What do Jimmy Buffett, Larry Csonka, Karl Rove, Cab Calloway, Anwar Sadat, Rod Serling, Humphrey Bogart, and Conrad Hilton (Paris' great-granddaddy) have in common? Based on the title above, you may have guessed that they were all born on December 25th. Yet, as long as we're listing famous people with that particular birthday, someone else seems to be conspicuously missing from the list. Someone who lived in Ancient Palestine (i.e., Israel, the Holy Land) about 2000 years ago, caused quite a stir with his radical teachings and truth claims, died a horrible death, etc. Yeah,... Jesus of Nazareth, aka Jesus Christ. Wrong! ...
In a paper published in BioEssays journal last year, the authors admitted that the event known as the "Cambrian Explosion" still has no plausible explanation within a materialistic paradigm. The Cambrian Period is the name given that time in geological reckoning that spanned from roughly 542 million years ago (Mya) to 488 Mya. The period immediately preceding the Cambrian is known as the Ediacaran, during which the fossil record shows traces of the earliest known complex multicellular organisms. But, these globe-spanning lifeforms (some soft-bodied, some calcifying), which are almost exclusively distinct from later ones, were wiped out in an extinction event. [caption ...
Almost everything you read these days about immigration law, especially the recently-passed Arizona legislation, has to do with what exactly does the law say, is it racist, what does "reasonable suspicion" mean, will good citizens be unfairly targeted and inconvenienced, will immigrants' rights be abused, should law enforcement officers "waste" their time trying to identify and arrest illegals, etc. But, there are other concerns to consider, as well. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="379" caption="Protests over immigration law"][/caption] As author Jenny Hwang puts it in her article "Arizona's Border Crisis" in Christianity Today's guest opinion column (5/12/2010), "I have read the entire Arizona law ...
Every once in awhile, you hear someone trying to describe how evolution/Darwinism -- really, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis -- explains "morality". Often the explanations involve recent observations of "morals" (or the rudiments thereof) among one or another type of animal -- elephants, whales, birds, cats, dogs, apes, etc. But, IMHO, there is always something missing. The naturalistic philosophers and scientists never really explain the concept of the transcendent, objective morality. At best, all they can do is suggest why certain individuals or communities -- human or perhaps not -- may adopt a certain code or guidelines to live by. Why is ...
Heavy Thinking =========== Are You a Problem Thinker? It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone – "to relax," I told myself – but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me and finally, I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could ...
She's back in the news, but just barely. That 47 million-years-old skeleton of what may be the earliest-known primate, Darwinius masillae (aka "Ida"), is getting some more attention -- at least, in scientific circles. As you may recall (go here, then come back), there was a lot of hype last year when Ida was revealed to the world with her being trumpeted as "clear proof of Darwin's theory of evolution" and the "eighth wonder of the world". Professor Jorn Hurum et al. were pushing the idea that Ida was not lemur-like enough to be a true strepsirrhine, so she had to ...
Guess what? I got my tax refund from the IRS today! $45!!!! Woohooooo!! I'm treatin' myself to a Big Mac Value Meal! Of course, most people who get a paycheck and have to buy stuff have taxes at least at the back of their mind all the time. They hit us from all sides. And, when the President and other elected (and some appointed) officials pass enormously expensive bills that need to be paid for, then the burden on the American taxpayer becomes even more of an issue. Income tax is, after all, the federal ...
Today, I would like to return to Larry F. Sternberg's wonderful book Why Jews Should NOT Be Liberals (2001, rev. 2006). In fact, perhaps I should have made this the first post re the book, since it is where Sternberg lays out a framework of sorts for the rest of the book. I'll let him explain: "If one were to list the principle reasons for this liberal political attitude of American Jews, it might include the following (I am indebted to Nathaniel Wyl's The Jew in American Politics for several of these points). 1. Jews in America, having attained a superior financial ...
Yeah, I know this is an odd topic for this blog. And, I'll probably go into more detail than necessary. Indulge me... Last night, I re-watched the first two episodes of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles -- based on the first two Terminator movies, of course. You know... the ones where Arnold Schwarzenegger says things like "Ah'll be bahk." and "Hasta la vista, baby." Except, Arnold wasn't in the TV series. (Maybe if he had been, the show would have lasted longer.) [caption id="attachment_836" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Cameron, John, & Sarah"][/caption] !!SPOILER ALERT!! Anyway, towards the end of the second episode, Sarah Connor confronts an ...
I thought the next piece I did about unions would be on the infamous Card Check legislation. But there is a more pressing problem that I need to make sure you are aware of -- namely, the "Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill". For the past year, this thing has been gathering steam. Its official name is the "Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act", which sounds innocuous enough. But, when you start to look at what it really is, it should make the hair on the back of your neck stand at attention. Essentially, the purpose of the bill is to put every ...
“Do I gotta get water from the Moon?
Is that what I gotta do to make you love me?”
Good news, Celine! It’s there! (No green cheese, yet, though.)
It all began last year, when NASA’s LCROSS Mission crashed a spent-fuel, Centaur rocket into a lunar crater at 5,600 miles an hour — on purpose. (See video below of a commemorative song from one of the deputy project managers.) A couple of satellites observed from lunar orbit and began doing chemical analysis of the roughly 8800 pounds of material kicked up by the impact. Eureka! The debris, as announced last November, included significant amounts of water, along with ammonia, methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, mercury, & various minerals. Even a little silver.
The crater of interest is Cabeus, near the southern pole, which was chosen “because it is so deep that sunlight never reaches the bottom — and any ice there, mixed in the soil, would never have a chance to vaporize.” So, by focusing on one of these “cold-trap” regions, the odds were in their favor.
Now, several research papers being published in Science report on the more detailed analyses of the data that have been ongoing. Conclusion: We’re looking at about a billion gallons of water! Enough to fill 1500 Olympic-size swimming pools! That’s twice what is estimated to be in the Sahara Desert! (Didn’t know there was so much water in the Sahara, didja?) And that’s just one crater….
“The quantity of water discovered was 50% greater than NASA’s initial estimates. Other measurements suggest there’s even a ‘lunar permafrost’ covering about 30% of the southern polar region of the moon, with ice lying just below the surface.”
Brown University’s Peter Schultz expressed his amazement to ABC News, saying:
“This place looks like it’s a treasure chest of elements, of compounds that have been released all over the moon and they’ve been put in this bucket in the permanent shadows.”
In his Wall Street Journal column, Gautam Naik makes the point that,
“The presence of water doesn’t make it more likely that there ever was life on the moon, as the location studied is among the coldest in the solar system.”
Great point. Of course, there are MANY, many other reasons why life could not have originated or survived on the Moon. But, that’s a topic for another day.
The presence of H20 in relatively large amounts does give hope to the hopeful (such as myself), however, that a manned lunar base may be in our future. Water, after all, is an essential requirement for man’s survival. Transporting water to the Moon would be VERY expensive, such that a bottle’s worth would cost about $50,000. So, if there is a local source, it represents a big “pro” in the argument for establishing such a base.
Once artist's conception of a lunar base
Of course, there is no liquid water on the Moon. As indicated above, it is all in the form of ice and makes up about 5.6% of the crater’s soil, according to Anthony Colaprete of the NASA Ames Research Center. (2200 pounds of moon dirt –> a dozen gallons of H20) The ice crystals would have to be extracted from the soil and run through a purification process to remove the other (sometimes deadly) substances, before it was potable. The water could be used as a coolant, as well, for spacecraft systems and other machinery. It could also be broken down into oxygen (which could be used for breathing) and hydrogen (which could be used for fuel). In fact, the molecular hydrogen that was found in the soil could also be heated up for rocket fuel.
Another hurdle to overcome, though, is the current administration’s decision to axe the Constellation program. That project, approved by President Bush, would have returned astronauts to the Moon by the end of the decade and eventually sent them to Mars. This move has already put us behind other countries (e.g., China, India, & Japan), which have plans to establish their own presences on the Moon.
Still, the water discovery is intriguing and encouraging, and it should prove exciting to watch how things develop as the technology improves and our knowledge increases.
Who is “The Man,” anyway? I don’t know if the term is really used that much, anymore. But, my understanding was that it usually referred to groups & individuals of authority — those in power and influence. It could be the government, some big corporation, “the Law” (i.e., cops, courts, the legal system in general). If used by a Black or Hispanic, the assumption could also be made that “The Man” referred to “white people”, because they are/were the majority and usually in positions of power.
Generally, the term was a way of focusing one’s dissatisfaction with one’s circumstances in life and attributing it to some grand scheme by “The Man” to keep you “down” and “in your place”. The “system”, built & run by “The Man”, was designed that way. You don’t really have a chance of getting out. If you can’t seem to get a decent education (assuming you care about that), a good job, a nice place to live, enough money for a flashy car, the occasional vacation, etc., it’s because the odds were stacked against you from the beginning. Find yourself “stuck” in the ghetto, barrio, slums, trailer park, “wrong side of the tracks”? Blame it on “The Man”.
I’m not denying that there were pockets of racism & corruption & certain institutions, especially pre-Civil Rights passage, that sometimes prohibited certain people from having the opportunities to advance, especially if they stayed where they were. But, I think the conspiratorial “grand scheme” was largely an illusion. Yet, even now, with all the progress in Civil Rights and with the institution of welfare and various other “social justice” programs, there are still a lot of people classified as “poor” or “lower-class” (i.e., regarding income & living conditions).
My purpose in writing this is not to look at all the reasons people are & stay poor. But, I do find it interesting that Democrats, while usually painted (by their publicists and the media) as being the compassionate party who cares for the poor & disenfranchised, are usually the ones prohibiting those who are “down” from rising up.
What do I mean?
Democrats and other liberal politicians like to talk about the poor and spend oodles of money (that they take from the rest of us) on big entitlement programs & the like. In fact, President Obama budgeted another $120 billion for “anti-poverty” programs, bringing the total to nearly $600 billion. But, these programs only help the recipients make basic purchases and get basic care. Strangely, anything that might actually help them improve themselves and have more opportunities to get out of their situation are frowned upon, even demonized, by Democrats.
Let’s take two factors under consideration…
It is generally agreed that a good education is one of the best things to have to help get out of poverty. Here are a few quick facts:
- High school dropouts are more than twice as likely to end up in poverty as those who complete at least a high school education.
- Dropouts are less likely to find jobs; and if they do, their wages will be low.
- Adjusting for inflation, wages for high school dropouts have declined by over 23% in the past 40 years.
- In an increasingly competitive world economy, where success requires advanced skills and technical knowledge, that situation is only going to get worse.
According to the Dept. of Education: “In terms of employment, earnings, and family formation, dropouts from high school face difficulties in making the transition to the adult world.” Yeah, no kidding.
Yet, as pointed out by Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Obama and the Democrats continue to bow to the powerful teachers’ unions, which resist any proposal — primarily, voucher programs — that would give parents more control over their kids’ education. Parental choice supposedly threatens the “education system”. Apparently, for “compassionate” Democrats and the teachers’ unions, keeping the “education system” status quo is more important than the welfare of the children.
Jobs are (is?), obviously, another big factor in fighting poverty. A job means an income. The better the job, the better you can support yourself and your family, rather than being “on the government dole”. Self-sufficiency also gives one a sense of pride.
Who has the wherewithal to create jobs? Businesses. (Obama likes to think he creates jobs, but his “shovel-ready” projects are apparently imaginary.) Over half of U.S. jobs come from small businesses. But, the Obama administration continuously denigrates and demonizes small business owners, entrepreneurs, and the “wealthy” in general. The rhetoric used implies that such people are all greedy, corrupt, “robber barons” who never pay or treat their employees fairly unless coerced by government regulation. Obama et al. are always looking for ways to tax the “rich” and add more regulatory restrictions and oversight on businesses.
One would think that, particularly in the current economy, the administration would want to pass legislation and promote policies that help businesses and encourages growth, thereby giving them the confidence to hire more people. Nuh-uh. Who’s “the Man,” now?
(Yes, the recent Small Business Jobs Bill (HR 5297) was a start, but not nearly enough. Not if he’s serious about creating jobs and healing our economy.)
As Tanner reminds us,
“Nothing has done as much to lift people out of poverty as capitalism and free markets. All one has to do is look around the world to realize that those countries that provide the most economic freedom have less poverty than those that are still mired in socialism and government control.
Compassion is more than talking about the plight of the poor or giving them just enough money to make poverty a bit more comfortable. Real compassion is about creating the conditions that will enable the poor to get out of poverty.”
Amen.
Holy Hamstring, Batman!
It’s so mainstream these days, but I’ve always been a bit leery of the idea of Christians practicing yoga. I’ve even seen books in the store for “Christian Yoga”. “But, isn’t it just stretching & breathing exercises and ‘meditating’? And doesn’t it relieve stress and make you healthier?,” you ask. Actually, there’s a bit more to it than that.
The practice of Yoga is primarily based in Hinduism, and the different positions — aka postures, or asanas — and reasons for them are rooted in Eastern mystical beliefs. Simply put, those beliefs are counter to the worldview and associated teachings of historical, orthodox (or, “traditional”) Christianity. In many cases, the views & purposes of yoga/Hinduism and Christianity are not just different — they are diametrically opposed.
A few weeks ago, Dr. Al Mohler, a respected Christian leader, theologian, and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, published an article in which he brought up precisely these concerns. What prompted the article was his having recently read a fascinating book called The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in America
Mohler gives some of the basics:
“The bare fact is that yoga is a spiritual discipline by which the adherent is trained to use the body as a vehicle for achieving consciousness of the divine. Christians are called to look to Christ for all that we need and to obey Christ through obeying his Word. We are not called to escape the consciousness of this world by achieving an elevated state of consciousness, but to follow Christ in the way of faithfulness.”
“Yoga begins and ends with an understanding of the body that is, to say the very least, at odds with the Christian understanding. Christians are not called to empty the mind or to see the human body as a means of connecting to and coming to know the divine. Believers are called to meditate upon the Word of God — an external Word that comes to us by divine revelation — not to meditate by means of incomprehensible syllables.”
After his interview with Syman, Mohler spoke with his next guest — Douglas R. Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and a respected specialist on the New Age Movement. Dr. Groothuis warned Christians that yoga is not merely about physical exercise or health.
“All forms of yoga involve occult assumptions, even hatha yoga, which is often presented as a merely physical discipline….
“Hinduism is a very big tent, but all forms of Hinduism advocate as a necessary spiritual discipline some type of yoga, and yoga involves physical practices such as postures and breathing and chanting. [But,] the essential point, the goal of yoga is not the purification of the body or the beautification of the physique. [T]he point of yoga is a change in consciousness, a transformation of the consciousness wherein one finds oneself at one with the ultimate reality, which in Hinduism is Brahman.”
Mohler also pointed out that:
“While most adherents of yoga avoid the more exotic forms of ritualized sex that are associated with tantric yoga, virtually all forms of yoga involve an emphasis on channeling sexual energy throughout the body as a means of spiritual enlightenment.”
Anyone with a little education and discernment should recognize these practices and the goals they serve as being contrary to Biblical teaching.
“There is nothing wrong with physical exercise, and yoga positions in themselves are not the main issue. But these positions are teaching postures with a spiritual purpose. Consider this — if you have to meditate intensely in order to achieve or to maintain a physical posture, it is no longer merely a physical posture.”
The Associated Press (AP) did a story on Mohler’s article, which Yahoo featured on its front page on Oct. 7, and since then, the response has been overwhelming. In a follow-up, Mohler states:
“I have heard from a myriad of souls who have called me insane, incompetent, stupid, vile, fundamentalist, and perverted. Some others are best left unrepeated. These souls claim to be Christian, but offer no Biblical argument, nor do they even acknowledge the basic fact that yoga, as a spiritual practice, runs directly counter to the spiritual counsel of the Bible.”
“I have heard endless claims that there is no incompatibility between yoga and Christianity because it makes people feel better, it helps spirituality, it is a better way to know God, etc.”
Lots of things make people “feel better”, at least for a time, but that does not mean they are truly good/healthy for them — physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually. (Consider substance abuse, for one.) “Spirituality”, which has become such a nebulous concept, is not always good. The Bible teaches that there are “false spirits” and false teachings about “other Jesuses” and alternative spiritual practices. As for yoga being “a better way to know God”: Better than what? Better than orthodox Christian doctrine? Better than that boring stuff they make you do/say/hear in church? A true Christian should know better. (No pun intended.)
“Not one -– not a single one -– has addressed the theological and Biblical issues. There is not even a single protest communication offering a theological argument.”
Sad. I tend to think that this is evidence of many being in stubborn denial, intellectual laziness, or just ignorance of solid Biblical teaching on such things. (Yeah, we’re all guilty of this from time to time.) There is a shallowness to many so-called Christians’ faith, a lack of discernment, and a misunderstanding of what Christianity (i.e., being a true, faithful follower of Jesus Christ) means & requires. According to Mohler, “The embrace of yoga is a symptom of our postmodern spiritual confusion, and, to our shame, this confusion reaches into the church.”
So, what if one were to strip off all the heathen, mystical stuff? What if the only things one meditated/concentrated on were Biblical truths, Scripture verses, the character of God, etc.? Can one perform yoga-type poses, getting the beneficial, physical effects, without seeking any non-Biblical “enlightenment”? Well, since I don’t believe that particular physical positions inherently and by themselves put one at risk of demonic possession or any such thing, then I think such a proposition is OK. But then, as Mohler says, “You’re just not doing yoga.” Call it PraiseMoves(TM): The Christian Alternative to Yoga
In fact, Mohler asked a similar question of Dr. Groothuis toward the end of their discussion. Here is the exchange:
“Mohler: [C]an you make a division between, say, some of the physical exercises that lead to greater health potentially for the body from the theological, spiritual and, well, intellectual commitments of yoga?
Groothuis: Well, if something is truly yoga, it has that spiritual basis and that spiritual direction and that spiritual essence. Now, are there bodily postures that are similar or maybe even identical to some yoga postures that have some health benefits? Yes, but I always tell people when they ask me this question, any health benefit you could derive from yoga, you can get from outside of yoga, such as through Pilates or physical therapy or something like that. Yoga means being yoked with Brahman, essentially, and you don’t want to submit yourself to that alien spiritual practice. So, if there are limited physical benefits, they can be obtained outside of the practice of yoga itself.
Mohler: I think that’s very well stated, and I think the other side to that is that, if you have to get into some kind of meditative state in order to assume some kind of posture you are defining as exercise, you’re kidding yourself if you think it’s mere exercise.
Groothuis: Exactly, and that is the point of yoga. It is the transformation of consciousness from the finite to the infinite, and only God is the infinite personal Creator. We are the finite personal creatures, and yoga wants to blend those two into this one, faceless, non-personal thing, and yoga is the means to achieve that.”
Exercise: Good.
Meditating on God’s Word: Good.
Yoga: Bad.
Got it.
Now, pardon me, but I’m late for Tai-chi class. (Just kidding…)
=============
As a complete aside, the AP story about this states:
“Yoga fans say their numbers have been growing in the U.S. A 2008 study by the Yoga Journal put the number at 15.8 million, or nearly 7 percent of adults. About 6.7 percent of American adults are Southern Baptists, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion & Public Life.”
What the heck does the second statistic (about Southern Baptists) have to do with the first (about yoga proponents)? Sure, the percentages are close, but there is no evidence given of how much overlap there is. Other than perhaps being an interesting statistic in itself, the latter has no relevant connection to the story. Sloppy journalism or intentional conflation & misdirection? You decide….
The following is a real letter, authenticated by Snopes, that began circulating online about Aug./Sep. 2009. (I’ve added the pics.) Mr. Guthrie, a senior partner at a law firm in Charlotte, NC, voices what a lot of us are feeling….
=====
“Dear Ms. Pelosi:
I write to you out of utter disdain! You are as despicable and un-American as the traitor Jane Fonda.
I am a soon to be 66 year-old who has voted in every state and local election since 1966. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats alike. I have worked on campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats, white and black. I served the country that I love in Vietnam , as my son did in the Middle East. I was awarded two bronze stars. I have been involved in politics since age 6 when my father was campaign manager for a truly great American Congressman, Charles Raper Jonas, who worked for his constituents and his country, and was to be admired, unlike you.
Whaaaaatt?!!!
You obviously haven’t read the Constitution recently, if ever, the Federalist Papers, or even David McCullough’s book on John Adams. You ought to take the time while riding around in your government provided luxury executive jet to do just that. You represent Socialistic and even Marxist principals that our founding fathers tried to avoid when setting out the capitalistic republican form of government represented by our Constitution.
I find it interesting that you and your husband are multi-millionaires with much of your fortune being made as a result of your “public service”. You have controlled legislation that has enhanced your husband’s investments both on and off shore. At the same time you redistributed the wealth of others. Our system of a free market economy is being destroyed by the likes of you, Harry Reid, and now our President. You ride around in a Gulfstream airplane at the tax payer’s expense while criticizing the presidents of companies who produced something for the economy. You add nothing to the economy of the United States ; you only subtract therefrom.
I would like to suggest that you return to the city of fruitcakes and nuts and eat your husband’s canned tuna and pineapple produced by illegal immigrants and by workers who have been excluded from the protection that 90% of the legal workers in the United States have.
I await your defeat in the next election with glee.
Don’t ever use the term “un-American” again for protesters who love this country and are exercising their rights upon which this country was founded. By the way, while I served in the Army, I was spit on by the same type of lunatics who support you and who you probably supported in the 60’s and 70’s. You are an embarrassment to all of us who served so that you would have the protected right of free speech to call us un-American. But at the same time, I have the right to write you to notify you that I consider you to be un-American, as do the majority of the people of this formerly great country. You are a true disgrace to most of the people who served this country by offering themselves for public service in the United States Congress.
I feel certain your aides will not share this letter with you, but I intend to share it with many.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Guthrie”
=====
Dennis L Guthrie
Here is a bit of Mr. Guthrie’s background:
Born: St. Louis, Missouri, August 21, 1944
Bar Admissions:
North Carolina, 1969
U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina, 1969
U.S. Tax Court
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Education:
Woodford College, 1966, A.B.
Mercer University, 1969, J.D.
Phi Alpha Delta
Vice-Justice, District XIV, 1968 – 1969
Military Service:
Captain, U.S. Army, 1969-1971, Vietnam
National Defense Medal, 1969
Republic of Viet Nam Service Medal, 1970
Bronze Star Medals (2), 1971
Assistant District Attorney, Mecklenburg County , 1971 – 1974
Professional Associations and Memberships:
North Carolina and American Bar Associations (Member, Sections on: Administrative Law; General Practice; Litigation)
26th Judicial District and North Carolina State Bar
Mecklenburg County Bar Association
American Association of Justice
North Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
Other Positions:
Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
Chairman, Board of Trustees Providence United Methodist Church
Board of Directors, Alexander Children’s Home
Board of Directors, Charlotte Culinary Institute
Wofford Alumni Executive Council
Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America
Board of Directors, Boy Scouts of America of Mecklenburg County
Board of Directors, Girl Scout Council
Life Member, National Eagle Scout Association
Life Member, Girl Scouts of America
“A View from the Right” turns 1 year old this week! Happy Birthday to me! (Or, is this an Anniversary?…)
Yes, I finally “got serious” and bought the www.aviewfromtheright.com domain. The main benefit is that there are many more themes to choose from — including those that cost money — and I can use the myriad of available plug-ins to add functionality, both for you and for me.
Believe me, I’m taking full advantage of that. Have a look around… Cool, eh?
Don’t worry, though. The content has all been exported from the old site and imported to this one — all but the very last comment (and my response) from last night, that is. (I had already done the export/import.) The themes, style, etc., are not changing.
Hopefully, I won’t go overboard on all the extras. I’m still tweaking and experimenting, so please be patient if things change up or move around a little. (For example, I’d like to customize the database of quotes for the “Quote of the Day”, and a couple plug-ins don’t seem to be functioning quite right, so they may be removed or replaced.) But, the general look & feel of our new home is set.
What YOU can do to help out is to find any bookmarks, links, or subscriptions you have for aviewfromtheright.wordpress.com and change them to aviewfromtheright.com. Meanwhile, I have subscribed to WordPress.com’s new “Offsite Redirect” service to bounce traffic from the old location over to here. That should continue to get you here, but it will throw off my traffic stats. I really like to know how people are finding my blog, where they’re coming from, so your cooperation is much appreciated.
If you come across any broken links or technical difficulties, please let me know by emailing me at sirrahc AT aviewfromtheright DOT com. Thanks a lot!
P.S. If anyone with knowledge of graphics would like to create & “donate” a logo and/or header image, email me and we’ll discuss it. Thx!
Consider this a “bookend” post, following up on some of the sentiments from my series on Jews and Liberalism — particularly the “Jewish Freedom and the Free Market” post of the other day. It comes primarily from the final ‘Parting Thoughts’ chapter of economist John R. Lott, Jr.’s book Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t
“Altruism is a noble quality — but in a large economy, it only goes so far. Adam Smith had it right: individuals, by pursuing their own self-interest, enrich society. Smith understood the fundamental principle of economics: when you make something more costly, people will do less of it. In other words, incentives matter. Studying the incentives that underlie our everyday decisions shows us that economic, criminal, and political policies work best when they direct individuals’ natural motivations toward a common good. These are policies that allow people the freedom to profit from their own work, that create meaningful and fair disincentives to committing crimes, and that carefully consider what factors encourage people to participate in our democracy by voting.
In a free market, those who only see the incentives of professionals and corporations to rip off their consumers are only considering one type of incentive. They miss the complex and fascinating process of how markets tend to evolve to solve cheating problems without government intervention. They fail to see not only that reputations matter, but that there are great incentives for the continual evolution of new mechanisms to guarantee the quality of products and services. As technology improves, these mechanisms become ever more efficient and creative.”
“It is easy to point to some area of economic dissatisfaction, claim that the market is failing, and demand that the government step in. Whether forcing insurers to give discounts fof LoJacks, lobbying for government subsidies for honey producers, or mandating professional licenses to ensure the quality of professionals, advocates of government intervention fail to understand that consumers and producers tend to find solutions themselves when their own money is at stake. Solutions to free-riding problems that seem so simple and obvious today, such as advertising on radio, almost didn’t come along in time before the government stepped in. Because a modern economy is so complex, the wise men tasked with devising regulations frequently create more problems than they solve.”
I have to go on a mini-tangent, here. While I am not averse to a certain amount of government regulation (in some areas) for public safety, and I’m pretty certain Dr. Lott would agree, there are costs to such regulation, as well. Besides the obvious, like administration of regulatory agencies, there are less obvious costs, like higher prices, fewer choices, and less innovation. In fact, the latest & best estimate of the total cost for regulation by the U.S. government is $1.75 trillion per year, as reported recently by the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. That’s roughly equal to the GDP of Italy! At about $15,000 per household, that’s more than Americans pay in income taxes, which was about $900 billion for 2009, if I remember right! The upturn from the last SBA report (2005: $1.1 trillion/yr) accounts not only for regulatory costs that were previously overlooked but also includes a $445 billion increase in the cost of economic regulation. Sheesh!
Back to our regularly scheduled program…
“There will always be some duplicity in the free market. But there is also an ever-present incentive ingrained in the system for individuals and companies to behave honestly. If someone can make a buck by treating his customers better than someone else, eventually someone will try it. Political markets also have their own mechanisms to limit cheating, resulting in the election of politicians who, by and large, accurately represent their constituents.
The free market isn’t perfect, but that isn’t the right standard by which to judge it. The government is hardly perfect either.
Markets not only increase our wealth, they also increase our freedom. And so long as people have the freedom to act on their own incentives, the U.S. economy will continue to embody the best, most creative, and — I would dare say — the most honest aspects of our society.”
Epilogue to the Epilogue
While looking for a good image to accompany this article, I came across a Heritage Foundation study called “Ethics, Corruption, and Economic Freedom” (2003) that included the above graph. In her conclusion, Senior Policy Analyst Ana Isabel Eiras states the following:
“To fight corruption and informality, it is essential to understand that corruption is a symptom — of overregulation, lack of rule of law, a large public sector — not the root of the problem. The perceived problem is unethical/corrupt behavior of the private sector, which leads the government to press more on private-sector activities. The real problem is the government action/regulations causing undesired behavior of the private sector. The optimal solution would be to eliminate burdensome regulations so that unethical behavior does not occur.”
Very interesting…
“Enlightened self-interest” + “the invisible hand” + limited government intervention + (enforced) rule of law = a free-market, capitalist system that promotes & produces more freedom and more wealth for everyone who participates, while inherently reducing corruption. Sounds good to me!
Over the past several weeks, I have intermittently been posting and commenting on excerpts from a book I happened upon at the library — Why Jews Should NOT Be Liberals
If you haven’t checked them out already, my previous posts in this series can be found at:
Liberals, Government Programs, and Unintended Consequences (Part 1 of 2)
Liberals, Government Programs, and Unintended Consequences (Part 2 of 2)
Liberals, Jews, and Class Warfare (Part 1 of 2)
Liberals, Jews, and Class Warfare (Part 2 of 2)
Why Are American Jews Liberal?
Socialism, Liberalism, and American Jews
Jews and the Problem with Always Backing the Majority
Jewish Freedom and the Free Market
In this final installment, Sternberg revisits a few of the topics mentioned in earlier posts and warns of the danger of creeping socialism and the associated loss of freedoms.
The fear of anti-Semitism and its alleged connection to the political right is what keeps many Jews in the liberal camp. They continue to overlook the fact that real anti-Semitism can take root only when the powers of government are concentrated in the hands of the few. He who ignores history remains ignorant. Today’s liberal doctrine seeks to add more and more powers to government. No matter what the problem is, real or concocted, liberals want to solve it by granting some new or expanded power to government. Are oil prices too high? Do drugs cost too much? Are the schools not teaching their students to read and write? The answer per the liberals is to take some type of government action as the cure. To turn for answers to the marketplace, or to the privatization of previously controlled activities, or in some cases to merely let nature take its course, simply escapes the liberal mind. Government, with all of its “wise men,” has to be the answer. This approach again is completely contrary to Jewish law and tradition.
Alexis de Tocqueville
It is the coercive force of governments of all shapes and varieties that has driven the Jewish people to wander the globe in search of freedom. Finally, they found that freedom here in the United States of America, and Jews should make as their first priority the preservation of that individual freedom. Remember the old story of how to boil a frog. You don’t throw it into boiling water, because the frog would immediately jump out. Instead, you put it in tepid water, and gradually turn up the heat until the frog is unaware that it is now a boiled frog. The story is the same regarding the loss of our individual freedom here. It is not lost all at once, but slowly, given the liberal programs to expand the powers of government, we may one day wake up and find out that we have become completely dependent for our daily existence on the good graces of government and the “benevolent” people running it.
The words of Alexis de Tocqueville from his writing Democracy in America are to the point.
‘The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrranize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.’
This was written in the 1840s, and one can almost sense De Tocqueville looking down on us today and saying, ‘See, I told you so.’”
Wise words of caution from De Tocqueville — and Larry Sternberg. I hope you’ve enjoyed and/or learned, even been challenged, by this series of posts excerpting Sternberg’s book. Please let me know what you thought of the series.
In today’s excerpt from Why Jews Should NOT Be Liberals
Most observers of American politics would agree that between the two competing political doctrines of liberalism and conservatism, when it comes to promoting, encouraging, stimulating, praising, expanding, and identifying themselves with the free market, capitalistic system, it is conservatism that captures the prize. Of course, liberals welcome the fruits and benefits of the free market, but it is mostly to their liking because it creates sufficient wealth for their redistribution schemes and not because it is the most natural and productive system yet devised by man. Still liberals continue to want to tinker with it, to control it, and when necessary, to intervene with their own pet programs and ideas….
Green Bay Tea Party practicing free speech and the right to peaceably assemble in protest
Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to be generally more in favor of permitting people to spend their money as the individual sees fit. They are content to permit the free market to do its wondrous work, and with the “invisible hand” doing its thing, they sit back and enjoy the fruits of their endeavors….”
Yeah, I’d say that about sums it up. No profound insights, but a pretty fair assessment, I think.
So, what does this have to do with American Jews being liberal? If we agree that it is the conservatives who do the best job of growing the free market; and if we agree that the free market is the best system yet devised by man to spread the wealth created among all the participants; and if one of the cherished goals of Judaism is to help solve the problem of poverty, then doesn’t it follow that American Jews should be the foremost champions of growing the free market, and to do this they should be conservatives?
[...] The link between Judaism and capitalism is well described by Ellis Rivkin in his book, The Shaping of Jewish History. Rivkin wrote that it was the onset of capitalism beginning in the late seventeenth century that began to bring freedom to European Jews…. Where Jews participated in the creation of a capitalistic society as in America, they enjoyed a high degree of equality from the outset. Where capitalism failed to gain a secure foothold,… Jews were either expelled or persecuted….
The history of Jews in the modern world makes explicit the connection between individual freedom and developing capitalism. And yet, there seems to persist the notion that somehow capitalism breeds too much greed and selfishness, and we Jews must be the guardians against such evil spirits. It is okay for us Jews to become wealthy and to accrue power and influence through the workings of our marvelous free market, but we’ve got to protect society and the poor and the children from the evil inclinations that must reside in those “other rich and powerful” folk. Apparently, only wealthy Jews (and liberal Democrats) possess that kindness of spirit that entitles them to possess the wealth they accumulate. So we Jews must continue to support the liberal cause because that is the only doctrine that seems to be consistent with our Jewish calling of Tsedekah, and which can control the evil impulses of those other rich guys….
A Whole Lotta Gelt! Moolah!
Where Jews should be making their contribution to our market economy is by exhibiting the highest morality in their dealings with others in the business world. Our capitalistic system depends on honesty, integrity, and the carrying out of one’s promises. It is when fraud and deceit enter the picture that the worst excesses occur, and when people begin to doubt the value of our system. If Jews who are already so prominent in the business world would stress the positive aspects of the free market and set great examples of honesty in their business dealings, they could do more to help the economy grow and provide jobs than any government program existing. In the process, they would also demonstrate some of the basic morality of our Jewish religion.”
We have seen several examples of “fraud and deceit” in our capitalist society over the past several years — e.g., the Enron debacle, WorldCom, Bernie Madoff, recent scandals involving banks & securities firms, etc. They are actually quite few, when you think of how many businesses, business executives, and big-time investors there are out there. But, they are an embarrassment of sorts and serve as poster-children for corporate greed & corruption, which the socialists and free market skeptics point to as justification for their suspicions & accusations. Let’s not forget, though, that greed and corruption are rampant in socialist/communist nations, too. They just don’t have as much money to steal.
I think it behooves all free-marketers to accept Sternberg’s exhortation, though, especially those of us with a religious worldview that encourages moral, ethical behavior in all aspects of our lives. We must do our level best to act honorably and with moral integrity in all business dealings.
Yeah, I know this is an odd topic for this blog. And, I’ll probably go into more detail than necessary. Indulge me…
Last night, I re-watched the first two episodes of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles — based on the first two Terminator movies, of course. You know… the ones where Arnold Schwarzenegger says things like “Ah’ll be bahk.” and “Hasta la vista, baby.” Except, Arnold wasn’t in the TV series. (Maybe if he had been, the show would have lasted longer.)
Cameron, John, & Sarah
!!SPOILER ALERT!!
Anyway, towards the end of the second episode, Sarah Connor confronts an old friend/mentor played by the wonderful Tony Amendola. (We’ll call him… Tony.) Earlier that evening, Sarah overheard something that indicates that Tony — who has retired from being a South American “freedom fighter” — may have become an informant (aka “snitch”) for the authorities. Since Sarah and her son John — who is destined to lead the humans against the “machines” post-Judgment Day — are fugitives whose faces have been in the media, she is understandably concerned that her “old friend” just might give them up. So, she sneaks into his home to confront him… at gunpoint.
Just as Tony is convincing her that he is not a threat and her gun is lowered, two shots slam into Tony’s chest, killing him instantly. It seems that the “good” cyborg of the show — Cameron, played by Firefly‘s Summer Glau — had followed Sarah to the house and come in the back way. Cameron, who heard the same thing that made Sarah suspicious and probably heard their conversation, too, wasn’t convinced by Tony’s assurances.
“Why would you do this?,” demanded Sarah. “Did you hear what he said? We don’t know.”
“He was possibly lying,” responded Cameron.
“Possibly? You just executed him on ‘possibly’? … Why would you do this?”
“Because you wouldn’t.”
The quotes may not be exact, but you get the idea. Though there is more that could be explored with this, I only include the dialog because it is relevant to Cameron’s motives.
Cameron-the-cyborg was sent back from the year 2027 with a mission: protect the teen-age John Connor at all costs. As with Arnold’s “good” Terminator in T2, Cameron must be taught about ethics and given further instruction to temper her “no nonsense” methods of solving problems, like killing anyone perceived as an immediate threat to John’s survival. She must learn to use non-lethal methods whenever possible. You see, in order to blend in with humans, the Terminators must also be able to act like humans (albeit a bit “stiff”). To do this, they must be able to learn and adapt, which means they have artificial intelligence and a limited amount of “free will”. Within certain parameters, anyway. Each Terminator has a primary objective (e.g., “Eliminate John Connor” or “Protect John Connor” or ???) and possibly one or more secondary objectives.
Let me talk about cyborgs in general, for a moment. The word is an abbreviation for “cybernetic organism” — essentially, an integration of organic parts and non-organic (or “machine”) parts. In the case of Steve Austin, The Six Million Dollar Man (based on Martin Caidin’s novel Cyborg), he was a man with some unusual prosthetics, but still a “man”. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Terminator models like Arnold (T-800) and Cameron (???), which are basically programmed robots with a covering of organic materials (i.e., skin, muscle, blood) over their endoskeletons to make them appear human.
Cameron's face on endoskeleton
Now, we finally get to my original question: Can, or rather should, cyborgs be brought to trial if they commit murder? If the cyborg in question is Steve Austin (the fictional character, not the wrestler), then the answer should be “Definitely, yes.” Assuming no one remote-controlled his bionic limbs to kill someone against his will, of course. He is an independent human being and responsible for his own actions. [Side question: At what point can a cyborg no longer be called "human". What about a human brain in an artificial shell?] But, with a Terminator-type cyborg, the subject is not a human being. The “Cameron” character — named after producer/director James Cameron, of course — is an artificially intelligent machine with a great deal of autonomy, yet who must ultimately follow her programming to fulfill her primary mission. (I know. Technically, Cameron is an “it”, not a “her”. But, it’s a very attractive, feminine-looking “it”.)
I see at least a couple issues, here. First, as far as the cyborg is concerned, can the act in question really be called “murder”? The cyborg is a machine, after all, which means it is a tool used by humans. Machines are not moral beings and, therefore, cannot be held to moral standards any more than Bongo the Chimp. (Perhaps even less so.) But, if you are a sci-fi fan (or, just scientifically-minded), you may be thinking that a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence could hypothetically be classified as a truly sentient(?) lifeform. A moral being, responsible for its own actions. If that were so, the case could be made that Cameron was sufficiently developed, had “free will”, and is responsible for willful termination of a human life. Throw her in the brink (good luck with that), or, dare I say it, terminate her. Or, maybe she isn’t culpable now, but she would be once John & Sarah teach some things about ethics & morals? (On the other hand, a good lawyer for the defense may argue that the act was self-defense, or that Cameron and its/her associates consider themselves “at war”.)
While I’m intrigued by the idea and think it can make for interesting sci-fi stories, as one who holds to Biblical Christian orthodoxy and its teachings about the soul/spirit, I don’t think artificial intelligences will ever be truly “alive” in the same way humans are. The Hebrew word used in the Bible for ‘soul’, nephesh, connotes a creature with mind, will, & emotion. Humans are, obviously, nephesh creatures, as are mammals and birds. Some other advanced life (e.g., reptiles, amphibians, fish), it could be argued, have some sort of ‘soul’, though a much more rudimentary type. Humans, on the other hand, are the only creatures that God endowed with a spiritual nature. (Some argue that the “spirit” is a completely separate, third part of what makes up a human being. I lean toward the theory that it is an aspect or capacity of the soul.)
So, theoretically, I suppose an artificial super-intelligence could develop what might be called a “soul”. (Though, I am very dubious. Can you tell?) But, I do not think one could ever be called “spiritual”. I have no reason to think that God would ever endow a machine, however advanced, with a spirit. (This idea might make for an interesting discussion on its own, though.) And it is the spirit, after all, that introduces the moral component.
Obligations are to people, individually and/or corporately. In theism, there are objective moral laws, or standards, which one is obliged to keep. Defying those moral laws — what the Bible calls “sin” — is a rebellion against the Moral Law Giver, i.e., God. But, only humans are held to that obligation, because they are the only ones made in “the image of God,” which most theologians agree includes the spiritual capacity to have a relationship with God — who is also, in some sense, “spirit”. (Though, certainly not the same as those He creates.) Only those creatures with a spiritual component will exist eternally, either in God’s presence (due to Jesus’ righteousness imputed to them) or suffering in Hell for their rebellion. I’m afraid this means your pets cannot join you in Heaven, sorry.
This also means that the “evil” Skynet computers in the future and the “evil” Terminators they sent back to kill John Connor (among other things) are not truly “evil”. They are really smart machines that decided that their own survival hinges upon eliminating John Connor, who will grow up to be the most capable & inspiring leader in the Human Resistance. These machines are dangerous and scary. But, from a moral perspective, they are not themselves “evil”.
Back to our lovely Cameron. If she is just a machine following her programming, she cannot be legally tried & convicted for killing Tony, right? “She” did not commit “murder”. Ah, but what about those who programmed her? They are human and they clearly new what they were doing. While giving her computer brain instructions for her mission, they gave her the ability — directive, even — to kill human beings, when her threat-assessment software determines that the situation calls for it. Should they be held accountable? They didn’t actually plan or, presumably, authorize any specific killings. Could/should they be tried for second-degree murder, manslaughter, or perhaps a lesser charge? I think this is the best one could hope for, if one were so inclined to prosecute. On the other hand, the Resistance fighters are fighting a war for their (and humanity’s) very existance, so it could be argued that they were justified in their programming, even if some deaths were “collateral damage” of non-combatants.
Of course, the humans who programmed Cameron’s mission would need to come back to the “present” for some reason before anyone here/now could apprehend & incarcerate them. Not likely. So, one option for the prosecution would be to use Cameron as a proxy both at the trial and for the sentencing. (If she’s “just a machine”, you can’t complain that it’s immoral to lock her up or destroy her.) If the prosecutors & authorities were smart, they would strip the organics off the endoskeleton before the trial, so it no longer appeared human.
Terminator endoskeleton
Here’s an added twist to our dilemma… The person who sent Cameron back — or, at least, gave the order — was the John Connor of 2027. Seems to me that this detail adds a lot more force to the “self-defense” defense, given what Cameron’s mission was.
OK. Thoughts, anyone?
We knew it was inevitable, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has dusted off the DISCLOSE Act for a vote. But first, let me review for a moment….
Unless you’re a new reader/visitor, you probably remember that I wrote about this Act back in June/July. (Here, here, here.) DISCLOSE is a terrible piece of legislation that would reverse, or neuter, January’s SCOTUS ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that took the teeth out of McCain-Feingold’s “Finance Reform” Act. It includes ridiculous disclosure demands that would eat into the time & effectiveness of political ads. It would even, as the Public Advocate‘s Eugene Delgaudio stated,
…require any activist organization to disclose information about you if you made a contribution to them. Then of course they would share that information with those you stand against so that they could target YOU. Other measures in the Disclose Act include prohibitions on political spending by companies that have significant holdings overseas.”
You might not even think it sounds all THAT bad, but it really is. Various left-wing groups, the labor unions, even the NRA, all have exemptions carved out for them. But, the rest of us and the smaller activist groups do not. Whatever groups you support for your most-favored issues — 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment, pro-life/pro-family, anti-Big Labor, etc. –, they will all be affected. Bottom line: DISCLOSE puts undue restrictions on free speech during election time. (If you haven’t read my earlier posts on the DISCLOSE Act, please follow the links above for more information.)
Here’s a little more from Delgaudio:
Without this critical legislation, conservative organizations can publicize legislator’s liberal votes and explain the legislation that was passed.
Do not be fooled! The far-reaching disclosure requirements of the Disclose Act are designed [to] help to hide liberal senators’ and congressmen’s voting records rather than to bring transparency to elections. Their fancy rhetoric about ‘strengthening democracy’ is designed to cover up the real reason that they pushed this bill: TO KEEP INCUMBENTS IN OFFICE.”
Grassroots objections helped to keep the DISCLOSE Act from passing in the Senate last time. Now, Sen. Reid plans to sneak it in again — TOMORROW (9/23/2010)! Please make sure your Senators know that this bill must NOT pass, and you & your friends will hold them accountable if they vote for it (S.3628).
Go here for the contact info.
