Bill's Comments

John Ray, one of my blogospheric mentors, writes three blogs daily, Dissecting Lefism, Greenie Watch and PC Watch. All three are well worth the time to read. He is a one man army against the leftist, liberal cant that we are deluged with daily. He is also one of the top bloggers in Australia. If he is not on your reading list, put him there.

Congratulations to Norm Weatherby on reaching 5000 hits!! He writes a lively and entertaining blog with a strong seriousness as well. Keep it up Norm! I also agree with Norm. France is our enemy. Time to treat her as such.

I'm definitely feeling in a time warp. I was up late both Sunday and Monday catching up on blogs after working, and I still found that Steve Headley at Texas Conservative had slipped major posts in on both Monday (and here) and today that I didn't catch until today.

Friend Peg Kaplan (What If?)has very effectively given the litmus test of liberal vs. conservative. Go read it.

Tonight was a triumph. I have satisfactorily determined how a Black and Tan works. I observed tonight that the two layers were VERY resistant to mixing. In fact far more than could be accounted for in the small difference in density I calculated the first post on this. What I discovered was that at the point that the Guiness starts getting diluted by the Harp at the line, gas is released, in the form of the classic micro-bubbles of the Guiness. Ah Ha! The Guiness is so much less dense because the ale holds much more dissolved carbon dioxide which lowers its density. By the way, knowing how it works does not detract from the pleasure. To me it adds to it. It allows me to appreciate what is required to make it happen at a deeper level.

This has been my home away from home for the past five weeks in Canada. It is a pub in the best of pub tradition. It's noisy, bright, has classic taps of beers and ales, (and for those to whom a beer is not desirable, it has wine [wine in a pub is an oxymoron]) and good food. The food is not elegant but it is well prepared, tastes very good, and is plentiful. If you are in Markham, a northeast suburb of Toronto at the corner of Warden and Highway 7, there is a shopping plaza. The pub is in the building with the Scotia bank. I promise not to run another commercial until the next time. Teddy runs a good establishment and his pub helped make six weeks straight on the road bearable, and at times enjoyable. He deserves the plug. Oh yes for the benefit of the Maximum Leader, it does serve some single malt scotch. The best value is the Oban, but the MacAllan is wonderful (at $25 Canadian it ought to be).

A week or two ago, Keith Burgess-Jackson in his Ethics of War blog, posted ten questions for his co-blogger, Len Carrier. I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise in self-discovery to answer them. Having gone to the work, I am posting them for everyone to see. Normally a post this long would be placed in Bill’s Big Stuff. However, for a few days the whole thing is available here.

1. Is it ever permissible to kill a human being? If so, when and why? Is abortion wrong? Capital punishment? Killing in self-defense?
a. Yes
b. Yes abortion is wrong, at the very least beyond the point that the fetus can survive outside the mother. Before that point, I think the issue gets more difficult to argue, but I think it is wrong anytime after the first three months, and may be wrong before then.
c. Murder in the extreme warrants the death penalty. I have posted something on this a month or so ago. Someone who deliberately kills others, and not in response to threat, shows no willingness to be part of human society. Removing them is like killing vermin.
d. Killing in self-defense is permissible. When a person attacks another they forfeit their right to any protection. In the heat of the moment, a “graded” response is unreasonable. Whether it is against a mugger, rapist, or murderer, the victim has the right to defend in what ever way and to what ever degree is possible.

2. Is it wrong to kill nonhuman animals? Why or why not?
a. No it is not wrong to kill nonhuman animals, but only if there is a purpose. Killing for food, or protection is acceptable. Killing an animal to defend life or property is permissible. Killing just to have a trophy, provide entertainment, or deliberately inflicting cruelty is wrong.
b. I do not think, that because mankind evolved to the point of having moral issues to decide, mankind has fundamentally altered its relationship to the natural world. We have created means other than scavenging or hunting to supply our needs, but I do not see that that changes our relationship to the rest of nature. That we are more expert at exploiting nature and can therefore be more effective at wiping out populations simply means we should be more careful in our activities to maintain a balance.

3. What is your general approach to moral matters? Are you a consequentialist—someone who believes that only consequences bear on the rightness or wrongness of acts? If so, which consequences count? Are you a deontologist—someone who believes that something other than, or in addition to, consequences bears on the rightness or wrongness of acts?
a. I am a deontologist. I believe that one should act morally because of acceptance of standards that apply under almost all circumstances. The “almost” applies in extreme situations where a general rule may fail.
b. In thinking about moral issues, I have found that after one states a moral principle, and starts thinking about its application, that as one becomes more specific in the situation, the more one is tempted to create modifications that are situation specific. In some cases I think this is permissible, but it is not a carte blanche to engage in relativist ethics.

4. Do you believe in negative responsibility? That is, do you believe that allowing a given harm to occur is as bad as causing that harm?
a. Not as stated in the question. If one knows a harm will occur and has the power to prevent it and does not, then, yes, it is as bad as directly causing the harm. However, there are three conditions here, knowing, having power, and refusing. Not knowing as well as not having power negates moral responsibility. If one acts to prevent a harm, then regardless of outcome there is no moral culpability. A specific example is to allow an incorrect statement about a person or their morality to stand in a verbal exchange when it is wrongly stated by someone else. This is wrong. To not correct the statement is wrong even if in so doing ones own reputation will be damaged.

5. Is nationality morally relevant? I’m not asking whether nationality makes all the difference; I’m asking whether it makes any difference. Do the interests of nonAmericans count for less than those of Americans? If so, how much less (i.e., what’s the discount rate)?
a. This question needs some careful boundaries and qualifications. There is an important distinction here between moral, emotional, and legal differences. Morally, I do not consider the fact that someone else is a citizen of another country makes them any less moral or more moral than anyone else. Citizenship, with the exception of naturalization, is an accident of birth and has no standing on the morality of the individual. That nations may collectively act morally or immorally is another issue and does not bear on any one individual.
b. Legally, a citizen of another country does not, and should not, have all the rights and privileges of a citizen. In fact, they should have only those rights and privileges that we choose to allow them. Ideally the mixture of rights and privileges a foreigner has should be such as to encourage them to come to visit, do business, and provide mutual benefit, but not to allow them to do harm.
c. Emotionally, I will react to some nationalities differently than to others. I will be cautious to rude to a French person met for the first time. I will be cautious to most other nationalities, save British or Canadian.

6. What is patriotism?
The combined emotional reaction and intellectual belief that the expressed values of one’s country are correct. Note that it has two parts, emotional and rational. Without the intellectual component it degrades to a chauvinism—my country right or wrong. Without the emotional component there is no call to action, no willingness to support or defend the values. I grew up during the Cold War. I had the mentality that if the Soviet Union or China came across the North Pole, I would be on the US northern border with whatever weapons I could obtain and would willingly fight to the death to keep our country safe. If I were not 62, I would have long ago volunteered to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq. Yet, I would not volunteer to be the world’s policeman. Patriotism is such that for me, emotionally, the National Anthem is a hymn, and the Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer. I hear the National Anthem and I visualize the flag in all the horrible battle grounds of our history, triumphant. As a student of history I can visualize a lot. When I recite the pledge is with the clear knowledge that the flag is a symbol not the actual object of allegiance. I pledge that allegiance willingly. Patriotism is the commitment to support, protect, and defend this country against all external enemies, and to work constantly to keep it the best possible internally. True patriotism requires continually examining what we do as a country. It requires that we express our ideas of what this country is about as consistently and often as we can. Patriotism requires that we take the responsibility to insure that our values, collectively as a country continue to be expressed in our country’s behavior towards its citizens and the world.

7. Suppose a Democrat—indeed, your favorite Democrat—were president and waged the war in Iraq exactly as it was waged by President Bush. Would you make the same judgments about the war and about the president? If not, why not?
As a conservative on the libertarian side, the only Democrat I would possibly even consider as presidential material is Joe Lieberman. Were he President and were conducting the campaign the same as President Bush, I would have the same opinions. In my mind, the party of the President becomes immaterial once he is elected. It is what he does in office that counts after that. Did he deliver on his campaign promises? Did he adequately explain why not, if not? Is his administration principled? I still remember the first Bush saying, “Read my lips” and then raising taxes. I also remember he did a good thing in Kuwait until the State Department sissies got afraid to finish the job.

8. If you believe it was wrong for the United States to topple Saddam Hussein, what should have been done with him? Should he still be in power? By the way, what were you saying, if anything, during the years when he was slaughtering his people? Is that tendentious? Okay; then what were you saying, if anything, during the years when he was killing his people? (He did kill lots of innocent people, right?)
It was correct for the US to topple both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. In fact it looks as if we might be justified in doing Syria and Iran as well. If the Bush Doctrine of support of terrorism makes them an enemy, then one neutralizes ones enemies if they threaten harm. However, if one wants a justification without our self-interest involved (which is bullshit) removing the Butcher of Baghdad for what he did to his people over the years is certainly sufficient. Murder is murder whether state-sanctioned or not. Iraqi murder by the Husseins was state-sanctioned since they were the state.

9. Is torture ever permissible? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?
This gets into interesting territory. First we need to consider what torture is. This has some obvious examples in both cases, is and is not, and a huge grey area where there can be a lot of debate depending on one’s sensibilities. Also since Abu Ghraib is the current focus, we need to distinguish ridicule and belittlement from torture. The most obvious torture is the kind of thing that the Hussein boys did—grinding people up, forcibly raping women, and the father’s amputations of people. This was pain inflicted for its own sake and to intimidate and horrify people. This is absolutely wrong. Let’s look at the other end. Holding people in a cell that is uncomfortable but not harmful should not be considered torture. I think the first distinguishing feature of torture is that it creates genuine harm. I am not talking about fear of harm, but harm itself. I am aware from my days of playing Dungeons and Dragons that I would be capable of injuring someone to obtain what I considered life or death information. However, just because I am capable of it does not mean that I condone it. The problem of creating a fear of harm is that someone may call one’s bluff and then it is necessary to carry out the threat or fail in the purpose. This is not to say that creating a fear and then removing it short of having the bluff called is wrong. What would be wrong is to actually create the harm. Extreme discomfort is slower, but probably more effective, and I have no problems with that scenario. I don’t think degradation is a useful way to obtain information. To destroy feelings of self-worth or virtuousness probably will backfire. It may lead to resentment and actually increase resistance to questioning. Most of what occurred in Abu Ghraib was degradation and humiliation, not torture. However, it is wrong but not in the same way that torture is wrong. If this seems a bit rambling it is because it is new territory to me. I have been fortunate in life and never been in situations where these answers had meaning.

10. You’ve just replaced George W. Bush as president. (Don’t ask how.) What do you do about Iraq, and why? Don’t look back; look forward. Be specific.
At this point, events have overtaken much of my answers. I would place a priority on stopping the internal terrorists. Second I would put Syria and Iran on notice that they are at the top of the list of countries that I consider enemies. I would make a case to the American people that we do belong where we are and we are succeeding. I would find more ways to talk to America and sell my plans and ideas. I would advertise the principles by which I am making decisions. Let my press secretary and his/her staff really earn their pay. I would be less inclined to listen to the State Department and more inclined to listen to the military. I would also quietly get the law changed so that the career officers in the State Department had a bit less security, and more supervision and possibly surveillance. I would put Europe on notice that they are either our friends or our enemies and if they like our dollars and support of NATO, they’d best give us some support.
I would also tell the UN to clean up its act or lose funding and support. The whole point is that if we have principles, we have to live by them.

I read this chilling article in "The Weekly Standard" online March 11. It states that there is now a doctrine of "Futile Care" in Great Britain, and that it is already working its way into US care. It literally gives doctors and hospital administrators life and death authority over patients. This is where modern liberalism and secularism can take us. Life becomes just another commodity. Since the liberals seem not to be upset with beheadings, I assume they will welcome this. It will open more resources to their favorite downtrodden at the expense of the productive.

This weekend Ally told me that in PA a black and tan is made with Yuengling and Guiness and I could get into trouble asking for Harp. Tonight it was made with Smithwick's and Guiness. Smithwick's is an ale, much darker than Harp or Yuengling (which, BTW is quite good). Tonight it could be called a black and brown. It tasted just as good, but the visual effect was missing. The lighter-colored Harp lager showed the line between the two much better.

Go read Steve's rant at JusTalkin. When he gets fired up he is forceful and eloquent, and he offers us something we can do to help.

The Maverick Philosopher is pointing out signs of linquistic decline. Here is another one for the collection: It is a summary NOT a summarization and one summarizes, one does not summarizationize. This makes my skin crawl when I hear it. There are a number of others of this ilk I have heard in the business environment.

Dick McDonald (The Right Scale) has an excellent insight into why the State Department doesn't seem to get it sometimes. I'd like to have their job security.

Dick McDonald (The Right Scale)posted a very thought provoking piece on the wider ramifications of our elections. Go Read it.

Iraq the Model has a good post with an excellent title on progress and the day to day situation on Iraq. It's an excellent antidote to the major media.

I am really getting tired of the attention given to Michael Moore. It is exactly what he wants. But this post from Land of the Pharaohs is an excellent comment by a Middle Easterner.

The SoDakMonk has a very good economics lesson.

Steve at JusTalkin has a post on the use of children by the Paletinians. There is a link to a large photo gallery and a paragraph of excellent, succinct comment.

I'm dialed in from the Crown Room, I have to go catch my plane, and I find out that my favorite bloggers have had field day since I was able to get online to check on Thursday night. Another late night in the hotel. Actually, other than correcting a massive sleep deficit, there is no better activity away from home.

Directly conflicts with the idea of free will. Luther's and other theologians' concern is with the sinfulness of man. Man appears to be sinful by nature (original sin concept) which is a theological version of the biological statement that we are still like our animal ancestors. Left to their own devices with no attempt a civilizing, humans can end up like animals, witness the feral children that have appeared from time to time, or revesions to animal-like behavior such as the result of such disasters as the Donner pass stranding in the 1800's. From this observation they postulate that man cannot be anything but sinful and is predestined to be damned to hell. However, man has the knowledge of good and evil. How it has been acquired over the millennia is open to speculation, but he does have that knowledge and the ability to act on it. That man rarely, if ever, acts truly sinless may be true, but people do try to do good, some by rigorous observance of the law, and others by simply by being good. For some this is easy, others not. It becomes much easier with the acceptance of Grace. Accepting Grace is a choice. It may be conscious or it may not. From the acceptance of Grace comes the desire and willingness to do the right thing. As James pointed out, good works come from Grace, not the other way around. True goodness goes through and through and is even in the emotions. Rigid adherence to law (my favorite example is the Pharisees) only provides a patina of behavior. The person underneath may be an evil blackguard.

Though the concept of Grace came from Christianity, the knowledge of Christianity is not essential for the acceptance of Grace. Persons who have no formal exposure to religion or who have rejected organized religious practice can be good persons. They may not know why they make the choices they do or may make them for non-religious reasons, but they make good choices and are good to people for the sake of being kind or good. In such situations, it is difficult to argue that the person is predetermined to go to hell.

Absolute adherence to a doctrine of conscious acceptance of Grace for salvation is unreasonable. Whether a person has been given a lack of opportunity to have that particular consciousness or not. I also think it is unreasonable even if a person says that they reject organized religion. As I implied in an earlier post, organized religions exist for the benefit of the members not God. If have also stated that I don't think God cares whether someone believes in Him or not. Its the actions that count. Since God forgives less than perfection (and gives us free will) in those of us who have heard the message, He certainly would forgive less than perfection in good persons that haven't had the opportunity to hear or do not believe that what they heard is valid. Luther (Since I belong to the Lutheran Church, Luther is always a point of comparison) would argue with me (after he got through condemning me), but it is hard to equate a benevolent, forgiving God with the idea that only those who have heard the Christian message are forgiven.

As a sidebar, I think kindness and goodness arose from a generalization of how we treat our children. They are the most precious and closest to us. As we generalize our relationships to the outside world, we treat those further and further away from us as we would our closest family members. As Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Peg Kaplan (What If?) has well-passed the 5000-hit mark. I would have said something sooner, but my PC treats her sitemeter like a pop-up and doesn't display it. I'm on the back-up at home and saw 5400+. Great milestone for a great blog.

The Maverick Philosopher has published a letter from the Big Hominid that The Big Ho has asked be distributed as widely as possible. Having read it I agree.

Having spent four weeks, soon to be five, in Canada, I have found money to be a most interesting thing. Not just because of the aesthetics of the different forms, but also from the patterns of denominations. The denominations of money form a blurred exponential series, where each denomination is approximately double that of the one before. There are some exceptions, of course, and their occurrence is also interesting.

Starting with the old British Sterling system:
Farthing, Ha'pence, pence, tupence, five pence, ten pence, shilling (12 pence), five shillings, ten shillings, pound. I had little experience with amounts over a pound, so don't have the next figures. Note that until we get to five pence, the progression is absolutely exponential to the powers of two. Then the values become 1,5,10. A most common pattern. Note that they even forced a coin at an "unnatural level to get to 20 shillings to the pound. However, in fairness, I suspect that the British system grew from two disparate monetary systems, and the shilling was the common point.

The Canadian system:
1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 2 dollars, 5 dollars, 10 dollars, 20 dollars, 50 dollars, etc.

The US system:
1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 50 cents, 1 dollar, 2 dollars, 5 dollars, 10 dollars, 20 dollars, 50 dollars, 100 dollars. The series continued at one time to 10,000 dollars, but now stops at 100 dollars.

Notice that the Canadians do not use the 50 cent piece, and they use coins for 1 and 2 dollars. (The two dollar coin is interesting, a brass center surrounded by and aluminum circle.) Actually, I find the one and two dollar coins very handy. Especially in vending machines. I hate having to smooth a dollar bill to get the machine to take it.

Even though the US has a 50 cent coin, it is not often used, and though the 2 dollar bill is legal, it is abhorred by most people. The US has dollar coins, but since the demise of the silver dollar, no one seems to want them. Another interesting quirk of he US system is the "bit", as in "shave and a hair cut, two bits." A bit was 1/8 of a dollar, slightly more than a dime. It came from using an axe to chop a silver dollar into eight pieces or bits. By chopping, no weight was lost as would be by sawing. This was important, because in those days, dollars were actually made of one dollar's worth of silver.

There is no great imponderable in all this. It is just something that struck me as interesting.

I am heading for my sixth straight week on the road, next week. Granted I get home on weekends, and some of the weeks are less than five days, but there is no chance to get caught up. Blogging will be done, but not in any major degree. I also have a paper due by July 2 for presentation in December. I have to make time to write it. In the meantime please read my friends and co-bloggers listed to the right. Every one of them has vital and interesting things to say.

Last night at the Pub I tried a classic drink--Black and Tan. It is 10 oz of Harp lager in a glass with 10 oz of Guinness carefully layered on top. It tastes good, is fascinating to look at, and a nice scientific puzzle as to what makes it so stable.

Let's start with the construction. Harp lager is poured into the glass and the head allowed to disappear. The Guinness is then poured into the glass over the top of the Harp using a special deflector to break up the stream from the tap. The result is a very sharp boundary between the Harp and the Guinness.

Visually this is a fascinating thing to look at. Here is this glass with two liquids in it, one pale golden tan, the Harp, and one almost black, the Guinness, with a fine creamy head on the top. If you watch the line where the two join, it is extremely stable. Take a drink and when you set the glass back down, the line is still there, and may jiggle slightly or show a bit of a wave. The waves become more pronounced as the level falls and the Harp starts to be drunk. The line remains steady until almost the end of the glass, about four to six ounces, when the two mix.

Drinking a Black and Tan starts with pure Guinness. The first several swallows are Guinness. There is a sudden change in flavor when the Harp is taken in. Harp tastes brighter as would be expected. For an ale drinker this is good stuff.

For me the most fun is the science of it all. For Guinness to float on Harp, it has to be lighter (less dense), but it doesn't look lighter. When it is first poured, a large amount of foam is created which in effect makes the stout lighter until it rises to the top and forms a head. This can explain the first building of the drink, but it doesn't explain the stability. Part of the stability of the two layers is due to a difference in viscosity. Guinness is more viscous than Harp. It contains a lot of polymeric and surfactant material, as witness the stability of the head. (If you have a pint of pure Guinness, when the pint is finished there is still a bit of the head left which has a creamy quality to it.)

So where does the lower density come from after the head is formed? There is an advertising campaign at home that says Guinness only has 125 calories per serving....not on purpose. Ordinary beer and lager has 150 calories per serving, so maybe we have a clue here. (I checked with the bar tender; both beers are at the same temperature, so it is not temperature difference.) A 25 calorie difference is half an ounce of carbohydrate or about 14 grams. This amounts to half an ounce in 12, or a 4% difference in density, just due to the less carbohydrate. I might argue that the dissolved gasses might make a difference, but I have no way of deciding if Guinness can hold more dissolved gas than Harp. If Guinness has more alcohol per ounce that will make some difference since alcohol is only about 80-85% the density of water. I will posit that a 4%+ difference in density, coupled with a difference in viscosity, coupled with the manner in which the drink is formed yields a stable layering of two completely miscible materials.

See what comes from a Pub? Good taste, fascinating visuals, and stimulation for the mind. A lot better than some classes I have taken or books I have read.

As I was coming back from dinner at the Pub tonight, it struck me that Hollywood is afraid of religion. First witness the reaction of horror to Mel Gibson's "Passion". Then note that two recent movies made fun of religion. It strikes me that these are the reactions of fear not tolerance or compassion. Express horror and condemnation and if that doesn't work try ridicule.

What are they afraid of? Their own emptyness? Their own lack of standards? That they have gone from movies about ideas to movies about sensation?

Unfortunately this same thing occurs in the liberal media as well. I have heard reports of an NPR talk show making fun of believers over the air.

Whistling past the grave yard.

Dick McDonald (The Right Scale) published a "thank you" note to Bill Clinton. Here was something I did not know from the letter:

"14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing
Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton,and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn't Americans know the real truth? "

The SoDakMonk has posted some quotes from a scientific journalist, Richard Milton. These quotes from Milton's book do make some points attacking Neo-Darwinism. The particular example of wanting a clear sequence of evolution based on fossils in sedimentary rock, is probably overly stringent for acceptance of the theory. No theory explains everything, even the most accepted. Weakness or failure to explain does not invalidate a theory, even though it may constrain it. The weaknesses of a theory are the places where new discovery occurs. The particular requirement that Mr. Milton wants to make assumes that evolution is a steady gradual accumulation of changes. In the field of evolution study today there is furious and continual debate on rates of change, punctuated change, how fast can species and lines evolve, etc. It is entirely possible that the basic premise of survival of the fittest holds, but that the appearance of the fittest is not gradual, or occurs over wider areas than can be reasonably studied.

If we look at our human history, areas of the Middle East have been fertile then unfertile in the space of a few hundred years. In response the civilizations collapse or move. This leaves a record that may or may not be found in modern times. If we consider that a few hundred years is nothing on the paleontological scale of millions of years, then the changes that have occurred to cause migrations, depletions, arising of new ecological niches to be filled are beyond any ability to count. We are lucky to find what we do and to have made the progress we have. Beyond the logistical probabilities of finding gradual sequences of fossils, there may be a physical problem. Suppose rock forms orders of magnitude more slowly than fossils evolve--automatically there would be gaps. Or more likely, suppose that sedimentary rock forms intermitently. It becomes a matter of the luck of the draw whether a species is present or not when the sediments are laid down.

What I am wondering is if the neo-Darwinism is not either outdated or an inappropriate extension of Darwin's fundamental premise. Darwin found a small, isolated ecosystem capable of being completely studied. He took a group of birds that had enough variation to be interesting, yet were not do diverse as to not be able to study them all. From his data, he proposed the theory of evolution. The general principle of evolution to fit ecological niches or to overcome competition for resources in a given niche still holds. It has always been romanticized or condemned. Where most of the debate occurs is over mechanisms for creating change and the manner and rate at which they work. In the environment of the islands Darwin studied, evolution would be slow and gradual. They were isolated, and there were no major predators. In most of the rest of the world, it isn't that clean and pretty. Predator and prey relationships and fierce competition for resources dictate that surviving is probably not gradual in some cases. Though most mutations are deleterious, occasionally there are ones which confer major benefits. Such a mutation would race through a population if it provided greater survival. This would not produce a nice, gradual fossil record.

The theory of evolution with its many corollaries and subtheories, is still the overall best answer to what we see in the long-term history of the species. It is supported by far more than simply the fossil record, though that is one of the major information inputs. It is also supported by detailed anatomical and biochemical studies of existing species. The most powerful at the moment are nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Quite a number of family trees based on anatomical study have been rearranged by DNA data. Additionally, mutation rates can predict roughly when in time a species started splitting off.

Like all theories, evolution does not provide all the answers, but it is still the current best answer and the most useful approach to speciation.

Steve (JusTalkin) posted this link to something worth far more than the few minutes it takes to view it.

Go see it, please.

From Advisory Opinion comes this link to a news article stating that Sadr has surrendered and describing how the job was done. Congratulations to the 1st Armored Division.

The AnalPhilosopher enjoys eating! He considers it one of life's pleasures! He is definitely a man after my own heart. I think he is much more moderate than I. I approach opportunity to eat new foods and drink new drinks with a great gusto. By Keith's standards mine is overindulgence, but what pleasure! I am on my fourth week in Canada, and my third week spending every evening at the local pub for dinner and a couple of pints. I have tried everything on tap that I haven't had before, and some that I have had from bottles [Guiness from the tap is definitely not the same as Guiness from the bottle. More on Guiness later this evening.]. I have tried all the traditional pub grub items. Pub food is massive, plain, and well-prepared. Just like some of the best hamburgers I have ever eaten have been served in bars, so pub grub is the best of its kind I have eaten. As slender as Keith is, it was possible that he just didn't care about eating. I'm very glad he does. Enjoyment of food is an important part of living.

John Hawkins (The Right Wing News) posted this quote by Clint Eastwood from "A Few Good Men".

"[M]y existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a d@mn what you think you are entitled to."

It pretty well says what needs to be said to liberals. The only way they can shoot their mouths off is by grace of those they attack. They don't bite the hand that feeds them they are going for the jugular. God help us if they find it.

Sunday I posted an editorial on the killer whale, Luna, in British Columbia. Today this letter appeared in the same paper:

Luna did not "choose" his current life. While Luna was migrating, at the age of one with his uncle, the uncle died, stranding the baby whale without family to guide him. He has spent the last three years alone in inlets around Gold River, with no adult whales to either teach or protect him.

At the age of four he is still a baby, understandably afraid to venture into the open ocean. He is cut off from his mother and other whale family, whose job it it to teach him survival skills.

As an uneducated, isolated whale, Luna's chances of survival are slim. Those of us who are contributing to his reunion with his mother (concerned citizens from all over the world hav raised $350,000 in addition to government funding) have at least one thing in common: We do not stand to gain financially from his presence. We wish him safely returned to his pod, where he can grow up to be a real whale [I can't resist...What is he now, a fake whale?] capable of surviving for the natural lifespan of his species. He will need a lot of whale knowledge to survive, which can only come from the collected knowledge of his pod.

Those who wish to keep him in Gold River wish to experience the financial tourist benefits of an unofficial "marine park" without any of the responsibilities, such as ensuring the mental and physical health and safety of the endangered species they wish to continue profiting from.

Like baby Springer befor him, Luna needs your help to be reunited with his mother. The may dedicated, talented professionals who successfully returned Springer to her family two years ago are able to return Luna to his pod, and so they should.

Let me see, his chances of survival are slim, but he has already lived three years now alone and is bigger and stronger and probably has learned. If whales are capable of learning, and I suspect they are, he is doing all right. The anthropomorphism is almost overwhelming. I would have less brief with those interested in helping animals if they would approach the animal as itself instead of projecting their own emotions, goals, and social constructs on them. I also love the appeal to collective knowledge, as if it were the only kind a killer whale could have. These animals are predators, and can be very effective predators. One of their favorite foods is seals. Those are not easy to catch. And of course they are the professionals that know best. This whole thing reminded me of a pitch for a government program to help the ....fill in the blank with your favorite aid recipient. I almost forgot, note the anti-business statements, too.

I'd like some real data to think with. In the meantime, Luna seems to be doing quite well where he is, thank you. So maybe someday the pod will come back by, and he'll be an adolescent, and hormones will overcome his reluctance to go to sea.

In the process of correcting a slew of typos, it crossed my mind that this sounds like something written by a high school student--much like the ones my younger son was always arguing with. If it is, here is the result of our and Canada's educational systems.

Iraq the Model has posted a letter from a marine in Iraq that definitely should be read. Proof that people everywhere have the same impulses to help each other.

Steve Headley (Texas Conservative) has posted a link to one student's taking on the entire school bureaucracy and coming to a very positive stalemate. If he had had more time he would have won. Read it. Be prepared to hear a lot from this young man someday.

I'm certainly with Keith (AnalPhilosopher) on this one.

Today John Hawkins' Right Wing News published a post by Frank J (IMAO) on the killing of Paul Johnson. He says what Norm Weatherby and I have said only better--we need to be killing some terrorists. Is any body listening?

I may get flamed for this speculation, but I have noticed two things over the years when looking at women wearing jewelry. One, earrings vary in size and shape, and the two attributes seem to be correlated with a hidden message, and two rings on the left hand give another message.

Starting with rings, there is the obvious wedding band. That seems to be a constant message. A woman with a jewel on the left ring finger is engaged, and if there is another band, or a plain band, she is married. What I think also occurs is that if a woman wears a ring on the middle finger of her left hand she has a significant other. I once tried to get confirmation but couldn’t get a clear response.

Earrings are a less clear but more interesting phenomenon. I think the size of the earring is an indication of the fundamental perception of self-worth—up to a point. Women who wear noticeable earrings have a strong sense of self-worth and women who wear either small studs or no earrings tend to have a poor self-esteem. However, this may be more subtle, because there may be context messages here. I know of women who wear studs or no earrings that have a strong self-image in the non-emotional world. So maybe they indicate their self-image in the relationship world—how lovable or desirable they see themselves.

The shape of the earring is potentially more informing. There are women who wear oversize hoops, sometimes large enough to be bracelets. I think this is a form of bragging—I am “THIS” sexy. They usually aren’t, but that is what I think the message is. In some contexts it may indicate availability. Although it can also be an “eat your heart out” kind of message.

The non-hoop earrings are interesting. First I think the size indicates self-worth. I sometimes think the ones that are complicated are meant to reflect the personality underneath. Others are simple but ornate, indicating a nice, self-linking person that is fairly straight forward. I associate the complex and highly patterned ones with a difficult, conflicted personality. Finally there are the hoops with things dangling inside them. I interpret these as, “I think I’m sexy, but I’m not available, or I am not interested”.

I welcome comments on this. I will publish all serious email, though it will be Friday or Saturday before I can get to it.

I just read a review in the National Post (the Canadian more-than equivalent of USA Today) by Anne Kingston, that covered the interview Bill Clinton had with Dan Rather. It was pretty scathing, but I especially like the bottom line:

“What does it matter if it’s a Clintonian fairy tale? It returns readers to a more innocent time, one when the only stain the nation fretted about was the one on a polyester dress from the Gap.”

In a series of ten or so posts, Samizdata covers and gives context to the successful flight of SpaceShipOne today. Space may finally become the final frontier instead of a government sandbox.

Peg Kaplan (What If?) has posted major exerpts and the link to an important statement on what we are fighting in our battle against terrorism. Go read it.

Matthew, the SoDakMonk, is back from his vacation and posting again. I especially like this post on the problems of politicizing religion. Though Matthew's viewpoint is definitely a Roman Catholic one as you might expect, the application of his arguments goes far beyond the Church. Even when I am not in agreement, I enjoy reading his posts. Clearly stated ideas are always a joy to read.

The Maverick Philosopher has been having an on-going discussion with two liberals over the past week or so. Last Friday's installment presents an especially good analysis of the issue of church and state. Go read it, then work backwards for some other excellent analysis and commentary.

I am starting my fourth week of work in Canada, and last Friday this item appeared in "The National Post".

LUNA'S LIFE-CHOICE

It is proof of just how pervasive the bureaucracy is in this country that a whale named Luna is to be caged, hoisted out of the water and trucked 350 kilometres away -- at some risk of serious injury -- just because some federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans functionary has decided he might pose a danger to small boats in Nootka Sound, B.C. Oh yes, and they think he might be lonely.

Luna first appeared in the sound three years ago. He is a healthy animal, growing normally, and has bbecome much loved by members of hte Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nations. Along the way, Luna also became something of a tourist attracton in Gold River. He has even taken on spiritual significance, since he first appeared only days after the death of a former chier, Ambrose Maquinna, who had said that he would liek to return as a killer whale. As Mowachaht Chief Mike Maquinna says: "The killer whale in our culture is very important and significant."

This is not a "Free Willy" scenario. Luna is not being transported from some grim aquarium lockup to freedom. Quite the opposite. This is a fee whale that chose, for reasons known only to Luna, to abandon his pod and make a home in Nootka Sound. Maybe he's a rebellious whale. Maybe he's a hermit whale. But he has made the whale equivalent of a life-choice.

The pencil pushers at DFO and an assortment of U.S. and Canadian whale experts have other ideas. They ahve budgeted $500,000 to capture and relocate Luna far to the south, where his former pod resides. They have a list of justifications for doing so -- he's a curious animal who could overturn small boats, he'd be happier in a pod -- all the usual issues that concern the whale bureaucracy.

But it's the ban members -- who have used gtraditional longboats to steer Luna away from the waiting trap -- who have it right. They want nature to take its course. Free Luna from the clutches of officialdom.

The part I like the best is that he would be happier in a pod. Never mind he deliberately left the pod. Did they ask him? What language did they use? Or did they hire Dr. Doolittle?

Fox News published a note that the National Board of Medical Examiners will now test the bedside manner of doctors. This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. Is this test really going to determine whether a doctor is competent? Or just that he can mouth the right words and have the right expression on his face. Patients that don't like the way their doctor does or does not listen to them have the option of finding another doctor. The patient cannot pass the responsibility of judging the correct doctor for them to a board of doctors that are on the board and not practicing. I have fired two doctors in the past two years. I have one doctor I have been going to for fifteen years. As far as I am concerned, the doctors I go to had best accept the idea that we are partners in my health -- he/she is not a tin god. I reserve the right to not take a medicine that makes me feel worse, and to argue about treatment options. Anyone who walks into a doctors office and suspends their judgment and self-worth, pretty much deserves what they get. Reputation and word of mouth are far better judges of a doctor's skills for the average person than some medical board. The best a medical board can do is indicate that they found a minimal standard of skill or better. It says nothing about how good the doctor really is.

Daniel Perl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and now a South Korean. When are we going to nail these sons-of-bitches? If we publically execute them will Al-Jazeera show the tapes? If they don't I think they should be considered aiding and abetting terroism and taken out just like we should do terrorists. Freedom of the press does not include aid and comfort to the enemy.

As best as I can figure, the only thing that the Middle East pays attention to is force. They respect it and fear it. Notice that when Israel took out the top three leaders of Hamas in order, things got a lot quieter. Playing nice with outfits like Al-Jazeera, PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia just get us more grief. Our troops are building support with the civilians daily. Quit worrying about "public opinion" and go in and kick ass. I am beginning to suspect the purveyors of public opinion are just like our liberal left -- a loud-mouth minority. (Maybe that's why the left likes them so much. They recognize their kin.)

Today in Fox News there was an article stating that Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne will try to reach the 62 mile limit above the earth tomorrow. If he succeeds, it will put him the closest to the $10 million Ansari X Prize of the twenty or so competitors. The importance of this event is that a private company is coming close to space, and doing it with what appears to be more robust technology than NASA's.

Go Burt!

People haven’t changed in the last 2000 years. Their general character and behavior is still the same. We can look at those around us and see that within the confines of culture they will act and react the same as people today.

As important as Jesus is to us today, in his day, relative to the rest of society he was not particularly important. This is why we see little or nothing in the secular materials from that time mentioning him. From a Roman perspective, it would be like we tried and convicted a sectarian preacher, leaving little evidence 2000 years later. (Just how much is made of Jimmy Swaggert or Jimmy Baker today?) Judgment in those days was not subject to the extensive recording that is used today. Only matters of state were considered particularly important, and just like today, once dealt with, not much effort is made to preserve records.

The teachings of Jesus have been handed down through many transmission routes. Despite the scholarship, the earliest documents available come from several hundred years after His death, and are copies of documents written from an oral tradition that would have its own alterations as time went on. The closest chain I have observed so far, is Jesus to Peter to Paul to Luke. But we also have to deal with the tendency of all followers to dogmatize that which was based on guidance and general principals. Throughout history, his teachings have been adopted to the times, beliefs, and personalities of various theologians. Always there seems to be two conflicting views, one very Puritanical, and one more lenient, often to the point of licentiousness. We see it today in the mainline Protestant faiths and Catholicism vs. the Fundamental faiths. It is very easy to become caught up in the conflict trying to prove each other wrong, and by that one as right. But that is an error—there are those who desire and perhaps need very rigid belief structures, and there are those for whom that would be an intolerable straight-jacket. The error is in attempting to inflict either set of beliefs on the other. Tolerance must be the norm. We have to remember that the goal is to become better human beings, more Jesus-like. Jesus did not persecute those who disagreed with him. He was a teacher in the best sense, doing everything he could to communicate his message, but realizing that it would be understood and heard only by those who were ready.

Much is often made (at one time, I did myself) of the fact that Christianity started primarily with the poor and downtrodden. Certainly. Historically, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a change. Moses lead Jews from slavery; Marx believed that communism needed to start with the “downtrodden” labor class; most insurrections in third world countries are tied to a belief that one’s lot will improve enough to take the risk of losing one’s life. The fact that Christian belief spread to the wealthier classes in a fairly short time indicates that there is something fundamental in it that is outside of any class identification.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to look at Jesus without the surrounding aura created by gospel and epistle writers and childhood bible stories. However, I think it is a useful thing to do. Just from looking at what was reported about his behavior and teachings, and ignoring the “spin” put on it by others, a very remarkable and wonderful image of a man emerges. First of all, Jesus was a child prodigy. That comes from the story that he was having discussions with the rabbis at the age of 11 or 12. [Granted, it is possible that it is apocryphal.]

He was a carpenter, and the son of a carpenter. For thirty years or so, he made a living as a carpenter. He obviously was a thinker, but we need to start with the manual laborer image to understand what he did and the context of what he did. We know nothing of his social life, yet he had to have had one. He would have associated with other laborers, and gone to inns, bars and taverns that catered to laborers.

Did he ever have any love life? He must have been charismatic to women. In the accounts of the crucifixion, women that followed him as he taught are very much present in the narrative. This would indicate that by Jewish standards at the turn of the first millennium, he had to be appealing in appearance and behavior. This is a very interesting area of speculation, for which there is no Gospel support. Since Jesus was human in his ministry on earth, he had to have the normal urges of any healthy male. To suddenly bring in his possible divinity at this point is to negate his value as a human, showing us what humans are capable of. For that matter, to consider divinity as negating the sex urge is to make divinity anti-life. Sex in its proper expression is the ultimate affirmation of life and the value of living. He may have chosen not to have expressed his sexuality, but I have a difficult time thinking that he did not have it as one might naively believe reading the Gospels.

Was he a loner or sociable? In one sense this is a no-brainer. He was surrounded by his entourage of 12 disciples, and the aforementioned women. Yet a man can be lonely in a crowd. Was the crowd a camouflage? Who were his real confidants? Did he have any? I mistrust the testimony of John with his constant “the one whom Jesus loved”, referring to himself [John]. The path he chose for himself was unbelievably difficult. He must have occasionally had a need to express his cares, his worries, his fears. His agony in Gethsemane indicates that he was as human as you and I when the rubber met the road. He knew he was going to die, and he feared it, yet met it head-on. Yet to get through 30+ years of life and thought I think there were a few, not among his reporters or his entourage, to whom he turned for another view or a chance to talk. Much as we use counseling today.

He had to be physically strong. I plan to generally research the society and its technology that Jesus lived in after I complete the current project in Gospel analysis. Without power tools, everything was produced by hand. I am a woodworker, and even with power tools it is not a wimpy activity. One has to have some strength to build any major project. Jesus had to be very strong. Though I have come to question the carrying of the cross, for various reasons that I am formulating for my Gospel study, a tremendous physical strength and endurance would have been required to survive a flogging. [I think Mel Gibson got that part close to correct in his movie.] Physical strength is often accompanied with mental and psychological strength.

There is a gap in the narrative of his life, and then we see Jesus teaching and gathering a following. What he is teaching has its roots in Jewish teachings, but he has made a very important advance in morality. Morality is an individual responsibility, not due to membership in a group or the obeying of a set of rules. Much of his teaching has been represented at times as being a “slaves’ religion” or a version of stoicism. That is a very shallow understanding. Jesus teachings go to core of living. People take turning the other cheek as a total capitulation to evil, but I don’t think that is so. I think Jesus was very careful in his choice of illustrations, and he used striking on the cheek. In almost all cultures that is an insult, and is taken as an attack. However, in reality it is not a threat to physical survival. Notice he didn’t say if one is struck down to get up and invite a second blow. A more modern version might be, “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” or “…names can never hurt me.” The Sermon on the Mount and the Beautitudes are also construed as condoning or enduring subjugation. Yet, I get a sense of one must be true to ones self. That the reward comes from the personal integrity. Jesus’ strength and power came from a lack of self-doubt. All the biographies I have read of great persons has that as a common thread—they had complete belief in what they were doing. Jesus persecution by the Jewish establishment is easily understood. If morality is a personal responsibility between an individual and God, who needs the priests? Jesus knew this and saw it coming, and still maintained his integrity to the end.

Was he divine? My own conclusion is that he was not. I look on a long history of other religions with traditions of human women impregnated by gods, and myths of virgin births, and am inclined to consider that the Gospel writers fell into the same trap. They came from a far less knowledgeable time than today on what is possible rationally and scientifically. The important point I want to make is that Jesus needed no divinity to validate the message he gave. He lived the message. His example is what we are to follow, to be true to our beliefs even if it leads to death.

This item is from the WSJ Opinion Journal, The Best of the Web, an email service.

"A Belgian jury on Thursday convicted a former electrician of kidnapping, raping and killing girls eight years ago, ending an agonizing 16-week trial and closing the book on one of the most disturbing criminal cases in the country's history," the New York Times reports from Paris:

Marc Dutroux, 47, faces a life sentence for the abduction, abuse and deaths of four girls, two of whom were apparently drugged, wrapped in plastic and buried alive. The other two died of starvation in an underground chamber where he left them while serving a three-month sentence for car theft.

Mr. Dutroux was also found guilty of kidnapping and raping two girls who survived. Their testimony and their return with the jury to the dungeon where they had been held provided the most dramatic moments of the trial.

Because he committed these horrific crimes in Europe, Dutroux won't get the death penalty. That would be "barbaric."

My new PC has a power supply that is designed for the cords to be wrapped around it when stored. They are secured by a rubber strap with holes in it and a small peg sticking out of the end where it fastens to the power supply. From a long history of dealing with rubber straps, I carefully put the minimum of tension on the strap that will hold the cords in place. The reason obviously is that the rubber will wear out and break. But how does it happen, and why does rubber have resilience in the first place?

A clue to the answer can be observed by doing something I used to do as a kid. Take a large, wide rubber band, and hold it gently against your lip. Then stretch it and let it back gently, but fairly quickly. As it stretches it gets cooler, and as it relaxes it gets warmer. You have to use your lip because it is more sensitive than fingers or hands. Besides you need those to stretch the rubber band! Heating and cooling are signs of the release and uptake of energy, respectively.

So where is the energy stored? For that we have to get down to the molecules of rubber themselves. Nature is a hacker by nature. She would rather alter and reuse something she already has then create something totally new. Rubber is like that. There are molecules made in almost everything called isoprenes. Link them together and you get the main ingredients of turpentine. A group of six of them connect to form chlorophyll. Rubber is the equivalent of a plastic made from isoprene. Rubber is composed of chains of isoprene molecules bonded into long polymers, just as polyethylene is composed of ethylene molecules bonded into long chains. The difference in rubber is that the chains are springy.

What makes them springy is a particular type of bond between the carbon atoms in the chain. One of the fascinating things about carbon is the multitude of ways it can bond. It bonds to many other atoms, but more importantly for us, it bonds to itself. Not only that but it can bond to four different atoms at once. If you were to connect the four atoms around such a carbon atom it would form a tetrahedron – a figure formed of four equilateral triangles connected edge-to-edge. Now carbon can take two of the bonds and connect them to one atom, a double bond. (The number of these in a molecule forms the basis of the nutrition labels for unsaturated fat, monounsaturated is one per molecule, polyunsaturated is more than one.) This is the stuff of springy molecules. Just to be complete, it can also create a triple bond, which is the basis of acetylene, MAPP gas, and crazy glue.

Coming back to the double bond, it creates a molecule that has a flat spot in it at the bond. Rubber molecules have several of these. If the ends of the molecule are held and then forced towards each other or pulled apart, the angles around the two carbon atoms forming the double bond will change from 120 degrees to one angle of more or less than 120 degrees and the other two splitting the distance. Rubber with its bonds distorted like that is in a higher energy state. It takes energy to get there. One way to visualize this is with a soda straw wrapper.

I fidget in restaurants when waiting on food. I roll the little napkin wrapper up into a solid roll, and I take soda straw wrappers, and first bend them in the middle so that I have two ends at right angles to each other and flat, both in the same plane. I then weave them back and forth over each other making a sort of springy square tower. If you do this, you can pull gently on the ends and they will snap back, or squeeze the ends and they will rebound. Just as the weaving holds the wrapper in its configuration, so the double bonds in the rubber hold the molecule in its configuration.

So basically rubber is rubbery because of the springy molecules it is made of. But we aren’t quite done. Why should I be so careful not to over-stretch my power supply strap? Rubber molecules collect together due to a weak intermolecular bond. There are enough “bumps” in the shape of the rubber molecule that when they are held together by the weak attraction, they stay in place. Rather like putting your knuckles together and, then with pressure holding them together, trying to move them back and forth against each other. When rubber is stretched, the bumps aren’t quite as big. So it takes less effort to slide rubber molecules against each other. Once two molecules completely slide past each other it creates a weak point that more and more rapidly fails, as fewer and fewer molecules have to carry the entire strain across that point. Eventually the stress overcomes the resistance of the remaining molecules and the rubber band breaks, usually quite rapidly. So remember when pulling that rubber band tight and doubling it over and over to make sure something is held in a roll, maybe its okay not to pull it so tight, and it may remain rolled up longer.

Land of the Pharaohs has a very interesting post on Ronald Reagan and a comparison to President Bush. It is really fascinating to see what someone outside the country sees.

Steve at JusTalkin has a nice piece on the realities of taxation.

Peggy Kaplan (What If?) has just run into the mirror image of political correctness -- hard-core resistance to different ideas. She was trying to get at truth and received impassioned rejection. Simply because of the subject matter. She writes:

"But I don't understand. How could my friend "know" that this professor is so clearly out of bounds without reading a word that the man has written?

Is it possible that the racism my friend has experienced throughout his life renders him incapable of unemotional rationality on such subjects?

Or should I have "self censored" such an article, contemplating that mentioning such a topic might be offensive to some?"

My comment to Peg is, so-called self-censorship in the interests of not offending is the personal expression of political correctness and eventually leads to not being able to deal with the truth. I am sorry that an otherwise intelligent friend had such a response, but that does not mean you were wrong to bring up the matter. It is also possible after the first reaction he will reconsider. I have many times in the past. Usually intelligence wins out over emotion in those used to thinking.

AnalPhilosopher published a letter that does an excellent job of presenting the likely origin of morals. I have had the same thoughts for years. He goes further with the idea in the context of the attack on morals by the left and reaches an interesting conclusion. Read it for yourself.

Keith Burgess-Jackson, in both his blogs (AnalPhilosopher and Ethics of War) has published a list of ten questions for his new blogging partner, Len Carrier. I have copied them and plan to answer within the next few days. It is too late tonight to do so.

An editorial in the WSJ has been quoted almost in its entirety by Old Benjamen at Advisory Opinion. The thrust is that atheists are actually outsiders in this country, that the US is the most religious country in the world. I had a lot of discomfort with the article, because having been an atheist and certainly still not a traditional Christian, I dislike the image of outsider. Outsider carries with it connotations of not belonging, of having no business being in some place. Atheists, agnostics, and non-traditional theists, and non-Christian traditional theists are outsiders in a manner analogous to homosexuals and marriage. They do not participate in some activities, but they are full citizens of our country and accepted members of our society.

I think the editorial was an attempt to counter so much Christian-bashing and intolerance for religion going on right now. However, demanding recognition and tolerance is not quite the same as calling a minority outsiders.

Today the comparison of liberals to adolescents is the common thread on several blogs. Funny, because I was thinking about liberals today while waiting for my program to run (There's a new one to add to the list of things to do while waiting for a program to run)

First I think we must divide the liberals into two groups, those who have a naive view of life and simply want nice things to happen for everyone and the others, who are evil.

Let's take the naive group first. In my experience they are either teen-aged or somewhat older. If older they tend to be emotionally like teen-agers. This is the group to which the immature label appears to apply the best. They have discovered that life is not easy for many other people, and in all good intent want to do something about it. The problem is that they do not understand that everything has a cost, and one cannot dictate the means for doing something just because it is desirable. There is hope for many of these. I think they are like myself and Keith Burgess-Jackson. We were liberal when young and became conservative as we became older. One of my younger son's friends was a liberal as a Freshman in high school, but by the time he graduated was very conservative. He is a police officer and a good one. He understands compassion, but has no use for living off welfare. I love having him over to hear his tales of the cop-shop. My older son is liberal. It will be interesting to watch him as he gets older. He is not a deep thinker, but he does think. This group is generally not vocal. They go about their lives, doing what seems the right thing to them. They often form the core of various assistance programs.

The other group is not immature at all. They are calculatedly evil and liberalism is the means to obtain their ends. Most of the naive group can be easily directed to do their bidding. This group of people are petty, envious, devious, and pragmatic. They are the kids that get other kids in trouble, or do something despicable then present some conflated moral issue that most adults aren't quite able to sort out on the fly. They tend to be intelligent, but that intelligence is devoted not to accomplishment, but to tearing down others' accomplishments. There seems to be a deep insecurity in their personal makeup. They are afraid to compete openly. They disparage those who do, while secretly envying them. They learn as children to stay in the background and look for something to spoil a success. As they age they become more accomplished at all this. Finally they learn to co-opt the good intentions of the naive group to promote programs that have as the real goal their own power. They play on the natural envy of people to hobble anyone that can accomplish something with skill. They use cries of "fairness" to disadvantage the strong against the weak. By lowering standards they make it less obvious that the successful have succeeded, because there is so much company in those that met the standard. In truth the successful have not succeeded, there was no challenge for them.

The evil group has been aging for some years now, and until lately has had a lot of success in getting their way. But people in general eventually see most scams for what they are, and there is less agreement wtih the various liberal programs they have promoted. The election of Ronald Reagan was a major blow, and it became more damaging to their cause when he not only succeeded in what he attempted but also got reelected, by a monsterous landslide. President Carter was the quiet version of this group, and he only lasted four years. Bill Clinton was never part of the group, he actually hijacked the liberals for his own personal aggrandizement. President Bush is potentially their death-blow or close to it, and they know it. That is why they have become so shrill and vituperative. They are desperate, and the same education system they created has ill-prepared them to analyze anything, much less issues of values and philosophies.

I think it is important to keep the distinction between these two groups when we talk about them collectively as "liberals." It is the evil group we must be concerned with, and if we can separate them from the willingness of the naive group to go along, they can be isolated and rendered less potent.

This post from Iraq the Model puts a good perspective on the overall attitude and situation in Iraq.

Samizdata posted this (I have quoted it in its entirety):

"If you meet Liberal Democrats trying to claim that after the local government elections that Britain now has three-party politics, tell them that after the European elections it actually has four-party politics; and their party is fourth.

I have long thought that Liberal-Democrats deserved to be rounded up and kept in high security prisons. However, a friend suggests a more useful alternative. Why don't we use genetic engineering to breed a four-headed hydra with the likenesses of Hayek, von Mises, Friedman and Reagan? It could seek out Liberal Democrats, wrap itself around them, and suck the collectivism out of them. The discarded husks could then be shredded and recycled as packaging for the fast food industry."

My one-time verbal sparring partner, Len Carrier has made his first post to The Ethics of War blog, started by the AnalPhilosopher. Dr. Carrier has made a well-crafted statement against the war in Iraq that should not be dismissed but considered. I am going to look forward to the postings of both Len Carrier and Keith Burgess-Jackson.

The Maximum Leader has posted a fascinating take on health insurance. I would not want to spoil the reading by telling more.

Steve Headley, the Texas Conservative, posted a request from Sgt.Hook in Afghanistan for used children's shoes. Read the post for the details.

Scrappleface was unmockingly serious (he is always serious. Most of the time he is funny.) and posted this, which I have quoted in it's entirety. It is brief and does say it slightly differently.

"Obituary: President Reagan Dies at 93
(2004-06-05) -- Former U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan died at home this afternoon at the age of 93, after a decade-long journey with Alzheimer's disease.

He is survived by his wife, Nancy, three children and several hundred million men, women and children in the former Soviet Union, and around the world, who were set free from the hopeless terror of communist tyranny through his steadfast courage and unwavering faith.

In addition to recordings and transcripts of dozens of the most compelling, sincere and influential speeches ever heard, President Reagan also leaves behind an America that is no longer afraid to call evil what it is, and to do something about it."

Somewhere in the last half hour, my site counter hit 2000. My thanks to all the other bloggers that have linked to me. Particular thanks to AnalPhilosopher and John Ray (Dissecting Leftism) for helping me get started with advise and encouragement, to Peg Kaplan's What If? for her wonderful recommendations with her links, to Ally Eskin at Who Moved My Truth? and Steve at JusTalkin for a tremendous number of referrals as well as great commentary to spur thinking. Thanks also to Steve Headley, the Texas Conservative, who has provided so many links to Iraqi thought and referrals. I also thank Naked Villiany for both posts that I have keyed from as well as referrals. Dr. Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, provides a phenomenal example of clear writing and deep thinking.

All of the blogs listed to the right have helped me in this endeavor in one way or another with ideas, a stimulus to post when in the doldrums, something to change the outlook of the day.

My thanks to all of you.

The AirMarshall posted a rant at Naked Villiany against the lawyers who got OJ off at the criminal trial for murder. While he was at it, he should have also told the LA police to learn to collect evidence and build a case, and the prosecutors to do some basic thinking. Between the corruption of the chain of evidence and the incompetence of the DA's office, it was almost a slam dunk. Remember "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" ? All the prosecution would have had to do was take a similar leather glove, wet it, let it dry, and it would shrink. I've had it happen to me. I accidentally washed my fur-lined gloves and the lining shrank to where I couldn't get them on.

I followed the trial and served on jury duty sometime later for a case that I considered the OJ trial writ small. Same problems, bad evidence gathering and conflicting testimony of the arresting officers, and an assistant DA that didn't appear to have the ability to get around the accused's lies.

Air Marshall was right, "First, kill all the lawyers."

Ralph Kinney Bennett published a eulogy in Tech Central Station for Ronald Reagan that for me said it better than the rest. Please read it, if you haven't.

During the week and a half I was out of commission (for blogging purposes) Norm Weatherby published an excellent recommendation for additional armed forces, and quantified what he thought were the necessary additions. What troubled me the most was his statement that we have only one munitions plant in the US, and that we were considering outsourcing the munitions manufacturing to other countries. Never depend on anyone else for something essential to survival. Norm is right, we need up to a dozen munitions plants scattered across the country.

My friend, the AnalPhilosopher, posted ten things he didn't understand. Of that list here are the ones I don't either:

2. Why African-Americans vote Democrat.

4. Why there is so much hatred for President Bush.

5. Why people throw trash out of their vehicles.

6. How anyone could think that there are objective values.

9. Why people try to do too much and end up doing nothing well.

Of the others, I can't necessarily make strong cases, but here is the Cliff Notes version:

1. Why women wear makeup.-- They've discovered that properly done, the male doesn't see it as artifact and sees them as prettier. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be and to the consternation of militant feminists, Men see women first for looks and secondarily for other things.

3. How computers work.--too long to post. They work--a fundamental law of nature--:-)).

7. The appeal of soccer.--It's so random. Despite the best efforts of both teams, the result is a statistical summation of the play, overriden by a lucky fluke.

8. The appeal of hunting.--Man the survivor.

10. Shakespeare.--He didn't do it particularly well, but there is a quote from Shakespeare for almost every occasion.

Bill O'Reilly on Fox News has a post in his Talking Points that is well worth reading on the attendance and non-attendance of foreign dignataries at Reagan's funeral.

For those of you who are interested in my further comments on Communion (Eucharist), I have posted them to Bill's Big Stuff, here.

Pharisees are the bêtes noir for Christians. Jesus was in constant conflict with Pharisees. This was because of a fundamental difference in approach between Jesus and the Pharisees, a difference that distinguishes Christianity as a religion.

The Pharisees exemplify in the Gospels the rigid adherence to the law as the path to heaven and God’s favor. In their case the law is minutely detailed and the least deviation is considered sinful. This leads to the very cold and judgmental self-righteousness displayed throughout the Gospels for them. For them the Law was everything. The letter, not the spirit was controlling. All of us have this trait to one degree or another, and the most politically correct seem to me to be the modern version of Pharisism.

Enter into this world view, Jesus. He broke the law and showed each time that he considered the spirit not the letter of the law to be ruling. [At this point it is important to state that throughout his lifetime, Jesus was a human in all senses of the world. (Despite the mythology of the virgin birth or the statements that God was Jesus’ father, until he died on the cross, he was human. Beyond that point, take your faith. I consider him to have always been human, and he went to Heaven or whatever is the equivalent just as you and I will when we die.) If he were not human, nothing in the Gospels has any validity. Only if a human did the things he did or said the things he said can they provide an example or guidance for the rest of us.] Jesus taught that what we believed and did towards others was what counted, and that adherence to the letter of the law counted for nothing if it had no true feeling behind it, and that good behavior counted for more than rigid observance. This is the introduction of the concept of GRACE.

In some ways Grace is an easy concept and in others a highly complex and nuanced concept. In its simplest form, it says that God forgives our misdeeds as long as we are truly contrite and continually strive to do better. Some of the complexity appears when we start to examine motive. One clear way to lose Grace is to presumptively sin, e.g., assume God’s forgiveness prior to committing the sin. This was one of the things that the Roman Catholic Church had institutionalized with indulgences. Martin Luther included indulgences in his 95 Theses. A major complexity is that we have to accept Grace for us to have it. To the naïve, it may appear that if God gives Grace, what’s the big deal? We sin, we get forgiven. It is not that simple. God offers Grace, but not for free. It is not a true transaction with a set price tag, but none the less, one does not simply assume that Grace is there. When we accept Grace, we must acknowledge our shortcomings. Grace cannot be earned, we aren’t that good. This is probably the lesson behind the parable of the rich man, the camel, the Eye of the Needle, and entering Heaven.

This is why there is a Father image of God. Fathers forgive their offspring. However, the truth is that a Mother image would be more accurate. Fathers are generally less likely to forgive than mothers. In my experience a mother will forgive an offspring sooner than the father will. If it were not so, then why is, “Wait ‘till your father gets home,” such a common cliché? The father image of God is a cultural artifact. In the times when the Gospels were written, all societies were patriarchal. To have given a mother image of God would have doomed Christianity to failure. BTW, I think God has no gender. I use “He” and “Him” as a convenience and by the habits of my upbringing. (Radical feminists take note: I am 62 years old, I don’t care to change my habits for your ideology. Live with it. For the rest of the world: I ask your tolerance.)

The acceptance of Grace alters the way we approach our lives. It does not mean that we quit having fun, or enjoying life or things. It mostly means we become aware of what we do and avoid behavior that deliberately hurts others or ourselves. (See my earlier post on sin for a discussion) If we can enjoy alcoholic beverages without impacting others, then we could continue to do so. I think that non-marital sex is OK as long as both partners approach it with the same motivation. [Those are the two biggies that occur in religious discussion] God does not condemn the enjoyment of life despite some people’s attempts to claim otherwise. The acceptance of Grace commits one to enjoying life in ways that are not harmful.

Back to the Pharisees. There is Pharisee in all of us. It is the voice that says, “I ought to have….”. It is the prevention of our making fools of ourselves in some situations. But it is also the prevention of spontaneous expression of our feelings or character. It is the concern for rules, regulations, and appearances. We need to learn to recognize and negotiate with the Pharisee in us. For those of you who have read Eric Berne’s “Transactional Analysis” the Pharisee is the “Pig Parent”, and ultimately we are children. But however, you approach the issue, being in conflict with oneself is not the answer. The ruling consideration is from Jesus, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” As long as one follows that, minimal harm will occur despite all the condemnation from the Pharisee in all of us.

Iraq The Model has a nice post on how the progress towards democracy is progressing.

Land of the Pharaohs has a great post on US foreign policy and why we are hated by Europe. It is a very good read.

Michael Totten (who also has a blog linked on the right) has written a good summary of what happens to unrestrained political correctness in Tech Central Station. His example is the situation in Berkeley at the University of California.

Introduction:

Free will is usually presented in the context of either free will or determinism as opposites, and that there can be only one or the other. In the psychological/moral/ethical world the issue is free will vs. determinism. But in the physical world, the issue is determinism vs. non-determinism. Since the psychological world depends on the physical for the working of the brain, if the physical world is deterministic then the psychological world is also, despite the appearance of free will or choice. Physical determinism is not compatible with the existence of God, unless we conceive of Him as a deistic God that created the universe and its laws, set it in motion, and then did nothing forever after.

Before delving into the discussion, I want to discuss the meanings of determinism and free will. [To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, 'A word means what I want it to mean, no more no less. It is a matter of who is master.'] Determinism can be used in both a physical context and in a psychological context. The idea of physical determinism is that if one knows all the inputs, one can predict exactly what will happen next. Determinism carries an implicit concept of the passage of time as part of its meaning. This applies to events in what we perceive as the forward direction of time. Because of the nature of physical processes, it is possible for a given subsequent state not to indicate all its precursor states. There are frequently several ways to arrive at a given state. Now there are two approaches here to physical determinism, current physical theory, and an attempt to arrive from first principles. The question to be answered is, "Is there some physical state that cannot be predicted from the precursor states?" The nature of the prediction can be either very specific such as, "Will a given atom disintegrate in the next N seconds," or more general such as, "Does a subsequent state have more complexity than it is possible to determine from the preceding states?" Determinism may be a macroscopic phenomenon due to the apparent unidirectional motion of time. It is important to realize that physical determinism or non-determinism may not be provable at the microscopic level. If we consider the macroscopic levels to be a summation of the many microscopic states, then that same non-provability will apply.

There are really two approaches, macroscopic or what we see in the everyday world, and microscopic or what is described at the particle and subatomic particle level. Macroscopic determinism is fairly easy to deal with. One can use the concept of constrained paths. This will be discussed in Section 3. The microscopic world is much harder, and since it underlies the macroscopic world, there is an implication that the macroscopic world is the summation of the microscopic world, and is actually determined by the microscopic world. If that approach is taken, then one must demonstrate determinism or its lack at the microscopic level.

If we look at current physical theory, quantum mechanics has a built-in imprecision. It states by the nature of the theory, it is impossible to make any measurement that has an error smaller than Plank's constant divided by 2?. This immediately creates non-determinism, since no prediction can be more precise than that error. By the time that error figure is propagated through several generations of calculation, the possible range of answers is very large. Both quantum mechanics and chaos theory have this property in common. Also as a consequence, much of quantum mechanics is expressed as probabilities rather than absolute position/energy statements. Though it fits the observed physical world very well, it cannot predict certain events, such as the disintegration of a particular atom in a collection of radioactive isotopes. As is discussed below, it does predict the overall time course of the collection quite well. Based on current theory, at the most fundamental levels, the universe is non-deterministic.

However, since current theory is a mathematical model and not the exact description of the underlying reality, it would be nice to find an approach that manages to indicate, if not prove, determinism or non-determinism from consideration of the nature of reality rather than the nature of the description. That is the thrust of the discussion on physical determinism in Section 1, below.

At the personal level, free will vs. determinism is usually presented as the existence or non-existence of choice, that given two or more alternatives, we truly are able to choose one or another of them, based on a chain of reasoning or conceptualization. When we take the mental mechanisms of choice to their more fundamental physiological levels, we are looking at the firing of neurons. This leads to two approaches to the issue of free will on the personal level, the outer level, or the moral/ethical level discussed in Section 2. My working definition in this context is the power/ability/capability of making choices between good and bad (or good and evil). There is also the physiological level discussed in Section 4. There free will is the ability to make a choice that is not exclusively the sum of the neural configuration and the input sensations.

The entire essay is posted in Bill's Big Stuff, here.

Labels: determinism, free will, philosophy