Obamanomics

Ed Morrisey at Hot Air claims that the economic policies of the current administration have been a complete and miserable failure, a claim that receives considerable support from this video:

Another Administration Scandal

ABC reports the story of what happened in Benghazi the night that our ambassador and three other Americans were murdered. There are two very troubling aspects of this story that reflect poorly on the Obama administration and on Mr. Obama himself.

The first is that for two weeks after this attack the administration, including Mr. Obama, made a concerted effort to conceal the actual nature of the attack, misleading the American public into thinking that it was a spontaneous raid by an enraged mob which was protesting an anti-Muslim video.

Why the administration repeatedly tried to establish this narrative is unclear, but perhaps they realized that if the attack were seen as a terrorist assault it would show Mr. Obama's foreign policy of rapprochement with Muslims abroad to be pretty much a futile, failed effort. Whatever the case, the administration knew within 24 hours what had happened and that it wasn't the work of an offended mob. It was a planned terrorist atrocity. The administration knew this and continued nevertheless to mislead the American people about it.

The second scandalous aspect of this awful episode is that the ambassador and others in Libya had several times requested more security for themselves and other diplomatic personnel. They had intelligence that their lives were in serious danger but each request for more protection was refused by a State Department official named Charlene Lamb who testified to Congress that she thought the ambassador had sufficient security.

This whole tragic debacle has about it the odor of incompetence, poor judgment, and cynical political calculation for which both the President and his Secretary of State should be held accountable.

More Praise for In the Absence of God

My brother Bill just finished reading In the Absence of God and writes this:

Congratulations on a great story. I realized I was in for a Clancy-esque experience when the narrative in the first chapter describing Jesse chasing the ball carrier was suspended and another thread introducing Weyland and Peterson was developed. That technique contributes to the page-turning quality of the story.

Before the book arrived I suspected I would see some familiar ideas similar to what you post on Viewpoint. It was nice to find them in a single, consolidated presentation.

In The Absence Of God will make for a meaningful gift idea for family and friends. Thanks for taking the time to write Absence, we're all better off for it!

I agree (with humility, of course) that the book would make a fine Christmas gift, especially for intelligent young adults (especially young men) who might be wrestling with questions about God and who are willing to spend some time thinking about those questions.

If you'd like to read more, Bill has added a feature to Viewpoint that links to more information on what the book's about and where you can purchase a copy. Just click on In the Absence of God in the upper right side of this page.

What Is Reality?

New Scientist has a short article (available for another day without subscription) by British philosopher Jan Westerhoff on the nature of reality. The article is accompanied by this video:

Westerhoff opens his essay with this:

What do we actually mean by reality? A straightforward answer is that it means everything that appears to our five senses - everything that we can see, smell, touch and so forth. Yet this answer ignores such problematic entities as electrons, the recession and the number 5, which we cannot sense but which are very real. It also ignores phantom limbs and illusory smells. Both can appear vividly real, but we would like to say that these are not part of reality.

Later in the piece Westerhoff adds:

There are two definitions of reality that are much more successful. The first equates reality with a world without us, a world untouched by human desires and intentions. By this definition, a lot of things we usually regard as real - languages, wars, the financial crisis - are nothing of the sort. Still, it is the most solid one so far because it removes human subjectivity from the picture.

The second equates reality with the most fundamental things that everything else depends on. In the material world, molecules depend on their constituent atoms, atoms on electrons and a nucleus, which in turn depends on protons and neutrons, and so on. In this hierarchy, every level depends on the one below it, so we might define reality as made up of whatever entities stand at the bottom of the chain of dependence, and thus depend on nothing else.

Well, this is interesting. In the paragraph op cit. Westerhoff suggests that human subjectivity shouldn't be part of our picture of reality, but what if what stands at the "bottom of the chain of dependence" is mind rather than anything material? What if, as physicist Sir James Jeans once observed, the universe is more like a grand idea than a grand machine? What if mind is the fundamental reality and matter is just an illusion we experience because we're the size and sort of beings we are?

I'm not saying that matter is just an illusion, but when we reduce matter down to the "entities that stand at the bottom of the chain of dependence" we find that they themselves are immaterial. They're simply energy (whatever that is). If atoms, the basis of all material stuff, are reducible to just energy then in what sense are atoms real, and, a forteriori, in what sense is matter real?

There are stirrings in both physics and philosophy that suggest that at least some of the practitioners in each of these fields are growing increasingly disenchanted with the 19th century view that reality is fundamentally material. Indeed, I suspect that the only reason that more of them are not abandoning materialism altogether is that the view that the world is at bottom a product of mind has too many disconcerting theological implications.

Tough Ad

If a picture is worth a thousand words how much are 30 seconds of picture worth?

Did You Know?

Here are a few facts about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) gleaned from a Wall Street Journal article written by Heather Higgins and Hadley Heath:

• Americans know that ObamaCare requires insurance companies to allow families to keep adult children up to age 26 on their parents' policy. They are less likely to know that the provision increased the average family premium—even for families that didn't add adult dependents—by $150-$450 in 2011.
• The average family's health-insurance premiums are already up $1,300.
• Young workers who buy their own insurance will see a 19%-30% increase in premiums as a result of ObamaCare.
• Remember the 700,000 people whom the Congressional Budget Office predicted would make use of ObamaCare's federal high-risk program? Just 78,000 people have enrolled. As a result, each person in the program costs taxpayers millions of allocated dollars. Americans, when they hear this, know instinctively that there must be a better way to address the problem.
• ObamaCare was sold as the solution to covering the 47 million uninsured in America, but 10 years after the law is implemented, 30 million Americans will still be uninsured. What problem, exactly, is ObamaCare solving again?
• Americans are also generally familiar with Medicaid's problems, among them the refusal by many doctors to accept Medicaid patients. What most people don't know is that approximately 10 million of those who gain insurance under ObamaCare will just be dumped into the already cash-strapped Medicaid system.

There's a lot more information on the Health Reform law at this site. You read this stuff and you can understand why the GOP wants to rescind much of it. It looks like there was no more preparation put into it than was put into Mr. Obama's debate appearance Wednesday night.

Child Abuse

Good teachers across the country are deeply concerned that their standing in the public's esteem has been declining for several decades. This is unfortunate because there are so many outstanding people working with our kids in their schools, but what the public often sees are the ones who have no business being in the classroom. Like this woman at Philadelphia's Charles Carroll High School who apparently missed the in-service program on teaching tolerance and respect for young people:

A Philadelphia high school that normally requires students to wear uniforms initiated a casual dress day on Wednesday. But for one student at Charles Carroll High School, the opportunity to dress down was accompanied by a public dressing down, station KSDK reports.

Samantha Pawlucy, a sophomore, came to school clad in a Romney-Ryan T-shirt. The day passed without incident until she arrived at her geometry class. Her teacher, who is black, became so exercised at the sight of the shirt that she ordered the 16-year-old out of her classroom. When Samantha refused to leave, the teacher told her to remove the shirt, demanding to know whether her parents were (cover your ears) “R*p*blican.” She explained that Carroll High is a “Democratic school” and that wearing a Republican shirt is in her view akin to wearing a KKK shirt.

Still not satisfied that this important lesson had taken, the teacher marched Samantha out into the hallway, where she urged other teachers and students to mock her for her impertinence.

“I was really embarrassed and shocked,” the teen is quoted as saying. “I didn’t think she’d go in the hallway and scream to everyone.”

Samantha told reporters that she had decided to wear the shirt after researching the two major party candidates for president and concluding that she liked Romney’s message better. Her father, Richard Pawlucy, said she was especially interested in Romney’s opposition to partial-birth abortion.

When teachers lament that their communities are losing respect for them, when they complain that they're not being treated like professionals, maybe they should ask themselves why their unions protect numbskulls who think that a publicly funded school is a "Democratic" school, who seek to impose their beliefs by bullying and humiliating their students, and who extol diversity in race, gender and sexual orientation, but not in political opinions.

Unless there's a lot more to this story than what's at the link, this woman should be fired. Whatever she is she's not a teacher.

The article reminds us that neither is this woman an isolated example. There was, for instance, the teacher in North Carolina last spring who demanded that her students stop speaking ill of Mr. Obama and threatened them with arrest if they didn't.

Schools used to have standards that prospective teachers had to meet before they were placed in a classroom. Apparently, nowadays they let almost anyone do the job. With so many young, qualified people with IQs well above normal looking in vain for teaching positions, why do we inflict people like these on our kids? It's a form of child abuse.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

I was mildly amused by the reaction of liberal pundits to the carnage Mitt Romney inflicted during Wednesday night's presidential debate. The left has been almost uniformly shocked at the president's poor showing and uniformly astonished at Mitt Romney's impressario performance.

I think both reactions show how out of touch the left is with reality and how much they've been gulled by their own mythologizing.

Ever since Barack Obama first strode onto the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, liberals have apotheosized the man, creating a myth and an aura that was out of all proportion to his actual accomplishments and record. Adducing no evidence to support their claims, Mr. Obama's media acolytes nevertheless insisted that he was the most brilliant human being ever to campaign for high office. He was an eloquent policy expert who mastered the minutiae of every issue, and who would bring peace, tranquility and renewed respect for the U.S. to a troubled land. His administration would banish lobbyists and achieve historic levels of transparency, racial comity, and bipartisanship. Nor would any taint of corruption ever attach to the administration led by the man who was sending tingles up the legs of television pundits and inducing fainting spells among young women at his rallies.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was a stiff, wooden, doofus or, alternatively, a cunningly malevolent Darth Vadar. A rich white guy who was not only a felon, a tax cheat, a murderer of men's wives, but, perhaps worse, inarticulate and geeky.

The prospect of these two meeting on stage in mortal combat caused liberal hearts to pound and mouths to water. They couldn't wait to see their god-like gladiator fell the evil, insipid, goofball Romney with a mere word from his divine lips. Their anticipation of the impending rout and their scorn for Mr. Obama's adversary approximated, perhaps, how the Philistines must have felt when the Israelites sent out an unarmed David to face their great Goliath. And likewise was their utter mortification at the result. The debacle was completely unanticipated because the left had come to believe their own caricatures of both men. They created an image of both Obama and Romney that the former could never live up to and which completely misrepresented the latter.

Now they're bitter, and, as Matthew Continetti writes in a scintillating column at Free Beacon, they're turning on their own like a bunch of cannibals. Yet the liberal punditocracy is as much to blame as is their humiliated champion. Nothing in Mr. Obama's past could have given anyone who wasn't blinded by his superficial charm the idea that he was really anything more than a very lucky community organizer who rose to the highest office in the land in much the same fashion that Chauncy Gardner rose to prominence in the movie Being There.

Mr. Obama's votaries are now reaching for even the most risible excuses. Al Gore blamed it on Denver's altitude. Bob Woodward suspects Obama had something weighing heavily upon his mind. But the fact is that Mr. Obama was forced into the unfortunate position of having to defend an indefensible record without the benefit of a prepared speech or a complaisant media to run interference for him. He had to rely solely on his true abilities and so did Mr. Romney. The results and the contrast were pretty stark.

Get to the Bottom of Benghazi

The editors of National Review are calling on the president to deliver on his promise in 2008 to run a transparent administration and come clean on the murders of our diplomats in Benghazi. Here's an excerpt:

Less than a week later, four Americans were dead in Libya and al-Qaeda flags flew over our diplomatic missions in Benghazi and Cairo on the anniversary of 9/11. The juxtaposition of the campaign brag with the video of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s body being dragged through the streets was politically unfortunate for the president — especially given his earlier boast that anti-Americanism would wane under his administration.

This perhaps explains, though can never justify, what is now clear about the administration’s persistent denial that the attack was preplanned. Namely, that the White House either was deliberately less than truthful, was cataclysmically incompetent, or both.

From a handful of investigative reports and a few intrepid whistleblowers who came forward to Representative Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee, we now know that before Benghazi — before Charlotte — the U.S. intelligence community was well aware that al-Qaeda was in an “expansion phase” in Libya.

Indeed, anti-Western attacks, including RPG and IED attacks on the Benghazi consulate, had been ramping up since as early as April, and by June Libyan militants were openly discussing targeting Ambassador Stevens on social networks. We also know that despite all this, repeated requests for additional security from U.S. mission staff in Libya were denied.

Within 24 hours of the Benghazi attack that killed Stevens and three others, U.S. intelligence had “very good information” that the strike was preplanned and perpetrated by al-Qaeda-connected militants. And yet on September 13, Jay Carney was saying they were “not directly in reaction to . . . the government of the United States or the people of the United States.” And as late as September 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was flooding the Sunday chat shows with the same message: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

It wasn’t until more than a week later that administration officials admitted Benghazi was a terrorist hit, and it wasn’t until nearly two weeks later that the president yielded as much. This long after the intelligence community — not to mention the Libyan government, Senator John McCain, House Select Committee on Intelligence chairman Mike Rogers, a number of reporters and pundits, and anyone with a handful of functioning neurons and an Internet connection — had reached the same conclusion.

In the interim, the yawning gap between the administration’s official line and the dictates of common sense raised the critical question: Was the White House wishfully guessing because it actually didn’t know or care about the conditions on the ground in a state in which it had intervened with precision-guided munitions to create, or was it telling tales as part of a shortsighted political calculation to keep the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador in 30 years from becoming a campaign issue down the home stretch?

If it’s the former, it suggests a startling and dangerous disconnect between the administration’s diplomatic, intelligence, and political chains of command in a region critical to the national security of the United States. If it’s the latter, it reveals something just as dangerous: an administration willing to suppress the truth about the murder of Americans to protect its short-term political interests.

What's unconscionable in the reports about this terrible incident is that the ambassador had for some weeks feared for his life, requested that the State Department give him more protection, and was ignored or refused. How can the paper-pushers at the State Department live with themselves knowing that when this man was in jeopardy they did nothing to help him? How can they keep their jobs?

Read the rest of NR's editorial at the link. The whole thing has about it the odor of a cover-up, a tactic which this most "transparent" of administrations is getting a lot of practice at lately.

What Is Knowledge?

Philosopher Paul Pardi gives an easy-to-understand overview of some of the problems of epistemology in an essay at Philosophy News. He begins with this:

Studying knowledge is something philosophers have been doing for as long as philosophy has been around. It’s one of those perennial topics—like the nature of matter in the hard sciences--that philosophy has been refining since before the time of Plato.

The discipline is known as epistemology which comes from two Greek words episteme which means knowledge and logos which means a word or reason. Epistemology literally means to reason about knowledge. Epistemologists study what makes up knowledge, what kinds of things can we know, what are the limits to what we can know, and even if it’s possible to actually know anything at all.

At first this might seem like one of those topics that gives philosophy a bad name. After all, it seems kind of silly to ask whether we can know anything since is obvious we do. It's even more silly when you consider that to even ask the question, you must assume you know something! So why have some of the greatest minds the world has ever produced spent such a great deal of time on the subject?

In order to answer that question, you probably have to have some idea what the term “know” means. If I asked, “Have you seen the flibbertijibbet at the fair today?” I’d guess you wouldn’t know how to answer. You’d probably ask me what a flibbertijibbet is. But most adults tend not to ask what knowledge is before they can evaluate whether they have it or not. We just claim to know stuff and most of us, I suspect, are pretty comfortable with that. There are lots of reasons for this but the most likely is that we have picked up a definition over time and have a general sense of what the term means. Many of us would probably say knowledge that something is true involves:

• Certainty – it's hard if not impossible to deny
• Evidence – it has to based on something
• Practicality – it has to actually work in the real world
• Broad agreement – lots of people have to agree it's true

But if you think about it, each of these has problems. For example, what would you claim to know that you would also say you are certain of? Let’s suppose you’re not intoxicated, high, or in some other way in your “right” mind and conclude that you know there is a computer in front of you. You might go further and claim that denying it would be crazy, but isn’t it at least possible that you’re dreaming or that you’re in something like the Matrix and everything you see is an illusion?

Before you say such a thing is absurd and only those who were unable to make the varsity football team would even consider such questions, can you be sure you’re not being tricked? After all, if you are in the Matrix, the robots that created the Matrix would be making you believe you are not in the Matrix and that you’re certain you aren’t.

Pardi has many more interesting things to say about the questions addressed by epistemologists in his article at the link. Check it out.

Extreme Deep Field

The pic below was featured at the Hubble Space Telescope website. Here's what the Hubble folks said about it:

Like photographers assembling a portfolio of best shots, astronomers have assembled a new, improved portrait of mankind's deepest-ever view of the universe. Called the eXtreme Deep Field, or XDF, the photo was assembled by combining 10 years of NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs taken of a patch of sky at the center of the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field. The XDF is a small fraction of the angular diameter of the full Moon.

The XDF contains about 5,500 galaxies even within its smaller field of view. The faintest galaxies are one ten-billionth the brightness of what the human eye can see.

Each of these galaxies contains billions of stars. If we could see them more closely many of them would look like this:

Photos like the Extreme Deep Field pic sometimes raise theological questions. For example, if God created the universe why was he so extravagant? Why so many galaxies? Why is the universe so big? Why is it so old?

No one knows the answers for sure, of course, but I think we can take a pretty good guess.

If God created the universe in order for us to inhabit it, and if he chose to bring it into being the way cosmologists believe it came into being - in a huge explosion ex nihilo(the Big Bang) - then it has to be as old as it is and as big as it is for us to be here. Here's why:

Following the initial explosion the universe would have been nothing but energy. As it cooled the energy formed hydrogen which gradually coalesced into stars which produced heavier elements in their cores in the process of nuclear fusion. Eventually these stars exploded and spewed these heavy elements into space. These elements were later captured around stars like the sun and coagulated into spheres (planets).

This whole process by which the universe got to the point where the elements necessary for life could form and where life could be supported took billions of years all during which the universe was rapidly expanding. Thus, given that God may have chosen to create the universe in this way, the universe has to be as old as it is and therefore as big as it is.

It could well be the case that all of it, in its incomprehensible immensity, exists simply so that we can. If so, then the universe really would be anthropocentric. We really would be the point, or center, of the whole thing.

Slaughtering Teens with America's Help

Imagine the outrage were it learned that a Republican president's policies both violated the law and facilitated the massacre of fourteen teenagers at the hands of murderous thugs. That's just one outcome of the Obama administration's gun-walking operation dubbed Fast and Furious. The Department of Justice made it possible for Mexican drug cartels to purchase almost two thousand weapons in the U.S. and transport them across the border where they were used in the murders of thousands of Mexicans.

The Spanish language station Univision has the story that American networks have been reluctant to air, although perhaps that's changing. This story was co-produced with ABC:

On January 30, 2010, a commando (cohort) of at least 20 hit men parked themselves outside a birthday party of high school and college students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez.

Near midnight, the assassins, later identified as hired guns for the Mexican cartel La Linea, broke into a one-story house and opened fire on a gathering of nearly 60 teenagers. Outside, lookouts gunned down a screaming neighbor and several students who had managed to escape. Fourteen young men and women were killed, and 12 more were wounded before the hit men finally fled.

Indirectly, the United States government played a role in the massacre by supplying some of the firearms used by the cartel murderers. Three of the high caliber weapons fired that night in Villas de Salvarcar were linked to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to a Mexican army document obtained exclusively by Univision News. It identified a total of 57 more previously unreported firearms that were bought by straw purchasers monitored by ATF during Operation Fast and Furious and then recovered in Mexico in sites related to murders, kidnappings, and at least one other massacre.

The killers thought their victims were members of a rival cartel, but they weren't as their leader admits on the video of the Univision documentary. The video goes into a lot of detail on the devastation Fast and Furious has caused in Mexico and is 45 minutes long. The massacre described above, however, is covered in the first ten minutes.

That our government would conduct such an operation is reprehensible. It's only slightly less reprehensible that our national liberal media seems almost entirely disinterested in holding the people responsible for it accountable for the innocent blood that's on their hands.

Human Origins and OOL

A recent Gallup survey found that almost 80% of Americans believe that God was involved somehow in the origin of human beings:

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. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

Be that as it may, we have frequently noted on Viewpoint that most people who reject God as an explanation for the origin of things do so not on the basis of evidence but because there's no room for God in their materialistic, naturalistic worldview. In other words, they reject the God hypothesis because they simply don't want it to be true. This comes across pretty clearly in a post by Rabbi Moshe Averick at Algemeiner.com

Averick has collected almost two dozen quotes from prominent scientists remarking on the mystery of the origin of life (OOL), how it seems to be nothing short of miraculous, and how there's really no plausible naturalistic explanation for how it could have happened. Even so, these scientists are committed to finding a naturalistic explanation, not because science can only admit of such explanations, but because, at least for some of them, they simply don't want to think that there's a God. Here are a few of the quotes Averick lists:

• I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. Dr. Ernst Chain, Nobel Prize Medicine, 1945.
• There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility.... I will not accept that [a supernatural creative act of God] philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to Evolution. Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate 1954.
• The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption...There is, however, little evidence in favor of abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed...it is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that abiogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method…happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available. Dr. Gerald Kerkut, Profesor Emeritus of Neuroscience at the University of Southampton, 1960.
• All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize Chemistry, 1962.
• Indeed, such a theory (intelligent design) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific....From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brain-washed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it; it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. Sir Fred Hoyle, 1984.
• We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, 1997.
• I should like to say that the scientific attempt to explain the origin of life proceeds from the assumption that whatever it was that happened was a natural process: no miracles, no supernatural intervention. It was by ordinary atoms doing extraordinary things that life was brought into existence. Scientists have to start with that assumption. Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist, 2002.
• Dennis Overbye just wrote a status report for the New York Times on research into life’s origin, based on a conference on the topic at Arizona State University. Geologists, chemists, astronomers, and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life. John Horgan, Senior Writer Scientific American, 2011.
• Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life...these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. Dr. Eugene Koonin, Molecular Biologist, 2011.

Almost like a miracle indeed.

Whatever Works

There is a view among ethicists known as Pragmatism which holds, roughly speaking, that whatever works is right. Many politicians, unless they're governed by some higher moral principle, are pragmatists who believe that if something, no matter how nefarious it might seem to some, helps them hold onto power then it's ethically right and proper.

This is why so many politicians feel no qualms about lying about both themselves and their opponents. In their eyes lying is morally justified if it results in electoral success.

President Obama has amassed a rather impressive record in this regard, churning out half-truths and untruths on an almost daily basis.

Karl Rove summarizes some recent examples of Mr. Obama's faltering commitment to honesty in a piece at the Wall Street Journal:

To get a sense of how comprehensive the president's assault on the truth has been, consider some of his false claims in recent speeches and ads.

One Obama spot says, "To pay for huge, new tax breaks for millionaires like him, Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class: $2,000 for a family with children."

That claim has been thoroughly discredited, including by PolitiFact Virginia and editorials in this newspaper. Mr. Romney, unlike the president, is committed to cutting taxes for everyone, including the middle class.

Another ad says, "As a corporate raider, [Mr. Romney] shipped jobs to China and Mexico." In response, the Washington Post editorialized, "On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue."

As recently as Sept. 17, Mr. Obama claimed in Ohio that Mr. Romney's "experience has been owning companies that were called 'pioneers' in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like China." But that claim, too, is a fabrication.

There is more. An Obama ad aimed at northern Virginia women intones, "Mitt Romney opposes requiring coverage for contraception." In fact, Mr. Romney opposes the president's unprecedented assault on religious liberties—in this case, the federal government forcing religious institutions (like church-sponsored hospitals, schools and charities) to provide insurance coverage for contraception in violation of their fundamental moral values and, incidentally, the First Amendment.

Rove goes on to accuse the president of having trouble being forthright about his own record as well:

Mr. Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on Sept. 20 that his biggest failure "is we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done." The president then did what is second nature to him: He pinned the blame on Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency — and Mr. Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.

In the same interview, Mr. Obama claimed that his Justice Department's botched "Fast and Furious" gunrunning program was "begun under the previous administration." This time it was ABC's Jake Tapper correcting the record, pointing out, "it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."

The most troubling recent example of Mr. Obama's serial dishonesty is his administration's effort to deny that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist assault, as if the truth would somehow tarnish Mr. Obama's foreign-policy credentials.

Unfortunately, many voters only pay lip service to their alleged disdain for dishonesty among politicians. When given the chance to show the door to someone who has blatantly tried to deceive the electorate both about his opponent and about himself, they'll vote for him anyway as long as he's more charming than the other guy. They did it with President Clinton and, sadly, many of them will do it again with Mr. Obama.

It makes one wonder who is more dishonest, the politicians or the people who vote for them even as they profess their contempt for the lack of integrity among the political class. Maybe voters only despise dishonesty when it's the other party's guy who's engaging in it.

Why the President May be in Electoral Trouble

Although recent polls have been showing Mr. Obama maintaining a substantial lead over Mr. Romney in the race for the White House there are several reasons to be skeptical that Mr. Obama is enjoying the cushion the media has been claiming for him. Here are four:

• Support and/or enthusiasm is down in every subgroup that carried Obama to victory last time. Jews, businessmen, youth, even blacks and Hispanics are all less enthusiastic than in 2008. Those blacks and Hispanics who vote will undoubtedly vote overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, but it doesn't appear that as many will vote this time around as last.
• Democratic registration is down sharply in most swing states. John Hinderaker at Powerline cites these numbers from Ohio and elsewhere:

  Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.
  
  Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa it's down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it’s down 19.7 percent.
  
  The Third Way study, which was conducted in August, indicates the Democrats’ drop in registered voters coincides with a gain in independent voters.

• Admittedly, this one is anecdotal but perhaps significant nonetheless: I've heard a lot of people say that they voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but will not vote for him in 2012, but I've yet to hear someone say they voted for John McCain in 2008 but will vote for Barack Obama this year.
• Finally, almost every poll that shows President Obama ahead assumes that Democrats will turn out in the same proportion over Republicans as they did in 2008. Many pollsters survey respondents based on the 2008 numbers so if Democrat voters were 8% more numerous than Republicans in 2008 then pollsters ask 8% more Democrats than Republicans who they'll vote for this year.
  
  This, of course, results in higher percentages of voters who say they'll vote for Mr. Obama, but given the heavy GOP turnout in the 2010 election and the much higher voter enthusiasm among Republicans this year, it seems unrealistic to rely on the 2008 numbers for this year's electorate.

Obama Phones

One time-honored way to win elections, I guess, is to bribe people by just giving them stuff. They'll apparently love you for it. It certainly seems that that's what the president is thinking with his cell phone give-away:

I don't know whether the people who got "Obama phones" are all going to vote, but, well, heaven help us.

The Key to Happiness

Robert Emmons, writing at Big Questions, discerns the key to Happiness in the Queen of the Virtues - Gratitude.

In modern times gratitude has become untethered from its moral moorings and collectively, we are worse off because of this. When the Roman philosopher Cicero stated that gratitude was the queen of the virtues, he most assuredly did not mean that gratitude was merely a stepping-stone toward personal happiness. Gratitude is a morally complex disposition, and reducing this virtue to a technique or strategy to improve one’s mood is to do it an injustice.

Even restricting gratitude to an inner feeling is insufficient. In the history of ideas, gratitude is considered an action (returning a favor) that is not only virtuous in and of itself, but valuable to society. To reciprocate is the right thing to do. “There is no duty more indispensable that that of returning a kindness” wrote Cicero in a book whose title translates “On Duties.”

Cicero’s contemporary, Seneca, maintained that “He who receives a benefit with gratitude repays the first installment on his debt.” Neither believed that the emotion felt in a person returning a favor was particularly crucial. Conversely, across time, ingratitude has been treated as a serious vice, a greater vice than gratitude is a virtue. Ingratitude is the “essence of vileness,” wrote the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant while David Hume opined that ingratitude is “the most horrible and unnatural crime that a person is capable of committing.”

Emmons goes on to discuss the myriad benefits of a spirit of gratitude for both the individual and society:

To give a flavor of these research findings, dispositional gratitude has been found to be positively associated with qualities such as empathy, forgiveness, and the willingness to help others. For example, people who rated themselves as having a grateful disposition perceived themselves as having more prosocial characteristics, expressed by their empathetic behavior, and emotional support for friends within the last month.

When people report feeling grateful, thankful, and appreciative in studies of daily experience, they also feel more loving, forgiving, joyful, and enthusiastic. Notably, the family, friends, partners and others that surround them consistently report that people who practice gratitude are viewed as more helpful, more outgoing, more optimistic, and more trustworthy.

One of the most important passages in the essay, at least in my opinion, was when Emmons says this:

A spirit of ingratitude corrodes human relationships and becomes epidemic within a culture when entitlements and rights are prioritized over duties and obligations, laments Senior Fellow Roger Scruton of the American Enterprise Institute. Is it any wonder then, that the biggest fear that parents now have for their children is a sense of entitlement and the resentment produced when life fails to deliver what their children think they are entitled to?

When people come to see themselves as entitled their sense of gratitude withers. That's one of the corrosive effects of the modern welfare state - people feel they're owed something from others and consequently their sense of thankfulness is often attenuated. Moreover, when people are granted help from a nebulous, impersonal government it's much more difficult to be thankful for it than when it comes from concrete individual persons.

At any rate, I urge those readers who are searching for happiness in their lives to do a little introspection and ask themselves how grateful they are for what others do, and have done, for them. I also urge readers to read the rest of Emmons' article. There's a lot of wisdom in it.

What's the Most Likely Explanation?

Here's a five minute video showing just a few of the basic details of how a bacterial flagellum works and how it is constructed. Keep in mind that what you're watching is an animation that barely scratches the surface of the complexity of these microscopic organelles. Also keep in mind that the basic philosophical/scientific controversy today is over whether such structures - and the myriad of other structures in the cell - developed as a consequence of blind, impersonal forces and processes or, alternatively, whether they are the product of an intelligent, purposeful agent:

Suppose you were completely neutral on the question of what could have produced this. Suppose that you had no metaphysical inclinations either for or against theism or naturalism. Which of the two would you think to be the most likely explanation for such a structure? Would you think that such functional complexity is more or less likely to have arisen by chance mutations and natural selection or as a result of intelligent engineering by a mind?

Is Romney Really Ahead?

Political strategist Dick Morris explains why Romney is actually in a better position than Obama despite what both the pundits and the polls say. After a review of some of the problems that a number of the polls have he writes this:

Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can’t get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won’t ever get there in the actual vote.

So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes).
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote.
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes).
• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes).
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes).
• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll.
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.

It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher.
• The GOP field organization is better.

Perhaps this is all just a matter of putting the best face on things or perhaps Romney really is doing better than what we're hearing from the media.

David Brooks' Conservatism

David Brooks is a columnist for the New York Times who considers himself a conservative. Perhaps relative to his colleagues at the Times he is, but his conservatism is hard to discern in most of his columns. He recently wrote a piece in which he laments how, in his mind, one branch of conservatism in the Republican party, what might be called traditional values conservatism, has been squeezed out by economic, or free market, conservatism. He begins with this:

When I joined the staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984, the magazine, and the conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two different mentalities.

On the one side, there were the economic conservatives. These were people that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would be familiar with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government intrudes upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest political value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive government would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.

But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.

Because they were conservative, they tended to believe that power should be devolved down to the lower levels of this chain. They believed that people should lead disciplined, orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have the ability to do this alone, unaided by social custom and by God. So they were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

Perhaps Brooks thinks this sort of conservative is less familiar because he's not really looking for them. If he were he'd see exactly this sort of conservative in Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. He'd see it in the leaders of most of the conservative grass roots organizations like the Tea Party.

What's happened, however, is that anyone who promotes "traditional values" conservatism is attacked by the liberal media and the message gets diffused as conservatives seek to defend a host of countercultural social positions.

Conservatives have implicitly decided, I think, that for the sake of defeating Barack Obama in November they will train all their fire on his economic failures and put the traditional social issues on the back-burner so as not to be side-tracked by interminable disputes over intractable questions.

Later in his column Brooks says this:

It’s not so much that today’s Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism. They don’t even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side who’d be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels.

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country. Republicans have very little to say to Hispanic voters, who often come from cultures that place high value on communal solidarity.

This is just silly. Brooks is faulting conservatives for not being liberals. The fact is that conservatives realized long ago that money is not the solution to the problems of the working class and chaotic neighborhoods. You don't change people's character by giving them money. Indeed, throwing money at problems only exacerbates those problems. Since LBJ's Great Society of the 1960s we have spent over six trillion dollars on the sorts of programs that Brooks talks about, and the problems of the poor as deep as ever.

What the denizens of those chaotic neighborhoods need is not more government programs. What they need is economic opportunity which is created by a powerful economy, they need to learn the importance of marriage, and they need strong father figures who can teach them the importance of moral character. None of that can be provided by government, it can only be provided by the mediating institutions of church and civic organizations. Nor is any of it likely to emerge in the cultural cesspool that is modern entertainment. It will only flourish in an environment where the culture promotes messages which reinforce the value of monogamous marriage and family.

I would think someone of Brooks' acumen would see this much more clearly than he evidently does.