like "Tom and Jerry".
It seems almost superfluous to point out that Tom and Jerry was developed by MGM, not Disney.
Hat tip: Mark Steyn
Friday, March 17, 2006
File This One Under "What Were They Thinking"
The Michigan state legislature has voted to increase the minimum wage in the state from the federally mandated $5.15/hr to $6.95/hr in October. Now, as of this past January Michigan's unemployment rate was 6.2%, nearly 1.5 percentage points higher than the national rate. Given such a high unemployment rate, I would think the last thing you want to do is increase the cost employers have to pay to bring on new employees. What's more, how many employers will be forced to lay off a portion of their staff because they can't afford to pay all of their workers $6.95/hr?
That's not to say there aren't benfits to the increase. Those making less than $6.95/hr fortunate enough to retain their jobs will be better off financially, but it doesn't seem worth the further entrenchment and exacerbation of Michigan's unemployment problem.
That's not to say there aren't benfits to the increase. Those making less than $6.95/hr fortunate enough to retain their jobs will be better off financially, but it doesn't seem worth the further entrenchment and exacerbation of Michigan's unemployment problem.
Newsflash: Government Wastes Money!!!
Not only were government efforts following Hurricane Katrina poorly coordinated and highly inefficient on all levels, a lot of money was wasted too.
Honestly, I've had a hard time working myself into a high dudgeon over government efforts before and after Katrina. Things unfolded pretty much as I expected they would: The military performed well, and everything else was a mess. Coordination between levels of government was poor at best. Resouces were underutilized when they were utilized at all. The resources that were used were poorly allocated. A lot of money was thrown around, much of it to no real use. Instead of being pressed into action, volunteers received diversity training (whatever the heck that is) from FEMA. On the whole, it was a typical government operation.
Many (most? I hope not.) Americans, as a result of the New Deal and the Great Society, view the government as an entity to whom we can turn in time of need, who will help us solve our problems and get us out of trouble. I'm not sure why this is the case, as neither the New Deal or the Great Society have been particularly effective, but that's the way it is. They forget (or never learned) the lesson Mark Steyn tool from the passengers of Flight 93 on September 11: "To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate."
Honestly, I've had a hard time working myself into a high dudgeon over government efforts before and after Katrina. Things unfolded pretty much as I expected they would: The military performed well, and everything else was a mess. Coordination between levels of government was poor at best. Resouces were underutilized when they were utilized at all. The resources that were used were poorly allocated. A lot of money was thrown around, much of it to no real use. Instead of being pressed into action, volunteers received diversity training (whatever the heck that is) from FEMA. On the whole, it was a typical government operation.
Many (most? I hope not.) Americans, as a result of the New Deal and the Great Society, view the government as an entity to whom we can turn in time of need, who will help us solve our problems and get us out of trouble. I'm not sure why this is the case, as neither the New Deal or the Great Society have been particularly effective, but that's the way it is. They forget (or never learned) the lesson Mark Steyn tool from the passengers of Flight 93 on September 11: "To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Failure in Iraq
In his February 24 column, William F Buckley Jr asserts that the United States has failed in Iraq. Our failure, according to Mr. Buckley, lies in our failure to train the Iraqi amry to effectively cope with the insurgents. There is something to this. If the Iraqi army were capable of dealing effectively with the insurgents, America would not be blamed for the violence caused by the insurgents. However, if this were simply a question of how well the Iraqi army has dealt with the insurgents, it seems reasonable to conclude that the army itself and the Iraqi government responsible for it might be blamed for their own ineptitude. What has happened is something different. We have been blamed for something we never set out to do: provide law and order. Instead, it has been our objective to establish an Iraqi government capable of doing this.
Although much has been accomplished along these lines, from the establishment of an interim government, to the ratification of a constitution, to the election and seating of a parliament, as well as much progress in the training of an army and the rebuilding of infrastructure, we have failed in one critical respect: We have been unable to stop the Iraqis looking to us to provide security. As a result, we are blamed for problems that aren't our fault and expected to handle situations that aren't our resposnsibility. It isn't that we're unable to deal with probblems such as this (look at what happened when we finally went into Fallujah), but that we have limited our responsibilities in the hope that the Iraqis will look to their own government to guarantee liberty and security. Up to now, this hope hasn't been realized, and until it is, our venture in Iraq cannot be said to be a success.
It isn't easy to midwife a democracy. It only makes it harder when you're expected to be father to it.
Although much has been accomplished along these lines, from the establishment of an interim government, to the ratification of a constitution, to the election and seating of a parliament, as well as much progress in the training of an army and the rebuilding of infrastructure, we have failed in one critical respect: We have been unable to stop the Iraqis looking to us to provide security. As a result, we are blamed for problems that aren't our fault and expected to handle situations that aren't our resposnsibility. It isn't that we're unable to deal with probblems such as this (look at what happened when we finally went into Fallujah), but that we have limited our responsibilities in the hope that the Iraqis will look to their own government to guarantee liberty and security. Up to now, this hope hasn't been realized, and until it is, our venture in Iraq cannot be said to be a success.
It isn't easy to midwife a democracy. It only makes it harder when you're expected to be father to it.
Christianity and Evolution
Back in November, Brian asked why it is so difficult for many people to square their faith with evolution. Based on discussions I've had with friends of mine who fall into this category, there are two principle obstacles to people being able to square their faith with the acceptance of the correctness of evolution. The first is a question of biblical interpretation, and the second is a philosophical problem.
The problem of interpretation arises because many Christians* believe that every passage of the Bible must be interpreted literally. If the Bible says the world was created in six days, then by gum, it was. They make no allowance for the possibility of a legitimate figurative or allegorical interpretation of Scripture**. Because of this, any idea resting on something which contradicts a literal reading of the Scriptures- in this case, the evolution of species over 3.5 billion years- is not only wrong but heretical as well.
The philosophical problem, and it is a problem, is that many of these people will make the further argument that the acceptance of evolution equates to the acceptance of Naturalism, or Materialism, the belief that all the physical world is all that exists. Needless to say, this is patently absurd. Naturalism can only follow from evolution if the only option is between Biblical literalism and Naturalism because evolution only contradicts a literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis, never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict themselves if read literally.*** In point of fact, evolution can shed no light one way or the other on the reality of the supernatural and its interaction with the natural world because, like any theory in the natural sciences, it gives natural explanations for observed natural phenomena. The realm of the supernatural is reserved for philosophy and, ultimately, theology.
When push comes to shove, truth cannot contradict truth. Either Christianity is true (as I belive), or it isn't. Either evolution is correct (again, as I believe), or it isn't. If both are true, then the latter can fit within the former. However, if the truth of one proves the falsity of the other, I suspect Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is not long for this world.
*This includes many Catholics, though Catholic teaching has never stated that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Indeed, such Catholic thinkers as St. Augustine, John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Benedict XVI have not held to a strictly literal reading of Scripture.
**While it is legitimate to interpret certain passages of Scripture figuratively, or allegorically, not all passages of Scripture can be so read without gutting the whole of Christianity. For instance, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ cannot be read figuratively without gutting the substance of Christianity.
***If you don't believe me, read them closely.
The problem of interpretation arises because many Christians* believe that every passage of the Bible must be interpreted literally. If the Bible says the world was created in six days, then by gum, it was. They make no allowance for the possibility of a legitimate figurative or allegorical interpretation of Scripture**. Because of this, any idea resting on something which contradicts a literal reading of the Scriptures- in this case, the evolution of species over 3.5 billion years- is not only wrong but heretical as well.
The philosophical problem, and it is a problem, is that many of these people will make the further argument that the acceptance of evolution equates to the acceptance of Naturalism, or Materialism, the belief that all the physical world is all that exists. Needless to say, this is patently absurd. Naturalism can only follow from evolution if the only option is between Biblical literalism and Naturalism because evolution only contradicts a literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis, never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict themselves if read literally.*** In point of fact, evolution can shed no light one way or the other on the reality of the supernatural and its interaction with the natural world because, like any theory in the natural sciences, it gives natural explanations for observed natural phenomena. The realm of the supernatural is reserved for philosophy and, ultimately, theology.
When push comes to shove, truth cannot contradict truth. Either Christianity is true (as I belive), or it isn't. Either evolution is correct (again, as I believe), or it isn't. If both are true, then the latter can fit within the former. However, if the truth of one proves the falsity of the other, I suspect Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is not long for this world.
*This includes many Catholics, though Catholic teaching has never stated that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Indeed, such Catholic thinkers as St. Augustine, John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Benedict XVI have not held to a strictly literal reading of Scripture.
**While it is legitimate to interpret certain passages of Scripture figuratively, or allegorically, not all passages of Scripture can be so read without gutting the whole of Christianity. For instance, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ cannot be read figuratively without gutting the substance of Christianity.
***If you don't believe me, read them closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)