Derb---That video convinced me. The banana is obviously God's handiwork. But what about the orange? I can never peel those damn things without all the tough white part remaining. And the apple is OK, but the skin invariably gets wedged between my teeth. Are these lesser fruits God's discarded banana prototypes or perhaps the work of the Devil?"His correspondant is obviously wrong. These are neither lesser fruits or the work of the Devil. It is obvious that the difficulties encountered in eating these and other fruits prove that man was not designed to eat these fruits. It follows that consuming these fruits is contrary to the will of God and thus a sin. Furthermore, the degree sinfulness in eating a particular fruit can be discerned from the relative difficulty of eating the fruit. For instance, getting apple peel stuck between your teeth is a minor inconvenience and thus merely a venial sin. The extreme difficulties encountered in preparing an orange for consumption indicate that eating an orange rises to the level of a mortal sin. As I rather enjoy eating oranges and have not received absolution for this, I can only conclude that I'm going to Hell for indulging in this most grievous sin of the flesh.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
The Fruit of All Evil
Over in The Corner, John Derbyshire linked to the following video, which claims that the structure of the banana is evidence of intelligent design. This prompted the following reply from one of his readers:
Friday, April 28, 2006
Well That Settles It
The Vatican has come out in favor of the development of nuclear energy. The most interesting part of the story is the role played by the disaster at Chernobyl.
At the opening, the president of the Vatican dicastery recalled that the Chernobyl accident "alerted the world about the need to study the suitability and morality of the use of atomic energy for civil ends."
At the same time, the accident made "innumerable initiatives of solidarity flourish, directed in a special way to children" and "made possible a profound debate on the use of civil nuclear energy and the conditions of safety of its use," the [Renato Cardinal Martino] said.
While the actual causes and full effects of Chernobyl remain shrouded in mystery, the above statement indicates that some good has resulted from it. If the disaster at Chernobyl leads to a more widespread and intelligent development of nuclear power, a relavtively cheap and very clean form of energy, the good that can be said to have resulted from Chernobyl will be great indeed.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
I Know This Is Saying Quite a Bit
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Cracking the Iranian Nuclear Nut
In a piece for City Journal, Mark Steyn offers a sobering analysis of the situation the West faces with Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Frankly, we recognize that we cannot allow Iran to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, but we do not appear to have the will to do what is necessary to stop them getting nuclear arms, believing instead that we can simply talk Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
What folly. If Iran has decided that it is in its vital interest to obtain nuclear weapons, then the only way to persuade them otherwise is to make it clear to them their pursuit of such weapons will prove fatal to them. The problem is that those currently responsible for negotiating with Iran view the situation through a western, secularized lens and so misapprehend the situation. From the time of the French Revolution, economic issues have been of increasing importance in European politics, becoming the most important political issues after World War II. More and more, money and property have come to be seen as the sources of power, as opposed to things that are gained as a result of having power (i.e. My wealth is the source of my power. vs. My power is the source of my wealth.). Viewed in this light, Iran's intransigence makes no sense, especially in light of the carrots being hung in front of them (e.g. Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran). Although the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) seem to be waking up to the fact that Iran has no desire to surrender its nuclear program, they fail to apprehend why this should be so. Furthermore, even if the EU-3 were to get Russia and China have significant trade ties to Iran and so oppose any concrete action against Iran, be it economic sanctions or miltary action.
So, what can be done?
First of all, the United States, being the only country able to effectively prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons, must take the lead on the issue. The Eu-3 have been engaged in futile negotiations from the start. Their efforts having failed, the weight of American military might must be brought to bear. To that end, a large chunk of the American forces in Iraq must be moved to the border with Iran. Similarly, most of the American forces in Afghanistan should be moved to its border with Iran. Any military campaign against Iran would be immensely difficult, but it is helpful that we can bring significant force to bear from two directions. It may also give Iran pause if we remind them of this.
From here, I think there are three courses of action that could possibly work.
The first choice is to foment revolution from within. The Iranian people may or may not be pro-American, but they certainly don't have any love for the mullahs. If we start to publicly encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the mullahs and promise to come to the aid of those opposed to the mullahs in whatever way necessary, including military support, it could very well lead to the downfall of the mullahs and an Iranian government that at least isn't hell-bent upon wiping the Great Satan off the face of the earth.
The second choice is a military invasion with or without UN approval (I'd prefer without because I find that the UN makes Jack Abramoff look like Goerge Washington.), with whoever wants to come along. We come in from the both the east and west, possibly enticing Russia to come down from the north by promising them a warm-water port (not likely, as Russia would either have to come through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan or invade amphibiously via the Caspian Sea, which would make the capture of Tehran easier).
The third choice is the one I least expect to happen. The final solution is achieved diplomatically, but the nature of the sabre-rattling beforehand makes it highly implausible that this will be the course of action taken. This would involve the president traveling to, say Alamogordo, NM, accompanied by the likes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld to deliver a speech on Iran's nuclear weapons program and what the U.S. intends to do about it. At the end of the speech, as a demonstration of the lengths to which the U.S. is willing to go to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, a live test of a nuclear weapon will be conducted behind the president (far enough away that no one is harmed by the blast, obviously). After the test is complete, the president should demand full, verifiable, unilateral disassembly of Iran's nuclear program as a precondition to further talks. Needless to say, there will be howls from decent people pretty much everywhere, but Iran should get the message.
Two world wars have taught us what barabrism we are capable of unleashing on one another. In Europe, this has led to a reluctance to use military force to resolve problems, lest a similar barbarism be unleashed again. In effect, many people in the West are afraid of our own power because we know the horror we can cause. In many ways, this is a sign of our moral advancement. The desire to not exact a greater toll than justice demands is a sign of civilization, and the mutual agreement of parties to adhere to civilized rules of war allows for something less than the total war nations of the west once waged on each other. However, when one side refuses to agree to the civilized standards, civilized nations must be willing to show that they can out-Attila Attila. Iran wants to wipe the U.S. off the map and create a pan-Islamic state with Tehran as its political center. The U.S. needs to show not only can it wipe Iran off the map right now, it is willing to do so to secure itself againt the threat of a nuclear Iran. Barring a miracle, only the legitimate threat to do the unthinkable can peacefully stop Iran's otherwise inexorable progress toward the bomb.
Frankly, we recognize that we cannot allow Iran to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, but we do not appear to have the will to do what is necessary to stop them getting nuclear arms, believing instead that we can simply talk Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
What folly. If Iran has decided that it is in its vital interest to obtain nuclear weapons, then the only way to persuade them otherwise is to make it clear to them their pursuit of such weapons will prove fatal to them. The problem is that those currently responsible for negotiating with Iran view the situation through a western, secularized lens and so misapprehend the situation. From the time of the French Revolution, economic issues have been of increasing importance in European politics, becoming the most important political issues after World War II. More and more, money and property have come to be seen as the sources of power, as opposed to things that are gained as a result of having power (i.e. My wealth is the source of my power. vs. My power is the source of my wealth.). Viewed in this light, Iran's intransigence makes no sense, especially in light of the carrots being hung in front of them (e.g. Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran). Although the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) seem to be waking up to the fact that Iran has no desire to surrender its nuclear program, they fail to apprehend why this should be so. Furthermore, even if the EU-3 were to get Russia and China have significant trade ties to Iran and so oppose any concrete action against Iran, be it economic sanctions or miltary action.
So, what can be done?
First of all, the United States, being the only country able to effectively prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons, must take the lead on the issue. The Eu-3 have been engaged in futile negotiations from the start. Their efforts having failed, the weight of American military might must be brought to bear. To that end, a large chunk of the American forces in Iraq must be moved to the border with Iran. Similarly, most of the American forces in Afghanistan should be moved to its border with Iran. Any military campaign against Iran would be immensely difficult, but it is helpful that we can bring significant force to bear from two directions. It may also give Iran pause if we remind them of this.
From here, I think there are three courses of action that could possibly work.
The first choice is to foment revolution from within. The Iranian people may or may not be pro-American, but they certainly don't have any love for the mullahs. If we start to publicly encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the mullahs and promise to come to the aid of those opposed to the mullahs in whatever way necessary, including military support, it could very well lead to the downfall of the mullahs and an Iranian government that at least isn't hell-bent upon wiping the Great Satan off the face of the earth.
The second choice is a military invasion with or without UN approval (I'd prefer without because I find that the UN makes Jack Abramoff look like Goerge Washington.), with whoever wants to come along. We come in from the both the east and west, possibly enticing Russia to come down from the north by promising them a warm-water port (not likely, as Russia would either have to come through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan or invade amphibiously via the Caspian Sea, which would make the capture of Tehran easier).
The third choice is the one I least expect to happen. The final solution is achieved diplomatically, but the nature of the sabre-rattling beforehand makes it highly implausible that this will be the course of action taken. This would involve the president traveling to, say Alamogordo, NM, accompanied by the likes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld to deliver a speech on Iran's nuclear weapons program and what the U.S. intends to do about it. At the end of the speech, as a demonstration of the lengths to which the U.S. is willing to go to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, a live test of a nuclear weapon will be conducted behind the president (far enough away that no one is harmed by the blast, obviously). After the test is complete, the president should demand full, verifiable, unilateral disassembly of Iran's nuclear program as a precondition to further talks. Needless to say, there will be howls from decent people pretty much everywhere, but Iran should get the message.
Two world wars have taught us what barabrism we are capable of unleashing on one another. In Europe, this has led to a reluctance to use military force to resolve problems, lest a similar barbarism be unleashed again. In effect, many people in the West are afraid of our own power because we know the horror we can cause. In many ways, this is a sign of our moral advancement. The desire to not exact a greater toll than justice demands is a sign of civilization, and the mutual agreement of parties to adhere to civilized rules of war allows for something less than the total war nations of the west once waged on each other. However, when one side refuses to agree to the civilized standards, civilized nations must be willing to show that they can out-Attila Attila. Iran wants to wipe the U.S. off the map and create a pan-Islamic state with Tehran as its political center. The U.S. needs to show not only can it wipe Iran off the map right now, it is willing to do so to secure itself againt the threat of a nuclear Iran. Barring a miracle, only the legitimate threat to do the unthinkable can peacefully stop Iran's otherwise inexorable progress toward the bomb.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Show Me the Money
In his new book, In Our Hands, Charles Murray proposes a radical overhaul of our national entitlement system.
In his new book, In Our Hands, Murray offers what he calls "the Plan": Halt all government entitlement programs and redistribute tax money directly to citizens. The Plan is elegantly simple. When you turn 21, you begin receiving monthly income from the federal government--deposited directly into your bank account--that totals $10,000 a year. This grant keeps coming, month after month, until the day you die.Not everyone gets to keep the full $10,000. Once your salaried income hits $25,000, the size of your grant diminishes gradually until those making above $50,000 get only $5,000 a year. The only condition is that you not be in jail--once you're out of the pokey, you get the money. (Last, Jonathan. "The $10,000 Question" 4/7/06)
Now, I'd like an extra $10,000/year as much as the next guy, and the system Murray is proposing is apparently more cost effective than our current system, but I'm a little skeptical. While it may provide lower income workers with health insurance and a more secure retirement if they spend their money wisely, it also seems to run the risk of having the same effect as welfare pre-1996, namely the institutionalization of poverty among those most dependent upon these monthly stipends. Now, I'll withold judgment on The Plan until I've actually read the book, but the sense I have now is that it's too good to be true.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Nothing Says Zionist Conspircacy
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
It seems almost superfluous to point out that Tom and Jerry was developed by MGM, not Disney.
Hat tip: Mark Steyn
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)