The Center for Dangerous Thought

Reflections on "Life at the Moment of Conception"

2012-01-06T10:47:00.001-06:00

Recently, much as the Grinch, I have been puzzling so much that mypuzzler is sore. Folks like the RicksSantorum and Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and others have made abig deal out of the “life begins at conception” premise. I must note that this hypothesis is a socialconservative, Christian construct, quite often accompanied by a corresponding claimthat it is also at this self-same moment of conception that a soul attaches to thenew physical being, making them the property of the Christian god for eternity. The two beliefs are inseparable.

Interesting, but puzzling. Forthe time being let us accept as fact both claims, and examine the consequencesof so doing.

As to the first premise, if life truly begins at conception, theChristian god becomes at once a prolific abortionist. From the blastocyst through the early fetalstages, somewhere between forty and fifty percent of all pregnancies willspontaneously abort. Is that new life notimportant to their god? Is he somehow soutterly incompetent that he screws up fully half of his creations? Or is it simply that he likes his mini-unbornsscrambled for breakfast? Tongue in cheekperhaps, but a question no “pro-life” warrior has ever bothered answer, noreven ponder I suspect.

Why do the believing families of spontaneously-aborted “children” nothold funeral services for their dearly-departed, with match-box sized coffinsand burials in the family plot? I am notbeing flippant here; merely inquisitive.

The second claim is even more mind-numbing.

I will ignore the obvious – that “souls” have neither biblical basis, norany scientific evidence for their existence – and confine myself to the ratherconfusing logistics of soulhood itself.

The claim is that at conception a soul appears; from whence isunclear. Is a new soul created from thinair at the time the sperm penetrates the ovum? Is there a (heavenly?) pool of souls waiting to swoop in, much as aspouse in a cell-phone lot at a busy airport? Are they assigned to particular blastocysts based on some set criteria, oris it first come, first served?

Are souls provided to the spawn of Hindus, Muslims, non-believers andthe like, or is the supply limited only to Christians?

As to the aforementioned rate of spontaneously-aborted conceptions,what becomes of those souls? Do theyhead back to the waiting area and get in line to be reassigned, do they evaporateinto thin air, or are they immediately ushered into heaven to spend eternitypraising the cantankerous Yahweh without ever having the opportunity to spendat least a short time enjoying normal existence?

Those who bother to think about these things can in all likelihood offeradditional questions, consequences, and inconsistencies to my lists. Those who believe in these things, havingnever bothered to question them before, cannot in all honesty be expected tobegin now.

If believers in and advocates for such theses wish to enshrine them inlaw however, shouldn’t they be forced to confront these and similar questionsand offer plausible answers before the entire nation is forced to worship attheir alter?

Just asking. Now I need to gorub my puzzler with some dry ice.

How the Government Stole Christmas

2011-12-21T12:00:00.000-06:00

Forget the Grinch -- it's the government that's stealingChristmas.

So reports Americans for Tax Reform, a non-profitgroup that works for lower taxes and smaller government.

The holidays are supposed to be a season for giving and spending time withloved ones. However, Uncle Sam has forced taxpayers to add him and his greedylocal and state relatives to their gift list. Of an identified $10.72 billionof holiday spending, an incredible 43.36 percent is due to government taxes,fees, and other costs.

If you are one of the 93 percent of holiday revelers traveling this season, youwill pay $69.65 in gas taxes for the average $152.47 round-trip excursion --45.68 percent of the cost of the trip. Taking a rental is another convenientoption, but 38.77 percent of your car's rental cost is due to taxation,particularly from state and local governments.

Choose to fly to visit friends and family and 42.47 percent of your trip ismade up of government costs. If you retreat from your in-laws to a hotel,remember that 39.39 percent of the cost of your stay is funneled back to thegovernment. For Christmas 2011, the government will stuff its stocking with$3.79 billion in traveling taxes.

Holiday revelers enjoy an estimated $992 million in alcoholic beverages tocelebrate the season. Savor your next mug of eggnog, because 56.31 percent ofthe price is taxes. Government guzzles 44.33 percent of your seasonal beer anddrives up the price of your glass of wine at Christmas dinner by 32.77 percent.Sipping a soft drink won't let you escape frosty government fees -- 27.98percent, or $61 million in taxes, is attached to the cost of soda.

When Santa comes down the chimney this year, he'll have to save room in hissack for Uncle Sam's gifts. Government gets $21 billion of a cumulative $69.1billion spent on presents, consuming nearly a third of Christmas gift-giving.

All told, the government collects $25.9 billion in new revenues over theholiday season.

And still more is ahead. Not even Christmas trees are safe. The government hasproposed a new 15 cent tax on each Christmas tree sold -- which would meangovernment would make up 31.19 percent of the price of an average 40 dollarChristmas tree. Public outcry led to the tax being delayed -- for the moment.But look for that little Christmas present in your stocking in the near future.

* * * * * * * *
by Liberator Online editor James W. Harris.

In Which I Explain Who Really Screwed Okie State and Stanford...

2011-12-05T12:05:00.001-06:00

Fans of Okie State and Stanford are upset because Alabama and LSU, both from the SEC, will play for the National Championship, even though they have the same record as 'Bama.

Three years ago the commissioner of the SEC proposed a "Plus Two" playoff for the National Championship. If that format were in effect this year, Stanford would be playing LSU, and Okie State would be playing 'Bama, for a crack at the Championship game. Unfortunately the (now) PAC 12, (then)Big 12, and (still, inexplicably) Big 10 combined to block the proposal.

Stanford is from the PAC 12, while Okie State plays in what is left of the Big 12. Uh oh!

A "Stimulus" Primer

2011-12-03T11:04:00.001-06:00

It's a slow day in the small town of Pumphandle and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

(Stay with this..... and pay attention)

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.

The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel Owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town now thinks that they are out of debt and there is a false atmosphere of optimism and glee.

And that, my friends, is how a "stimulus package" works! Makes you kinda feel warm and fuzzy all over huh??

This and That...

2011-11-22T10:42:00.001-06:00

Twice in the last three days I have received a phone call from“Newt 2012”. I answered both determinedto give whoever was at the other end a hard time, but neither time was anyoneor anything there. Which is, actually, consistentwith both Newt and his campaign.

Fast fact: If wetaxed the top 1% at a rate of 100% - that is, if we took every penny theyearned year in and year out – the revenue provided would cover only ten percentof the deficit. Not the debt,mind you, but just ten percent of the annual deficit. It’s high time somefolks began occupying reality.

I don’t care what anyone says, JoePa was thrown under thebus. He received, according to his grandjury testimony, a report that did not graphically describe the incidentinvolved, and yet reported it to his superior, who was ultimately responsible(Sandusky had not worked for Joe for a number of years). After firing Joe, the Board of Trusteesannounced they would conduct an investigation. Wouldn’t it have been better to conduct the investigation first, andthen act on the findings?

Why is everyone surprised and upset by the failure of the “SuperCommittee”. It was an extra-constitutionalcopout from the beginning, just as are the automatic cuts that its failure sets inmotion. As for the major drivers of ourbudget woes: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Prescription Drugpanderthon, all remain untouched and, in all likelihood, untouchable.

The Euro and its unfathomable derivative, the EuropeanUnion, never had a snowball’s chance, and without radical change will notsurvive. Imagine a union of the U.S., Mexico,and Honduras, with a common currency. Greece, Portugal, and southern Italy arereasonable equivalents to Honduras and Mexico, and Germany is no U.S. economically.

Finally – I havebeen reading Arguably, a massivecollection of Christopher Hitchens’ essays, and I feel miserably inferior. I’ve read the Greek philosophers, Romanticpoets, Enlightenment thinkers, Classical authors, and more. But Hitchens has obviously not only read atleast ten times more than I, he has clearly memorized every damned word ofeverything he ever read, then somehow developed the ability to express his knowledgeand opinions in a way and with such force that no other mortal can. He issimply the greatest essayist writing today, and we cannot afford to lose him.

Does America need more Steve Jobs, or more Goverment?

2011-10-06T15:17:00.003-05:00

In 1989, merely 22 years ago, Apple introduced its MacintoshPortable. It came with a 16Mhz CPU, 1Meg of RAM, and a 10 inch black and white active matrix LCD. The price, $7,300, was affordable by only thebest off of Americans.

Today, even though the dollar is worth only about half ofwhat it was then, you can buy a laptop 1000 time more powerful, for a price 10%of that of that old Mac, making reliable, high speed computing available to almosteveryone.

How is this possible? It wasn’t achieved by government edict, nor through the wisdom of somecentral planning board. Rather ithappened because of the type of competition found only in free markets.

Think about that for a moment. Then think how much cheaper, better, and more available healthcare, or perhaps education, might be if government had kept its hands off of them.

The Crux of the Problem...

2011-09-19T10:56:00.000-05:00

The brouhaha de jour this week apparently will be the upcoming vote in the United Nations (official motto: We don't do a damned thing other than squander your money and throw lavish parties) on the resolution out of Durban III to admit Palestine as a full member of that body.

I believe Palestinians have every bit as much right to have a home state as Israelis or anyone else, but this resolution is wrought with worms. The principle problem is that it sets the border between the new state and Israel as the pre-1967 border, and compounds the mistake by naming east Jerusalem as the new nation's capital.

Now there are certainly reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue, but to me the overriding question is: Shouldn't borders be settled through negotiation between the disputing parties? Hasn't the age of fiat in settling international disagreements gone the way of the buggy whip and, say, colonialism?

Unfortunately, the settlement of any Israeli-Palestinian question is not about politics, nor ever the right of each to be secure within their agreed-upon borders. No, that would be way too easy.

The real issue is perfectly demonstrated by a full page ad that appeared in this morning's Dallas Morning News, and, I assume, a dozen or more other major papers across the country. That ad was sponsored by an organization revealingly named "The Jerusalem Prayer Team" (JPT), and lists among its arguments for opposing Durban III (remember, I've already provided a compelling argument against it as it stands), Genesis 12.3: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you."

Wow! How do you argue with logic like that? It is so convincing it takes your breath away, not to mention your mind. It does though serve to point out the real problem in the Muddled East, namely Religion.

Christopher Hitchens famously said the "Religion poisons everything", and in both the conflict at hand and the mindless ad referenced above that statement is indisputable. What we have, if you peel the onion to its digestible core, is two pre-rational, animal-sacrificing desert tribes locked in mortal combat over whose god promised them what and when.

These claims originate from peoples who didn't know the earth was an orb, nor what caused lightening or disease. Yet today they hold much of the world poised on the edge of war, perhaps even nuclear war, over what can only be logically considered bat-shit crazy foundational dreams.

Hopefully the JPT will stick to prayer as opposed to any real effort to interfere, thus nullifying their expenditures and historical revisionism. And hopefully too the two parties to the dispute at hand will learn that the only way to achieve peace and a real future for their peoples is to conscientiously strive for a fair and permanent settlement of a conflict that has already endured far too long, and one arrived at without further reference to invisible friends and their non-existent promises.

IS IT JUST ME, OR…

2011-08-30T08:21:00.003-05:00

“Irene claims 40 lives”, and “Hurricane responsible for 40 deaths” are just two of the headlines I’ve seen in the past twenty-four hours. Wow, one thinks, that must have been a real killer storm.

But it wasn’t, really. It was nowhere near Katrina’s blow to New Orleans nor Andrew’s destruction of South Florida. Andrew struck the area south of Miami with 165 mph winds, Irene never reached 90 mph except for a few gusts.

Irene was a bit more than your average thunder storm to be sure, but a killer hurricane? Let’s review a few of the deaths blamed on the unfortunate lady, and you tell me if the storm was at fault or if it was merely a case of the shallow end of the gene pool being culled:

In Bristol, CT 46-year-old Shane Seaver died after he and another man went canoeing down a flooded street and the canoe capsized. Seaver's body washed ashore late Sunday in Plainville.
In Hockessin, DE police found the bodies of two men who had sent a text message to a friend saying they were running through Irene during the height of the storm.
In Volusia County, FL 55-year-old Frederick Fernandez died Saturday off New Smyrna Beach after he was tossed off his (surf) board by massive waves caused by Irene.
In Flagler County, 55-year-old tourist James Palmer of New Jersey died Saturday in rough surf.
68-year-old Joseph Rocco of East Islip drowned while windsurfing in Bellport Bay. (Really? Windsurfing in a freaking hurricane?)
A man died after his inflatable boat capsized on the Croton River.
Katherine Morales Cruz, 15, of Manassas Park, Va., died Saturday in a two-car collision at an intersection where Hurricane Irene had knocked out power to the traffic lights. (Is stop, look, yield suspended during a hurricane?)
Jose Manuel Farabia Corona, 21, of Dover died in a Pitt County traffic accident after his SUV went off a road and twice slammed into trees Saturday as Irene's began to make landfall. (I wonder if they bothered to do a blood alcohol level.)
Deputies recovered the body of Melton Robinson Jr., who had been missing since jumping into the Cape Fear River as storms reached North Carolina. (Ditto Mr. Corona above.)
A 58-year-old Harrisburg man was killed Sunday when a tree toppled onto his tent. (Is camping in a hurricane that much different from sleeping on a railroad track?)
A body recovered from the Deerfield River is believed to be that of a woman who fell in while watching flooding in Wilmington.
57-year-old William P. Washington of King William County was killed when a tree fell on him as he was cutting another tree Saturday night. (Just had to give that new chainsaw a tryout, huh?)

So there you have it folks. I do not mean to poke fun at anyone’s early demise, but to claim that any of these idiots was killed by a hurricane is comparable to blaming gravity for the death of someone jumping off the roof of a twenty story building.

My name is John Shuey and I approve this message.

Reagan at his best...

2011-08-25T21:01:00.000-05:00

The only way out...

2011-08-05T08:22:00.002-05:00

You might have missed this, but with the recent increase of the Federal government "debt ceiling", our government's borrowing now exceeds our nation's GDP. That's right, our government is now in a hole deeper than the value of all the goods and services the U.S. economy produces in a full year.

The last time our debt was more than GDP?

The late 1940s. Recovery happened swiftly then, which should give us hope. There is a way out.

But remember: It was not World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression, the end of the war did.

And remember further: Most of the big names in economics -- by then, Keynesians all -- had predicted a huge economicdownturn as government spending plummeted and wartime regulations (chiefly wage and price controls) hit the dustbin.

It was a very bad prediction, because the economy soon took off.

Why? Less government spending, less regulation, far less involvement in the economy.

In short. More freedom.

News from Heathensville - Part 1A

2011-04-22T17:36:00.000-05:00

A few hours ago I mentioned the letter that Christopher Hitchens wrote to those attending the American Atheist Convention. Hitch was supposed to be here, but his health has deteriorated to the point that he couldn't make the trip. Instead he wrote this letter, which I now share with you because it really is to all those fighting the good fight for truth and reason in this 21st century:

Dear fellow-unbelievers,

Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstitition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.

That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.

Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.

As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith.

Sincerely

Christopher Hitchens

News from Heathensville - Part 1

2011-04-22T12:13:00.000-05:00

Son JMS and I are in the midst of the American Atheist Convention here in dreary downtown Des Moines, IA. And so far it has been interesting.

In addition to rubbing elbows with the likes of PZ Myers, Lawrence Kraus, and Andy Thompson, (Oh, and Greta Christina for those of you who appreciate her writing), we have been privy to some interesting news.

The Atheist/Freethought/Humanist/Secular movement is combining on some exciting, in your face projects:

For July 4, banners promoting Atheism, to whit reading "Godless America",will be flown over major sporting and other events in every state in the nation where atheism/agnosticism is "the fastest growing religious segment" according to recent polls. For those of you who might be unaware -- that would be all fifty states. Ought to be a hoot. And
In the spring of 2012, every non-theist organization in the country is sponsoring, and AA hosting, a Reason Rally in Washington, DC, which is predicted to be the largest gathering of non-believers in the history of the world. Among others, Richard Dawkins has committed to attend. The FSM willing, I'll be there.

Well, gotta get back to the show, I'll report more later -- including on Christopher Hitchens couching and compelling letter to the convention.

John Galt's Speech in just 964 Words...

2011-04-16T10:40:00.001-05:00

.
"For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?

"Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

"We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

"I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

"You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's impossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

"And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

"Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

"You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

"Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

"To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

"If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

"The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine."

From: http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm; Edited by: Daryl J. Sroufe

The Argument from Ignorance and related thoughts.

2011-04-12T07:42:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, in order to preserve my sanity as much as anything, I was forced to “unfriend” a person on FaceBook whom I largely like and mostly agree with politically. Barn has one huge problem however; he absolutely refuses to accept any concept that derives from science, constantly falling back on the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps pleas, along with ad hominem attacks, whenever an idea causes him discomfort.

I suspect he prefers modern medicine to the chanting of witch doctors or exorcists driving out demons, but then again I could be wrong about that. I do know that such basic scientific ideas as evolution and climate change send him into convulsions of vituperous ignorance, unwilling (unable) to present either evidence or logic to support his world view preferences.

The argument from ignorance simply says “I do not understand how that could have occurred naturally, so god must have done it”. End of argument.

God of the gaps is similar, except it references what science does not yet know. “You cannot explain how or why this happens or that occurs, so god did it.”

We have all been victims of ad hominem attacks. “John old boy, science is a fraud and when you accept what it says you are showing how dumb you are.”

So, after a year of unsuccessfully trying to engage in an honest and logical discussion, I finally cut it off. Life is too short.

All of which is prelude to what now follows:

If you cannot cite evidence for your position, do some research. Barn simply would not do that. If however you insist on relying on argument from ignorance or god of the gaps illogic, then please do us both a favor and “unfriend” me now. I am no longer interested in wasting my time with those who choose to wallow in that combination of ignorance and arrogance that demarcates true believers. Be gone.

Perhaps just as importantly however, I have come to realize that many Liberals/Progressives use debating points similar to the argument from ignorance to support their positions on a variety of topics. See if you recognize this: “If government doesn’t step up and help people (choose one) who are losing their homes, have lost their jobs, are uneducated, can’t afford college, don’t have healthcare (you get the point) no one else will. It is the civilized (humanist, communal, caring, etc.) thing to do and you are greedy (selfish, uncaring, fascist, etc.) if you object.”

They reject much of the American experience, the Free Market, charity, and personal responsibility with the same alacrity that Barn dismisses evolution and climate change. Largely Atheists, agnostics, or humanists, they extoll their skepticism about the God of Abraham, all the while worshipping prostrate before the almighty god of big government.

They have not, as they imagine, abandoned the thought of, or need for, a god, they have merely substituted one god for another. Far from having gained independence, they have only shifted the object of their dependence to one just as arbitrary and controlling as the original. They suffer in essence from a very unhealthy codependence with government. I challenge them to rethink that codependency and discover real freedom at last.

Another trip through the environmental looking glass.

2011-04-09T09:24:00.000-05:00

So President Greenjeans, always anxious to steer our nation in a new direction, whether it's a proper direction or not is immaterial so long as it's new enough for him to take credit for it, pushed his company, Government Motors, to spring into production of the Volt, an electric automobile for which there was little market and none of the necessary infrastructure. Now we have the Volt, or Government Motors has it to be precise, and everything is going along swimmingly except for one minor issue, which is no one wants to plunk down 45 grand for an automobile the size of a tight jacket.

The price of course is one thing, the size and lack of infrastructure are others. But the real kicker can be found in a study done by a fellow by the name of George Hoffer, a professor of business at the University of Richmond who specializes in the automobile industry, whatever that means. Anyway, the professor did a financial analysis comparing the cost of owning one of those Volts with the cost of owning one of those awful, environment-destroying, gasoline-burning compacts, a Chevy Cruz, which is manufactured and sold by the very same Government Motors.

What Professor Hoffer's study concluded was that a person would have to drive the Volt a momentous 209,900 miles before any savings realized, including the massive and shameful government subsidies involved, would equal the cost of driving the Cruz. 209,900 miles, or roundtrip across America roughly thirty-eight times. It wants to take one's breath away.

It goes without saying then that for the foreseeable future Government Motors is stuck with the Volt, and we taxpayers are similarly stuck with forking over large subsidies to tree-hugging liberals with no sense of proportion. Not to mention millions of shares of stock in said company which are worth today less than the day they were issued. Is government wonderful, or what?

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Warplanes Strike Canada

2011-03-27T09:22:00.000-05:00

SNS, Washington DC – 27 March: The Pentagon announced this morning that U.S. Air Force F-18A warplanes have struck strategic targets in Ottawa and Toronto. Secretary of Defense William Gates was quoted as saying that “…no American ground troops have been deployed, nor are there any immediate plans for so doing. Our entire objective at this point is to pacify certain Canadian assets and demonstrate our displeasure at their refusal to be bullied into joining our Coalition of the Paid.”

When pressed by reporters as to why Canada and why now, President Barack Obama pointed out that “…up to now my administration has only been bombing and killing brown people in predominately Muslim nations. We felt it was important for our long-term relations with the Islamic world to show that we are not averse to killing a few white Christians and even some Atheists now and then. Besides, Canada is very close by, and thus bombing involved far less complex logistics and could be achieved at a far lower cost than if we had deployed assets somewhere farther away, Australia for example.”

And this, from dailycaller.com :

2011-03-21T07:49:00.001-05:00

Which famous golfer and part-time Commander-in-Chief said the following, back in 2002?

"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

(Answer: Barack Obama, Wednesday, October 2, 2002)

"The Bible is the unchanged, inerrant, Word of God. Isn't it?"

2011-03-19T11:02:00.003-05:00

Adapted from original at Truth-Saves.com.

CHANGES TO SCRIPTURES

Before scriptural texts were declared sacred they were fair game for revision. The texts we know today are not based on original scriptures but rather from copies of copies of copies. All these copies were copied by hand and during the copy process changes were occasionally made. Today we have discovered many copies of the scriptures from different time periods which allow us to literally see when changes were made and exactly how different the scriptures in the Bible are from that of the oldest copies. Familiar stories like Jesus and the Adulteress and his ascension to Heaven were both later additions.

THE ADULTERESS

In John 7:53-8:12, one of the best-known biblical stories, the Pharisees present Jesus with an adulteress to see if he will follow the old laws laid out by God and have her stoned or show her mercy. Jesus responds to this test by saying, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."

As it turns out though, this story was not originally in the Gospel of John or any of the other original Gospels. It is not found in any of the earliest surviving manuscripts, it is not in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John (P66 and P75) nor is it in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus. The writing style is also very different from what is found in the rest of John and includes a large number of words and phrases that are alien to the gospel. The story was actually added and snuck into the Bible some time during the late 4th century or early 5th century to make Jesus and the Bible appear more appealing.

ASCENSION TO HEAVEN

The ascension of Jesus up to Heaven does not actually appear in the original forms of any of the gospels. It was not until 200 years after the supposed event took place that the ascension was added to later copies of Mark and Luke. Mark originally ends with the discovery of an empty tomb. Mathew and John remain to have no mention of the ascension into heaven.

Mark 16:9-20 where Jesus ascends bodily to heaven is not in the earlier scriptures but rather was added later. None of the earliest scriptures that we have such as the Alexandrian Unical Mss, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus have versus 9-20, they all just end at 16:8. Also early Christian writers noted that the ascension was not in the earliest manuscripts. Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain the extended ending. Also there are significant linguistic and stylistic differences between 9-20 and the rest of Mark. As noted on page 103 of "An Introduction to the New Testament" by new testament scholar Douglas J. Moo, the longer ending also contains several non-Markan words and expressions.

MORE VERSES NOT FOUND IN EARLIER MANUSCRIPTS

John 5:4 - "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 5:7 - "The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me."
John 8:7 - "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
John 8:11 - "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Luke 24:12 - "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."
Luke 22:20 - "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Luke 22:44 - "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
Luke 24:51 - "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."
Mark 16:9-20 - "When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

Pricing Brains...

2011-03-11T10:15:00.003-06:00

In the hospital the relatives were gathered in the waiting room, where a family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber. 'I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news,' he said as he surveyed the worried faces. 'The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant. It's an experimental procedure, very risky, but it is the only hope. His insurance will cover the operation, but you will have to pay for the brain out of pocket.'

The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. After a time, someone asked, 'How much will a brain cost?'

The doctor quickly responded, '$15,000 for the brain of a religious person – you know, a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or such; or $2,500 for an Atheist’s brain.'

The moment turned awkward. Most of those assembled were Christians, except for Ed, the black sheep Atheist of the family, and they smiled at each other over the fact that their brains were considered so much more valuable than those of a non-believer. Finally Aunt Tilly, unable to control her curiosity, blurted out the question everyone was dying to ask, 'Why are believers’ brains so much more valuable than them-there non-believers’ brains?'

The doctor smiled at Tilly’s obvious innocence and patiently explained to the family, 'It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to price the Atheist brains a lot lower because, after all, they've been used.'

Spreading the News - Moral Atheism

2011-03-03T15:43:00.005-06:00

I had never done it before, never thought about it in fact, and I doubt that very many other Atheists have either, which is why I mention it.

Twice this week I engaged in what, just for fun, I'll refer to as spontaneous acts of morality. I am writing about them not to toot my own horn, Darwin knows I do enough of that, but hopefully to start a trend.

The first incident occurred in the parking lot of my local Kroger. An elderly man approached me, obviously distraught. The battery of his car was kaput, and the serviceman leaning against it had given him a price of $29 for the call and jump. The fellow explained he only had $11 and needed help. He held out his license to me and offered it as collateral until he could get to his bank and withdraw the money to repay me.

"Don't worry about it," I said as I returned his license and handed him a twenty dollar bill. "Pay me back by helping someone else out when the opportunity arises."

He accepted my offer with several thank yous and a promise he would do a good deed in return. He was halfway back to his car when it hit me, and I called out to him, "By the way sir..." He turn to face me and I finished, "Just so you know, I'm an Atheist." He looked puzzled at first, then smiled and waved.

Then today I was in a local wine shop. I had selected three bottles each of Orin Swift's The Prisoner and Abstract, both excellent zin blends, and a bottle of 1988 La Grande Dame Champagne. (A splurge to be sure on the Champagne, but they had it on sale for $139 and it goes for $199 everywhere else I've seen it.)

I got busy scanning my credit card while the clerk rang up my purchase. "That will be $179 with tax", he announced. I looked at him, then at the POS monitor which clearly read "Items: 6".

I picked up the bottle of Champagne, handed it back to him and said, "I suspect you missed this."

"No, I rang it up," he responded.

"You couldn't have," I insisted.

He finally examined the register tape and, sure enough, the Champagne hadn't scanned.

He looked stunned. "Wow, thanks for being honest, most people wouldn't have said anything."

I started to demur, then thought better of it, leaned across the counter and said softly, "By the way, just so you know, I'm an Atheist."

He stared at me for several seconds, then grabbed the box containing my purchase and said, "I insist you let me carry this to your car for you."

After placing the box in my car he held out his hand. "Thanks again."

Week after week, month after month, year in and year out, Atheists go about their lives at least as moral and caring as the population at large. At the same time we are constantly told that we can't be as moral as religious people, because, well, we don't have a god to scare the shit out of us.

Beginning this week, I am proclaiming my Atheism every time I do a good deed In doing so I intend to make it difficult at best for anyone with whom I have come in contact to ever think or repeat such a slur again. I strongly urge you to do the same.

REDNECK SHORTCUTS AND HINTS

2011-03-02T17:09:00.005-06:00

THESE REALLY WORK!!!

AVOID CUTTING YOURSELF WHEN SLICING VEGETABLES BY GETTING SOMEONE ELSE TO HOLD THE VEGETABLES WHILE YOU CHOP.
AVOID ARGUMENTS WITH THE FEMALES ABOUT LIFTING THE TOILET SEAT BY USING THE SINK.
FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE SUFFERERS -- SIMPLY CUT YOURSELF AND BLEED FOR A FEW MINUTES, THUS REDUCING THE PRESSURE ON YOUR VEINS. REMEMBER TO USE A TIMER.
A MOUSE TRAP PLACED ON TOP OF YOUR ALARM CLOCK WILL PREVENT YOU FROM ROLLING OVER AND GOING BACK TO SLEEP AFTER YOU HIT THE SNOOZE BUTTON.
IF YOU HAVE A BAD COUGH, TAKE A LARGE DOSE OF LAXATIVES . THEN YOU'LL BE AFRAID TO COUGH.
YOU ONLY NEED TWO TOOLS IN LIFE - WD-40 AND DUCT TAPE. IF IT DOESN'T MOVE AND SHOULD, USE THE WD-40. IF IT SHOULDN'T MOVE AND DOES, USE THE DUCT TAPE.
IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER, YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM.

It's the Damnedest Thing!

2011-02-23T11:50:00.001-06:00

We live on a golf course, with a small pond just beyond the tee area that abuts our property. It looks like this:

Since last Spring I have been telling friends and family that from time to time I have seen a beaver in and about the pond. Normal reactions have been "What, you can't tell the difference between a beaver and a muskrat?", or "You know, rats do get really big in Texas."

This morning I noticed that a tree that was close to the pond was down. We had some heavy winds a couple of nights ago, and at first I thought it might have succumbed to them. Then I took a second look.

Anybody willing to venture a guess what happened to yon tree? Look closely...

I rest my case, oh ye of little faith.

The Incredible Shrinking Progressive Mind...

2011-02-23T07:56:00.001-06:00

Last evening I engaged in the following "conversation" with an extreme Liberal on Facebook. In addition to the errors I point out below, Mr. Stone also under-guessed (He obviously made no effort to discern any facts) the Federal excise tax on gasoline, which is $0.184 itself. (I overlooked that fact in my original comment, I'll plead a combination of the lateness of the day as well as my incredulousness with the gentleman's complete intellectual vacuousness.) Please note especially the claim of Mr. Stone that anything that wasn't state or federal excise tax was "profit" to the company. This is the total lack of education and logical thinking we are dealing with as we strive to rebuild our nation. It may be hopeless.

This morning Mr. Stone "unfriended" me. His loss, not mine, because he gave up the only connection to fact and common sense he apparently had.

John Stone Today - Tue Feb 22, 2011 -- Up again! Look at diesel prices.

Here in Nevada 85% of the gas price is PROFIT - Only 15.5 % is state, county & Federal taxes

Omar Mack Its crazier than you think. Check gas price tracker at gasbuddy.com

Diesel is over $4 here in parts of San Diego

John Stone DAMN!!!!!!! And it is gonna keep climbing as long as teabagers/gop keep charging ahead!

John Eli Shuey ‎"Profit"? John, you are an idiot! What about the cost of exploration, recovery, transportation, refining, and distribution? What about the cost of the (station) building, and its taxes? What about the labor costs? What about employment, real estate, and income taxes? Did you know, did you care, that the profit margins of oil companies is slightly lower than the average profit margin of all S&P 500 companies? Do you even know the difference between selling price and profit margin, or gross profit and net profit? You and your progressive friends are freaking ignorant!

You see, here’s the thing: A Reality Check for Supporters of our Huge Government Status Quo.

2011-02-21T12:13:00.002-06:00

Regardless of the tax scheme, marginal rates, or any other trick you might try, effective tax revenues always max out at about 20% of GDP. It’s a fact of economics.

Our problem therefore is not that we are not raising enough revenues, we clearly are maxing out the 20% ceiling, but that for 50 years or more we have tolerated our politicians – usually in an unholy alliance with unions, bureaucrats, corporations, and academics – to vastly exceed the 20% level in spending. Take in 20%, spend 30%, and pretty soon the debt poop will hit the economic fan. That is where we are today, and the longer we wait the worse it will get.

One can lament all they want about how we cannot cut this program or sacrifice that spending, but the fact is we must reduce government outlays a minimum of 33% if we are to survive as a going enterprise. If you think things are tough now, you do not want to live in a nation where government can no longer borrow, where the dollar is devalued over the next ten years by the same 94% that it was over the past sixty years, and where there are no funds available for investment, growth, and job creation.

Suck it up now folks or be prepared for much worse very soon.

The Top Ten Reasons to Adopt a Greyhound...

2011-02-21T08:12:00.001-06:00

10. They truly know the meaning of retirement.

9. People will stare at your dog instead of at you.

8. They can curl up to the size of a ball if they need to.

7. They can expand to the size of the whole bed if they want to.

6. They don't bark, keeping your neighborhood safe for burglars.

5. You can play their ribs like an air guitar.

4. They are the only dogs that know how to really smile.

3. You can dress them up as a reindeer for Christmas.

2. They are never confused with poodles.

1. A Greyhound in flight is the most amazing sight you'll ever hope to see in your own back yard.

An Open Letter to Mr. Banik and Other Uninformed Gun Control Advocates

2011-02-12T11:44:00.000-06:00

This morning an FB friend that I like and agree with on most issues challenged supporters of gun rights to cite just one case where an individual carrying a firearm stopped a mass murder spree.

Why Subrata, a naturalized citizen of Canada, is so concerned about folks in The U.S. exercising their Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms is an interesting issue, but I will respond to his challenge never-the-less. Following are four such examples, and then a few additional facts:

1) In December 2007, Matthew Murray pledged he wanted to kill as many Christians as he could. The 24-year-old went to New Life Church in Colorado Springs and opened fire, killing 4 people in the process. Thankfully, an armed female congregant was able to draw her weapon and shoot Murray several times, stopping him from killing any others.

2) In 2002, a shooting at Appalachian School of Law left three people dead. However, the shooter was stopped before he could kill any more because two students were able to run to their cars, get their guns, and use their weapons to halt the rampage.

3) Reuters reported on July 6, 1999: "A shootout at a California shooting range ended a bizarre hostage drama ... Sgt. Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department said the aspiring gunman, 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens ... 'intended to go out in a blaze of glory,' noting Stevens had accumulated more than 100 rounds of ammunition for his rented 9 mm semi-automatic weapon. " 'It certainly looks like he intended to take a lot more people out.'
"Morec said Stevens arrived at the National Shooting Club Monday evening and rented the rifle for target practice. ... After several minutes on the range, however, Stevens returned to the club's gun store and shot at the ceiling. He then herded three store employees out the door into an alley, saying he intended to kill them. "Unknown to Stevens, one store employee was carrying a .45-caliber handgun concealed beneath his shirt. When Stevens looked away, the employee fired, hitting Stevens several times in the chest and bringing him to the ground."
After Stevens was hospitalized, police found a note to his parents, predicting they would be bankrupted by lawsuits from the relatives of his intended "victims." Reuters said police concluded that, "The quick action by the gun club employee may have headed off a massacre."

4) On December 7th of 2007, an unemployed man with a police record decided, according to a note found later, to go out in a blaze of glory by killing as many people at an Omaha mall as possible before committing suicide. A story in a local paper reported: "As Mr. Hawkins moved into the ideal sniper position on the upper deck, an unnamed middle-aged man emerging from the nearby Von Maur department store noticed his odd behavior and glimpsed the muzzle of the rifle peeking out from the sweater. Almost instinctively the man moved toward Mr. Hawkins, reaching to his belt to draw out a Springfield EMP, a small, 9mm semi-automatic handgun.

As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.

By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins — a young, single woman pulled a .40 caliber Glock 27 from her purse, and a retired farmer drew his 9mm Ruger SR9 (an early Christmas gift from his wife). Together with the first man they moved in to separate Mr. Hawkins from his gun, search him for other weapons and restrain him until law enforcement arrived.

Had Mr. Banik wished, he could have found these stories and others, but even though he eschews firearms he still chose to shoot from the hip.

Now for the facts: 1) In every state that has enacted right to carry laws, every one, violent crime has dropped in the years following enactment in spite of the fact that gun ownership and the number of armed citizens walking the streets increased. 2) Three studies, two by liberal academics and the other by the Clinton Justice Department, have estimated that the number of crimes prevented by legally armed citizens range from between 1.5 million and 2.5 million annually, usually with no shots being fired. That's over 6,000 murders, rapes, and violent assaults EVERY DAY.

I have chosen to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family because I know the police can't and won't. The unfortunate fact that Subrata ignores is that he doesn't even have the right to make that choice. I hope he never has cause to regret it.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

2011-02-11T15:30:00.001-06:00

From the folks over at STOPGEEK.COM

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

On Artichokes and the “New Christianity”

2011-02-08T10:35:00.001-06:00

I was thirty years old before I ate my first artichoke. At least knowingly.

Growing up in the 1950s in rural south-central Pennsylvania there were no such strange thing-a-ma-bobs to be had. It wasn’t until I was established in my career and visiting a friend in California that I was introduced to what I still regard as one of the strangest of foods.

I got to thinking about artichokes again a few days ago as I was reading yet another Christian apologist whining that atheists simply do not understand his religion. Atheists, he wrote, draw on the worst of biblical passages, thereby creating a straw man of sorts which they can then attack and demolish with glee.

But that’s not what he and many other Christians believe. Their religion, he says, is more mature and much more sophisticated than that.

How quaint, not to mention misleading.

The facts are that Christianity is totally dependent on just a handful of ideas:

Original sin: We are all stained with the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and therefore in need of redemption;
Sacrificial atonement: Because of our burden of original sin, we can neither come to really know nor be accepted by god unless we acknowledge the sacrificial atonement offered to and for us by god through “…his only begotten son…”; and
The Second Coming: Jesus will return to earth to judge us, for either our deeds or our acceptance of his sacrifice or both, depending on which sect’s interpretation of scripture and tradition one finds oneself relying.

Growing up out of or around these essential premises are a number of other traditional Christian claims:

The Abrahamic god is the mover and shaker of creation, whether 6,000 or thirteen billion years ago;
Jesus was born of a virgin;
Jesus performed miracles;
Jesus was crucified, expired, and was then resurrected; and finally
In front of his followers he ascended into heaven.

The above in various forms and combinations flow together in one way or another to form the core tenets of every one of the vast conglomeration of belief systems that is in general referred to as Christianity.

For the past few centuries however science, biblical criticism, history, archaeology, and philosophy have been casting a less than flattering light on these claims. Evolution itself is the ultimate monkey wrench in Christianity’s spokes, for with no historic Adam and Eve in a garden, the whole thesis unravels rather quickly. No Garden, no original sin, no need for a sacrifice to redeem that sin, and so on. All of which explains the eagerness of so many Christian groups to attack Evolution and try to prevent it from being taught in our schools.

And so presto, a new, more “sophisticated” Christianity emerges. Just as one eats an artichoke by peeling away the hard, bitter outer leaves to get at the tender, more desirable innards, the “New Christians” now seek to peel away the undesirable and unsupportable outer surfaces of their god and resulting Christianity to find comfort in a more mellow and digestible core.

Adam and Eve? "Well no, that’s only metaphor." (No kidding!)
Leviticus? "Straw man!"
Virgin birth? "Who knows? Maybe yes, sort of, maybe no, but hey, it really doesn’t matter."
Miracles? "Define miracle."
Resurrection? "Absolutely! Probably. You can’t prove it didn’t happen."

What is left as those unsavory outer leaves are stripped away however is at its core not Christianity, in spite of the howls of protest. It may be a form of spiritualism. It may have an amorphous god with a philosopher – teacher Jesus as its anchor. It is however neither Christianity by any historic definition nor as large swaths of dedicated followers believe and practice it today.

One cannot help but wonder just how far the New Christians will peel their artichoke, how much of their formerly inviolate faith they are willing to sacrifice in order to make their god and brand of “the Faith” palatable in an increasingly rational twenty-first century. Then again, as annoying as they are being at present with their new-found sophistication, maybe we should actually encourage them to continue with their symbolic peeling.

After all, once they strip away enough myth, superstition, and related nonsense, invariably they cannot help but to find themselves at the very same place we Atheists have been for a long time.

A Fish of a Different Color.

2011-01-30T17:05:00.003-06:00

OK…So I’m tooling along Hebron Parkway (Yeah, it’s Texas) between Plano and my place when a fellow in a red Ford van cuts in front of me. No problem, I’m not in a huge hurry so I back off a bit. That was when I noticed it…the ubiquitous “Christian Fish”... prominently displayed on his rear bumper. More and more these days I find myself in awe of how few brain waves some folks manage to get by on.

A while later, after Mr. High Testosterone Christian had weaved into yet another lane, I passed him when he got stuck behind another car. A moment later he was on my tail and, via my rearview mirror, I noticed him leaning front, seeming to stare at MY bumper.

"I wonder", I thought. Yeah, as you might have guessed, my bumper sports a “Darwin Fish”. Can’t let superstitious crackers go totally unchallenged now, can we?

Well soon HTC swung into the outside lane and, believe it or not, I saw him glaring at me as he whipped past. I really did try to suppress my smile. Honest.

Once home, I started wondering about the whole fish thing. When, how did it become a Christian symbol? I had always thought it originated with Yeshua himself, or at least with the earliest Christians. So I did some research, and…

It’s true that the old water-walker supposedly referred to his disciples as “fishers of men”, and we all know the story about how he even out-did the make-do prowess of my Aunt Sarah by feeding almost a gazillion hangers-on with some day-old bread and a couple of ripe fish, but, and here’s the thing…there is no evidence the fish was all that important a symbol of the original Jesus Movement.

Rather, the fish was a religious symbol in pagan cultures at least six centuries before Mary pulled the wool over Joseph’s eyes with her incredible story.

Barbara G. Walker, in "The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects", writes that the acronym (using the greek spelling of fish) pertaining to Jesus was a "rationale invented after the fact". Christians simply copied this pagan symbol along with all the other pagan symbols they pinched -- Christmas on the winter solstice, Easter following the vernal equinox, the virgin birth, sacrifice and resurrection…all well known symbols and myths predating Jesus.

Ichthys was the offspring son of the ancient Sea goddess Atargatis, and was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia or Delphine. The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues, and representations appear in the mythology of mermaids. The fish is also a central element in other myths, including the Goddess of Ephesus (who has a fish amulet covering her genital region), and the tale of the fish that swallowed the penis of Osiris. A fish was also considered a symbol of the vulva of Isis.

Along with being a generative and reproductive spirit in mythology, the fish also has been identified in certain cultures with reincarnation and the life force. Sir James George Frazer noted in his work, "Adonis, Attis, Osiris: Studies in the History of Oriental Religion" that among one group in India, the fish was believed to house a deceased soul, and that as part of a fertility ritual specific fish is eaten in the belief that it will be reincarnated in a newborn child.

So well before Christianity then, the fish symbol was well known among the ancients. Another example is as "the Great Mother," a pointed oval sign, the "vesica piscis" or Vessel of the Fish. "Fish" and "womb" were synonymous terms in ancient Greek,"delphos." Its link to fertility, birth, feminine sexuality and the natural force of women was acknowledged also by the Celts, as well as pagan cultures throughout northern Europe.

Eleanor Gaddon traces a "Cult of the Fish Mother" as far back as the hunting and fishing people of the Danube River Basin in the sixth millennium B.C.E. Over fifty shrines have been found throughout the region which depict a fishlike deity, a female creature who "incorporates aspects of an egg, a fish and a woman which could have been a primeval creator or a mythical ancestress..." The "Great Goddess" was portrayed elsewhere with oversized breasts, accentuated buttocks and a conspicuous vaginal orifice, the upright "vesica piscis" which Christians later adopted and rotated 90-degrees to serve as their symbol.

Look…if you’re a Christian and this upsets you, I’m sorry. But I have a duty to you…to hold up the truth in front of you, to show you that your religion isn’t some bright, new revelation, but rather a compilation of myths and practices that can be traced as far back in human history as we can see. There is nothing new about the claims made for your Christ – shepherds, caves, virgins, savior, resurrection…all retreads, all seen many times before, all well-known myths to folks living in first century Palestine.

And the fish is just one more Christian retread.

So get ye hence and, if you must prostrate your intellect to one or another superstition, at least try to find an original one.

Food for thought:

2011-01-28T15:45:00.000-06:00

"In the 12th chapter of Joshua is given a list of 31 kingdoms which were conquered by Israel. This was in the fifteenth century B.C. From this time forward they are represented as a mighty nation by the Bible and Christian apologists. But the facts say other.

Rameses III overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it. The children of Israel-- the Hebrews-- were not there.

In the 5th century B.C., when Herodotus, the father of History, was collecting materials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion of Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places; but the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a line from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king." -- John E. Remsburg, The Bible (1901), pg. 263.

State of the Union in 50 Seconds...

2011-01-26T15:18:00.000-06:00

This Opportunity is Limited!

2011-01-07T10:01:00.001-06:00

I hereby announce the formation of a dynamic new religious opportunity, Atheists for Christ.^tm

Further, it has been revealed unto me that I have been anointed Prophet-in-Chief, thereby serving as the sole source of all AfC revelation.

Additionally, in as much as it has also been revealed to me that Heaven is much smaller than previously thought, membership will need to be limited to only 250,000 on a first come, first served basis. Of these, only 50,000 of the saved may be males. (The number of faithful dogs however is unlimited.)

The initial membership donation has been set at $39.95, with an annual renewal and soul-cleansing donation of $19.95. (Life memberships are available for $199.95) Try beating that at your run of the mill church down the street.

In return for your membership and complete submission to my revelations, you will receive absolutely nothing.

But that’s not all! Act now, and as an added bonus I guarantee that all your prayers will be answered at precisely the same rate and with results identical to those you experienced in the Abrahamic Faith of your previous choice. (Sorry, bonus cannot be extended to godless heathens.)

Since ours is a digital faith, there will be no edifices of worship, no clerics, and no missionaries, meaning that your tax base will not be further eroded, your children will be safer from clerical molestation, and your dinner will never be interrupted.

Make out your checks today to John E. Shuey and mail to 4457 Empty Skies Drive, Skepticville, TX, 75666. (Female applicants please include a recent photo of yourself in a bathing suit or lingerie.)

“May nothing be with you.”^tm

Mea Culpa. Sort of.

2010-12-29T13:41:00.000-06:00

Ok, so I am usually critical of government, government programs, and especially government employees. I need to slightly modify my schtick, and here's why:

Last week I put a hold on our mail delivery because we were planning to spend this week in Key West. Then, on Christmas, my mother-in-law died and the trip was off.

Consequently, on Sunday, I cancelled the hold mail request.

Monday no mail came. Ok, it may take a while for the cancellation to make its way through the system.

Tuesday, still no mail. Hmmmm...

Today, our mail carrier whizzed by our mailbox again, so I flagged her down. No, she reported, she had not gotten word of the cancellation, but would start our delivery tomorrow. Government.

An hour ago our doorbell rang; it was our carrier, with her private vehicle and on her way home for the day, dropping off our accumulated mail. Damn!

Is there any way just to make this woman President for life?

Liberty vs Big Government: An Insight from The Advocates for Self-Government

2010-12-13T09:27:00.000-06:00

Libertarians have lots of great answers to political questions.

Sometimes, however, it's better to ask questions instead of giving answers. Asking the right question, or asking a question in the right way, can stimulate mind-opening insights.

Here's one example of a great question, from Wall Street Journal editor John Fund.

Suppose someone is talking about the need for a major government role in providing for the poor. Instead of lecturing the person (which could start an argument and put the person on the defensive), try asking this question:

"Imagine you won the lottery or otherwise came into a large sum of money, and you wanted to help the poor. You could give $100,000 to a private charity of your choice. Or you could write your check to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Which would you choose -- and why?"

Virtually no one chooses government! And in answering the question, people convince themselves of the advantages of charity over government.

Questions make people think. It's amazing how often people will come up with the libertarian answer to a problem, if you give them a chance. And if they do so, they are more likely to accept that answer.

Visit The Advocates for Self-Government.

Kill the Freaking Goose. Screw the Barnyard.

2010-12-09T12:40:00.000-06:00

Some folks would rather strangle the golden goose than lift up the entire barnyard.

Purportedly the friends of the working class and down-trodden, once again the Pelosi Left in the House of Representatives has exhibited its true colors.

Presented with the opportunity to reach a number of their prized goals (or what they claim to be their prized goals), the Pelosi-ites instead reverted to their time-honored tradition of not just wealth envy, but a visceral hatred of the wealthy.

As a result, taxes will increase on the working poor by 50%, benefits will not be extended for the chronically unemployed, and scores of millions of lower and middle income workers will not see an economy-stimulating 2% reduction in their payroll taxes. All…all willingly sacrificed in order to punish our nation’s most productive and successful citizens.

Why not raise taxes on these wealthy few, moan the envious enemies of getting ahead, after all they represent such a very small minority.

To which one must logically respond: If the numbers are so few, why not forgo using them for political whipping things and instead help the much larger number you claim to care so much about? No need to respond; we all know the answer.

Climate Change -- The Rational Middle

2010-11-22T09:06:00.001-06:00

The Why, not the What...

2010-11-15T14:30:00.004-06:00

The following video can, I believe, be a great help in jump starting the Liberty Movement, and bringing large and small L libertarians into positions to correct the excesses of the past as well as chart a future where the rights and interests of the individual are not just preserved, but cherished.

A tip of my hat to John Jay Myers.

"Why do some Atheists seem so angry?"

2010-10-12T11:08:00.011-05:00

.
I get a lot of the "Why are you so angry?" bullshit. Not nearly so much as many of my more famous and thus more exposed contemporaries of course, but enough to warrant an answer.

I was in the midst of formulating a response when I happened upon one "Sam Singleton, Atheist Evangelist". In the accompanying brief video, Brother Sam does a far better job of explaining the source of "Atheist anger", as well as its actual target (No, it's not some imaginary, invisible patch of ectoplasm in-the-sky), than I ever could.

So here, speaking largely for me, and I suspect fifteen to twenty million other Atheists in this U S of A, is Brother Sam Singleton:

Heaven, or Hell?

2010-10-03T09:34:00.000-05:00

While walking down the street one day a corrupt Senator was tragically hit by a car and died.

Instantaneously his soul arrived in heaven and was met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," said St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the Senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really? But I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," the Senator replied.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

So St. Peter escorted him to the elevator and down, down, down he went to hell.

The doors opened and, to his surprise, the Senator found himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance was a clubhouse and standing in front of it were all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone seemed very happy and in evening dress. Seeing him, they ran to greet him, shook his hand, and reminisced about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. Together they played a friendly game of golf and then dined on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne

During the festivities Satan walked in, a very friendly guy who had a good time dancing and telling jokes.

Before the Senator realized it, his day was up and it was time to return to heaven.

Everyone gave him a hearty farewell and waved as the elevator began its ascent.

The elevator rose up, up, up, and finally the door opened in heaven where St. Peter stood waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven", the kindly old Saint beckoned.

The next twenty-four hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. Again, he had a good time and, before he realized it St. Peter had returned and stood before him.

"Well then", he said, "you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity.

The Senator reflected for a minute before he answered. "Well, I would never have thought it, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be happier and better off back down in hell."

St. Peter dutifully escorted him to the elevator, and in no time he was plunging back down, down, down to hell.

Finally the doors of the elevator opened and to his utter shock he found himself in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He located all his friends, who now were dressed in rags, bending and picking up trash and putting it in bags as more trash continued to fall from above and flames rose all around them.

Satan walked over to him and put his arm around his shoulders.

"I don't understand," stammered the Senator. "Yesterday when I was here there was a golf course and a clubhouse, and we all ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened? I don't understand"

The devil smiled knowingly at him and replied, "Yesterday was the campaign. Then you voted. Now the election is over."

Choose wisely on November 2nd my friends.

Vote Libertarian.

Madison on the proper role of government...

2010-07-07T15:08:00.007-05:00

What does the Constitution say about the proper role of government? Just what was the intent of its framers?

James Madison is regarded as both the primary author of the Constitution and a prime mover of the Bill of Rights. On 03 March, 1809 Madison was inaugurated as the fourth president of the United States, and defined his goals and intentions as:

"To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well as its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the rights of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and the freedom of the press; to observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberties can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote by authorized means improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufacturers, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor in like manner the advancement of science and the diffusion of information as the best aliment to true liberty;…”

Once we get beyond the incredible length of this single, run-on sentence, two things come to mind:

All or at worst most of what he said could be mistaken as coming from a Libertarian Party platform, and
Neither of the two major parties have even taken a single phrase in the address, much less the entirety of its intent, seriously.

Genesis explained...

2010-06-03T06:44:00.002-05:00

Came across this and just had to share it:

CHANGE WE CAN REALLY BELIEVE IN --

2010-04-21T09:29:00.002-05:00

The Obama Gone counter:

(http://www.obamacountdownwidget.com/)

This Just Isn't That Hard to Understand!

2010-04-13T21:01:00.007-05:00

If you don't get this, you are beyond all learning...

The Parade of Jobs. And vice versa.

2010-04-12T16:30:00.003-05:00

So I’m casually scanning an article in Sunday’s Parade Magazine about how much money people make, mostly because I’m an Atheist and my life is therefore devoid of all meaning.

The first thing I notice is an attractive lady from MA who is a “Career counselor” and who earns $33,700. Now maybe it’s just me, but wouldn’t you be just a little hesitant to take career advice from someone making south of 40G? “Our tests indicate you have an innate ability to master the complexities of quantum physics, and there are great jobs open for greeters at Wal-Mart.”

Then there was the young lady from UT who listed her job as “Modern dancer” and her annual income as $23,000. OK. Who wants to bet she voted for Obama and is just thrilled with the free healthcare she has coming so she will be able to continue to pursue her dream? Of course somewhere out there is someone far less thrilled about being forced to finance her fantasy, but hey, redistribution is what Obamaville is all about.

C. Frog Price of AL comes in a $0, plus unemployment, since he was laid of from his job as an ad sales manager last summer. Froggy cannot understand why it is so difficult to find another job in his chosen field. I suggest that Froggy look in a mirror, and then give some thought to losing that “been lost in the Northwoods for going-on four years” look.

One Sonia Sotomayor earns $208,100 as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Nice work if you can get it, and based on recent appointments (and rumors of appointments) apparently you can get it providing you are unaware that the United State is a Constitutional Republic.

Another interesting thing about the list: among the highest earning folks in the report are TV and Hollywood types that are darlings (and advocates) of the left. I wonder why we never hear complaints about the multi-tens of millions of dollars pulled down by people who slide through life, well, pretending to be someone other than who they are? Did you ever hear a call from Obama for a Czar to oversee Hollywood salaries?

Some ex-football player named Michael Vick gets paid $1,600,000 a year by the Philadelphia Eagles, one would guess to keep him from playing for some other team.

In RI we find a 33 year old male whose calling in life is as a “barista”. It sounds cool, I guess, but at 20 grand a year can the time be far away when his mother tells him to find a real job and get the hell out of her basement?

Last and surely least is the lady minister in the Midwest "earning" a full $5,800 for doing her deity's heavy lifting. Being a market oriented person, I can only observe that her pay is simply the market's judgement on what her life's work is worth.

I could go on, the pickings are ripe, but what’s the point? Besides, I have a Satanic Brotherhood baby cook-off in another hour and I need to change costumes.

The Culture Gap

2010-04-10T09:48:00.002-05:00

I came across this today in one of my saved file folders. I decided to post it here because yesterday I was "unfriended" on facebook by someone who became apoplectic over my linking to a Neal Boortz column describing most transfer payment recipients as "moochers". How could I be so unfeeling? I don't know, I guess I just get irritable when my pocket is being picked.

Brink Lindsey is vice president for research at the Cato Institute and author of The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture.

Cut through all the statistical squid ink surrounding the issue of economic inequality, and you'll find a phenomenon that genuinely deserves public concern.

Over the past quarter-century or so, the return on human capital has risen significantly. Or to put it another way, the opportunity cost of failing to develop human capital is now much higher than it used to be. The wage premium associated with a college degree has jumped to around 70% in recent years from around 30% in 1980; the graduate degree premium has soared to over 100% from 50%. Meanwhile, dropping out of high school now all but guarantees socioeconomic failure.

In part this development is cause for celebration. Rising demand for analytical and interpersonal skills has been driving the change, and surely it is good news that economic signals now so strongly encourage the development of human talent.

Yet -- and here is the cause for concern -- the supply of skilled people is responding sluggishly to the increased demand. Despite the strong incentives, the percentage of people with college degrees has been growing only modestly. Between 1995 and 2005, the share of men with college degrees inched up to 29% from 26%. And the number of high school dropouts remains stubbornly high: The ratio of 17-year-olds to diplomas awarded has been stuck around 70% for three decades.

Something is plainly hindering the effectiveness of the market's carrots and sticks. And that something is culture.

Before explaining what I mean, let me go back to the squid ink and clarify what's not worrisome about the inequality statistics. For those who grind their ideological axes on these numbers, the increase in measured inequality since the 1970s is proof that the new, more competitive, more entrepreneurial economy of recent decades (which also happens to be less taxed and less unionized) has somehow failed to provide widespread prosperity. According to left-wing doom-and-gloomers, only an "oligarchy" at the very top is benefiting from the current system.

Hogwash. This argument can be disposed of with a simple thought experiment. First, picture the material standard of living you could have afforded back in 1979 with the median household income then of $16,461. Now picture the mix of goods and services you could buy in 2004 with the median income of $44,389. Which is the better deal? Only the most blinkered ideologue could fail to see the dramatic expansion of comforts, conveniences and opportunities that the contemporary family enjoys.

Much of the increase in measured inequality has nothing to do with the economic system at all. Rather, it is a product of demographic changes. Rising numbers of both single-parent households and affluent dual-earner couples have stretched the income distribution; so, too, has the big influx of low-skilled Hispanic immigrants. Meanwhile, in a 2006 paper published in the American Economic Review, economist Thomas Lemieux calculated that roughly three-quarters of the rise in wage inequality among workers with similar skills is due simply to the fact that the population is both older and better educated today than it was in the 1970s.

It is true that superstars in sports, entertainment and business now earn stratospheric incomes. But what is that to you and me? If the egalitarian left has been reduced to complaining that people in the 99th income percentile in a given year (and they're not the same people from year to year) are leaving behind those in the 90th percentile, it has truly arrived at the most farcical of intellectual dead ends.

Which brings us back to the real issue: the human capital gap, and the culture gap that impedes its closure. The most obvious and heartrending cultural deficits are those that produce and perpetuate the inner-city underclass.

Consider this arresting fact: While the poverty rate nationwide is 13%, only 3% of adults with full-time, year-round jobs fall below the poverty line. Poverty in America today is thus largely about failing to get and hold a job, any job.

The problem is not lack of opportunity. If it were, the country wouldn't be a magnet for illegal immigrants. The problem is a lack of elementary self-discipline: failing to stay in school, failing to live within the law, failing to get and stay married to the mother or father of your children. The prevalence of all these pathologies reflects a dysfunctional culture that fails to invest in human capital.

Other, less acute deficits distinguish working-class culture from that of the middle and upper classes. According to sociologist Annette Lareau, working-class parents continue to follow the traditional, laissez-faire child-rearing philosophy that she calls "the accomplishment of natural growth." But at the upper end of the socioeconomic scale, parents now engage in what she refers to as "concerted cultivation" -- intensively overseeing kids' schoolwork and stuffing their after-school hours and weekends with organized enrichment activities.

This new kind of family life is often hectic and stressful, but it inculcates in children the intellectual, organizational and networking skills needed to thrive in today's knowledge-based economy. In other words, it makes unprecedented, heavy investments in developing children's human capital.

Consider these data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, an in-depth survey of educational achievement. Among students who received high scores in eighth grade mathematics (and thus showed academic promise), 74% of kids from the highest quartile of socioeconomic status (measured as a composite of parental education, occupations and family income) eventually earned a college degree. By contrast, the college graduation rate fell to 47% for kids from the middle two quartiles, and 29% for those in the bottom quartile. Perhaps more generous financial aid might affect those numbers at the margins, but at the core of these big differentials are differences in the values, skills and habits taught in the home.

Contrary to the warnings of the alarmist left, the increase in economic inequality does not mean the economic system isn't working properly. On the contrary, the system is delivering more opportunities for comfortable, challenging lives than our culture enables us to take advantage of. Far from underperforming, our productive capacity has now outstripped our cultural capacity.

Alas, there is no silver bullet for closing the culture gap. But the public institutions most directly responsible for human capital formation are the nation's schools, and it seems beyond serious dispute that in many cases they are failing to discharge their responsibilities adequately. Those interested in reducing meaningful economic inequality would thus be well advised to focus on education reform. And forget about adding new layers of bureaucracy and top-down controls. Real improvements will come from challenging the moribund state-school monopoly with greater competition.

This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on July 9, 2007.

It's Begging to be Said...

2010-03-31T13:57:00.003-05:00

Something needs to be said and damn, I’m just the person to say it.

“Social Conservatives” are not Conservatives. Period. They’ve corrupted the word.

Sure, they give lip-service to concepts like liberty, small government, and lower taxes, but they cannot be taken at their word, not for one second.

A real Conservative wants smaller government and maximum freedom every time and in every possible way. Real Conservatives are not concerned with who a person loves, what they choose to imbibe, what books are on the library shelf or movies playing in the local theatre, or what “instruments” any of their fellow citizens might keep in their nightstand drawer.

Real Conservatives do not believe in taxing their fellow citizens to prop up foreign dictators, initiate the “second coming”, or send young Americans halfway around the world to force democracy or Christianity on others.

Real Conservatives cherish and defend the Constitution, the whole Constitution. They would never pick and choose those parts convenient to their cause while ignoring those parts that might prove problematic for their goals.

In short, “Social Conservatives” are more correctly referred to as Theocrats, willing, even anxious, to use the power and purse strings of government to force their personal morality and beliefs on their fellow citizens while at the same time promoting their own religious agenda on courthouse walls, over school public address systems, and in other public – meaning taxpayer funded - spaces.

Barry Goldwater was a Conservative. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, and most everyone else claiming to be these days, are not.

Civil Forfeiture - Policing for Profit

2010-03-30T14:06:00.001-05:00

From the Institute for Justice --

Pat Condell is back...

2010-03-27T11:30:00.001-05:00

... and boy is he ever pissed!

On grasping defeat from the jaws of victory...

2010-03-22T08:34:00.005-05:00

It has been said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In 280 BC at Heraclea and again in 279 BC at Asculum, King Pyrrhus of Epirus forced Roman legions to withdraw from the battlefield defeated. The casualties imposed on Pyrrhus' forces in those two victories however proved devastating, as the Romans regrouped, resupplied, and eventually prevailed. From this chain of events we derive the phrase “pyrrhic victory”, an initial win that ultimately leads to defeat.

So shall it be with the leftist win in the healthcare battle. The forces of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, by employing bribes, threats, and promises they cannot keep, won a narrow victory in the House of Representatives this past 21 March, but in so doing they ensured the ultimate demise of their power and agenda.

By insisting on ramming through a measure that a clear majority of Americans opposed, the Democrats set the stage for a Republican resurgence in November. Historically the party out of power picks up a few seats in off-year elections, it just seems to be the nature of things. The Democrats however, by thumbing their noses at the will of the people, put in jeopardy every seat they picked up in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and perhaps more.

It would appear from the consensus of all major polls that the best the Democrats can hope for come November are drastically weakened majorities in Congress, with the GOP building significantly on its ability to veto any Democratic initiative in the Senate. Some pundits are predicting a GOP takeover in both houses, but to me that seems unlikely at this point. What is likely however is that both the leftist clique in Congress and President Obama are now finished and will be unable to dominate the agenda going forward.

What is most interesting is that the left is not insured of ever seeing their “reforms” take place. Certainly the GOP in the Senate, whether with 52 seats or 40-some, will be able to block any and all funding and enabling legislation. Without appropriated funding, no new agencies can be formed nor can existing departments and agencies execute any of the language of the just-pasted bill.

Given a couple of years of court fights, the resistance of thirty-some states through opposition legislation, and the inability to actually put any of their grand scheme into action, the vote on 21 March must be considered a catastrophic pyrrhic victory for the left, a foolhardy and fatal monument to the arrogance and narcissism that has marked their governance.

Prove it!

2010-02-21T12:51:00.004-06:00

One of the most pathetic of all arguments rationalists get from theists, and let's face if, they're all pretty pathetic, is that we "can't prove God doesn't exist." Please.

Secure in their ignorance, these simple folks really believe this is a killer argument.

I will set aside Christopher Hitchen's quip, "That which can be asserted with no evidence may be rejected with no evidence", even though it does cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Rather today I want to examine their claim in a somewhat differing light, offering an example which I hope will assist even the truest of believers in recognizing the thinness of the ice on which they have chosen to skate.

First a lesson in basic logic. Existential statements, those asserting that there is a (non-mathematical) entity possessing a specific property (or set of non-contradictory properties) can never be conclusively disproved...that is just the nature of any such proposition. Should theists therefore take comfort in this fact? Can they?

The answer is a resounding no, and where my example comes into play, because no matter how absurd a claim for existence is it can never be completely disproved.

I can claim, and I hereby do, that somewhere on our planet there exists a dog which can and does speak perfect English out of its butt, and I challenge theists (or anyone else for that matter) to prove me wrong. Before you injure yourself attempting to jump through logical hoops however, permit me to assist you. It cannot be done.

No one can look everywhere, check every dog, and say with total authority that I am wrong because there is always the probability that they have missed something somewhere or even, in this case at least, come across a butt-speaking dog which was not in the mood to cooperate.

Although they cannot be disproved, existential claims can on the other hand be proved quite simply. In the case above, all I need to do to prove my claim is to present the dog in question and the argument is over.

And so it is, my theist friends, that I need to ask: Where, precisely, is YOUR butt-speaking dog?

Whereas John delivers a climate change sermon to both sides:

2010-02-15T09:03:00.003-06:00

For months now I have listened to, read, and thought a great deal about all the nonsense emanating from both sides of the “climate change” debate, and I can’t stand it any longer. Both sides are spending way too much time off topic and far too much effort on obfuscation, getting us nowhere and avoiding the real issues with which we must eventually come to grips.

First I need to address the climate science, it’s a crisis, we must act now, crowd.

Your science is, I accept, largely correct. That said, you have created two huge problems for yourself and your conclusions:

1. You have used some faulty data (misplaced data collection stations, etc.) and relied too much on computer simulations, leading to confusion among a not very well science-grounded American public. We all know that computer simulations can be a case of garbage-in, garbage-out. While you have been touting your results and screaming for action from government, you have failed totally to explain your data sources, inputs and methodology to the wider audience that is necessary to bring along if you expect politicians to react favorably to your findings. What is needed is a better, clearer explanation of your science, and far less politics and crying wolf.

2. You have spun data, tried to suppress dissenting findings and interpretations, and allowed the most unreliable among you (and yes, especially the IPCC and its irresponsible, political head) to become the face of your science. In so doing you have enabled those who dispute your findings, for whatever reasons – good and/or bad – to gain the high ground as well as momentum.

My advice: Stick to the science, explain it on a sixth grade level, avoid terms such as “crisis”, and root out those who would take shortcuts or play dirty pool in order to advance their conclusions.

Question: Is it not probable that the destruction of tropical forests has played at least as great a role in the accelerated warming we are seeing as SUVs and cow farts, and isn’t that a cheaper and less destructive (to world economic development) place to start to solve the problem?

As for my Libertarian and Conservative “denier” friends:

1. The science is not on your side, and pointing to misconduct on the part of a couple of warming advocates does not render untrue the totality of the findings. You are making yourselves look silly and thus destroying your own credibility by taking such an extreme position. Hello! The earth has been warming for the last 12,000 to 14,000 years, and the oceans have been rising right along with the temperatures. Climate change is a fact of life.

2. This rise in temperatures since the Younger Dryas has not been straight line, but rather in fits and starts. During the warming we have had extreme rises in temperatures in a short time (i.e. “The Medieval Warming Period”) along with rather strong reversals in the trend (i.e. the “Little Ice Age”). A harsh winter or a decade or two of reversal in warming is not evidence, much less proof, of the absence of the longer-term trend.

3. Given all we know about the effects of certain greenhouse gases, it is foolish to claim that mankind has not played a role in accelerating an already existing trend. What that role is, what percentage of the warming is attributable to it, and what actions if any are warranted, is where the debate needs to hinge, not on the fact of warming itself. If you want a seat at the table when policy is discussed, you must be focused on the real issues.

In conclusion: No matter which side of this debate we come down on, we all need to be better stewards of the earth and more aware of the crucial impact our species has had on it. If we can agree on that, then we can find a way to deal with the climate change phenomenon we are experiencing, one based on cooperation and continued growth.

Incredible, Really...

2010-02-06T12:06:00.006-06:00

A few posts back I wrote of my bout with PCa and the importance of guys getting regular PSA checks. Incredibly, someone chose that post to leave the following comment:

DM said...

the atheist sins not only against God, but also against man...

Atheist: have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?

do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG? WRONG

now listen to this arrogant puffed up son of a b***h....

youtube.com/watch?v=ilWM7jIEN_k

little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!!

Visit: isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.htmls

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…

04 JANUARY, 2010 23:58

The first thing that stands out of course is "DM's" intellectual paucity. Unable to frame a coherent thought, much less a logical argument, he (she?) staggers back and forth between name-calling and linking to sites where one can only suppose someone else has done a better job at offering up at least a modicum of rational discourse.

I wonder if "DM" realizes the more than 1/6 of the worlds population - and almost the same fraction here in the U.S. - do not believe in a god of any kind. I doubt he has any awareness of the facts, given his groundless "98%" claim.

But the most glaring sign of the type of person with whom we are dealing is that the coward is even afraid to identify himself, going so far as to link to an empty blogger id.

Quite a person - eschew reasoned debate, call names, then runaway and hide, probably in his mommy's basement. Yep, sounds like a true Christian soldier to me.

An incredibly clear voice of reason...

2010-02-03T20:14:00.001-06:00

in a sea of credulity and worse.

CONNECTIONS:

2010-02-01T07:23:00.002-06:00

It doesn’t seem that long ago, but back in 1978–79 a fascinating science series called “Connections”, written and featuring James Burke, aired in the UK and the US. If you have never seen it, parts of some episodes are available on YouTube, or the entire series is sold by any number of outlets. It is marvelous.

My purpose today is not to resurrect “Connections”, but to say that I was reminded of that series a couple of days back when I was reading an article about Charles Darwin.

When Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species”, his idea was not a theory scientifically, rather it was a hypothesis. One of the most amazing aspects of Darwin’s work was his ability to formulate complex conclusions from a series of seemingly unconnected finds and observations.

Since Darwin’s death of course literally hundreds of thousands of independent observations, experiments, and discoveries have confirmed his hypothesis, and today Evolution via Natural Selection (and probably a handful of other triggers) is accepted fact in the scientific community.

Perhaps the most telling evidence in support of Evolution is that found in genetics – the study of DNA, genes, and how all living things are both linked and differentiated by the code written inside every cell. Which brings me back to my “Connections” theme.

Darwin’s last scientific publication was written a mere two weeks before his death, a short paper about a tiny freshwater clam that lived on the leg of a water beetle in the ponds around his home in the English Midlands.

The man who found the beetle and sent it to Darwin was a young shoemaker and amateur naturalist named Walter Drawbridge Crick. And now the connection:

The young shoemaker eventually married and had a son named Harry who, much later, in turn married and produced a son of his own named Francis. Need I continue?

In 1953 it was this grandson of the shoemaker/naturalist who, together with James Watson, unraveled the mystery of DNA and the double helix, thus giving birth to the science that erased any possible remaining serious doubts about Darwin’s work in “Origins”.

Now is that neat, or what?

Just How "Special" are We?

2010-01-29T09:37:00.005-06:00

One of the many trite arguments often advanced by religionists is that their belief system "elevates humans to a position just a bit below the angels", while skeptics place humans "barely higher than the apes". Humankind in other words occupies a unique position, standing above the rest of earth's fauna.

There are of course a number of key errors in this clumsy syllogism, not the least of which is that rather than being "barely higher than apes", we indeed are apes. A bit brighter perhaps, somewhat more creative in some areas undoubtedly, gifted with language to be certain; but apes non-the-less. As for angels, show me one and then we'll talk.

The mistake flows of course from the logically and scientifically indefensible premise that humans are somehow special, sitting as it were at the pinnacle of "creation". The very fact of evolution, its processes blind to any particular outcome and totally lacking a goal, should be enough to dissuade all but the most credulous from such an obvious solipsism, but oft it is not. One cannot fairly place all the blame on government schools for this failing given the influence of family and clerics, but the lion's share certainly rests there.

Today I'd like to offer a somewhat different view of the problem however, positing what for me is a fascinating "what if", and soliciting the reader's willingness to pursue a bit of a thought experiment. Specifically, regardless of on which side of the argument you find yourself, I challenge you to contemplate the following:

Most folks are at least vaguely aware of the scientifically incontrovertible fact, even if they find it inconvenient for their cherished beliefs, that Homo sapiens (we) migrated from Africa roughly 50,000 years ago and proceeded to slowly colonize the rest of the globe over the following 25,000 years or so.

What most people are not aware of however is that when we emerged from Africa we were but one of four surviving hominid species. Far from being alone, we shared earth with three "cousins" as it were: Homo neanderthalensis in the Levant and much of Europe, Homo erectus throughout eastern Asia, and Homo floresiensis in a corner of the East Indies.

Over the course of a number of millennia we either outcompeted or simply annihilated all three (depending on one's perspective), leaving us the last ones standing. Which brings me to my thought experiment.

What if we were not the last ones standing? What if today we still shared earth with one or more of our hominid cousins? How then might we view ourselves and the evolutionary process?

Exactly how special would we, could we, claim to be? More interestingly still perhaps, how might our view of god(s) and our relationship with he/she/it/them be altered?

Certainly we would view things differently. How could we not?

You Know Who You Are...

2009-11-16T11:33:00.002-06:00

In July of 2007 I was diagnosed with relatively severe prostate cancer. From mid-September of that year, for nine weeks, I underwent proton radiation therapy at Loma Linda Medical Center in CA.

The chart above shows my PSA levels 1) At the time of diagnosis, and 2) intervals since. So far so good.

I post this for only one reason. There are those of you who are of such maturity that you should be having your PSA levels checked annually, but for various reasons you're not. Please, even if you aren't concerned for yourself, think of those others who are concerned about you.

God's Checklist!

2009-11-15T17:23:00.000-06:00

Peace Prize?

2009-10-28T17:41:00.001-05:00

It would be funny...if it weren't so damned close to the truth.

Living in Pre-Rational America

2009-10-25T15:46:00.003-05:00

When speaking and writing, I often refer to the place and time in which I find myself as "Pre-Rational America". In as much as I have been both queried and challenged as to my use of that term, allow me to offer the following evidence for my assertion:

According to a Harris poll:

82 percent of adult Americans believe in God,

79% believe heaven is a real place,

75% believe in angels,

Not only do 74% believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, but 72% accept the resurrection as fact and 60% that he was born of a virgin,

69% believe the soul survives death and 62% think both hell and Satan are real,

41% believe in ghosts,

35% in UFOs,

31% in witches,

29% in Astrology, and

21% in reincarnation.

Contrast all this to the fact that only 42% of Americans accept Evolution by Natural Selection as fact, and you are well on your way to understanding why I hold today's Americans in such disdain.

Damn. Just Damn

2009-10-15T12:28:00.003-05:00

I lost my best and most loyal friend this morning, and there is a hole in my life that will take a long while to fill.

Nellie died at about 9:50 am, on her favorite bed in my office.

It was a good thing, really. I had scheduled to have her put down a mere thirty minutes later, as it had become obvious her organs were shutting down due to end-stage liver disease. It was good, I think, that she died in familiar surroundings, with familiar sounds and smells until the last.

She had been diagnosed just three weeks ago, put on a course of “supportive” meds, and given three to six months to live. The end was sudden and unexpected. Until she stopped eating barely thirty-six hours earlier, there had been no sign that the end was so near. Just yesterday she eagerly joined me for a ride in the car as I ran some errands. When the sun rose this morning however,she was unable to even stand, and so I had called the vet and made arrangements. Thankfully they were not necessary.

Nellie was good to and for me. Unwilling to endure separations of more than a few minutes she followed me from room to room and dashed to the door at the slightest sign I was preparing to leave. A couple of times a day, indoors or out, she would assume a play bow, tail wagging, and commence to chase me until, generally after only a dozen steps or so she caught me; then rolled over on her back in anticipation of her celebratory belly rub.

On the one occasion a few years ago that the flu laid me up for a few days, the only times she left her station on the floor beside my bed was to join me on it. When I was away undergoing cancer treatment in California, she became depressed and sullen during the week, only to erupt in joy and play when I came home on the weekends.

I’ve had a half-dozen dogs in my lifetime, but Nellie was special beyond words. Feisty and tough, it took months to earn her trust but, once earned, no amount of gruffness on my part could stop her tail from wagging or dissuade her from being near.

Goodbye faithful old friend. I will grieve for you until the day that I die.

Dismissing Karen Armstrong

2009-10-12T08:32:00.004-05:00

The "Christian Science Monitor" had an effervescent book review this morning of Karen Armstrong's latest attempt to devolve the debate over gods and religions into her own personal Neverland of transcendent gobblygook. Mindful of Christopher Hitchens' comment, "That which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence, I responded with the following:

So Ms Armstrong thinks atheists have a shallow understanding of theology. Exactly how, I beg to ask, does one acquire a deep understanding of the invisible and the non-existent?

What Ms Armstrong is really doing, although she will be the first to deny it, is inventing her own peculiar god, one that is less likely to set off the alarm bells of cognitive dissonance that apparently haunt her understanding of the traditional god of the Abrahamic faiths.

While she may be correct is in identifying within the human spirit a desire for "the transcendent"; where she errs is in assuming that it takes a god or religion to fulfill that desire.

The wonders opened up to us by science, from the cosmic to the sub-atomic, can be just as satisfactory a source of the awe she seeks as the invisible nothing she worships. The love of family and friends, the beauty of nature, and the joy of fine wine or good poetry are far more real examples of a transcendence we can experience than any of the pap she serves up. The fact that we are all made of stardust, along with the knowledge that we are the only life forms on earth capable of that understanding, is transcendent experience enough to last a lifetime. Indeed, that we were so lucky to have been born at all, considering the incredible odds, is enough to set spirits soaring as no phony, contrived belief system can ever do.

Sorry, but Ms Armstrong's latest swipe at the rational is no more compelling than her previous attempts to justify mythology at the expense of reality.

Why the Left is as Wrong as the Right on Healthcare

2009-10-08T10:15:00.002-05:00

I am not a conservative, at least not in the contemporary meaning of that word. At worst, I am a classical liberal – see Jefferson, Madison, Locke, Mills, et al.

That said, let me be perfectly clear: I not only do not want to pay for someone else’s healthcare – or rent, groceries, or anything else – I feel absolutely no moral obligation to do so. (That said, our family voluntarily gives an above-average proportion of our annual income to charity.)

You see, I stayed in high school rather than dropping out for a job in the local shoe factory. I struggled through college, with a combination of (non-government) loans and part-time jobs.

When I began my career, I went to work every day – never skipping a day because I stayed up late watching Johnny Carson, or because I was too hung-over from a night of partying.

So that I could save my money, what little I made early on, I drove a used car and watched a black and white TV when everyone else had the newest color set.

I never smoked cigarettes, nor did I ever “do” dope.

I only had children after I was 1) gainfully employed, 2) married, and 3) could afford them.

As much as I could have used and highly desired more pay and better benefits, I was also keenly aware that if my employer was unable to make a profit he would be equally unable to provide me with a job.

I was just about the last person I know to have a home computer or a cell phone, and my cell today is, well, a phone – it doesn’t play movies or songs, or surf the internet.

When friends and relatives were taking nice vacations to Mexico or Europe, my family was spending a weekend in a rustic cabin in the woods a short drive from where I lived.

Now I’m not saying I lived a perfect life. I made mistakes, spent some money I should have saved, and screwed up an investment or three.

But my lower-middle class, factory worker family raised me to be self-sufficient, not to expect nor look for a hand-out from government nor anyone else. The point being I got to where I am today trying to do things the right way, and succeeding at same a bit more often than not.

Today some folks, including “friends” on Facebook and elsewhere, are telling me how selfish and unreasonable I am for not wanting to pay higher taxes and/or burden my children and grandchildren with high inflation and lower economic growth so that people who spent their entire lives making poor decisions and being selfish and irresponsible can enjoy the same benefits that I have earned.

What the Marxist Left is really doing is not only rewarding, but encouraging even more, indolence and irresponsibility and, in the process, undermining both the proud heritage and the future of our nation.

I not only oppose such an approach, I consider it to be immoral as well as depraved indifference to reality.

Thanks, but no thanks.

The Inimitable Christopher Hitchens --

2009-10-07T20:18:00.000-05:00

Mr. Deity strikes again...

2009-09-29T16:11:00.005-05:00

The Crux of the Issue

2009-09-24T13:17:00.001-05:00

In spite of the feigned emergency on the part of PBO and the Marxist left, there are only about 10 million Americans who need and want health insurance (as opposed to healthcare, which is available all the time), about 3.3% of our population. The rest of the “uninsured” are composed of about 26 million (mostly young) who can afford health insurance but have chosen to not purchase it and 12 million illegal immigrants.

The real issue therefore becomes whether we create another huge entitlement program, raise taxes, and run ever larger deficits in order to give the Federal government control of the 74% of the healthcare industry it still does not dominate, or whether we limit our focus to those 10 million who really need help and at the same time institute market reforms to improve the affordability of insurance and healthcare for everyone else without bankrupting our nation and burdening future generations.

Important! From e-SKEPTIC

2009-09-23T09:12:00.001-05:00

Swine Flu Vaccine Fearmongering

by Dr Harriet Hall, MD

Fear is a curious thing. It often bears no relation to the actual risk of what we fear. When swine flu first broke out in Mexico, people were understandably afraid. Travel was restricted, schools were closed, and so many people stayed home that the streets of Mexico City were empty. As the disease spread around the world, Egypt developed a paranoid fear of pigs and committed national pigicide. They ordered the slaughter of all 300,000 of their country’s innocent little porkers, ignoring the fact that the flu is spread person-to-person, not pig-to-person. Now that the disease has officially been labeled a pandemic, fears have switched from the real threat of the disease to an imagined danger from the vaccine.

Some people just plain hate the idea of vaccines — to the point that they are willing to spread old falsehoods, make up new lies, distort the results of studies, misrepresent statistics, and endanger our public health. There are websites like “Operation Fax to Stop the Vax” and even anti-swine-flu-vaccine rap videos. Press releases, e-mail campaigns, talk shows, and blogs are being used to stir up irrational fears. These people are irresponsible fearmongers. They are wrong, and they are dangerous.

Background

The 1918 flu. The flu epidemic of 1918 started as a mild disease in the spring, called the “3-day fever.” Most victims recovered in a few days; there were few deaths. Then in the fall, it turned into something far more severe. It was the same flu strain, but it had become more virulent. Some victims died within hours. Healthy young adults were as susceptible as children and the elderly. It affected remote villages as well as urban areas. It attacked 1/5 of the world’s population and killed 50 million people.

Wartime conditions may have favored the evolution of a more virulent strain. In peacetime, the sicker stay put and the mildly affected move around. In the trenches, the mildly affected stayed on duty and the sicker were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals. Today, places with social upheaval might have similar effects favoring a virulent strain.

The 1976 swine flu. In February, 1976 a strain of H1N1 influenza similar to the 1918 strain killed a soldier at Fort Dix. Officials feared a pandemic and over-reacted. In actuality, the H1N1 strain was limited to the Fort Dix area and quickly died out, and another related strain only persisted until March. Nevertheless, a swine flu vaccine was developed and was given to 48,000,000 Americans, 22 percent of the population. The vaccination program was stopped in December after 532 cases of paralysis from Guillain-Barré syndrome were linked to the vaccine and 25 people died. It had been a false alarm, and more people died of the vaccine than of the disease. The risk of getting Guillain-Barré from the vaccine was approximately 1 in 100,000.

The 2009 swine flu. Between April 15 and July 24, 2009, there were 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of H1N1 influenza (“swine flu”) in the U.S. There were 5,011 hospitalizations and 302 deaths, 39 percent among those aged 25 to 49, in contrast to the usual flu where 90 percent of the deaths are in people over age 65. For comparison, the more common strains of flu have been killing around 36,000 people a year in the U.S. Swine flu has been declared a phase 6 pandemic by the World Health Organization: that is a measure of its spread, not of its severity.

What are the chances that the new swine flu will follow the course of the 1918 flu? We have no way of knowing. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In addition to the annual flu vaccine for the usual common strains, a specific vaccine for the H1N1 strain is being prepared and tested to see whether one or two shots will be needed to produce a satisfactory immune response. So we may be offered as many as three shots this year. Supplies will be limited, at least in the short run, so the CDC has announced these priorities:

Pregnant women
Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age
Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel
All people from 6 months through 24 years of age
Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.

What if it fizzles out like the swine flu of 1976? That’s already ruled out: the 1976 flu had fizzled by March; the new swine flu hasn’t shown any signs of fizzling yet. We will be monitoring numbers of cases and vaccine complications very carefully, assessing the risk/benefit ratio, and we’re not likely to repeat the mistakes of 1976.

The Lies and Distortions vs. the Facts

I can’t hope to address all the misinformation that is circulating, and even if I could, more new lies would come out by the time I finished writing. Here are some of the ones I have heard. A correspondent in the Netherlands forwarded me an alarmist e-mail that is circulating in Europe.

Claim: It alleges that only one person has died of swine flu in the UK, and it questions whether he really had flu. It tells us “you are slated for vaccination against a disease which poses no credible threat whatsoever.”

Fact: As of August 27, the death toll in the UK was 66. As of Sept. 1, 2009, 2184 deaths had been reported worldwide. Most rational people would call that a credible threat.

Claim: Guillian-Barré Syndrome is a newly concocted name for a much more familiar condition: Polio.

Fact: Ridiculous! Polio is a distinct disease and its symptoms are very different from those of Guillain-Barré syndrome. A diagnosis of polio can be confirmed by finding the actual poliovirus particles in body secretions or cerebrospinal fluid. The last case of “wild polio” in the U.S. occurred in 1979. Polio has been eradicated in most countries; Guillain-Barré still occurs regularly in every country.

Claim: Guillain-Barré is still being caused by flu vaccines. A study based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found 54 cases of GBS reported after vaccination in the U.S. in 2004; 57 percent of these followed flu vaccines and the rest followed other vaccines.

Fact: The VAERS is a voluntary reporting system that accepts all reports of symptoms or illnesses that occurred after vaccination. It even accepted a fraudulent report claiming that a man had been turned into The Hulk by his influenza vaccine. To find out whether the VAERS reports mean anything, it is necessary to compare the incidence of the condition in those vaccinated to the incidence in the unvaccinated. Guillain-Barré syndrome affects 1 to 4 of every 100,000 people around the world every year, and the increased risk from vaccines is currently estimated at no more than one in a million.

Claim: It usually takes several years to test a drug and show that it is safe, but the swine flu vaccine is going to be fast-tracked for quick approval.

Fact: A new flu vaccine has to be developed every year to respond to the new strains that are constantly evolving. Time does not allow for the same kind of testing we require for approval of a new pharmaceutical. Time is even shorter for the swine flu this year. We have a lot of experience in producing new flu vaccines every year, and there is no reason to suspect that this year’s batches will be any more dangerous than usual. Because of fast-tracking, we will be monitoring very closely for side effects. We have a choice between fast-tracking and being prepared for a serious outbreak, or being slow and cautious and totally unprepared.

Claim: 4,000 people were afflicted with Guillain-Barré Syndrome in 1976.

Fact: At least 1 in 100,000 people would have gotten Guillain-Barré syndrome anyway. The excess cases attributed to the vaccine were estimated at 532 (some sources say half of that number), and most of them recovered fully; 25 deaths were attributed to the vaccine.

There are several websites where writers with a bad track record for scientific credibility (like Joseph Mercola and Gary Null) advocate vaccine refusal. The Health Freedom movement wants the government to forget about trying to protect the public and give us the freedom to harm ourselves by using untested, disproven, useless, or even dangerous treatments.

Claim: Legislation allows for you to be isolated or quarantined or “incarcerated in relocation centers” if you refuse vaccination during a declared Pandemic Emergency. This is a violation of human rights and of the Constitution.

Fact: If you have active TB, the government has not only the power but the responsibility to require treatment or quarantine so you don’t sit next to me on the bus and cough in my face. If you contract Ebola virus, I sure hope you will be quarantined to reduce the death toll. Quarantine is legal, is mandated by legislation, and is accepted by international law. Sometimes the duty to protect most of the people in a society temporarily trumps a few individual human rights. The government is not going to require quarantine unless there is a serious threat that demands action.

Claim: People should be allowed to “self-shield.” For self-shielding you go home lock the doors and stay there. Then you can try to further protect yourself with nano-silver, homeopathic remedies, cold packs, vitamins, flavonoids, zinc, astaxanthin, magnesium, and other stuff.

Fact: A self-imposed quarantine is better than nothing, but I question whether it would be effective in practice. The suggested (untested) remedies might conceivably keep people entertained so they are more willing to stay home.

Claim: The CDC and the American Academy of Neurologists have asked neurologists to be vigilant in looking for cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in people who have been vaccinated. This is an admission that they know the vaccine will be dangerous.

Fact: They clearly said¹ “they do not expect the 2009 H1N1 vaccine to increase the risk for the autoimmune disease” but since this is a concern with any pandemic vaccine, they will be on the alert. This is a good thing. If the incidence starts rising, they will know it earlier and be able to react more quickly than they did in 1976.

Claim: The threat of Guillain-Barré is a reason to reject vaccines.

Fact: No one understands what causes Guillain-Barré syndrome, but it can develop after an infection, surgery or vaccination. It is possible that people who develop GBS after vaccination might also have developed GBS after natural exposure to the disease. One expert said²,

From both the societal and individual perspectives, the risk of GBS after a flu shot pales in comparison to the risk of serious adverse events if infected with the influenza virus: 60 to 70 cases of GBS vs. 20,000 deaths from influenza. Keeping things on the same scale, people over 65 years of age can choose from a risk of one case of GBS per million people or 10,000 cases of hospitalization and 1500 deaths due to influenza.

Claim: Joseph Mercola writes about “Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret.” He has claimed that the vaccine adjuvant squalene is dangerous, that the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the squalene in anthrax vaccines, that squalene is “good” or “bad depending on how it gets into your body: “Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.” And the only reason they put adjuvants in vaccines is to save money.

Fact: Squalene is found naturally in the human body. It is a precursor of cholesterol and other compounds necessary to human health. Squalene antibodies were found in Gulf War veterans; but the rate turned out to be no higher in those who had Gulf War Syndrome than in those who didn’t. Squalene antibodies were found at similar rates in people who had never been exposed to squalene in vaccines. The anthrax vaccine has been ruled out as a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Anyway, it turns out there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine!

American flu vaccines do not contain adjuvants, but maybe they should. Adjuvants enhance the body’s innate immune response to the antigens in vaccines, making vaccines more effective. And they allow for broader cross-reactivity against viral strains not included in the vaccine³. Mercola says adjuvants are added just to increase profits, but the pharmaceutical and health industries could make far more money treating patients in an epidemic than they could ever make trying to prevent one.

There is a large body of data demonstrating the safety of squalene. Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe⁴.

Claim: Flu vaccines are not very effective and don’t protect everyone. The effectiveness is particularly low in the elderly.

Fact: This claim is true, but… In recent years, flu vaccines have been 75 percent effective in preventing hospitalizations for flu, and 75 percent is way better than nothing. No vaccine is 100 percent effective. Flu vaccine is particularly problematic because of the constantly mutating strains of the virus. Nevertheless, the benefits of vaccines are clear. It is true that the elderly are not as well protected by the vaccine (efficacy rates have been estimated at 50 percent or less): that’s why it’s so important for younger people to be vaccinated, reducing the prevalence of the disease in the population and thereby reducing the likelihood of the elderly being exposed. In other words, don’t just get the flu shot for yourself, get it for Grandma.

Claim: Mercola says “Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature.”

Fact: Nature kills people. Doing something contrary to nature is what medicine is all about. It’s a good thing.

Claim: “The potential for a weaponized vaccine to be the vector for a weaponized flu cannot be discounted.”

Fact: Most far-fetched conspiracy theories are wrong. I have no trouble discounting this one. The potential may be there, but the likelihood is homeopathic.

Claim: People should make their own decisions about their health care.

Fact: One of the basic principles of medical ethics is autonomy: patients have the right to accept or reject any treatment. Modern doctors try to involve the patient in the decision-making process, but most people are ill-equipped to make health decisions on their own without getting information and guidance from a health care professional. In a recent survey⁵, 30 percent of Americans believed that there had been a case of smallpox in the United States in the past five years, and 63 percent thought there had been a case somewhere in the world in the past five years. They didn’t know that the last case in the U.S. occurred in 1949 and the last case in the world occurred in 1977 in Somalia; 25 percent thought it was likely that they would die if they got the smallpox vaccine (the actual risk of death from the vaccine is one per million). People who are uninformed and scientifically illiterate are not capable of making rational decisions about health matters.

Mercola’s advice for preventing flu: Eliminate sugar and processed foods from your diet, take a high quality source of animal-based omega 3 fats like Krill Oil, exercise, optimize your vitamin D levels, get plenty of sleep, deal with stress, and wash your hands.

Fact: Washing your hands is a good idea.

Mercola claims: “Vitamin D deficiency is the likely cause of seasonal flu viruses.”

Fact: Now really! Vitamin D deficiency in a human body can no more “cause a virus” than it could “cause a cat.” Perhaps he meant vitamin D deficiency could predispose a body to infection, and there is some research to suggest that it might. Some have claimed that taking vitamin D supplements will prevent the flu, but there is no evidence to support that.

Mercola’s claims and arguments were decisively eviscerated on Science-Based Medicine by Dr. Joseph Albietz⁶. Not only are Mercola’s assertions demonstrably false, but they reveal a profound misunderstanding of immunology. Unfortunately, he reaches a large audience of scientifically naïve people who believe his every word.

In response to Dr. Albietz’s article, there were some interesting comments from readers that further demonstrate the anti-vaccine mindset and the ability to distort information to promote a cause.

Claim: The government is going to mandate that everyone get the swine flu vaccine.

Fact: No such proposal has been made. The government couldn’t do it even if it tried, because there won’t be enough doses to go around. That’s why they’ve issued recommendations prioritizing who should get the vaccine first.

Claim: George Bush signed an agreement that if a pandemic emergency arose and the President declared a national state of emergency, control of the government would be passed to the United Nations. Blue-helmeted UN soldiers would run our country and the Constitution would be suspended.

Fact: It was simply an agreement to facilitate international cooperation, to share information and enhance collaboration in the event of an emergency. It says nothing about the UN at all, much less about relinquishing sovereignty to the UN or any other organization. The actual agreement can be read online at www.spp.gov/pdf/nap_flu07.pdf

The same person pointed out that shots hurt and that alone should tell you something. “Yet you are willing to trust these people with your lives to make a vaccine that the Creator never intended the human body should need, and let them inject it into your body? You people are scary or insane!”

No, it is the anti-vaccine zealots who are scary. They are not insane, just self-deluded and misguided. I hope the swine flu won’t develop into a reprise of 1918; but if it does, the false information these people are spreading could be responsible for a great deal of death and suffering. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but this kind of fear-mongering is almost as bad as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

References

^ Press release from the American Academy of Neurology, August 31, 2009. Available online at: www.aan.com/press/?fuseaction=release.view&release=757
^ Grabenstein, J.D. 2000. “Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Vaccination: Usually Unrelated.” Hospital Pharmacy 36:2, 199–207. Available online at: www.factsandcomparisons.com/assets/hospitalpharm/IMM1.pdf
^ O’Hagan D.T. 2007. “MF59 is a Safe and Potent Vaccine Adjuvant that Enhances Protection Against Influenza Virus Infection.” Expert Rev Vaccines 6(5):699–710.
^ Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, World Health Organization. 2006. http://tinyurl.com/squalene-adjuvant
^ Blendon, R.J., et al. “The Public and the Smallpox Threat,” NEJM 348(5):p. 426–432. 2003. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/5/426
^ Albietz, J. 2009. “A Defense of Childhood Influenza Vaccination and Squalene-Containing Adjuvants: Joseph Mercola’s ‘Dirty Little Secret’ Science-Based Medicine,” Aug 21. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

Is it just me, or...?

2009-09-11T17:04:00.001-05:00

Alright… No one else has mentioned it so I will.

In his speech the other night the President said, “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.”

Think about that. First off he was claiming that there was 100 billion dollars a year of fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, which liberals proudly point to as a shining example of how well government healthcare works. I’m sorry, but that gives me no reason to trust those same folks to run our healthcare system well at all. Extrapolating, we can expect to be losing three hundred billion dollars a year soon instead of “only” one-third that amount. Yippee.

However there is an even worse angle to all of this. Faced with a trillion dollar deficit in his budget without the healthcare initiative, why isn’t he feverishly attacking that problem now, recouping precious tax dollars and fixing an admittedly broken system? Is he saying it’s only worth ending the fraud and waste in those two programs if he gets his gargantuan grab, but not otherwise?

Some leader.

Some plan.

2009-08-15T15:14:00.002-05:00

The ongoing kerfluffle over healthcare got me to thinking of Ben Franklin.

As he was leaving the final session of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, "What government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?"

"A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

For more than a century the Democratic party has intentionally and with malice whittled away at that Republic, being joined in that effort over the past couple of decades by the GOP.

Today we are at a precipice, where-upon 51% of the electorate can demand, and in many cases is demanding, that the other 49% pony up for the majority's every need and want. Healthcare is just another in a long line of such demands.

Our Founders would be mortified. Our Republic and its Constitution lie shredded on the floor of political greed and expediency.

Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics

2009-08-09T11:40:00.006-05:00

In the ongoing debate on ObamaCare, many of my friends, and even more of my enemies, have been using their perception of the quality of U.S. healthcare as an argument for adopting Socialized Medicine. Two (to their minds) damaging statistics are the U.S. ranking in total life expectancy and also in infant mortality. A closer look at the stats however reveals a very different story. Following is an excerpt from a Reason Magazine article that addressed these misconceptions, with excellent source citations:

According to the World Health Organization, average life expectancy in Japan is 83 years; Australia, 82; Switzerland, 82; Canada, 81; Sweden, 81; Spain, 81; Italy, 81; France, 81; Germany, 80; and the United Kingdom, 79. In all, there are 29 countries whose citizens have longer life expectancies than Americans.

So why do Americans die younger than people living in most other developed democracies? Well, there is the Michael Moore answer delivered in his "documentary" Sicko—it's because we lack a benevolent government funded health care system. But life expectancy is not dependent on just medical care. For example, Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider point out that deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other of the developed countries. Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually rank at the top.

University of Iowa researchers, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, reviewed the data for the nations of the OECD to statistically account for the incidence of fatal injuries for the member countries. The dynamic table below presents their findings, showing both the average life expectancy from birth over the years 1980 to 1999 without any adjustment (the actual "raw" mean), and again after accounting for the effects of premature death resulting from a non-health-related fatal injury (the standardized mean). You may sort the data in the dynamic table from low to high value by clicking on the column headings, or from high to low value by clicking a second time.

OECD Nation	Actual (Raw) Mean (Does Not Account for Fatal Injuries)	Standardized Mean (Accounts for Fatal Injuries)
Australia	76.8	76.0
Austria	75.3	76.0
Belgium	75.7	76.0
Canada	77.3	76.2
Denmark	75.1	76.1
France	76.6	76.0
Germany	75.4	76.1
Iceland	78.0	76.1
Italy	76.6	75.8
Japan	78.7	76.0
Netherlands	77.0	75.9
Norway	77.0	76.3
Sweden	77.7	76.1
Switzerland	77.6	76.6
U. K.	75.6	75.7
U. S. A.	75.3	76.9

America's relatively high infant mortality rate also lowers our life expectancy ranking. A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.

The fact that Americans tend to be a lot fatter than the citizens of other rich developed countriesincreases their risks of heart disease and diabetes. A recent international survey reported that31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30.

Taking all these unhealthy proclivities into consideration, the American health care system is most likely not to blame for our lower life expectancies. Instead, American health care is rescuing enough of us from the consequences of our bad health habits to keep our ranking from being even lower.

Change of Pace

2009-07-26T16:00:00.004-05:00

Just for giggles, here is Kelly Ripa doing a spoof on here shampoo commercials. Quite funny!

She Loves The 'Special' Ingredient

See more like this on kontraband.com

Mr. Deity nails it --

2009-07-20T15:17:00.003-05:00

Covers almost all the bases on this one...

The Story of Suzie...

2009-07-13T08:49:00.004-05:00

If I could, I would force every Christian everywhere to sit and watch this video until their cognitive dissonance finally evaporated:

One nation, indivisible...

2009-07-04T12:05:00.003-05:00

Happy Fourth of July!

A Word from Pat Condell --

2009-07-01T13:22:00.001-05:00

I just love the way Pat gets right to the point. Don't you?