to give us hope of prolonging and improving the quality of life for millions of people. A recent development reported in Technology Review may give hope to stroke victims in particular:

For the 800,000 people in the United States who suffer a stroke each year, the window for drug therapy closes in the first few hours after the attack. That leaves some seven million stroke survivors in this country alone with no medical alternative beyond physical therapy. A small pharmaceutical company in New York hopes to change that with a drug that may help patients regain some of their lost mobility six months or more after a stroke.

Strokes happen when blood stops flowing to part of the brain, often due to a blood clot. Without blood to bring new oxygen, cells in the affected region start to die. If the symptoms of stroke are recognized quickly enough and the victim is brought to a hospital within a few hours, doctors can administer a clot-dissolving drug to minimize the damage. But only a small fraction of stroke patients seek medical attention soon enough for this intervention.

In the future, stroke patients who miss this window and are affected by reduced mobility long after their stroke may be able to turn to a drug that helps damaged nerves transmit electrical signals in the brain.

Earlier this year, Acorda Therapeutics reported that the compound dalfampridine improved motor function in both the forelimbs and hind limbs of rats that had suffered a stroke. This month, the company began recruiting patients for a clinical trial to test the effects of the compound in human stroke patients. Acorda plans to enroll about 70 people who have had a stroke at least six months prior. "That's the time that deficits seem to stabilize, so we can eliminate naturally occurring improvements in patients," says Jeff MacDonald, an Acorda spokesman.

Acorda is also developing drugs to treat Multiple Sclerosis and spinal cord injuries:

Spinal-cord injuries still garner a lot of focus from the company, which hopes to begin testing a compound licensed from Medtronic that protects neurons from the wave of cell death that follows the initial injury. Medtronic had already shown the compound to be safe in healthy patients, and later this year, Acorda plans to test its efficacy in patients in the first hours after a spinal-cord injury.

Patients with injured spinal cords are not nearly as numerous as stroke patients, "but if you are talking about costs to society, spinal-cord injuries are extremely expensive," says Naomi Kleitman, a spinal-cord injury expert with NINDS. "They tend to happen in fairly young people who need a lot of medical and assistive help if they have severe injuries."

The company is also looking to treat longer-standing spinal-cord injuries with a drug that would help break down the scar tissue that forms around a spinal-cord injury. The scar tissue is thought to prevent nerves from establishing the new connections that may help patients recover some functionality. The product is still in early development, and one challenge will be devising a method to deliver the large scar-busting molecule to its target site.

Despite the pressing need, the small market for spinal-cord injury drugs may be one reason the condition doesn't get a lot of attention from pharmaceutical giants. "No one else wants to develop compounds to treat spinal-cord injury as seriously as Acorda," says Edward Hall, a neurologist and spinal-cord and brain-injury specialist at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. "These aren't going to be billion-dollar-a-year products."

We should be thankful that there are companies like Acorda out there, but we need also be mindful that Acorda stays in business only to the extent that it can make a profit. Government regulations and high taxation will make it much harder for these companies to keep doing research and may thus ensure the continued disability or deaths of a lot of people who might in the future have benefited from the work they do.

Worse Than Our Despisers

Christianity has enough enemies, it doesn't need more, and it especially doesn't need them in the pulpit. There are two kinds of preachers who give Christianity a black eye. One is the liberal who really doesn't believe the classic creeds of the church but refuses to do the honorable thing and resign his post. The other is the preacher who believes the creeds but piles on a whole lot else that turns the Gospel into something cruel, hard, and unloving.

The Westboro Baptist bunch are an example of the latter. They've been around for a while, but lately a lot more like them seem to be popping up. The most recent example is a pastor in Seneca, Kansas who's declaring that the government should kill homosexuals. He doesn't say that individuals should take it upon themselves to do this, mind you, but the government should.

The Blaze has the story:

Over the past few weeks, bizarre and distressing video and audio files purporting to show anti-gay sentiment in U.S. Christian churches have been emerging.

First, there was the story of a pastor who quipped about parents hitting boys who appear effeminate (he has since attempted to better frame his words). Then, there was Pastor Charles L. Worley, who touted putting gays and lesbians in an electric fence, where they would inevitably die off.

And who can forget the small child who is seen on video singing about how homosexuals won’t be entering heaven. Now, there’s yet another audio file emerging of a pastor claiming that the government should kill gays. While it seems almost unbelievable on the surface, the clip, which was published by GoodAsYou.org, showcases some shocking words coming from Pastor Curtis Knapp of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas.

In the audio clip, a voice that is attributed to Knapp can be heard saying, in part:

They should be put to death. That’s what happened in Israel. That‘s why homosexuality wouldn’t have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. Oh, so you’re saying that we should go out and start killing them? No, I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.

Knapp appeared on CNN (via the network’s KTKA affiliate this morning) to discuss the controversial March 27 sermon. Rather than backing down on his words, he defended them, claiming that they were Biblical in nature.

We punish pedophilia. We punish incest. We punish polygamy and various things. It’s only homosexuality that is lifted out as an exemption,” he said, going on to say that gays shouldn’t have fear about his words. ”I don’t believe I should lay a finger against them. My hope is for their salvation, not for their death.

My hope is that this guy finds some other line of work. A pastor is supposed to model Christ to his congregation. Does Mr. Knapp really think Jesus, the one who rescued the woman about to be stoned for adultery, would have urged Caesar to execute gays? Does he really think that saying someone who has not raped or murdered should nevertheless be executed is compassionate and just? Does he really think that this is the image of him that Jesus wants us to present to a skeptical world?

I don't know how big Pastor Knapp's congregation is, but if it's got a hundred or so people in it, I'll bet that some of those people have loved ones who are homosexual. How does it make them feel to hear their pastor, a man who is supposedly speaking for Christ, say that their loved ones should be killed as though they were vicious criminals? What has happened to the adage that Christians hate the sin but love the sinner?

Here's video of Knapp being interviewed on CNN:

Men like Mr. Knapp do a deep disservice both to the Gospel and to the God they claim to serve. They should get out of the ministry until they realize how unChristlike and cruel their words are and repent of their pharisaism. As long as they're in the pulpit they make it entirely too easy for atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to caricature Christianity and for the rest of the world to ignore the claims of the Gospel.

About Birds

Byron links us to a piece at the Huffington Post on a book about birds for children. The article is titled Eleven Things You Didn't Know about Birds and has a slide show illustrating the eleven facts with a picture of the relevant bird.

The book and article are written by Bill Thompson who starts with this: Sociologists and cultural trend watchers have been decrying the broken connection between today's youth and nature. With so many stimulating digital options dominating the attention spans of young people, the worry is that we'll raise several generations who have no connection to or understanding of nature.

Birds provide an easy doorway to re-establishing this connection between kids and nature. Why? Because birds are almost everywhere, they are active, easy-to-see creatures, they often have bright, beautiful colors, and many birds sing melodious, enchanting songs. Most importantly, they capture our imagination with their ability to do something that we humans only figured out about 100 years ago: they can fly!

Go to the link for the slides. There are some beautiful birds to see there.

Escape from Camp 14

Some time ago I read a review of the book by Blaine Harden titled Escape From Camp 14, the story of a young North Korean named Shin Dong-hyuk who was born in a prison camp and managed at age twenty three to escape it - the only person who, born in a camp, has been known to have escaped.

The review prompted me to buy the book, and I encourage anyone looking for summer reading to do the same. The details of Shin's story are gripping, from the reason for his birth in the prison, to his childhood betrayal of his mother and brother, to his amazing escape, Harden's account makes you not want to stop reading.

Equally gripping is his ancillary description of the hell that is North Korea. The entire country is a prison that has deadened the souls of its people, of course, but the prison camps are places of especial savagery, cruelty, and amorality, a place where people have no hope, where all that matters is avoiding a beating and getting a scrap of food to stave off starvation.

Shin was so scarred by his experience, so emotionally stunted by what he did and what was done to him, that adjusting to life after his escape has been almost as difficult as living in Camp 14.

The book also offers a fascinating illustration of the depth of depravity to which people sink once they've conflated a deep hatred of Christianity with power. North Korea is spiritually barren and consequently the only morality is a might makes right ethic according to which whatever those who have power do is ipso facto right. It's a repetition of the trajectory of virtually every state of the twentieth century whose leaders were both atheists and politically all-powerful - from the Soviet Union to Germany to China to Cambodia to Cuba and dozens of lesser states. The stories of the miseries inflicted by these governments on their people are everywhere. North Korea is perhaps worse than most but only because its people suffer worse deprivations than have the people of other totalitarian states.

Anyway, I recommend the book. You won't be sorry you read it.