1000th Execution

The 1000th person to be executed in the US in the modern era is soon to be upon us. What is the legacy of crime and punishment that those 1000 people leave? According to one commentator, not much. Mike Parazino, of the group Throw Away the Key, says that 600,000 people have been murdered since 1976 (when capital punishment was re-introduced). However, he notes that of those 600,000, only 1800 were actually murdered by those criminals executed. That's 0.3% of total murders. What does this mean? At first blush, it suggests to me that capital punishment is not much of a deterrent. For every one criminal executed, 1.8 murders were avenged, but 598 were still committed anyway. Of course, my argument assumes that the purpose of the death penalty is crime prevention, not crime punishment. But no matter what one thinks of the death penalty, I feel that one can't support it in its current form, couched in a highly flawed judicial system. Here, Parazino disagrees, there is to date no credible evidence (for a rebuttal, see here) that a single innocent person has been executed since the death penalty was restored in 1976, although two controversial executions from the 1990s, one in Texas and another in Missouri, are receiving close scrutiny. But the truth is, Mike doesn't care about wrongful execution: But even if a wrongful execution is someday found, we should remember that every year, police accidentally shoot and kill innocent people while fighting crime. Yet we don’t disarm our law enforcement personnel, because we know on balance their weapons save many more innocent lives than the occasional one they accidentally take. But what if we find that capital punishment does not save innocent lives?

Christmas Irony

As I predicted, the advent of the Xmas shopping season also brings out the shrillest of those who claim that Christianity is under attack in the US. But the irony of some of the complaints astounds me. Here are two posts I dug up on Technorati (a valuable resource), in which two women ask us to resist the multicultural onslaught. At Jillism, Jill(?) complains about Coke and Target losing the spirit of Xmas, but not more than 5 days earlier, she exalted in all the purchases her family had made in their Xmas shopping. Similarly, Missa at Missa's Place, laments that major retailers are "phasing out Christ," but then goes on to fret that despite all, Wal-Mart is still the cheapest place to shop. My point is that Christians who claim there is a "secular jihad" against Christmas need only look in the mirror to find the true culprit. They like to note that 70% of America is Christian, so Christmas should stay religious. I say that it is that same 70% who transformed and maintian Christmas as the secular holiday it is today. When they stop buying and start worshiping, then maybe they'll have a leg to stand on.

Faulty-nomics?

I cite frequently the abortion study in Steven Levitt's book "Freakonomics." Not surprisingly, such a controversial claim (that abortion is responsible for drops in crime rates) comes under attack. The latest is from a pair of economists in Boston, who say that Levitt's conclusions are faulty.

Jesus vs. Darwin, Round 6

Kansas may indeed be flatter than a pancake, but it has been the center of ideological controversy since its entrance into the Union. The current struggle is over the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. The state Board of Education recently adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, allowing ID to be presented as an alternative, equally valid, theory. Now, the University of Kansas has fired back. It has created a course in the religious studies department called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." I assume this class will become part of the core cirriculum for incoming freshmen, to undue the indoctrination received in Kansas high schools. We know that this won't sway anyone, of course, because we know how marxist, atheistic, and just plain liberal academia is.

Female President

Germany just elected a female chancellor, joining Ireland, Latvia,and Finland as European countries with female heads of state. Liberians also just elected a female president, joining Indonesia, Panama, and Guyana, among others, as supposedly Third World regimes that have or had leaders of the "weaker sex." When do you think the US will grow up enough to elect a female president?

Why is there a Left?

Not that it's a slow news day, but I thought I'd brush the dust off something I dug up in the archives of Conservative Voice: Why is there a Left? This piece is from 2003, but still worth a look. It's a longish article, but I encourage you to read it. The author asks, if the Right is Right, why are there still liberals? This had the potential to be a valuable resource--sort of a "Being John Malkovich" but for conservatism. Unfortunately, although I think he hits on all the right points, his analysis is pretty thin. And, I guess inevitably, his bias peeks through. Note the very first paragraph: liberals believe in "government control" and "limiting choice." Conservatives believe in "moral and cultural strength." Well, shoot, if that's simple, then am I a liberal? I want to respond to this in depth. I will craft something, maybe over the imminent holiday weekend, and post it here (and at his site). Stay tuned.

We could use Solomon's wisdom

Regardless of how you feel about capital punishment in general, surely you cannot support it in a system that executes innocent people. As I've reported in the past, a recent study from the University of Chicago suggests that capital punishment may have a deterrent effect on murder, "preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution." But even if that is true, can we as a society still promote capital punishment when, as Equal Justice USA says The administration of the death penalty in the United States is plagued by injustice. The proof has become irrefutable. Individuals are being sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. While some of these individuals are being exonerated and released, others are likely being executed. Is the execution of one innocent person worth the prevention of 18 murders?

Jesus vs. Darwin, Round 5

I was privileged to receive top billing at View from 1776 in my response to his Intelligent Design article. He responded to me with a long, well-written piece. But however articulate his words, his thoughts are still muddled. Here are eight of Brewton’s mistakes. 1. First, he mischaracterizes the nature of my disagreement. I did not, as he claims, disagree with his assertion about Newton’s fundamental postulate. I disagreed with his statement that Intelligent Design is incontrovertibly true while scientific orthodoxy “backfires.” 2. He makes the common mistake of lumping current theories of cosmology, biology, and anthropology into one philosophy called “Darwinism.” Darwin wrote exclusively about the evolution of life and avoided the topic of the origins of life. He definitely did not address the origins and evolution of the universe. Cosmology, biology, and anthropology all share the idea of change over time, but that is about all they share. To group them together is disingenuous or misinformed. Brewton also assumes that what Darwin wrote in 1859 represents that current state of the field. But 146 years have passed since then, with concomitant improvements in thinking. 3. He says “If Darwinians are correct, the universe just “is” and always has been in existence by virtue of some unknowable accident.” In reality, most scientist think that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago, not that is “has always been.” I won’t spend a lot of time on the origins of the universe, other than to say that the evidence supporting the current theories is far from circumstantial (cosmic background radiation, the Hubble blue shift, and results of stellar chromospectroscopy are three examples of hard, direct evidence). 4. He conflates “chance” with “accident.” Something happening “by chance” is not the same thing as something happening “by accident.” Chance means that there is a probability, however small, that something might happen. If you win the lottery, you don’t win it by accident, you win it by chance. Let’s reexamine his football game analogy. In the old days, extra points were drop-kicked. Then one day, as Brewton explains, “By accident someone kicked a ball while it was held by another player. As this proved to be more consistently effective, natural selection decreed that the latter practice survive.” Now, imagine this scenario: The kicker is randomly kicking. The football is randomly bouncing. A second player is randomly grasping for the ball. One day, all three random factors successfully but improbably converge, and the current practice of holding the football is born. Sounds silly, but that’s what Brewton would have you believe. In reality, the inherent properties of football and football players introduce the possibility, maybe even likelihood, that such a change to kicking may occur, and after a sufficiently large number of football games, the change does occur. Similarly, the inherent properties of carbon, such as its electron valence structure, make the eventual appearance of molecules that catalyze their own production (which is what DNA is, after all) possible, not by accident, but by chance. 5. He confuses the scientific theory of evolution with the many social and political theories that it created or enabled. Who cares what Huxley or Dewey said about evolution and relative morality? The deplorable practice of eugenics does not invalidate the theory of genetics. Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not render null the field of nuclear physics. We cannot call a scientific theory wrong simply because we dislike the outcomes or outgrowths of that theory. 6. I cannot state it more simply: Behe is wrong. Behe does a grand job of illustrating the amazing complexity of biochemistry, with examples such as vision and blood-clotting. But the only proof that these reactions are irreducibly complex is Behe’s statement that they are. In fact, irreducible complexity has been disproved many, many times. In the recent ID trial in Dover, PA, in which Behe was an expert witness for the defense, Behe was presented with literally stacks of books that overturned his claims. 7. What is Brewton's evidence for Intelligent Design? That physical, chemical, and mathematical laws exist. Why is that proof? Because Isaac Newton said so, and because Brewton can’t imagine an alternative explanation. Hardly compelling. 8. Brewton goes to great lengths to demonstrate that evolutionary theory is not a true scientific theory at all. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. ID fizzles on all the same grounds, while at the same time failing to explain: the nature of the designer (Brewton says God, but others are more circumspect); the method for implementing the design; the well-documented presence of design flaws; the purpose behind the design. What good is a theory that creates more questions than it purports to answer? Brewton finally sees the light in his last paragraph: Bottom line: what you hear on all sides about Darwinism having been proved by overwhelming evidence is not factual. All of the evidence is strictly circumstantial and all of the conflicting conclusions of Darwinists are no more than reasonable guesses. Darwinism MIGHT be true, but there is absolutely no way to prove it. He is correct. Evolutionary theory is just that, a theory, but it just happens to be the best theory we have to explain the evidence we see around us. The key word is "reasonable," which ID is certainly not. But let's be clear on one point. The debate between ID and Darwin is not a scientific debate by any stretch. It is a philosophical debate. It is a debate in which ID finds itself at a disadvantage because of its inherent weaknesses and so cloaks itself in scientific terms like irreducible complexity to give it the veneer of respectability. The Kansas State Board of Education had to dilute the very definition of "science" to allow the inclusion of ID in state curricula. We as a society can argue about increasing secularism, but we cannot call ID legitimate science.

Keep the X in Xmas

This article from Paul Weyrich about Wal-Mart's decision to remove Christmas references is likely the first of many as we enter the holiday season. Wal-Mart gave this as its reason: Wal-Mart employee claiming that Christmas basically was a holiday borrowed from pagan tradition and nothing about Christmas really was authentic. The Wal-Mart communication stated that Wal-Mart is an international company which does business in some places where shoppers are not Christians. Moreover, some shoppers in this country buy gifts for Hanukkah and Kwanza and Wal-Mart doesn't want them to feel uncomfortable. I think this is an interesting issue. And overall, I tend to agree with those who would remove overt references to Christmas. Weyrich calls the Wal-Mart answer "bizarre," but I don't think it is so off the mark. And let's not forget that whatever the beliefs of Sam Walton, or Paul Weyrich, Wal-Mart is in the business to make money. Weyrich describes what he sees as a war on Christianity, in which Christians are embarrassed to admit their faith. Here's one of the skirmishes in that war: In my discussions with Christian friends more and more say that there are no longer Christmas parties at their places of employment. There are holiday parties. There are no longer Christmas bonuses. There are year-end bonuses. All I can say is that if Christians feel persecuted because of the name of their bonus, well, I say Psalm 62:5. But if you think about it, isn't it a little weird that an office would have a Christmas Party? I mean, Christmas is a religious celebration. Logically, couldn't an office, if it were so inclined, have, say, an Epiphany party instead? Or an Ascension of Mary party? Or for that matter, a Yom Kippur party? If not, why not?

Humans begone

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement advocates, as its name suggests, the phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. The SF Chronicle carried an entertaining article on this entertaining group. But it highlights a serious philosophical question within the environmental movement: What is the purpose of evironmentalism? Is it, as the VHEMs have it, to preserve the biosphere for the biosphere's sake, or is it to ensure the continued and (hopefully) improving quality of life of humanity? I think without a doubt the answer is the latter, what I call the anthropocentric model. To me, it makes no sense to talk about a biosphere's inherent right to exist when the biosphere itself doesn't even grant itself that right. If we consider the intrinsic value of Gaia, then let us not forget that this includes ice ages, meteor impacts, magnetic pole reversals, plate tectonics, and a host of other mass-extinction-producing events that remind us that in the end, Mother Nature doesn't really care about life. But just because Mother Nature doesn't care doesn't mean that we don't have to, either. On the contrary, I would argue that the anthropocentric model compels us even more to an environmental ethic, because it is our own welfare we are toying with. And our welfare does not involve voluntary extinction.

Anti-military

This one is for my friends in the armed forces. Mike at the Indoctrination Center has an encounter with an Army recruiter. Read it and tell me what you think.

Jesus vs Darwin, round 4

I think that one reason Intelligent Design as a philosophy persists is that the people who hold it don't really comprehend the issues involved. They have a frustratingly poor grasp of what current scientific theories say, and they don't understand how Intelligent Design (ID) theory answers, or really in truth fails to answer, any gaps in the orthodoxy. The following paragraphs come from an article by Thomas Brewton regarding a PBS documentary on Isaac Newton. Darwinians and other devotees of socialistic scientism deny Intelligent Design, yet find it convenient continually to refer to the laws of chemistry and physics without concerning themselves with how those necessary laws came to be. The unfathomable vastness, perfection, and orderliness of the universe is, in their minds, just a random accident, despite the infinitesimally small odds of an accident on such a scale. It is easier for such "scientists" to rely on an unprovable belief in atheistic secularism, which backfires at every turn in the real world, while ignoring the incontrovertible evidence that Intelligent Design suffuses every aspect of the universe, of life, and our perception of it. These paragraphs expose many weaknesses. But the most telling one is his use of the word "unfathomable." That in a nutshell explains the support for ID. Richard Dawkins called it the argument from disbelief: "I don't believe it so it can't be true."

Popularity Contest

Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low--37%. My first thought is, what took you guys so long to figure it out? But my second thought is, should we really care about polls? Jan Larson, following the paternalisitic president model, suggests that we shouldn't. In his view, sometimes the American public's wants aren't aligned with its best interests, and it's the president's job to stay the proper course, no matter how unpopular. As Larson puts it, [A] factor in the President’s low popularity ratings is that most Americans need instant gratification. When they don’t get what they want or believe they deserve right now, they complain like children to their mothers. The White House doesn't think we should care about them, either. Scott McClellan says: "We look forward to continuing to talk about it. I mean, you can get caught up in polls; we don't. Polls are snapshots in time." Larson's dismissal of polls reflects a larger attitude that I see among right-wing commentators that "the public," however one defines it, is "uninformed," "blissfully unaware," "childish," or "spoiled." (I found all these terms in one right-wing article.) Be that as it may, and though I agree that we can get "caught up in polls," I would think that if my approval polls were steadily dropping, especially on the very topics on which I based my presidency (terrorism, homeland defense, etc), I might reconsider my supposed mandate.

Darwin v Jesus, Round 3

Dover, PA, voters sent their school board packing because of the controversy surrounding Intelligent Design. The ousted board members are probably already on their way to Kansas, where they will be received with open arms. There, they plan to help draft the next iteration of state educational mandates, this one dealing with the prickly subject of gravity.

Population explosion

I normally don't like to talk about abortion. To me the subject is too complex and too intimate to treat properly on this blog. But, I did come across an interesting bogus statistic that is worth reporting. Rock for Life, who mission is "making the womb a safer place to live," claims that since 1965, over 530 million abortion have been performed in the US. 530 million! The current population of the US is only 297,508,216. That's the equivalent of every female in the US having 3.6 abortions. Hmmm.... It's probably a good thing we had all those abortions, or the US population would be 3 times what it is today. So what's fishy? This group considers any form of contraception (except condoms) a chemically-induced abortion. Most chemical contraception works by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. So if you are willing to call the single-cell ootid a "child," as this group does, then I'm willing to grant you this definition of abortion. But how do they calculate the number of fertilized eggs that were prevented from implanting? They would have to know: the total amount of sexual intercourse, the total amount of contraception properly used, the total amount of sperm that successfully reached the egg, the total amount of eggs that didn't implant for natural reasons. Clearly a ridiculous task. This statistic is propaganda, pure and simple.

A Nation under Attack

There is a bunker mentality within the arch-conservative community. Take a gander at these two examples. Thomas Brewton, a favorite whipping boy of mine, publishes a manifesto on his website called The Unwritten Constitution. In it, he describes a "liberal jihad," an unconstitutional effort to subvert the very substance of our culture. He likens liberals to suicide bombers and to Nazis. And to make matters worse, liberals are doing with taxpayers' dollars. Meanwhile, Linda Kimball posted an undecipherable piece called The Intrinsic Evil of Evolutionary Humanism. She's a bit of a blast from the past, because her bugaboo is communism. But this isn't your father's communism, as she makes clear: ...communism itself began to shape-shift into something innocuous seeming in order that it could slither into and infect Christendom and the very fortress of Christianity, the United States. It disguised itself as progressivism, liberalism, secular humanism, and then later as environmentalism, feminism and a plethora of other social justice causes. She goes on to claim that AIDS and Roe v. Wade are all parts of a conspiracy, no, not a conspiracy since it is overt practice, of a national plan for "committing demographic suicide." So it's no wonder that Brewton, Kimball, and their colleagues are so up in arms. The "very fortress of Christianity" is under attack from slithering liberalism. I have to admit, though, that I'm still a bit hazy on what exactly the liberal agenda is, besides world destruction, that is. But the faced with opponents like this, it's clear to me that the real beseiged are those who legitmately believe in promoting "social justice causes."

Basis of Morality

Read Thomas Brewton's article with the illuminating title "Liberals: I am Moral; Screw You." He handily encapsulates two misconceptions common to the religious right. First, that Christianity is the only source of morality. Second, that since liberals often eschew religion, they therefore lack morals. Brewton's site has a long-standing theme that says that moral standards are the basis of civilization. But in this sense "moral standards" are no more, or less, than a set of seemingly exogenous, [almost-] universally-followed behavioral rules designed to lubricate the frictions of humans living in close proximity. Formal religion is a very convenient source or indeed proxy for these rules. But any religion will do. Clearly, Christianity is not a prerequisite, or how else do we explain the great non-Christian civilizations of China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, or the Mediterranean? Furthermore, formal religion is by no means the only source. Confuscism, the basis of Chinese culture for a long time, is not a religion, but rather a moral philosophy. Therefore, logically, any beef with liberals SHOULD be that they lack such a set of rules (though of course they don't). But, illogically, his real beef is that they lack HIS favored set of rules, the lack of which he interprets as "doing whatever you feel like." He would probably respond that his rules are in fact the rules of our founding fathers and that these rules are woven into our Constitution, etc, etc. I'd agree with that up to a certain point (basis for another post). But I get sick and tired of those who say, for instance, that supporting abortion is a symptom of amorality while supporting the killing of Iraqi civilians to preserve western oil supplies (as Brewton said in his Nov 1 column) adheres to the true morality. Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame has posited a positive link between the drastic drop in crime rates in the US and abortion, suggesting that in fact abortion may be morally defensible. I doubt anyone can morally defend the US’ wasteful use of one-quarter of the world’s oil.

Left v Right

What is the difference between a conservative and a liberal? Thoughtfulness. When confronted with an issue, conservatives react, liberals think. For instance, take this piece by Barbara Stock on the suburban riots in Paris. (You can skip the first two paragraphs--they're the usual juvenile barbs at the Left. And I won't even comment on the millenarian tones of her predicted Muslim invasion of Europe.) Stock's solution to these riots? What the French should do is deport each and every one of the rioters and their families back from whence they came. Take that! Except that most of those involved in the riots are French-born French citizens. Where do we send them? Liberals, on the other hand, might actually analyze the issue, look at root causes. It's no secret that the Parisian suburbs at the epicenter of these riots are depressing ghettos, long-neglected by society. They are rife with with poor housing, mediocre education, rampant crime, drugs, crumbling family structures, and joblessness. Riots were all but unavoidable. Instead of knee-jerk solutions, how about real change, real integration? And before we criticize the so-called "weakness of Western Europe," let's remember that these riots are no different from the 1992 Los Angeles riots. (What would we have done then if we followed Stock's advice? Send the rioters back to...Georgia?)

Jesus vs. Darwin, round 2

The trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools is underway, and the San Francisco Chronicle provides an update. My feelings about ID are no secret, so I'm happy whenever its insidious advance is challenged. I'd rather the challenge take place with reasoned public debate, but I'll take a court case if that's what is necessary.

the Leaning Ivory Tower

In the past few days, I've been spending time over at Indoctrination Center Ahead, an entertaining blog written by a conservative high school kid enslaved by the liberal public school system. I haven't decided if I should take the blog seriously yet, but I have been thinking about the supposed liberal bias of the educational establishment. Then, coincidentally, today, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation offered a piece suggesting some reasons for liberal bias at universities. They are: 1. The Common Assumption. "The assumption is that all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals," he writes. "There is no joy in breaking up fellowship feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure." 2. The False Consensus Effect. "That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population." Bauerlein gives as an example the infamous statement ascribed to a New York Times film critic: "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." The same thing was certainly said in many academic halls after the 2004 election. 3. The Law of Group Polarization. "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs," Bauerlein writes. In Old Left circles, this meant racing to embrace Stalin. Nowadays, the far left does not simply oppose the war in Iraq. Instead it argues, "BUSH LIED!" or asserts that neoconservative Israeli loyalists have hijacked our government. Since they operate in an environment where their prejudices are supported and dissent has been thoroughly demonized, most teachers and administrators really do not understand what conservatives are so upset about. After I read these reasons, I wondered if this much-hyped liberal bias truly exists. In my quick google search, I didn't come across anything definitive. This article from the Boston Globe says yes there is...and no there isn't. Of course, every conservative site says it does exist. Then I came across this very interesting post from a fellow blogspot blogger. He argues that "in order to prove discrimination against conservative persons, we'd have to find "significant numbers of Republicans who wish to enter Academia but either a) face institutional obstacles to doing so (such as biased administrators) or b) feel academia is a "hostile environment" to persons with their views." In my opinion, the jury is still out on both of those questions." He suggests, instead, that perhaps the reason for a liberal bias is self-selection. Conservatives are choosing not to enter academia, instead choosing to enter industry or work at think-tanks. I offer another reason, one based in my own academic history: One cannot become an academic and remain a conservative. Learning precludes conservatism.

The first casualty of war is truth

At last, potential answers. Thomas Brewton most recent column is tantalizingly titled "Iraq: What Are We Fighting For?" As you know, this is a question I have been asking myself for a while now, unsuccessfully. After sorting through the usual anti-Left balderdash, we discover the answer: to secure oil supplies so we can preserve our current quality of life. So forget words like "democracy" and "freedom." As Brewton makes clear, those are merely parts of an administration spin campaign designed to mollify an inconvenient public. At last, some honesty.

Females in Power

I've discovered a disturbing trend in my browsing of conservative websites, a trend of male chauvinism (to use an old-fashioned term). Well, in truth, only two incidents, but in geometry I learned that it only takes two points to describe a line. The first, I discussed yesterday. In that one, we were told--by a man--why women are not capable of governing. Today, we are told--by J. D. Morris, another man--why a woman wouldn't make a very good president. Sure, the Morris article is ostensibly a critique of a TV show he happens to dislike. But the show happens to be about the first female president, and it doesn't take a very careful reading to divine his true feelings on that subject. In the first paragraph, Morris explains how a show about a female president is "supposed to make women feel good about themselves" but nothing more, because in reality, the idea of a working mom becoming president is just a "fairytale (sic)." He then goes on to pan the plot of one episode because it unrealistically "plays to the fears" of its audience of women. Egad. This must be the first time in television history that a TV show subordinated verisimilitude to entertainment value. Come on, Morris. You could have made the same point about any show on the air (except, I guess, "West Wing," because, since it features a properly male president, it is undoubtedly true-to-life). Maybe Morris is right. Maybe the show really is bad. But maybe its popularity stems from the fact that we as a nation are ready, clamoring, for a president that is drawn from the group that comprises the majority (51%) of our population, namely, women.

Gender blindness and Jesus

I must be one of those feminized liberal thinkers, because I found this article to be patronizing, condescending, and smug. "Respected talk-show host" Dennis Prager explains why women are not fit to be in charge. But since we as a society are renouncing Jesus, women are taking charge anyway. Prager opens with this zinger. As a result of the repudiation of Judeo-Christian values, we are witnessing the ascendance of the feminine in Western society. But, wait. Prager's not a male chauvinist. As he makes clear, Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness. How are men and women equal? Well, Prager says, In the micro realm, the feminine virtues are invaluable – for example, women hear infants' cries far more readily than men do. But as a basis for governance of society, the feminization of public policy is suicidal. Got it? Women are good for listening for crying infants, while men are good for governing society. Prager's right. Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness, not in any way whatsoever. Prager's equality sounds suspiciously like that of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Irony, a primer

I know it's mean, but I can't help it, especially since I also commented at the site. This site is so earnest that it just begs for a piss-taking. But if I were to call a posting "Someone Buy this Kid a Dictionary," I'd make sure I didn't misspell the word "privilege" in the first paragraph. Now I'd better go through and spell-check everything I've ever written.

Clash of cultures

It's rare that I agree with the Heritage Foundation, but I did finding myself nodding occasionally as I read this piece on a "Clash of Cultures." A new international treaty allows other countries to keep out American cultural exports in the name of preserving their own cultures. Of course, according to Dale, the French are the most enthusiastic signers of this treaty while the poor beleagured US ambassador Louise Oliver couldn't turn the tide. I'm sure there's more to the story--after all, 141 other countries besides France, including Canada, the UK, and New Zealand, voted for the treaty as well. And I can understand the fear of homogenization that must lie behind it. But the thing I did agree with can be summed up in this statement: "According to the French conspiracy mill, the U.S. government is forcing French consumers to eat hamburgers at thousands of McDonald’s outlets that dot the country." Many people who decry the spread of American pop culture forget that consumers the world over just devour our cultural products. For instance, in a town I used to live in in southern Italy, the most popular eating establishment was the McDonald's. In Panama City, Panama, it was the TGIF. In Tegucigalpa, Honduras, it was the Pizza Hut. I don't pretend to understand why many of our products are so popular (since I wouldn't buy them myself), but the fact is, the world is buying, voluntarily, what we are selling.