God is Dead, we have Thrown Twigs at him.

As far as I can tell, the most popular argument among atheists when confronted with the fact that their worldview can't explain the existence of the universe, objective morality, self-consciousness, life, logic, or ascetics, is that they can't believe in the Christian God because he's done so many evil things.  Besides the fact that atheists don't have any reason or basis for holding God to any kind of morality, I will try to argue that God is good.

Of course, the thing that really makes this a fools errand is that to the atheist, what is good is what makes him feel good and what is bad is what makes him feel bad.  Because of this, it is impossible to argue that what someone does is good because his interpretation of good is that which he believes is good.  Of course, this leaves him in the rather uncomfortable position of not being able to say that what anyone does is bad, meaning he can't say that it would be evil for me to shoot him in the head.  Because of this, I believe that the only way to answer this argument is from the perspective of Christian values, since an atheist can at least point out if God and therefore Christianity is inconsistent.  (Even though atheists still can't give objective basis for using the law of non-contradiction, I feel an obligation to use it in my defense, as the Christian worldview does support the law of non-contradiction.)  

Lets look at some specifics.  II Kings 2:23-25:

"He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them,he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria."

In this passage, we see God maim and possibly kill 42 boys.  Terrible, right?  Well, we'll see.  One thing that atheists have trouble understanding about Christian Theology is that Christians believe that sin is a serious matter.  Although Christ preached that we as Christians should forgive as God forgave us, God is not held to that standard.  God is holy, and it is part of his very nature to punish sinners for their sins.  In this case, we see Children who are not only treating an elder with disrespect, (thus breaking both the 5th and 6th commandments)  they are also doing so to a prophet, God's servant and mouth to communicate to his people, the Israelites, thus also breaking the 3rd commandment by disrespecting God's representative.  If someone mistreated the President, the US would take it as an offense.  Such an act would be an act of disrespect against the US and would belittle and degrade the name of the US (not that I think that that's a sin, it's just an example).  As question 100 of the Heidelberg Catechism attests to, this is a serious offense:

Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing? 

It undoubtedly is, for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death.

Because this sin is so heinous in God's eyes, being killed or maimed for committing it (not to mention the other two comandments, which God also commanded to be punished by death) is perfectly just and righteous.  Some may say that that doesn't seem fair to them, but since it obviously seems fair to God, they have no grounds to accuse him for doing wrong.  They may also say that they wouldn't want to believe in a God like that, but they must remember that whether they want God to exist or not has nothing to do with whether he actually exists or not.  It only has to do with whether they're right or wrong in their subjective impressions.

But what about evil in general?  Why does God allow evil in the first place that requires punishment?  After all, you said that this God was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, right?  How could such a God allow the evil and the death that we see all around us?  This is admittedly a difficult question two answer, however, I do not believe that it is necessarily a crushing blow to the Christian.  After all, when you think about it, for God to stop evil he would have had to create a bunch of robots with no free will.  One can understand why God would want something more than little humanoid robots, since being loved by something with no free will is hardly any love at all.  But couldn't God have created a world in which free will existed but sin was still impossible?  Umm. . . no.  If sin is impossible, then free will has already been restricted.  But isn't God cruel to create a world that he knew would result in astronomical pain and suffering?  Well, I suppose you might think so, but God is no more responsible for the evil in the world than any person is for the sins of their children, seeing as they brought them into existence.  Furthermore, as terrible as the pain and suffering in this would is, the joy and fulfillment that can come from a life lived for Christ can certainly surpass it.  Thus, God refrains from preventing evil because he loves us and wants to maintain a real relationship with us, rather than controlling us like robots.

Obviously there are many other variations on these basic ideas, but I believe that most of them can be refuted with the same or similar arguments.  Remember, even if an atheist still thinks that what God has done is evil, he has no basis for what is evil.  He can only claim that God has contradicted himself and therefore that God cannot form a solid basis for morality.  Of course, this claim also is untrue, since, as we have seen, the actions some perceive as evil are best explained by God's consistency.

Another Reason to Love Your Country

Well it turns out that, as many had speculated, that ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) did intend to use the guns it let walk across the border as an excuse for putting stricter regulation on firearm retailers.  

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. 

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information. 

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious: 

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks." 

This doesn't really surprise me, considering the "government knows best" that has come to define bureaucrats.  However, I must admit that it is rather shocking to think that ATF would use the deaths border patrol guards and innocent Mexicans that they facilitated to attempt to argue that they, ATF, should have more power.  After all, it would seem that these people would eventually realize that maybe they aren't helping things after it turns out that people are dying thanks to their a) incompetency or b) malice towards legal American firearms retailers.  Instead, they look at it as another opportunity to spread lies about the necessity of further gun control and request more power.  However, it seems that some of that pesky truth stuff leaked out, so now it's up to the press to frantically report on anything but this rather incriminating scandal.  If the fact that blame it's own criminal activity on insufficient gun regulation isn't a good reason to be filled with love, admiration, and trust for the US government, I don't know what isn't.

Thanks to Viewpoint for the tip.

I miss Collective Bargaining Already (Not)

Here's something you won't hear about on NBC.  It turns out that those collective bargaining rights that Liberals in Wisconsin were having a fit over weren't actually such a great deal after all.  In fact, the author of this article even dares to suggests that schools, teachers, and the state government will all be better off than they were before collective bargaining rights were abolished.  Who would have guessed?  (Besides Wisconsin Republicans, who predicted this all along.)

The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union. 

The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. The creation of Wisconsin's largest teachers union -- "WEA" stands for Wisconsin Education Association -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way. 

The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA Trust was charging significantly higher rates than the school district could find on the open market. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling. 

Changing to a different insurance company would save Hartland-Lakeside hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on key educational priorities -- especially important since the cash-strapped state government was cutting back on education funding. But teachers union officials wouldn't allow it; the WEA Trust requirement was in the contract, and union leaders refused to let Hartland-Lakeside off the hook. 

That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, freed from the expensive WEA Trust deal, the school district has changed insurers. 

"It's going to save us about $690,000 in 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students. 

But the effect of weakening collective bargaining goes beyond money. It also has the potential to reshape the adversarial culture that often afflicts public education. In Hartland-Lakeside, there's been no war between union-busting bureaucrats on one side and impassioned teachers on the other; Schilling speaks with great collegiality toward the teachers and says with pride that they've been able to work together on big issues. But there has been a deep division between the school district and top union executives. 

In the health insurance talks, for example, Schilling last year began telling teachers about different insurance plans, some of which, like United HealthCare's, required a higher deductible. "We involved them, and they overwhelmingly endorsed the change to United HealthCare," he says. 

But even with the teachers on board, when school officials presented a change-in-coverage proposal to union officials, it was immediately rejected. The costly WEA Trust deal stayed in place. 

Now, with the collective bargaining agreement gone, Schilling looks forward to working more closely with teachers. "I would say the biggest change is we have a lot more involvement with a wider scope of teachers," he says. When collective bargaining was in effect, "We dealt with a select team of teachers, a small group of three or four who were on the bargaining team, and then the union director. Any information that went to the teachers went through them. Now, we feel that we will have a direct dialogue." 

It's not hard to see why union officials hate the new law so much. It not only breaks up cherished and lucrative union monopolies like high-cost health insurance; it also threatens to break through the union-built wall between teachers and administrators and allow the two sides to work together more closely. The old union go-betweens, who controlled what their members could and could not hear, will be left aside. 

Hartland-Lakeside isn't the only school district that is pulling free from collective bargaining agreements that mandated WEA Trust coverage. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Pewaukee School District, not far from Hartland-Lakeside, will save $378,000 by next year by leaving WEA Trust. The Menomonee Falls School District, farther north, will reportedly save $1.3 million. Facing state cutbacks, the districts can't afford to overpay for union-affiliated coverage. 

Look for the unions to fight back with everything they have. If the Wisconsin situation has shown anything, it is that organized labor views the collective bargaining fight as a life-or-death struggle. If the unions lose in Wisconsin, the clamor for change could spread to other states. What happened in Hartland-Lakeside could become a model for other schools looking for new and better ways to do business.

So, besides saving almost 50% on healthcare, the schools are allowed to stop lavishly lining the pockets of the union, who in turn donate to Democratic campaigns.  Isn't this exactly like the corporate influence on politics that the Occupy protesters have been so critical of.  Why is it that when corporations choose to back Republicans thousands of people try to bring business to a cause as much disruption in cities around the nation as they possibly can, while when Wisconsin Republicans try to discourage the even more disgusting the state virtually funding unions to give checks to Democratic candidates Scott Walker receives death threats and thousands of people try to bring the state government to a halt.  (Not to mention the disgusting bums of Democrats who took off work to go live in a hotel on the taxpayers dime in an effort to stop the Republicans from passing the bill.)  When the Unions are given the power to create their own healthcare system and charge exorbitant prices so that they can give money to the Democrats, so they can give money to the Unions, so they can give money to the Democrats. . . all at the expense of the taxpayers.  Is that not at least as bad if not worse than corporate donations to republicans?  If so, why on earth do liberals carry out  violent protests against corporate donations and mere months after carry out violent protests in SUPPORT of Unions at the heavy expense of schools, teachers, students, taxpayers, and the state of Wisconsin?  To me, this is only even more evidence the Liberals really don't care about anything except business bashing.  It seems that every time they're anti business no matter what the situation is.  And look where it's gotten us.  Manufacturing has been moving overseas and 9.0% of Americans are unemployed.  Maybe instead of spending money we don't have bailing different sectors we should just lift the oppression of unions, regulations, and high taxes from their shoulders and see what happens.  Bailouts haven't worked so far, and I doubt they'll work this time.  Maybe it's time to realize that our economic situation is unacceptable and that we need to stop using Socialist policies that have already ruined Europe and allow business the freedom it needs to put America back to work.  Just a thought.

Unequal Equalities

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."  --- Alexis de Tocqueville 

I ran across this quote by de Tocqueville and thought it summed up my thinking on the matter pretty well.  You may recall the post I wrote earlier on the differences between the values of the USA and France.  In that post, although I did not identify American values as "democracy" and french values as "socialist" I believe that the two nations are good representations of the two groups de Tocqueville referred to.  So here, I shall be more explicit. Though there seem to be a number of people in the US who despise capitalism and would much rather have mama government govern every aspect of our lives and punish those evil business people for being successful, I don't think that that's a very good track to go down.  As we've seen in Europe and the US to an extent, socialism doesn't work.  And for a good reason.  Socialism punishes those who do well and rewards those who do poorly.  As we all know, in general, things that the government punishes it gets less of and things that the government rewards it gets more of.  Thus, since socialism rewards poverty and punishes the wealthy, socialism generates more impoverished people.  Why go to work when you can live off the government?  As time progresses, and more people chose to poverty, there are less wealthy people to pay taxes with which to fund the growing number of "poor" and the government itself becomes deeply in debt.  At this point it must either ask a richer nation to subsidize its poverty or it must default on its loans and go bankrupt.  Sound familiar?  Of course, when the richer governments bail out the smaller ones, they only kick the can down the road and allow everyone to get deeper in debt, making the problem worse.

While equality of result may sound appealing to lazy bums like the ones "occupying wall street" (the ones protesting, of course) all it produces is equal bondage and poverty (except for the government, which grows good and fat off of the people).  In other words, there can either be a large difference in income and resources, along with an equal chance to be one of the rich people, or there can be an entire society of people worse off than the poorest capitalist.  I don't know which one is "fairest" (obviously I've argued for equal opportunity a number of times here) but I know which society I'd rather live in.  In fact, I'm such an extremist that I like the idea that people who work hard are rewarded well and people who don't work hard aren't.  Imagine that I even like having responsibility for my own actions!  I'm so 19th century.

Evil in Egypt

As you probably already know, the Egyptian government (i.e. the army) has been in the news recently for killing a number of Christian protestors who were condemning recent church burnings and demanding equal rights with Muslims.  You can read a little more about it here.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who mind hasn’t been shut off by the media’s recent love affair with the new Egyptian since Mubarak’s ousting.  After all, I expect nothing less of Muslims than insidious persecution of other religions.  Such is the domineering nature that the Muslim faith has taken since it’s creation by the warlord/prophet Muhammad.  Slaughtering Christians is just maintaining the historic status quo for Muslims (not that Christians haven’t done the same on occasions).  For those of us who were worried that the new Egypt might not be all that free for some, this is the first affirmation of that belief. 

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."

Alexis de Tocqueville

As I believe I’ve said before, democracy doesn't work without a populace that widely embraces Christianity or at the very least adheres to Christian values.   Without people that have an interest in the common good and playing by the rules, Democracy just doesn't work.  After all, people without values are more likely to exploit the system and cause problems for everyone else, which is easier to do in a democracy where everyone has all those freedoms.


Of course, along the same lines, christian politicians (and politicians in general in fact) are more likely to recognize things like objective morality and have a less liberal interpretation of the constitution, and therefore less likely to twist words, work the system, and make life worse for everybody else.

However, most importantly, if the majority of the people are christian, they themselves will be more likely to support fair treatment for minority groups (despite what they tell you on CNN).  People with Christian values will want to treat others fairly because our idea of fair here in the west was forged by the Christian church.  With a majority that does not hold such values (and Muslims are a prime example because they hold values quite different from Christian values, unlike most atheists who tend to steal christian values) one can expect suppression of minorities and the creations of what is still a "rule of many" but is certainly does not offer the "liberty and justice for all" that has come to define the more popular definition of democracy.

Now, on a slightly different strain, it turns out that Obama has come out with a statement encouraging the Egyptian copts, who are being slaughtered by the dozens, to practice "restraint".  Here's an article on the subject.

President Obama has responded to the Egyptian military’s massacre of Coptic Christian protestors in Cairo Sunday with a pointedly even-handed statement that calls equally on Christians and the military to show restraint. 

“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Obama said in a statement released this week. ”Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.” 

Incredibly, Obama is not only equating the deaths of peaceful protestors and their killers, but he is suggesting that Egypt’s increasingly persecuted Christian minority should show as much “restraint” as their tormentors and refrain from vigorously objecting to the growing abuse. 

More than two dozen people, most of them Copts, were killed as security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the burning of a church. 

The Egyptian military has denied the killings, but news reports, eyewitness accounts, and videos posted to the Internet contradict the claims, with footage showing armed personnel carriers ramming through crowds of protestors and a soldier firing at them. The dead, according to forensic reports, were either crushed by being run over or were shot. 

Three soldiers are also said to have died, but this appears to have occurred as protestors were fighting for their lives. There can be no mistaking that this was a slaughter of civilians. 

The church burning was only the latest in an escalating series of attacks by Islamists against Christians and their churches. 

Obama’s statement does say that “the United States continues to believe that the rights of minorities – including Copts – must be respected.” But the moral equivalence given to the demonstrators and military signals that the White House is not yet serious about curtailing the anti-Christian violence and preempting additional brutal action by the military. 

In another sign of unseriousness, Obama notes reassuringly “Prime Minister Sharaf’s call for an investigation,” even though Sharaf has already blamed the violence on a foreign consipiracy.
“It is difficult for us to consider what happened in Egypt in the past hours is due to sectarian strife, but what is for certain is that it is one of the pieces of this plot,” Sharaf said. 

Some analysts fear that the Egyptian military may be promoting violence in order to give it an excuse to crack down and increase its power.

It's bad enough that the Egyptian Christians have to put up with this, but does our President really have to wink at it like that and blame the Christians as much as their killers?  It seems like just months ago that Obama was protecting peaceful protesters with air and missile strikes.  Oh wait, that's completely different.  Those were Muslims (some of whom almost certainly had ties to terrorist groups) who were being shot, not Christians.  I'm not saying that I agree with this, but the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim are looking righter and righter every day.  Next statement it will probably be all the Christians fault and he'll be sending troops to Egypt to help the Egyptians persecute their Christians.  After all, it's hard to imagine his poll numbers going down any further no matter what he does.

Thanks to Viewpoint for the article.

RE: More New Birds

I just remembered earlier today that I also saw a Pine Siskin on Monday, which I'd already seen a couple years ago.  However, it is still a cool bird that I don't see much.

The Wall Street Rioters

By now everyone has heard more than enough about "the wall street protesters".  Of course, as is typical of far left gatherings there has been a lot of angry business bashing, confrontations with the law, and even this time some arrests.  May I simply make the point that if tea party protesters were trying to force their way into places of national significance and pushing around the police and getting arrested that there would  much self-righteous condemnation from the media.  However, if the far left does it it must be right, right?  (Or maybe it was if the far left does it it must be left, I can't remember.)  I personally have heard little or no condemnation of the actions of the occupy wall street movement from the main stream media (though I admit that I try to limit my exposure to the main stream media, since it gives me high blood pressure).

Another thing that struck me about the protesters is that they claim that a "small minority" has taken over politics (meaning the tea party) and that they, the majority will therefore be able to have a much greater affect if only they energize their base.  Last I checked, however, things like fiscal responsibility and decreasing government regulation were far more popular than dragging businessmen out of their offices in handcuffs.  As much as the media may love to paint the tea party as radical, I think they actually enjoy far more popular support than the far left does.

Another interesting thing about this movement is that although it is a far left movement, it is also rather anti Obama, since it is definitely against the bailouts that Obama pushed through and is trying again to push through (THIS time it will work I'm sure).  Perhaps it will move liberal politicians to the left, which will only help elect more Republicans if national opinion remains the same through the election.  Whatever it's affect, however, it has severely limited it by its unruly conduct and frequent confrontations with police, provoking everything from arrests to pepper spray.  Perhaps I'm biased, but they strike me as a bunch of angry punks who are upset that other people have more money than they do and are willing to do anything to get their way.  Not a movement I would want to ally myself with, even if they did agree with my values.

More New Birds

My Dad graciously agreed to take me to Hawk mountain yesterday since he has off work on Columbus day.  Thusly, we went and got to the North lookout at around 7:30.  Soon after we got there, as the official counter and I were checking out the warblers, kinglets, and vireos, my Dad said "what's that up there".  I looked up and was surprised to see a juvenile Peregrine Falcon soaring just above the tree tops.  Needless to say, somebody started chest pounding and making a big deal about how the least qualified person saw the Peregrine falcon first (but don't listen to me, I'm just jealous).  After that, I saw Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned Kinglets, Blue-headed Vireos, Black-throated Green and Yellow-rumped Warblers, Northern Flickers, Pileated, Downy, and Red-bellied Woodpeckers, and a Brown Creeper putting on a show around the overlook.  Later in the day, the hawks finally started coming in and we saw another Peregrine Falcon, a lot more Sharp-shinned Hawks, and one Northern Harrier.  Of these, the Peregrine Falcons, Golden-crowned Kinglets, and Blue-headed Vireos were new birds.  While we were up there, one of the counters kindly told me about a Northern Wheatear that had been seen in a days in parkinglot not far from Hawk Mountain.  Apparently a gentleman was taking a trip up the east coast and saw it while he was staying at the Days Inn.  Anyhow, we drove out to the days in, and some birders already there were kind enough to point it out to us.  Here are some pictures of the same bird taken by another birder.

You can see more pictures of the bird on his site.

Why is everyone making such a big deal about this?  Because, according to one post I read, Northern Weatears are only seen in Pennsylvania about every 10-15 years.  Yes, birders are weird that way.  Anyhow, these birds live primarily in Europe and Asia and winter in Africa so it causes a bit of a stir when one is seen around here (in the birding community at least).

A Balanced Approach?

As I'm sure most of you have already heard, President Obama and his fellow Democrats have been advocating "a balanced approach" do reducing the deficit and producing an economic recovery.  Of course, what they mean by "balanced approach" is lots of tax increases and cuts to the military, along with some severely limited entitlement reforms.  Personally I'm left wondering where the balance is in that, but that just goes to show what an extremist I am.  But even if they did really want a balanced approach, is a balanced approach what we really need?  I would say no.  Although talking about compromises and balanced approaches may warm the hearts of sum and evoke fuzzy feeling attacks, I see no evidence that it gets the job done (that is compromises, although talk doesn't get anything done either for that matter).  After all, compromises and bipartisanship are what got us to where we are now anyway.

Furthermore, one of the most important government reforms in the entire history of our nation was about as partisan as it gets.  After the civil war, the republican party did all kinds of things from freeing the slaves (officially, I don't put much weight on the emancipation proclamation) to shifting the balance of power from the states to the federal government.  They did this because the majority of their opponents had recently been crushed and utterly ruined by the civil war and they didn't need to worry about making compromises.  As far as I can tell, great things are not done by bipartisan agreements.  Even healthcare was completely partisan, it only passed because the Democrats had complete control of every branch of government (although I would call obamacare a great evil rather than a "great thing").

In addition to this, it seems logical to reason that if one thing is productive (like cutting taxes and reducing government spending and regulation) then the opposite is counter productive (like raising taxes on the rich and increasing government spending and regulation).  Therefore, doing a little bit of both isn't productive either because the counter-productive measures cancel out the productive ones.  Because of this any bipartisan measure must unproductive (unless everyone agrees on everything, but then bipartisanship isn't necessary because everyone is in the same party anyway).

Unfortunately this has another implication.  The problem isn't that congress won't compromise on anything (that would be stupid), it's that Americans have elected the wrong people to do the job.  As long as we keep voting in socialists we're going to get more of what what we've already got.  Maybe, just maybe, if we elect conservatives we can get some real reform passed.  The responsibility is the American peoples.

License to Kill

Well, as if President Obama needed to give voters more reasons not to reelect him, word has just come out that he has ordered the unlawful killing of two American citizens.  This is not the first such scandal, however.  In particular the DOJ has been carrying out especially effective measures to ensure that we see Obama as the worst attack on America since 9/11.  Cases in point, the DOJ refuses to prosecute blacks for voter intimidation and has decided to attempt to tarnish the reputation of gun shops around the US in operation fast and furious.  And now, two American citizens have been divested  of their very lives without due process of law.  Basically, the President ordered them to be killed.  Although I do not claim to be an expert on the methods of distortion used by Liberals to justify their actions and claim that they are constitutional, I will say that I can not see anything in the constitution that gives the President the authority to kill citizens of his choice.  After all,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --- US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

Now granted, that was in reference to the states, but you get the idea.  According to original intent the President isn't allowed to do anything he isn't specifically given the authority to do anyhow.  If this sounds like something that one would expect to find in Nazi Germany rather than the United States that's because it is.  (But let the record show that I never compared Obama to Hitler and that I'm not a member of the Tea Party [not that I wouldn't mind associating myself with them].)

Now don't get me wrong.  I don't like the things that Samir Khan and Anwar Awlaki were doing either, but that doesn't justify Obama killing them.  As far as I can tell they didn't pose any immediate threat to anyone and the only reason I've heard that attempts to justify their killing is that they were utilizing their freedom of speech (and even if they did they should have been arrested for it and tried in court, not killed on the spot by Obama).  The point is that even though they were obviously encouraging terrorism, giving the President the power to order the death of anyone he deems a threat is rather unnerving.  Giving the President a license to kill is essentially demolishing every freedom that Americans now enjoy.  It is to annihilate every freedom that Americans have been fighting and dying for for the past 3 centuries.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather opt for the slower, more traditional methods that liberals have been using to steel our freedom rather than this fast track to Tyranny.  I guess I'm just another one of those crazy radicals.

The Facts on France

It is not uncommon to hear politicians say that France and the US are based on the same values when politicians from either country want to encourage unity and get either country to do what the other wants.  However, I think that this is untrue, and that in reality they were based on quite different values from the very first.

As I see it, the values that modern france is based off of can be summarized in it's motto, "liberté, égalité, fraternité" which means liberty, equality, and fraternity (think like world peace, brotherly love, etc).  The values that the US was formed off of can be summarized in a similar fassion the belief that all people have the God given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or perhaps in an even more condensed form, "that all men are created equal".  Now, although these values may sound similar, they are based off of completely different schools of thought.  While France's motto describes a naive vision of every person being equal and living in peace and harmony, the US values are more realistic, taking into account that all people are evil and describing them as CREATED equal and outlining their God-given freedoms that will give everyone a shot at being the best person they can be.  This is a huge difference.  While France was based on the socialist idea of toppling the monuments so that everyone can be equal, which was conveniently displayed by the vast amount of destruction that occurred during the French Revolution, The US was based off of the idea that everyone should be allowed to do their best the elevate themselves, which is also demonstrated by the fact that the US went from being an oppressed colony of Great Britain to being one of the most prosperous nations on earth.  Not that I have anything against getting along with the French, I just don't like it when people confuse humanitarian naivety with Christian values.  (Tisk, tisk, josh, always focusing on differences and never finding areas of agreement.)

With Liberty and Justice for All. . . Sometimes

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  --- The US Constitution

So much for that.   Apparently keeping and bearing arms can still get you jailed, according to this article.

Go back and read the article.  Now that you've read the article you can read this.

Well, if we can trust Mr. Andrews then it appears that not only were his second and possibly fourth amendment rights violated, but he was also held in deplorable conditions more like one would expect to find in a third would dictatorship.  Of course, am I surprised?  No.  Not in the least.  DC is on the cutting edge the progressive movement and the thought of violating multiple constitutional rights would only be concerning if the victim is a minority or a loyal democrat.  After all, the constitution is a living and breathing document, which means that it can be interpreted however one wants it to be.  What the constitution really means is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the cops feel like doing so.  When the Constitution said unalienable rights it didn't mean that they shouldn't be stomped over whenever the government sees fit, they just thought that they might make a good place to start from and certainly didn't intend for them to be used to stop progress.  And even if they did, who are they to tell us that we can't live in a nation where people exist to serve the government and where we have no real freedom whatsoever.

Their Fair Share

It's that time again.  Time to talk about what exactly "fair share" is for the rich.  First, allow me to clarify something I thought was obviously true but has been somehow confused by the Obama administration.  Although there are some rich people who, through loopholes created by the government to try to meddle with the economy, end up paying a lower percent of taxes than those of the middle class, It's hard to imagine that this is really that prevalent when you consider that in 2008 the top 1% of tax payers payed 38.02% of all income taxes, that the top 5% payed 58.72%, that the top 10% payed 69.94%, and that the bottom 50% payed a mere 2.70% of income taxes.  (Courtesy of The Tax Foundation.)  Furthermore, the idea that these numbers are merely because the Americans in the upper tax brackets just make so much more that they can pay that much of income taxes while still paying a lower percentage.  While that's absurd anyway because there would have to be an immense difference between the rich and the poor more along the lines of medieval Europe than 21st century US, but if you still don't believe me you can go look at this chart of the tax brackets and their accompanying tax rates.

Of course, if you ask a liberal what "fair share" means for the rich (as Chris Wallace did on Fox last sunday at the 4:25 minute mark)  they'll most likely just scream something about how the rich "make a ton of money".  It's pretty obvious that their idea of fair is for everyone to be equally wealthy, since they don't think it's fair for the wealthy to have more money than they do.  I suppose this makes sense if your a socialist, but if you have American values and not greedy redistributionist opinions, it's painfully clear that the rich already pay more than they're fair share (unless you're also gullible and believe everything that David Plouffe says).  Although there isn't necessarily anything wrong with going against the principles that the US was based off of, they ought to be open about it and start calling themselves the socialist party or the anti-American party, etc.

The Cruelest Animals

I know it's unfair to pick on some poor woman by analyzing an out-of-context snippet of something she said after having a microphone pushed in front of her, I know I would say all kinds of stupid stuff, but I just couldn't help it this time.  I was listening to a BBC podcast in which a woman said that she thought that "humans are just the cruelest animals" in response to a zoo exhibit that described the gory facts of the shark fin trade and decided I just couldn't help looking at it in the form of a blog post.  After all, there are so many ways to look at it.  NOTE: this post got just a tad gory.  If you have a romantic idea about nature formed by watching Bambi and wish to maintain it you might just want to go find some other blog to read.  Try Viewpoint, that may still be a little too realistic for your liking, but at least it's less gory.

First of all, there's the part about calling humans animals.  After all, the idea that she believes that there is such a thing as cruelty and presumably also believes that it is wrong suggests that she believes in a god.  After all, we've already established that atheists have no basis for right and wrong (at least you didn't post a dissenting comment) and if she does believe in a God it would strike me as pretty odd to think that humans are just animals.  After all, must religions elevate humans above the status of animals.  

Secondly, one could look at her statement from the pragmatic side and not that there are many examples of animals being cruel to other animals.  Cases in point, cats playing with mice, killer wales bleeding and harrying female wales and their calves to death, wolves killing sheep, eating out their tongues, and leaving the rest of the carcass, deer eating off the heads of baby seabirds, etc. . .  Although the shark-fin trade is rather gruesome (including cutting off shark fins and throwing away the rest of the shark to bleed to death) I don't think it's very accurate to say that humans are any crueler than "other animals" that do everything from practicing slavery to killing for the mere fun of it.

On the other hand, you can look at it and say that she's right!  After all, from a christian perspective, humans are the only ones with the souls and the capability of feeling malice and hate and doing evil.  Because of these things, humans are the cruelest or all creation because they can be cruel on a higher level.  If a female animal eats it's own young to survive it is not being as cruel as a mother eating her own child to survive.  Because all that the animal was made to do was to survive, a female animal eating it's own young would not be evil.  Humans, on the other hand, are created to love God and their fellow humans.  Therefore, if a human mother eats her own child it goes against the divine purpose she was intended for and is being evil.  (Please note that I have nothing against my mother or any other mother for that matter and am simply using the first example that came to mind, from my memory of animal behavior that we would call cruel.)   Of course, although it's possible that she did mean it that way, I think the chances are extremely slim since she was in China, where the likelihood of being a christian is extremely small and because I doubt that someone who wanted to convey that message would phrase their statement in that way, especially in the context of an exhibit about the gore behind shark fin soup (a status symbol in China that has been in growing demand due to the growth of the middle class there). 

Finally, I shall conclude by revealing to point behind these wandering thoughts.  Um. . . Well. . . You see. . . AHA!  Yes, as I have been getting to all along (cough) the humanization of animals and the dehumanization of humans has led to some perplexing paradoxes, like the one embodied by the affore-mentioned statement.  After all, it seems strange to me that in china there would be concern over sharks when they seem to care little about they're infamous human rights abuses.  In my opinion, either there is no god and humans and "other animals" are equally unprotected by any moral law or there is a God and only humans are protected.  Instead it seems that in our postmodern world people believe that there is no god and that animals and the animals known as humans are both protected by a moral law, albeit few care to think about what exactly this moral law might be or why it is applicable to any living organism at all, whether human, animal, plant, fungus or bacteria.  Ask PETA.  Maybe they'll explain why their moral law only applies to animals and not to any of the other groups listed.  More likely they'll just rail at you and call you a veal calf slayer or a speciesist or something along those lines.

Gore the Genius

Al Gore, brilliant scientist that he is, has been running a campaign accusing big oil companies of using bad science to misinform the public.  To emphasize his point in an interview with the BBC, he described "lavishly funded" attempts to create incorrect data and compared it to the campaigns of the cigarette companies that "payed actors to dress up as doctors" to misinform.  Although I know nothing about the facts behind his statements about the cigarette company campaigns of yore, but I was somewhat surprised to hear him claim that it was critics of anthropogenic global warming that were performing bad science.  After all, that is a rather hypocritical claim to say the least.  Case in point: a study was done of the weather stations that record temperatures all around the US.  This study found that not only were a large majority of stations located near heat producing areas, like AC units, parkinglots, and buildings, but that there is varience in the materials used to coat the boxes that are used to house the thermometers.  It also found that the supposed amount of warming that the earth has experienced is well within the range of uncertainty of the instruments.  Now don't get me wrong, I definitely believe that the earth has warmed an cooled in the past, I just don't see a strong correlation between warming and fossil fuels.

Furthermore, lets not get to carried away with the lavish funding of global warming skeptics compared to supportive researches.  First of all, if anthropogenic global warming is real, any test of it, whether intended to support or tear down the theory.  That's just how science works, if it's true the tests tend to show that and if it's false they tend not to.  Furthermore, we should also keep in mind that those while the oil companies may support researchers who are skeptical of global warming, the government and other groups have been throwing huge amounts of money at those who support it as well.  If there's something morally wrong with being well funded, as the esteemed philosopher Mr. Gore has implied, then I would say that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming, such as gore, should take the plank out of their own eyes before helping the others side with the speck in their own.

One last little point.  If you don't believe already that the great master of rhetoric, Al Gore was merely stringing lame tidbits of rhetoric together to make an emotional appeal just think about this.  If he's correct and the oil companies are coming up with hokey fake data, why do they need all that lavish funding?  (Speaking of his great rhetorical skills, I've heard he has an excellent vocabulary to get his point across.)

Now I know it's unfair to go after the anthropogenic global warming theory through Al Gore, I know I wouldn't like it if someone attacked me by showing that someone really dumb didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, but the fact that Al Gore is supposed to be the figure head for the theory makes it very tempting.  (Oh, and the fact that he's always saying stupid stuff and making false claims.)

Possible New Species (But not a bird!)

Although I'm certainly no expert and have not completely satisfied myself on the question, I think it is highly probable that I have seen a new species of squirrel in my back yard this week.  I guess my bird feeder attracts more than birds.  Anyhow, as I glazed angrily out the window at the little thief hanging from my feeder, I noted that it far more colorful than our typical gray squirrels.  After thinking over it later, I recalled that Fox Squirrels have more reddish orange than gray squirrels, especially on their stomachs.  After finishing my research, I determined that I was almost certain that it was a Fox Squirrel (which I had never seen in my yard before, and possibly anywhere else either).  Anyway, here some of the images I took of the little rascal.  Decide for yourself which you think it is and leave a comment to vote.  Since I couldn't get any pictures of the squirrel's stomach, you'll just have to take my word for it that the stomach was rusty red.

Here is a link that outlines the differences between the two species.  The only thing that bothers me about this ID is that the subject squirrel's brush (tail) reminds me much more of a gray squirrel than a fox squirrel.  Whether another one of my hallucinations, individual variance, or hybridization is beyond me.  I also noticed that this individual has black on it's face and "elbows".  Whether this means anything or not is beyond me, but I didn't see it on any other individuals after a prolonged Google image search.  Finally, also note the lack of rusty red in the center of the back, which is present on most gray squirrels.  Maybe this is obviously a fox squirrel and I'm merely experiencing mild paranoia, but I haven't differentiating between these two species before and I always try to be especially careful the first time.

 

If only the Republicans Would Step Aside

I know I've harped on this before, but this really annoys me.  Obama, predictably, has been blaming out sky-rocketing unemployment on the Republicans.  I would probably have a better opposing argument to this view if it was based off of anything, but since it's pure political propaganda without an ounce of truth, I am only capable of responding to it with limited affect.

What the President is saying is that if the republicans would allow him to pass more stimulus and spend our way into poverty that the economy would be much better and everyone would have a job.  After all, he said that everyone was on-board except congressional republicans.  If only we could have more government spending, the problem would be fixed.

Now, please realize that I understand that government spending creates jobs.  It's true.  If the government dishes out more paychecks, those are new jobs.  However, (you could see that word coming, couldn't you?) This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.  Wait a minute, why isn't creating jobs a good idea in some cases?  We desperately need more jobs!  Of course we do, but more government jobs also means more government debt.  More government debt means more financial uncertainty, more financial uncertainty means a decrease in business investment and growth, and decreased growth means less jobs.

Of course, that's not the only problem.  Jobs that the government actively creates tend to be unnecessary, inefficient, and temporary.  These kinds of jobs are not what results in a booming economy.  These Keynesian jobs result in a fragile, government dependent economy (AA+ rated government no less).  You can't pay people to do unprofitable things and expect that create a booming economy.  And if the jobs are profitable, then let the private sector do it.  At the very least, the private sector won't use taxpayer dollars to do it with the private sector.

Finally, I would argue that government spending initiatives for the sole purpose of creating jobs are attacks on American's freedom.  First of all, they require either higher taxation or an increase in debt.  The first is an attack on freedom because higher taxes are an attack of on the sovereignty of property.  Although it is just for the government to subject it's citizens to taxation for the purpose of defending it's citizens property from internal or external threats and maintaining order, it is unjust for the government to take from one group of citizens (those who work hard and earn a good living) and give to members of another group (those who do not). This steps outside of the historical, tradition, and constitutional bounds set up for governments and is most often driven by corruption in the form of politicians who buy the votes of lower class citizens at the expense of the others.

The second option is an attack on freedom because it is a risk to national security.  When our nation becomes a debtor to our enemies we become reliant on them, which is obviously detrimental to our security.  Also being severely in debt has proven to to be a source of internal violence (think Greece almost ever other European country).

With this in mind, I think that the President is wrong in saying that the Republicans are standing in the way of decreasing unemployment.  In fact, I would argue that the President and the rest of his party are standing in the way by insisting on increasing the detrimental affects of policies that have already been  tried and proven a failures.  Remember that Keynesian economics are supposed to be fast acting, sort of like injecting medicine into the bloodstream, while the economics favored by the republicans can arguably take a longer time.  If anything, Keynesian economics are expected to cause immediate relief but wear of quickly, even if they work as best as they could be hoped to.  Instead we have seen that they may cause a slight upturn, but quickly cause a downturn that takes us back to where we were before or worse.  I'd say that it's about time we try something else.  Spending our way out of public and private debt hasn't worked so far.  Maybe we could just try reducing spending for a little bit and see if that is  more effective.

Government for Some of the People

As I was reading number 10 of the Federalist Papers, I was struck by the interesting description by James Madison of the intended function of American government.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

The intended purpose of the government, judging by the testimony of then primary leader of the movement to ratify the constitution, is not to make everyone equal.  Rather, it is to treat all equally (or give equal opportunity, to use the more popular phrase).  The goal is not to take from one group, or "faction", and give to another but to respect the property rights of both equally.  After all, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America asserts that all men are created equal, but it does not claim that they should have no choice but to remain that way.  Instead, it affirms that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  The job of the government is not to make everyone equal, but to protect equally the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Rather than punish those who pursue happiness with the greatest financial success, the government was intended to protect those very people (and every other group, for that matter) from those groups that would capitalize on minority groups for their own gain.  This goes for everyone; the poor, racial minorities, religions, and the rich alike.  Instead, as I see it, the government has become a tool of certain factions who capitalize on the rich by forcing them to pay a much higher percent of taxes and in turn awarding themselves welfare, medicare, social security, and the like.  Granted, there was a time when the rich capitalized on the poor as well, but I do not see that this state of affairs is any better, and the liberals, supported by black communities and (often the same) poor communities.  After all, the current over-taxation of the rich has only led us into an economic failure and ended up causing poverty just like the other did.  And although you may say that it's still better, I see no evidence that it's not going to get worse, especially if the Democrats and unions keep yelling their dumb slogans about having higher paying jobs (with the understand, or course, that they won't have to actually work much).  Judge for yourself whether the constitution has done a good job of controlling the affects of factions (of course, it might help if we actually followed the constitution).  I guess when the nation oscillates between two extremes it at least gets a little time in the middle, which is better than staying on the one extreme.  (The funny thing is that I'm the extremist for wanting to reduce government debt, spending, taxes, and regulation on business at a time when these are at historic national highs.)

Does Objective Morality Require God?

Does objective morality really require God?  Some say yes, others say no.  It has always seemed absurd to me that an atheist would say that there can be objective morality without God, sense there are no possible grounds for truly objective morality other than a supernatural.  If the grounds are natural, after all, they could not be objective because they would rely on nature, which is finite.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to determine which natural basis for morality would be the correct one.

However, there are many perfectly intelligent people who believe otherwise, so to see if I could find a good argument for such a view, I googled "does objective morality require God".  As I expected, all of the arguments I wasted my time reading were founded on a complete misunderstand of what objective means, or at least what I mean by it.  By objective morality, I mean morality that is not reliant on subjective opinions or mere preferences, but that everyone would be unquestionably compelled to obey.  The most popular arguments were that objective morality exists without God because it is actually based on evolving cultural trends, based on the fact that when society benefits, the individual benefits as well.  They claim that the feeling based inside every one of us that certain things are right and others are wrong are there because of human evolution within society.  Although I suppose this might sound great at first, I just don't think it holds any water.

When you think about it, although it seems rational enough, this argument requires the premise that it is obligatory to do what's best for yourself or society.  (I say "or" because I do not think that benefiting society benefits the individual in all cases.)  This premise is completely unfounded.  If there is no God, life is an accident and it has no meaning.  If life has no meaning, there is no reason why anyone should be obliged to benefit anyone, including themselves.  If there is no God, then there is no reason why anyone should do anything in particular.  With no heaven or hell, then there would be nothing wrong with everyone doing what was right in their own eyes.  Just because someone wants to benefit society or themselves doesn't mean that they are any better someone who wants to enjoy themselves recklessly and ruin their own lives and the lives of others.  With this premise disproved, the argument is completely illogical.  After all, although one could certainly have morality of some sort, it would not be objective morality.

Why is objective morality important?  Can't we just all live our lives according to our own moral values?  Some say that it isn't, but if anyone wants pass judgement on any actions then they must have a reason that their morality is better than everyone else's.  The only way to really validate such a claim is if there is objective morality.  Otherwise there is really no reason to be able to say that Hitler's actions were better than Mother Teresa's.  One could say that Mother Teresa benefited society and herself, but one could not say that Hitler was morally obligated to benefit society.  The vast majority of people may agree that Hitler's actions were worse, but without objective morality they would have no reason for their assertion that therefor Hitler's actions were worse.  I won't go as far as to assert that the existence of these human feelings proves that there is objective morality, because I can't really say for sure that evolution wouldn't be able to create such arbitrary feelings, but I think it at least puts the atheist in a rather uncomfortable position, since they can't legitimately say that religion is evil anymore, since they're worldview isn't even compatible with objective good and evil.  (Plus, there are plenty of other good arguments for the existence of a God.)

Just Think

Just think about Al Gore while you watch this.  Not that he would do anything like this, of course.

By the way, don't forget your sun-screen today, I've heard that the ozone hole is depleting rapidly!  Soon we won't be able to go outside because of the scorching ultra-violet radiation!

Islamophobia

A couple days ago I heard in the news (Fox news radio) that Islamophobia has been on the rise.  The evidence for this case was that there have been many states that have banned sharia law.  I found this pretty confusing.  How is that evidence of Islamophobia.  After all, I'm pretty sure that it's already illegal to beat people for fornication in most areas of the country.  If the practices of sharia law are illegal, then I don't see why it's all that bad for states to clarify that it is, even though I don't get why they need to.  After all, if someone tried to practice laws of other nations here and started stoning people, they would be jailed and there would be no controversy.  The fact that sharia law is part of the Muslim faith doesn't really convince me that it should therefore be legal to be barbaric, especially towards people who may not want to be Muslims anyway but fear retribution if they convert to some other religion, like Fathima Rifqa Bary, who fled her home to escape an honor killing.  Of course, maybe I am an Ismophobe.  After all, I don't want to get killed for being a Christian or live with seeing people being brutally beaten, amputated, stoned, or crucified.  In that case, I don't want it to be legal to practice sharia law and some other parts of the Muslim religion that are already illegal.  Of course I can't see why the liberals want sharia law either.  They certainly don't appreciate people who believe that the right thing to do is shoot down as many people as possible to try to get your point across.  How are these beliefs any worse than the Muslim faith?  Why do they appear to want Sharia law but not terrorism?  Why is being an Islamophobe so bad if it means not wanting it to be legal for someone to kill me?  Somehow I don't think I'll find the answer on the evening news.

Tropical Storm Irene

Well, as you probably gathered from the fact that I'm still posting, we weren't killed by tropical storm Irene here in eastern Pennsylvania.  It was actually a bit of a let down, we only got three inches of rain and some branches down.  However, we did have the most flooding I can remember seeing here in my entire life (not that there's much significance in that, seeing as I haven't lived all that long).  Anyway, I biked around our little local area to check out some of the flooding and was able to get some picks.  However, I'm not going to show them to you until I get some comparison pictures, so you'll just have to wait for a couple of days.

Christian Dominionism

Dominionsim, as far as I can tell, seems to be the new popular attack on Christianity.  The critics of Christianity use Genesis 1:28 to claim that Christians believe that all political positions should be filled with Christians.  They call these Christians, who include all conservative Christians, and especially conservative Christian politicians, Dominionists.  These Christians want to control politics and make it illegal to have fun and force everyone else to live according to their cold restrictive principals.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV)

My English teacher would kill me for that citation, but fortunately the English teachers haven't taken over politics and made it illegal to stray from MLA guidelines.  Watch out, though, you have to be careful to make sure that politicians don't haven't been associating too much with the English teachers.  I heard that Obama talked to one of his english teachers outside of class.  Can't risk voting for him.  After all, our freedom of speech is at stake.

In a sense, the Dominionism conspiracy theory is no more reputable than this little parody.  Most of the time the media is reduced to using the most absurd and minute association with people who may have Dominionist leanings to convict politicians of Dominionsm.  Lets just say that Obama's former pastor does not strike me as a savory character and that didn't stop many people from voting for him and leave it at that.

Of course, this isn't the only reason that this charge is absurd.  As befits a theory currently being circulated by the main-stream media, it is absurd on many levels.  First of all, the passage mentioned only commands that man (people) in general have dominion over nature.  It doesn't command that Christians have dominion over politics, it doesn't even say anything specifically about Christians or politics, and the list of things to be dominated can hardly be skewed even by the most unscrupulous of characters to include political dominance.  (By the way, it logically follows from these premises that the media contains some of “the most unscrupulous of characters".  Just saying.)  Of course, besides the fact that their scriptural basis is absurd, I personally hadn't even heard of such a belief anywhere in the modern Church until I heard liberals talking about what powerful movement it was.  I feel so left out.  It appears that all the other Christians in the US have suddenly started to want to impose a Christian version of sharia law and I didn't know anything about it!  (By the way, why aren't the liberals equally opposed to sharia law?)  Basically, have I not heard of any Christian who thinks this way and can't think of how there could be any Biblical basis for such a view.  The Bible commands Christians to respect the authority of the government and says nothing about using government to legally enforce moral behavior.

Now, of course, I have to point out one last thing.  Can you think of anyone who doesn't want to elect politicians who they agree with.  Don't the liberals want to elect politicians who will force smart, hard-working, and lucky people to give up huge portions of their income to enrich the the lazy, the unintelligent, and the unfortunate?  Why is it any worse for Christians to want to elect people who will fight against what they think is evil.  I can understand why the Liberals wouldn't want a taste of their own medicine, but it seems that they're downright paranoid about it, considering that the only things I can think of that conservative Christians really want out of this election is a decreased deficit (which I suppose is equally unsavory to liberals).  Although Christians certainly want to reform the culture, the ones I am aware of all want to do so by changing individuals lives, not by forcing people to live according to Christian principles.  (Of course, I'd prefer if it remained illegal to murder me or steal my possessions, but right to life and property is also in the constitution, so it'll be pretty hard for the Liberals to argue that those should be legal, even if they don't believe in transcendent moral grounds for them.) 

Cherry Springs Report

Last Friday we left for Cherry Springs State Park, which supposedly has the darkest sky east east of the Mississippi.  Why did we do this?  Because we are nerds.  What does being a nerd have to do with going camping?  Well, on the particular weekend that we journeyed to Cherry Springs there was a star party being held, which all of the astro-nerds on the east coast flock to to enjoy the darkened sky during the new moon (and enviously eye each-others telescopes I'm sure).  If you think I'm being over-dramatic about the nerd thing, allow me to further describe the general nature of the persons that attended.  Although I consider myself a nerd, some of the people there were way out of my league.  For instance, there were a number of telescopes there that people had made themselves.  That's impressive enough, but what if I told you that some of them were at least a story high?  I even heard of one person who made a machine with which to grind the lenses for their telescope.  Not to mention, of course, that all the people there chose to spend one of the last weekends of summer star-gazing and losing sleep.  Of course, I was one of those, but I'm a nerd to, so that doesn't detract from my argument.  Anyway, as if this vacation wasn't nerdy enough, we went to the Corning Museum of Glass before getting to the campground.  Although the museum was actually rather art oriented, there were parts of it that were all about materials science, which was really sweet.  While we were driving through New York state I thought I saw two Black Bears, but it was a a long distance, so it could have been anything really.  When we got to the campsite we met up with my Dads astronomy teacher friend and set up camp.  Since we'd spent about five hours at the Museum, we didn't have to wait too long for sunset.  I hate to say it, but I'd actually seen better skies while camping in other places, because we were there a a pretty mediocre day for cherry springs.  Nevertheless, I got to look through some other peoples telescopes and saw things like the Swan Nebula, the Wild Duck Cluster, Andromeda Galaxy (which I could see easily through my binoculars), Ring Nebula, and lots of other cool stuff I can't remember.  (The pictures I included are not strikingly good images, I just picked them because they looked most like what I could see.  If you want to see them in all their glory, go search them and you should come up with all kinds of cool-looking pictures.)  Anyway, Saturday morning we got up (very late), packed up, and left.  On our way back, we stopped at the PA Grand Canyon, which is a really pretty spot that my Mom and sister had never seen before.

I also saw I butterfly that I thought was cool.  Unfortunately I'm too lazy to go look up what kind it is.

Overall, I have to say that that was absolutely the nerdiest camping trip I've ever been on.  (And therefore the best, of course.)

Increasing Hurricanes?

Ok, I finally thought of something I haven't ranted about yet.  Ever since Katrina, people have been talking about how global warming is causing hurricanes to become more frequent and more powerful, and thusly more devastating.  Ever since Katrina, there has been an eery calm in the atlantic in respect to hurricanes.  Maybe we have more named storm, but if that's so it's because they've been changing their method of collecting data, a highly unscientific method, whether they wanted to skew the data or not.  For instance, we have started naming both atlantic and pacific storms, we now have far superior technology with which to detect storms that reach the required wind-speeds while they aren't over land, or even don't hit land at all.  Since Katrina, there hasn't been any significant property damage due to hurricanes in the United States (I say significant as in worthy of being reported by the main-stream media, which is predisposed to hype anything, especially tragedies and especially especially tragedies that could have been caused by global warming).  It's really quite humorous.  Every year they predict a record hurricane season, and every year we get comparative calm.  Take this season for instance, granted it isn't over yet, but so far it's been acting pretty typically for post-Katrina season's and everyone can remember it because it's still going on.  At the beginning of the season, there were the traditional proclamations of coming hurricane doom.  Now, there is finally a hurricane that looks like it might make landfall on the US.  GOOD!  Florida, Texas and other parts of the south that often experience hurricanes are currently in severe droughts.  How does one mitigate the severity of a drought?  Get a hurricane to come through.  It's natures watering can.  They suck water up out of the ocean and dump it on the land.  The fact is, that hurricanes are a vital part of southern ecology.  Without them, you get droughts.  So I'm saying that from looking at the data, we have been going through a period of Global Cooling since hurricane Katrina.  Although I'm sure someone has already written an article in Nature about how Global warming causes both more hurricanes and less hurricanes, just like it causes both floods and droughts and both high temperatures and low temperatures.

It's relative

It appears that there are some things that are wrong for Israelites to do but perfectly okay for Syrians to do, as far as the US government is concern.  It appears that Syria is using a blockade that is almost exactly the same as the Israelite blockade that received so much rebuke from the world in general, including the US.  But now that Syria is doing it it's perfectly fine.  If Israel wants to have a blockade to keep the Palestinian fighters from getting weapons with which to destroy their nation, that's wrong, but if Syria starts maintaining a blockade and firing on ships because they want to keep weapons away from Palestinian fighters, that's perfectly okay.  After all, everyone knows that peace-loving muslims shoot people with generous loving hearts, while the Israelites do the same thing (minus the shooting) with malice and bigotry.  The left wing is always saying that they want equality and that the right wing stands for bigotry and other forms of hatred, but sometimes I wonder if equality wouldn't look a little bit harder on muslims and african-americans and a little bit easier on Christians, Jews, and conservative women.

Stepping on those who can't

Here is an interesting take on the riots in London.  I guess it just goes to show that the riots really were, as I thought due to the spreading or irresponsibility and coddling by Liberals.

This [the London rioting] has all caused me to reflect on the extraordinary passivity of Americans, and of American students, who respond to reduced access to education by studying harder, getting better grades, and stepping on the people who can’t — or aren’t in a position to –compete any longer.  

God forbid that anyone should work harder to better themselves.  I was under the illusion that people were supposed to rise above the difficulties and work to better themselves and their nation.  That was the freedom the founding fathers gave us.  Apparently that is SO 18th century and now we know better.  Everyone should be equal, just be created equal or have equal opportunity, but be exactly equal.  Now the mathematicians among you will most likely say that this is impossible, but such facts don't bother liberals.  Apparently, those of us who are progressive enough understand that it just isn't right to work hard, because you might actually end up having a better job or life in general than someone else.  Out of respect for those who are unable to work, we also need to refrain from working so as to not have an unfair advantage.  Instead we need to take to the streets and destroy and rob other peoples stuff that they have worked for, to show them that working and having stuff is just wrong.

Come to think of it, what exactly constitutes "the people who can’t — or aren’t in a position to –compete any longer"?  Does Professor Potter mean those who have learning disabilities?  Those who are just plain not as smart?  Whoever you are there is usually some area that you can compete in.  As best I can tell, she wants everyone to have exactly the same abilities, like in Harrison Bergeron.  (If you haven't read that short story or watched the film, I highly recommend it.)  What it sounds like to me is that she wants everyone to be equally horrible at everything.  It's like the opposite of the humanist era.  Now we know that it's best for everyone to be bad a doing everything, not for us to better society and become superhumans.  After all, wouldn't you feel horrible if you got a better grade on your homework than someone else because you worked harder for it than they did.  That would be so unequal.  After all, he can't help that he can't conscentrate his mind on his homework.  Of course, some people are naturally better at math, but Potter was downing the people who work to make up for such differences.  Apparently in her mind we all need to just lay back and move as a happy, lazy, brainwashed group of good-for-nothing bums.  Something tells me that she must mean something else, but I can't find any other way to interpret her statement.  I wonder how she feels about oriental kids, who work their tails off and are rewarded with testing better than American kids. I guess we'll have to send the Handicapper General over there to fix them as well.  Can't have anyone being smarter or stronger, after all.  Would it really hurt that much for some people to excel in some areas?  I can't imagine how we'd have our current quality of life people hadn't in the past.