Price Control and misery

It was bound to happen. Every thirty years or so, some politicians develop the need to institute price controls so that they feel good while their constituents suffer. While everybody knows that Hawaii has elected some of the most liberal and communistic legislators in the known universe, those elected were afraid that some people might no longer believe it. So they passed price controls on gasoline!

In an effort to gain some control over what motorists pay at the pump, Hawaii on Wednesday became the first state in the U.S. to set caps on the wholesale price of gasoline.

Never mind that the entirety of human history teaches us that anytime the price of good sold becomes unrelated to the increasing cost of that good, the supply of that good dries up. When the price equals the supply cost, no profit is to be made and without profit, there is no motive for anyone to be in the business. And before we declare that only non-profits and government should be in the oil business; let’s recall the destitute nature of the other communistic economies USSR and China, who have the worst environmental record in modern times and who furthermore, have some of the least developed natural resources within their own border.

But back to Hawaii
This in from the Milkin Institute: "Hawaii is the most expensive state to do business in". Denying businesses the opportunity for profit only reduces their return on the assets they have. If they don’t make enough return on those assets, they will reduce or eliminate those operations. It’s not that Communism and Socialism didn’t work because the eastern (China and Russia) didn’t know how to do it; it failed because Communism and Socialism are inherently evil and failed economic systems. They didn’t work there, they aren’t going to work in Hawaii.

No such thing as values neutral

So for all my friends who dream of a pluralistic society where no particular set of values is given any sense of superiority. There is no such thing, courtesy of WND:

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Athiesm, even secular humanism is a religion; deny it all you wish, but it does not change that fact.

Secular humanism cannot be the official philosophy of the United States without violation of the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Since government cannot be values neutral, it should follow the principles that founded it. The principles of Judeo-Christianity.

Fred Reed on ID...

The ever insightful, (if even often anoying) Fred Reed weighs in on Intelligent Design.

The question of the origin of life interested me. The evolutionary explanations that I encountered in textbooks of biology ran to, "In primeval seas, evaporation concentrated dissolved compounds in a pore in a rock, a skim formed a membrane, and life began its immense journey." I saw no reason to doubt this. If it hadn't been true, scientists would not have said that it was.

Then Later

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean (I think) that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can't see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn't have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But...is any of this established?

Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not to tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked: the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. And of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting hard.

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does – except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions – overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) – of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.

As Fred is an avowed athiest, we are often on the opposite sides of issues. But it's hard to argue with logic. And Fred is straight on with the logic on this issue.

So Much for Intellectual Honesty

So now, courtesy of NRO, we find out that after publishing a scientific article on Intelligent Design (ID) in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the publisher finds himself the subject of a Hostile Work Environment.

A lengthy and detailed letter from OSC attorney James McVay, dated August 5, 2005, and addressed to Sternberg, summarizes the government's findings, based largely on e-mail traffic among top Smithsonian scientists. A particularly damning passage in the OSC letter reads:

Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation [against Sternberg by his colleagues] came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions...During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI [Smithsonian Institution] and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.

One of the high ironies of the scientific community is how religious scientists become wedded to their own “strongly held beliefs”. All the while expressing their own disdain for those they believe to hold similarly strong beliefs. The objection to Intelligent Design has so far only been the technical equivalent of “yo mama.” I hope and believe that it will at some point change, but if I held my breath I might die long before those arguments surfaced.

Scientists, even Nobel laureates, are not immune from the human condition. It does no one any good to think that they could be. So don’t give them any power you would extend to your neighbor; you know, the neighbor you wish you didn’t have.

This general rule should be extended to all other human beings. Vesting power and authority to people in general is a bad idea. No one before or since Christ has proven themselves worthy of ruling anyone else. Best to remember that “fearful servant and harsh master” thing again…

Won by one

Yet even more benefits of socialized medicine, courtesy of The Times:

A RETIRED businessman died of a suspected heart attack just 24 hours after his heart operation had been cancelled at the last minute.

The day after John Mosley, 65, died a nurse phoned his widow to give her a new date for the operation.

“Oops, sorry, your operation has been cancelled. Have a nice day.” Not that the odd operation doesn't get cancelled here is the US, but unlike our friends in Canada and the UK, people that need heart operations and know about them, typically get the needed operations long before it’s a life or death thing. Even the half-socialized medicine practiced in the US is far superior to fuller versions demonstrated by those neighbors; and proposed by Hillary in her health care system, circa 1993.

Of course in the US there would be a benefit to this type of medicine. The young would theoretically be in better shape, and the old would die off before they collected much of their social security benefit. Thus saving all kinds on money.

All societies that move away from individual rights to group/corporate rights loses the respect and honor of the individuals that are alive, for the benefit of the group. So we ought not be surprised when we see the same groups that advocate for a socialized medicine also advocate for abortion. That this corporate advocacy is propagated by some Christians is an abomination to our LORD. God always deals with us as individuals. The Psalms says that he knew us in our mother’s womb, and that he chose us before the foundations of the world. Those are not claims to a group, but to each individual person that become part of that group. We are obligated to pursue a more Christ like view of our world, where we deal with the world; one by one.

Impose v. Propose

So I'm driving down the road and flipping through channels when I come across the broadcast from the big Justice fest or whatever they called it this year. I'm enough of a news junkie to recognize the voice of who I believe is Chuck Colson. If I'm wrong, somebody leave a note and I'll fix it...

He's talking about the accusation often made of Christians that they attempt to impose their morality on others. He eventually make the point that Christians should or do (I'm a little unclear on his intent) propose morality.

I will agree with his point. Christians are obligated to witness to the world, not subdue it under the sword. When we propose morality, we witness for our Lord. When we impose morality, we witness falsely.

However: From our perspective; we propose (witness to) the absolute and the salvation of Christ through Faith; and believe that we are being gracious in our proposition. But in this society, where diversity is the holy grail in this gospel of pop culture, the offense is not whether an absolute moral standard is Imposed or Proposed, but the fact that such a standard Exists.

That the difference between the imposition of morality and the proposition of morality may be lost on the world should not likewise motivate us to use the former when the latter fails to work. As we are called to overcome evil not by doing more evil, but by doing good.

However, we should not be surprised when the world fails to note the difference and thus witnesses falsely against us. As Jesus himself said that the servant is not greater than his master, and if they would persecute Him, should we not also expect persecution to come?

Why I’m not a Republican anymore

Here’s to Devvy Kidd’s WND Column today, who managed to summarize the conclusions I came to a few years ago:

If you belong to the Democratic Party, I urge you to take the time to study the platform of your party and compare them to the goals of the communists. They are one and the same, although this will bring shrieks from the likes of Marxist Hillary Clinton, it is the raw truth.

If it will make Democrats feel any better, they need only look at the Republican-controlled Congress since 1994 to see that the official agenda of the GOP – enforced through their voting record on key issues over the years – to see that they have also fallen in lockstep with virtually every communist goal. Don't think so? Look how many Republicans in Congress support and have voted for legislation that is a priority for communist domination. Do the research.

Republican is no longer a description of the type of government advocated, but a label for a certain branch of the communist party in America. Pity.

GW was launched into office running as a conservative. OK compassionate conservative. But his rule as emperor president has been significantly more liberal/communistic that the conservative ideals he advocated in his campaign. Consider the rabid (yes, like a mad dog) increases in spending. The appointment of moderate and mediocre cabinet members. His liberty assaulting advocacy of the Patriot Act. The “education reform” that was supposedly in NO Child Left Behind act, which only re-enforced the existing educational bureaucracy. (Here’s a hint. If you let Teddy Kennedy write a bill to right any wrong, you can be that it’s bound to make things worse. And remember that Teddy DID write that bill.) His support of liberal Republicans over conservatives in primaries. His inability to find ANYTHING wrong with the campaign finance reform act; that will likely cause blogs like this to be subject to speech restrictions. I could go on, but why?

His only response to this seems to be TRUST ME. I wish I could. But the truth is that I can only trust him to act like most any other communist that would inhabit that office. You might think that with Republicans holding both houses of congress that there might be ONE conservative freedom promoting act that was passed during his tenure. I’m still waiting.

Privacy, Property, and the 9/11 commision

It's all over the radio today that the 9/11 commision ignored evidence that information gathered by a secret military group was never relayed to appropriate "law enforement" groups. Now WND had an article on it.

Of course Rush Limbaugh has opined on it, declaring it yet another example of Clinton era cover ups. Since Jamie Gorelick, Clinton era deputy attorny general who wrote the memo forbiding contact between the military, cia, and "law enforcement agencies" was on the commission.

This is almost all old news, since everbody knew that Gorelick was the author while the commission was in session. The new piece of evidence is that instead of an abstract "maybe there was something..." we now have a "there was information that could have..."

So what. Rebublicans have held a majority in the congress, the president is a Republican, and what did they do? Nothing. Only one congressman; Kurt Weldon of PA has done anything about this. A little late I think. So why the institutional coverup?

With rare exceptions, members of congress in either party are not there to set you free but to tell you what is good for you. (With a paternalistic attitude that would make any liberal proud) The recomendations of the commission did nothing to advance freedom, but used their "findings" as an excuse to recomend the denial of even more libety. For your own good of course.

If you want to do the Lord's work; don't expect to find satisfaction in the voting booth.

More of the Parrot

Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.

Courtesy of the website smh.com.au.

And thus the framework for the debate is set. So Intelligent Design (ID) is now a “controversial new theory of creationism”. I’ll buy the controversial part, even new is ok. And the Theory? Oh Yeah. But creationism? I don’t think so.

In the abstract, all theories on the origin of life are theories of creationism, but in practical usage, only the Judeo-Christian biblical account is called by that name. And in one swoop, SHM.com.au declares ID to be a religious belief, held by some. Albeit some of the less radical types…

As Christians, we need to sure of our arguments and at least the premise of the arguments we support. Don’t defend ID because you think that it supports your faith. Support it because it is far more scientific than the darwinism it competes against.

Shall not be put to shame

Every few months we see this type of thing. New evidence that supports the bible as a historical fact. This found from the Post Gazette:

Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, according to the Gospel of John.

The pool was fed by the now-famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is "a much grander affair" than archaeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find yesterday.

"Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit" to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. "Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was." A Gospel that was thought to be "pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history," he said.

The bible doesn’t need us to authenticate it, as more and more we find that we need it to authenticate us. But it is comforting that God does follow through on his promise that those who believe in him shall not be put to shame. Even in this mortal-temporal plane. Note to all you “theologians” who believe that the bible contains truth, (and if you seek it you will find it):

It doesn’t contain truth. It IS truth.

Not just an American thing:

This in from England: Parent’s home school their children in response to bullying and for increased academic flexibility.

It’s not just our government that creates a poor learning environment. Education of our children is far to important to be left to professionals…

It’s for your own good again

Since the inception of modern commercial air travel, we have been told to turn off electronic devices because they might interfere with the plane’s navigation. If the pilots get lost, then the plane could run out of fuel before it finds itself. In short, if you use your walkman, you might crash the plane.

Original aircraft navigational systems were pretty sensitive. But advancements in this science, and improvement in manufacturer’s engineering designs, have rendered the need to turn off your electronic devices obsolete. Has been for a very long time. Yet they still play that tired old mantra at the start of every flight.

Now airlines want to let passengers use their cell phones in the air – for the additional revenue. Cool. But what about the safety to air travel? Are they not dangerous to use after the door closes? People could die. Right?

And the high speed internet usage? Brought to you via the same 802.11.g wireless system that you use at all of those hotspots everywhere. More revenue. Cool. But what about the navigational system? Won’t this crash the plane? I mean, if it's your computer that's causing all the trouble, it won't magically stop causeing trouble just because it's on a plane. Will it?

It can’t be both. It cannot be “dangerous to the plane so don’t use those things”, and “not dangerous so pay us money to use them” at the same time. So what gives?

Now the current talk is banning cell phones and internet for “air rage” and “anti-terrorism.” Or if the beneficent FAA allows them, makes their use available only if you consent to have your connection tapped so they can listen and make sure that you’re not coordinating terrorist activity.

The truth is that just like most other airline security and safety measures; they exist to empower government, not to make you safer.

Kondracke's parrot

No, not the bird. Just his blind, mindless recitation of the "intelligent design" is not science mantra on The Beltway Boys today. He then rants how it can't be science since it cannot be proven, studied, repeated, etc. It's just a bunch of stuff that fills in the holes in evolution. [Or words to that effect]

Uh. Mort?
The same objections you have to ID should be equally applied to evolution. Actually, doubly so.

The interesting thing about evolution is that it requires the absence of any input of design or intelligence. It follows that any designed experiment to prove evolution falls on it's face, since the design makes any experiment self invalidating. I almost feel sorry for the Darwinists. It's a tough quandry.

On the other hand. ID calls evidence from the information sciences. Since biologists themselves admit that the DNA is in itself the most complex information system ever observed, the use of the information sciences seems especially apropos. They really shouldn't complain. And information sciences are easily tested, proven, repeated, etc. etc...

Violence from the Vacuum

This sounds familiar.

Israel is going to pull back from the Gaza. Terrorists are moving in behind them. Wow, I’m surprised. OK. Not really.

Remember when Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Hezbolla (with Syria's backing) moved in behind them and the body count of civilians rose (mostly Christians) within hours of their departure.

To all my “anti-violence” friends out there who believe that all the evil in the world is caused by the military might of democratic countries: Wake up. The world is ruled by violence and the rules are set by the aggressor. In this case, Al-Qaida. It does amaze me how such well meaning people can be so "anti" when dealing with violent response in the face of aggression, but so "understanding" in the face of Islamic Terrorists who attack civilians.

There is a difference between violence and aggression. Israel has not been the aggressor in this, but the defender in it. It is not the actions of Israel that have caused the terrorists to move in, but her very existence, and her willingness to show weakness and a lack of resolve in the face of their aggression. Whether you believe the Iraq campaign justified or not, the parallels between Israel's situation and ours are obvious.

Perhaps my anti-war friends would have a bit more credibility were they a bit more willing to condemn the aggressors in these actions as much as the defenders.

Comes now the Design Debate

So now comes again the fight in the “intelligent design” debate.

Three articles in today’s WND: Bill Press, Sam Blumenfeld, and David Limbaugh

Bill:

According to intelligent designer backers, certain higher forms of life – like cell structure, molecular design or the human eye – are too complex for us to understand. They couldn't have just evolved that way. They must have been set in motion ahead of time by some intelligent designer: namely, God (unless you believe in space aliens).

This is, first of all, a ridiculous theory. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't know how my TIVO works, but that doesn't mean God made it. Besides, throughout history, our understanding and knowledge have grown with the advance of science – which is one good reason for not derailing science by replacing or confusing it with fairy tales.

David:

Many of ID's cynical detractors patronizingly frame this entire debate in terms of a struggle between faith and science. Intelligent design, they say, is but a thinly disguised argument for biblical creationism and its proponents threaten to obliterate the "wall of separation" between church and state by cleverly sneaking creationism back into the schools inside the Trojan horse of ID.

But that is simply false. ID is fundamentally science-based. The fact that scientific inquiry leads certain scientists toward a conclusion compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview – that intelligent causes were behind the creation of the universe and life – does not disqualify them as scientists any more than the militant secularism of many Darwinists disqualifies them.

Then from Sam:

But since intelligent design infers the existence of a designer – God – it is likely that evolutionists will resist any change in their views, since the acknowledgment of the existence of God is too nightmarish for them to contemplate.

It is ironic that only the intelligent design advocates acknowledge the inferences of their advocacy. Darwinism infers moral relativity, the absence of standards, and an inevitable decline in the value of creation; even while it claiming for its advancement. For so long Darwinists have denied the theological implications of their ‘strongly held beliefs”. Do they now believe their own lies?

The fact that science has it’s theological implications has never been lost on society. The fact that some will allow the latter to intrude on the former is likewise never lost. Aside from the Darwinists own presumption that they alone are immune from this tendency, we see little to support their assertion. It is they who bring religion into the arguments, it is they who form arguments based not upon science, but upon the straw men they prop up. Witness Bill Press's argument above. While Bill may not the inner workings of a TIVO machine, a 2 minute internet search will present quite a few who do. Do the same on the origin of life issues, and you won’t find anyone. Not one. Lots of people who say they think they know, but nobody who was there, nobody who can explain with intricate detail how one thing involved into a higher form. The fact that they can't is one of the greatest argument for design in itself.

Been gone lately

Sorry I've been out of commission lately. Got swamped at the day job and had a hard time finding the opportunity to put out a few words.