two or three . net

Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves

2009-07-02T14:33:57-07:00

ID the Future has a nice two part interview with Dr. James Le Fanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. Le Fanu, a scientist and science writer, discusses the inability of evolution to even come close to explaining the complexity of humanity. He doesn't reject evolution, he only explains that its explanatory power is vastly inferior to the problems presented.

This book appears as much science as philosophy of science, but another thoughtful book considering the limitations, perhaps even the fallibility of evolutionary origins.

From the product description:

As revealed by recent scientific research, it is simply not possible to get from the monotonous sequence of genes strung out along the double helix to the infinite beauty and diversity of the living world, or from the electrical activity of the brain to the richness and abundant creativity of the human mind. Le Fanu’s exploration of these mysteries, and his analysis of where they might lead us in our thinking about the nature and purpose of human existence, form the impassioned and riveting heart of Why Us?

Also, from the two part interview (20 min each part)

I think I've probably always been a Darwin skeptic...part of writing about science and medicine is that you learn to distrust the establishment view, the orthodox view. There's an awful lot of pushing the line in science, talking up things, hyping things, claiming knowledge that one doesn't posess. Partly, because of the practicalities of beefing up the importance of your particular area of expertise so that the research funds keep flowing in. Or on the other hands, the scientific pundits [like to say] 'we know the answer to this' rather than 'we DON'T know the asnwer to this....There are several reasons for taking a moderately skeptical stance on the convention orthodox [Darwinian] view.

Related Links:

Two wrong reactions to Mark Sanford

2009-07-01T13:23:02-07:00

Since the bizarre story of Gov. Mark Sanford has unfolded in the news, individuals from both sides of the political spectrum have reacted wrongly. At some point we moved away from seeing people in the spotlight as actual people, but merely pawns to play for political gain.

Conservatives
Thankfully, most have moved past making excuses for Sanford as he continues to open his mouth and heap more shame on himself and his family. But the initial reaction by many was to explain away his indiscretion or to compare it favorable with other scandals, mainly involving Democrats.

No, it doesn't make Sanford any better that he did not lie under oath about his affair. No, it doesn't make it any better that the woman was not 20-something. No, it doesn't make it any better that he is "in love."

You cannot say that "character matters" until it doesn't. You cannot say that someone's private values affect their public policy until it doesn't. The fact that Sanford espoused values with which you agreed does not mean he is immune from the standards that we sought to apply to liberal politicians.

Liberals are right that the hypocrisy angle makes it worse. When you campaign on family values, proclaim support for traditional marriage, espouse conservative opinions, it makes it deepens the wound when you fail to live up to those standards.

Liberals
As much as it may benefit you politically to see a conservative Republican go down in flames, the man has a family who was deeply hurt by his personal failings. Glee is not an appropriate reaction.

Immediately after the news broke, I saw a liberal South Carolinian basking in congratulations for having "called it" by making a joke early on about how she prayed that Sanford would be found in the arms of a prostitute. She was elated at the news. Meanwhile, Jenny Sanford was releasing a statement about how she was trying to move forward with her and Mark's four sons.

A liberal news commentator reported and discussed the affair with such elation that a blogger at one of the most far left sites took him to task for his lack of decency. Meanwhile, Sanford's family was trying to escape the media glare and work their way through the traumatic situation.

There is room for the political analysis of this situation. There is even room for Democrats and liberals to explain how this benefits them political, but the human aspect should always be kept in focus.

One political result is not the repudiation of the ideas and policies which Sanford supported and voiced, anymore than Bill Clinton's various issues negated his politics. People stand and fall on their own. Sanford cheated on his wife. Limited government and lower taxes did not.

Who performs the majority of abortions in the US?

2009-06-29T00:31:08-07:00

I had a (somewhat heated) discussion with a liberal friend of mine who, when I retorted that Planned Parenthood was bad because they were the leading abortion provider in the us, told me that I did not know what I was talking about, that Planned Parenthood does not do abortions, and that I should 'get my facts straight!'

Needless to say, her confidence in what she was saying made me go check it out. Turns out, she was partially right, but mostly wrong. Here's what I was surprised to find out.

Getting the Numbers

I downloaded the latest Planned Parenthood Annual Report to see where THEY said their moneys went - not that I trust them, but at least I could see what they are telling the IRS - I am sure they are not telling the feds, however

the incidences of statutory rape and sexual abuse
the number of live births that they mistakenly get when trying to chemical burn a fetus (followed letting the viable baby die or 'helping' it to die)
the incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in their abortion patients (studies show upwards of 19% are diagnosable, with up to 60% reporting PTSD symptoms related to their abortions)

Abortion was found to be related to an increased risk for a variety of mental health problems (panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, PTSD, bipolar disorder, major depression with and without hierarchy), and substance abuse disorders after statistical controls were instituted for a wide range of personal, situational, and demographic variables.
The number of cases of mental health issues rose by as much as 17 percent in women having abortions compared to those who did not have one and the risks of each particular mental health problem rose as much as 145% for post-abortive women.

On that last note, perhaps they should add post-abortion PTSD counseling to their 2009 budget request to Uncle Sam. Oh wait, they can't admit to the trauma of abortion, so they can't care about the mental health of the girls AFTER the abortion, only BEFORE when the SOLUTION is abortion. What convenient kindness.

I mention these other issues, not to get us off track, but to remind us that their numbers may not be trustworthy.

What Percent of PPFA's Business is Abortion?

Taking them at their word, what do THEY say about their abortion revenues, and the proportion of their services taken up by abortion?

According to the Annual Report

Abortions made up 3% of their services in 2007

Well, that sounds innocuous enough. Maybe my friend was right. But as British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

A Closer Look at the Numbers

While it is true that, by their numbers, 3% of the services they provided were listed as abortions, most girls that visited used multiple services. When you count the number of abortions per patients seen, the number of abortions per patient is actually 10% (305,310 of 3,020,651).

However, a better question is, what percentage of abortions done in the US is that 305K?

The last year we have total number of abortions calculated for is 2005 - the 'research arm of Planned Parenthood,' the Guttmacher Institute, reported that 2005 abortions performed were 1.2M in the U.S.

Although abortion has been dropping since 2000, for the sake of argument, let's use the 1.2M number (it's probably lower). That would mean that in 2007 Planned Parenthood performed AT LEAST 25% of all abortions in the US.

Now, that's with THEIR numbers, and I have to mention that the Guttmacher Institute is not an unbiased source. Some, like Steven Mosher of Penn State's Population Research Institute, have accused the Institute of playing fast and loose with the stats.

But is that all the resources they spent on abortion?

Actually, though I don't have time to find out, let me clue you in on what they did with some of their over a BILLION dollars in revenue:

A list of all organizations that received contributions from PPFA during the year...may be obtained by writing...

What?!? Who are they GIVING money AWAY to? Besides giving money to politicians (again, our tax money that they obviously don't need), who is to say that they aren't supporting even MORE abortions at non-PPFA clinics, numbers that they don't have to report? I'll keep digging on that one, but needless to say, that may be another loophole through which even more abortions can be linked to PPFA.

So What Do These Numbers Mean?

They mean that:

Planned Parenthood actually performs more than 25% of abortions in America
The fact that this only represents a small portion of their activities does NOT mean that they somehow favor all of their preventative measures - it just means that beyond performing abortions as generously as possible and in increasing numbers year over year,
they are GARGANTUAN in size. It's not that they do 'very few abortions'. Sure, as a subset of the BILLIONS they receive from our tax dollars it may be small.
But are the deaths of 305,000 unborn children insignificant in number? Not on your life (actually, it's on theirs, since it was taken).

Abortion for Profit

What's even worse is the gross amount of MONEY they make off of our tax dollars and abortions. For example:

In 2007 they made a NET $114M profit (that's after expenses). Perhaps they should have given back that portion of the tax dollars the US Govt gave them.
Estimates are that they charge, on average, $413 per abortion. That means that in 2007, abortion generated at least $126M of gross revenue for them. Now, perhaps their margins are as low (they are 'non-profit ;), but of course, they deduct the huge abortionist salaries and other nicely paid staff expenses. so a good proportion of their 'expenses' ends up in their Doctor's bank accounts.

The Bottom Line

My friend is right - as a proportion of their business, abortion isn't, at least on paper, their main activity.

But as my examination showed, they still own a lion's share of the total abortions done annually, may contribute to many more through 'donations' to other organizations, and even as total number of abortions go down, their number of abortions provided have gone UP.

To say that Planned Parenthood is not in the abortion business is a self-deception, if not a blatant spin on the data - and at worst, a lie to cover up the fact that PPFA most certainly does to a significant portion of abortions in the US, and those abortions just happen to be good business, even if it does 'terminate a non-person.' Can you say 'conflict of interest?'

RELATED POSTS:

Germans not getting onboard with 'the Debt President'

2009-06-28T16:36:41-07:00

Der Spiegel had an article on the five fallacies of the Obama economic ~~debacle~~ plan. You can read the English version of Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt President for the details, but here are the five fallacies:

It's not as bad as it seems. The US amassed much more debt during World War II, it is often said. That, though, is not true. According to conservative forecasts, Obama's policies could end up being three times as expensive as US expenditures during World War II.
The money is part of an effort to resuscitate the crisis-plagued economy and is thus serving a good purpose. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the borrowed money will be used to finance the normal US budget.
When the crisis ends, borrowing will automatically fall. The truth is that it could climb afterwards. The graying of American society creates a new fiscal policy challenge for the country that so far hasn't been reflected in any budget plan. According to calculations by the International Monetary Fund, Washington would need to spend several times more than it is now just to service current pension entitlements.
The world believes that the US is borrowing money from capital markets. It is often said that the Chinese and the Japanese will buy government bonds. But the truth of the matter is that trust in the gravitas and reliability of the United States has suffered to such a great degree that fewer and fewer foreigners are purchasing its government bonds.
The additional money is harmless because the economy is starting to pull together again and there is no threat of inflation. The truth is that the quiet on the inflation front is deceptive. The hot money is accumulating in people's savings accounts and in the balance sheets of banks that aren't keen to lend money at the moment. The supply of money has increased by 45 percent in the last three years and there has not been a corresponding rise in hard assets or production. That imbalance will eventually make itself felt in the form of inflation.

In my opinion, if Obama succeeds in all of his spending (which it looks like he has), we will spend the next 40 years trying to get out from under it. As my mom, who is a lifelong Kennedy Democrat said to me this week "I don't think I'll live to see the economy recover from what Obama is doing, but I can damn well vote Republican in the coming elections." Now that is saying something.

Some conservative bumper stickers I got in a viral email

2009-06-26T17:55:03-07:00

I haven't had time for blogging lately, but did get this humorous email I wanted to share. I deleted the less intelligent bumper stickers, but these made me laugh, sometimes cynically. Here are some choice stickers, with commentary.

This one to the right is my favorite, and speaks for itself. Clever, though obvious.

This one reminds me of the classic "save the whales, kill our unborn?" Still as poignant as ever:

Most of these focus on the Socialistic fears of us neocons. We don't mind helping the poor with a hand up, but the poor need incentive to work when they can, like we all do:

Poor? Work. I know it's not that simple, but we still need to be reminded. I had a friend out of work for months, living off of his friends, but unwilling to get a temp job at Costco because it was beneath him. People that refuse to work should not be fed. Work is good for the soul:

There is a growing concern among neocons AND moderates that socialized medicine won't fix our problems, it will only make healthcare worse - just check out the increased disease and death rates in Canada. Sure, doing nothing won't help, but socialized medicine? This time, I'm with the Physicians. I think that much of the Obama plan may be a boondoggle.

In fact, 'soft' Socialism really IS a danger, see the excellent book Liberal Fascism, a term coined by Orson Welles, who suggested that it was what we needed after he was impressed by Mousollini's Italy. Speaking of Socialism:

I mean really, I think Obama is not going to save anyone - not the economy, not the unborn, and not the environment - because (1) his economics are insanity, (2) he doesn't believe that the unborn have rights as persons, and (3) global warming is a farce that those brainwashed by ecopolitics won't admit for years. The answer to the question below? 40 years in my estimation.

And finally, let's remember that big government is the enemy of freedom.

Sick of the idiots

2009-06-24T13:23:21-07:00

Twice in the past few weeks I've had to write something along these lines on twitter: "You can't SAY you support traditional marriage politically and not LIVE support for traditional marriage personally." Yes, you Sen. Ensign. Yes, you Gov. Sanford.

Liberals, have at it. Supports of gay marriage, have at it. There is nothing I can or will say to defend such men, who lied at every turn and treated supporters, votes, their staffs and most importantly their families with such disdain and disregard.

There is personal grace and forgiveness, but there should be none politically for these two cowards and liars. Michelle Malkin said it best: Bastard.

It’s the only fitting word for a man who abandons his wife and four sons on Father’s Day weekend to indulge his “overdrive” on an Argentinian fling.
Mark Sanford: Bastard.

My only request is that you do not assume that every conservative is cheating on their wife, but at this point I can't blame you if you did.

UPDATE: Here's Gov. Sanford wife's eloquent and classy statement. She deserved and deserves better.

Celebrating freedom with murdering thugs

2009-06-22T17:12:43-07:00

We can all disagree on whether Obama should be more vocal in his support for the Iranian opposition or not, but is there any doubt that this is beyond tragic and an extremely regrettable decision.

How can President Obama still have Iranian diplomats to US embassies for 4th of July celebrations after all their regime has done these past few weeks? Will all of the blood even be washed from the streets before they get together and laugh over hot dogs and hamburgers?

It is one thing to remain virtually silent, voicing a fear that the dictators would use it to undermine the protests. It is another thing entirely to continue with plans to have them over for a cook-out! If this is their reward for the violence or our reward for the election, I don't like either. This is the most upset and disappointed I have been yet in the new administration.

Now is it okay to say we won't meet with dictators?

2009-06-20T19:20:18-07:00

One of the most infamous portions of the Democratic primary was then Sen. Obama's answering a YouTube debate question that as President he would meet separately without precondition with the dictatorial leaders of Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran in Washington D.C. or anywhere else during the first year of his administration.

With the USS John McCain (irony?) poised to intercept a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons materials, Kim Jong Il threatening to launch a missile toward Obama's birth state and, of course, the Iranian regime slaughtering their own citizens in the streets, can we now all agree that this was an uniformed statement that should now be discarded to the scrap heap of campaign promises. This is one that I sincerely hope President Obama will break. I believe that as he is currently seeing things and learning things that only a President can, he will change his mind on this as he has on other issues of foreign policy and national security.

Tough words or patience?

2009-06-19T06:33:20-07:00

When George W. Bush won a disputed and controversial election in 2000, many on the left were quick to throw around words like "stolen," "rigged," and "illegitimate." Despite the fact that a media recount showed Bush widening his vote lead in Florida, to this day liberals feel no qualms about claiming that Bush stole the election and shredded the Constitution.

Contrast that with the hesitance of many of those same individuals to refer to the election in Iran with the same terminology. They caution that we should not jump to conclusions or make hasty statements. We should refrain from rhetoric that would make the situation worse. Why does this situation call for patience and understanding, while the other demanded the toughest of words?

How can you refuse to accept an election in one of the freest nations in the history of civilization, yet be somewhat trusting a murderous, racist, terror-supporting, theocratic dictator would participate in a fair election. It strikes me as odd, and a bit troubling, that so many in our country are more accepting of votes in states with dictators (Iran, Venezuela, Saddam's Iraq, etc.) than they are of America's elections.

How to measure the success of the stimulus

2009-06-17T09:36:53-07:00

Judging the success or failure of the stimulus spending has always been a difficult task. To evaluate it, you have to determine what would or could have happened had it not been implemented. That uncertainty allows both sides to play up the issue. The administration can say things would have been worse. The GOP can say things would have been better. It would seem a generous way to judge the stimulus' impact would be to evaluate it in terms of Obama's own projections.

In January, President-elect Obama said that unless drastic action was not taken (more stimulus spending) "we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” Today after that drastic action was taken, President Obama said that unemployment will reach 10% before the end of the year.

Sometimes, politicians say things and the math is a little fuzzy. It isn't always fair to hold a politician to a statement like that. Perhaps his economic team's projections will paint a better picture for the stimulus' effect. They prepared a chart that shows the projections of unemployment with the stimulus and if we did nothing. This came directly from Romer-Bernstein study (pdf).

So how does that shape up with actual unemployment numbers so far? Here's a chart from Innocent Bystandards juxtaposing the administration predictions with the real rate growth.

FactCheck.org verified the numbers in the chart and also gives the Obama administration explanation, which boils down to "It's Bush's fault." (Isn't everything?) They also say that unemployment would be even worse without the spending, but as FactCheck.org says, there is "no way to prove or disprove such a claim. What we can say is that in the three months after the stimulus bill was signed Feb. 18, the economy lost more than 1.5 million jobs, according to the BLS. So even if the president's 150,000-jobs [created or saved] claim is correct, that's about 10 percent of the total jobs lost."

Tennessee GOP needs to learn Letterman's lesson

2009-06-16T13:36:35-07:00

David Letterman finally offered a real apology for his tasteless "joke" about Sarah Palin's daughters. It took him a week and one faux-pology before he finally took responsibility for his actions and apologized (which Palin accepted).

One can only hope that it takes less than week for the Tennessee GOP and staffer Sherri Goforth to correct their horrendous mistake and issue an actual apology, preferably while firing Goforth.

She is an aide to a Republican Tennessee state senator who sent out a racist "joke" email. In it, pictures of all of the former Presidents are shown except President Obama, who was depicted as a pair of white eyes over a black background.

It is reprehensible both personally and politically. And as if she wanted to make matters worse, Goforth apologized ... for sending the email to the wrong list!

When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.
“I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button,” Goforth told NIT. “I’m very sick about it, and it’s one of those things I can’t change or take back.”

Idiot! It's not about sending it to the wrong list. It's about being a racist moron who does not even have enough sense to apologize for being a racist moron. Even David Letterman saw that the heat was too much and he needed to offer a real, non-joke apology.

For the good of the party she claims to represent, she needs to resign. If she won't, she needs to be fired to show the nation that the GOP will not put up with stupid racism. It's hard enough for Republicans to make political criticisms of President Obama without idiot staffers sending racist emails, refusing to apologize for the racist content and the state GOP thinking the appropriate course of action is "a letter of reprimand."

Iran revolts against "hipster style" having dictator

2009-06-16T09:47:34-07:00

With all media being restricted in Iran, the best place to get news now is Twitter using the tag #iranelection. You can find up to the minute updates from Change_for_Iran, an Iranian student, StopAhmadi, a supporter of the opposition, OxfordGirl, Iran09, Tehran Bureau and Alirezasha.

It is worth noting that this democratic revolution has vocal supporters on every side of the aisle. It seems to be an issue that everyone can join together in supporting the Iranian protesters. But the divide becomes what should our country do.

Obviously, most conservatives see this as proof that Ahmadinejad cannot be reasoned with and we should walk away from negotiations and heap international pressure on the regime, while expressing solidarity with the opposition. It is a risky move, there is no doubt, but now even liberals like those at Slate are calling on Obama to get tougher with Iran.

They warn that unless the international community, especially the US, capitalize on the situation and support the budding revolution, the ruling party will eventually crush the opposition ala Tiananmen Square and have their power more strongly solidified and become even more radical, antagonistic and anti-West.

Of course while bloggers and people from both sides are focusing on the people of Iran and the possible solutions to the situation, others are determined to use the events to slime political opponents. In his analysis of the situation liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias couldn't resist throwing in a cheap shot at the left's new obsession, Sarah Palin:

Indeed, the campaign itself didn't have very clear implications for U.S. policy. Ahmadinejad is in most ways a classic right-winger, a demagogic nationalist and cultural conservative. In a manner somewhat reminiscent of a Sarah Palin, however, he clothes this right-wing politics in a language of class resentment, painting his more pragmatic and reformist opponents as decadent elites out of touch with ordinary people. Unlike the populists of the American right, however, he merges this rhetoric with something resembling an actual populist economic agenda.

I can't tell who Yglesias thinks less of: Ahmadinejad or Palin: since she only talks a populist game, but he actually has a "populist economic agenda." Not to mention that fact that Yglesias praised Ahmadinejad in 2006 as having "a pretty sweet hipster style" and being an example for President Bush in diplomacy. (Go for that choice quote, stay for the leftists praising the Iranian dictator because the enemy of their enemy (Bush) is their friend. Nice.)

Comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia

2009-06-13T12:29:47-07:00

Recently the staff of an elected official defended DOMA by citing Catalano v. Catalano, a marriage in Italy between an uncle and niece, and Wilkins v. Zelichowski, a marriage of a 16-year-old girl that was held as invalid in NJ. John Aravosis, a liberal blogger was obviously angered and shocked by the comparison: "Holy cow, [they] invoked incest and people marrying children.”

The politician was of course the right-wing extremist ... Barack Obama?

During the campaign, candidate Obama told the gay and lesbian rights group the Human Rights Campaign it was his "strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United States Senate.”

Now President Obama's Administration has defended the reversal by citing DOMA as established law, insisting that their hands are tied until Congress does something. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

If the Obama Administration wants to defend the statute, they are more than welcome to do so, but they are not required to. From Hot Air:

Back in 2000, a little-known law passed in 1968 that purported to override the Warren Court’s “Miranda warnings” was challenged before the Supreme Court. Clinton’s DOJ actually sided with the criminal in arguing that the Miranda case was based on the Fifth Amendment and therefore the statute was unconstitutional; the Supremes had to invite a law professor unconnected to the case to defend the statute at oral arguments. (The DOJ/criminal dynamic duo won.)

So since taking office President Obama has defended both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA in the courts without being required to do so and (so far at least) passed on the opportunity to nominate the first homosexual to the Supreme Court.

The evil, cynical conservative in me thinks that Obama is not quite as "Hope-n-Change" as he made himself out to be and shockingly he is just like any other politician - saying whatever it takes to get elected and then once elected doing whatever it takes to get reelected. It's almost like Obama just told all the different liberal groups what they wanted to hear in order to get their vote. But it couldn't be that ... could it?

Book Review: Dred Scott's Revenge by Judge Andrew Napolitano

2009-06-12T15:12:03-07:00

America has had a difficult history when it comes to racial issues and often the government has done more harm than good according to an excellent new book by Judge Andrew Napolitano entitled Dred Scott's Revenge. Click here to read my review of the book.

Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America
By Andrew Napolitano / Thomas Nelson

Another tragic murder, another political football

2009-06-11T13:09:18-07:00

Yesterday, a right-wing veteran and white supremacist who hated President Obama, pushed the conspiracy theory that his birth certificate was forged, criticized the media for their attacks on George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, was influenced by Fox News and conservative talk radio, had ties to anti-government groups like all those at the tea parties and had a screed republished at right-wing message board Free Republic murdered an African American union security guard, which should cause us all to accept the recent DHS memo warning of an uptick in domestic terrorism from anti-government veterans as well as encourage us to support tighter gun laws and union legislation.

Which is strange because on Wednesday an anti-semitic, Christian-hating, supporter of 9/11 conspiracy theories, registered Democrat, who has written about the evils of "neo-cons" like Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, George W. Bush and John McCain, while blaming Christianity for the demise of the Roman Empire and Western Civilization also killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum and may have had plans for other targets including offices for the conservative magazine Weekly Standard and a Fox News studio.

How about we simply praise Stephen Tyrone Johns, the victim, for his bravery and condemn James Von Brunn for being an extremist, fringe murderer and leave it at that?

This guy was an equal opportunity hater and everyone could dig through his views and find something with which to demonize their political opponent. If you want to lay this guy at the feet of Rush Limbaugh (or Keith Olbermann) you have to ignore the other half of this crazy idiot.

Can we not let one tragedy happen without attempting to use it for political gain? Let this psychotic freak stay in his own corner of stupidity without trying to push him off on those you disagree with politically.

Tragic murders

2009-06-10T12:40:45-07:00

Two acts of terror were committed. Two people were murdered in separate assassinations. One has been the subject of non-stop media coverage and blame assigning. The other has been almost ignored. Doubt that? How many times have you heard the name George Tiller, the partial-birth abortion doctor murdered by an anti-abortion extremist? How about William Long, the Army private murdered by a Muslim terrorist?

Exit question: If acts of terrorism are the sole responsibility of the President in office, is President Obama to blame for these acts? I would say, "No," but if you held that position in Bush's term, you have to hold it now.

Keep repeating: "There's no liberal media. There's no liberal media..."

2009-06-10T12:10:54-07:00

During the Bush administration, Newsweek's Evan Thomas reminded everyone the job of the news media and particularly his magazine: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do..."

Somehow with the election of President Obama, the job requirements have shifted ever so slightly. Now for Thomas it seems bashing has become worshipping: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God."

Care to imagine what would have happened if a Fox News reporter had made such a statement during Bush's presidency?

It becomes harder and harder for conservatives to not play up the whole "Messiah" bit when liberals, even those in the "non-partisan" press, keep speaking as if the joke is true.

The Rise of Homeschooling

2009-06-03T15:45:12-07:00

A new report from the U. S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics shows a dramatic rise in the number of students that are being educated at home. Dr. Albert Mohler provides some details from the report:

Homeschooling was the choice of families for 2.9 percent of all school-age children in the United States in 2007, involving 1.5 million students. By comparison, in 1999 only 850,000 children were homeschooled. By 2003, that number was up to 1.1 million. This report indicates significant jumps in homeschooling as compared to other educational options. In fact, the report reveals that the actual number of American children whose parents choose homeschooling for at least part of their education exceeds 3 million. According to the report, 1.5 million children are exclusively homeschooled while another 1.5 million are homeschooled for at least part of the school week.

At this point, the picture grows even more interesting. When parents were asked why they chose to homeschool their children, 36 percent cited a desire to provide children specifically religious or moral instruction. After that, 21 percent of parents pointed to concerns about the environment of schools, 17 percent cited dissatisfaction with educational quality in the schools, and 14 percent cited "other reasons." Among those "other reasons" was a concern for more family time together.

Higher numbers of parents with college educations and greater family incomes are now homeschooling. This trend points to the fact that homeschooling is increasingly the option of first choice for many parents. This pattern is also revealed in increasing numbers of college students, primarily young women, who indicate that they desire a college education so that they will be better equipped in years ahead to be homeschooling parents.

It's no great surprise to me that there has been such a tremendous rise in the number of families choosing to homeschool. In the nine years we've been homeschooling we've seen exponential growth among our homeschool community.

But the most crucial points in Dr. Mohler's essay come at the end of the post:

Homeschooling is now a major force in American education, and Christian parents have been in the vanguard of this movement. For many Christian parents, homeschooling represents the fulfillment of the biblical mandate for parents to teach their children. These parents deserve our respect, our support, our advocacy, and our prayers. This movement is a sign of hope on our educational horizon, and a phenomenon that can no longer be dismissed as a fringe movement.

As president of a seminary and college, I can attest to the fact that questions about the educational aptitude of homeschooled students are now settled. These students can hold their own as compared to students from all other educational backgrounds. One other fact speaks loudly to me concerning their education. Most of the homeschooled students I meet at the college and graduate levels indicate an eager determination to homeschool their own children when that time comes.

Education cannot be reduced to statistics, but the trends revealed in this new report from the Department of Education deserve close attention. In our day, education represents a clash of worldviews. Increasingly toxic approaches to education (or what is called education) drive many schools and many school systems. In that light, the fact that so many Christian parents are taking education into their own hands is a sign of hope. As this new report makes clear, we should expect homeschooling to be a growth industry in years ahead.

It's encouraging as a homeschool parent and as a Christian to see a prominent pastor and seminary president embrace the choice that thousands of families make. Homeschooling is not easy and families who make this choice often face derision and ridicule from both friends and families. Those who make the choice to educate their children at home (either full-time or part-time) should be applauded and respected for making this choice. While not everyone will agree that it is the best choice for their own family it's important that those who don't homeschool respect those who do and vice versa.

Senator won't vote for qualified Court nominee

2009-06-02T14:05:15-07:00

A ideologically driven senator has vowed that he will not vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor even though he had "no doubt" that she "is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land" and has "the comportment and the temperament that makes a good judge."

He went on to explain: "There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether or not he or she is intellectually capable and an all around good guy. That once you get past intellect and character there should be no further questions as to whether to the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view."

He said, the Senate should examine a judges' "philosophy, ideology and record." Even though Sotomayor has "the training and intelligence to sit on the Supreme Court," the highest rating from the ABA and is "an accomplished jurist," he vowed to not vote for Sotomayor.

Wait, that was then Senator, now President Obama on Bush's nominees? Nevermind. "Philosophy, ideology and record" are no longer important. All that matters is who won the election and if the nominee is intelligent enough to sit on the court.

Underwear gnomes run WH policy decision?

2009-06-02T12:40:49-07:00

It's not often you find South Park mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. One would think it would be an impossibility to find WSJ referencing an episode that centered around underwear stealing gnomes. However, not only did a Bret Stephens column reference them, the gnomes provided the central analogy for the piece.

Despite the odd, non-WSJ type reference, the comparison between the Obama administration's various policy proposals and the underwear gnomes proposals to make a profit from their heists does illustrate the need for the President to do more than declare his wishes. He must also tell us how he hopes to achieve his grand plans.

What's the big idea? The gnomes explain:

"Phase One: Collect underpants.

"Phase Two: ?

"Phase Three: Profit."

Lest you think there's a step missing here, that's the whole point. ("What about Phase Two?" asks one of the kids. "Well," answers a gnome, "Phase Three is profits!") This more or less sums up Mr. Obama's speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S.

The president's plan can briefly be described as follows. Phase One: Order Guantanamo closed. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Close Gitmo!
...
Now take the administration's approach to the Middle East. Phase One: Talk to Iran, Syria, whoever. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Peace!
....
In Gnome-speak, then, Mr. Obama's energy policy goes something like this: Phase One: Inaugurate the era of "green" energy. Phase Two: Overturn the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Phase Three: Carbon neutrality!

Take any number of Mr. Obama's other initiatives. Rescue Detroit? Phase One: Set a national mileage standard for passenger cars of 39 miles per gallon and force auto makers to make the kind of cars that drove them to bankruptcy in the first place.

Reduce the deficit? Phase One: Approve $3.5 trillion in government stimulus, and then await the mythical Keynesian multiplier.

Pay for a $1.2 trillion health-care reform? Phase One: scrounge around for about $60 billion in new "sin tax" revenue.

The Obama administration faces some difficult situations, many of which they played a small role, if any, in creating. However, "Phase Two" cannot simply be "It's Bush's fault." The GOP no longer runs the White House or the Congress. Obama and the Democrats ran and were elected on big promises (Phase One) and lofty goals (Phase Three).

Obviously, it can be politically and personally appealing to spend four years pointing backwards at the previous administration, but at some point some little kid from a small town in Colorado is going to ask, "Yeah, but what's 'phase two'?"