jgapinoy

God left his C.O.A.T. behind

2009-07-10T09:04:00.006-07:00

Guest blogger Marty Clapp answers the skeptics: Is there really a God?

COSMOLOGY (Universe)
Memorization tool: B.E.G.A.N.- We want to know how the universe began
-BEGINNING- Scientists now know that the universe has not always existed. Cosmologists tell us that space, matter, and time literally had a beginning.
-EXPLOSION- (Some of the problems with postulating the Big Bang theory as a “God-substitute”)
(question 1)- What caused the “original matter” to suddenly explode after existing eternally in a state of balance, equilibrium, and stability? Why would it suddenly become unstable? (consider the laws of inertia and the law of causality).
(question 2)- What kind of cause best explains this? There are two types of “causes” = “natural causes” (caused by something), and “intelligent causes” (caused by someone). Consider the following:
(2a) If everything simply exploded from some original material source, why are stars and planets so different from each other? Why are the planets themselves so different from each other? Wouldn’t we expect more similarity if they all originated from the same material source?
(2b) Explosions have a natural tendency to disorganize, not to organize. Yet, the universe, our solar system, and planet earth show a high degree of order and precision.
(2c) This event would have to be the “perfect explosion”. It would require such a perfect balance between the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force that it defies explanation by chance. In other words, if it expanded too rapidly, no galaxies, planets, stars, etc. would have formed. But, if it expanded too slowly, it would have collapsed back in on itself under its own gravitational pull. Paul Davies in “God and the New Physics” states that this degree of accuracy could be compared to taking aim at a 1 inch square target 20 billion light years away, and hitting the mark!
-GALAXIES- Scientists tell us that, for all practical purposes, stars and galaxies should not exist. Yet, they do. (Some of their theories on star formation actually require stars in order to make stars. (But where did the first stars come from?)
-ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE- The design and order of the universe and our solar system is so finely-tuned and well-balanced, it’s as though it was all made specifically for life, particularly on planet earth.
-ENTROPY- (a.k.a. “The Second Law of Thermodynamics) The universe, just like everything else, is wearing down and wearing out. The fact that it is wearing down and running out of usable energy tells us once again that the universe had a beginning.
Conclusion: Cosmology tells us that the universe had a beginning, and that the cause of the universe is best explained by an intelligent cause. Therefore, God is the most plausible explanation.

ONTOLOGY (Being)
(in combination with the design argument)
1) There never was a time when there was absolutely nothing. (Ex nihilo nihil fit- “Out of nothing, nothing comes”)
2) There are two possibilities:
A) A self-existent, eternal something (universe, matter, energy, etc.). In other words, something that was always there.
B) A self-existent, eternal Someone (God). In other words, Someone Who was always there.
3) Recent scientific discoveries confirm that the universe had a beginning, therefore, it did not exist eternally. In addition to this, we know that matter and energy, by its very nature, is subject to change and dependent.
4) Something that is subject to change and dependent cannot be self-existent and eternal. There cannot be a self-existent, eternal something.
5) A Someone is a more reasonable explanation for such things as design, order, specified complexity, and information systems (such as DNA).
6) Therefore, there must be a self-existent, eternal Someone (God).
(A summary of this argument)
There never was a time when there was absolutely nothing. This tells us that there must be something or Someone that was always there. A Someone is a more rational explanation for such things as design, order, specified complexity, and information systems (such as DNA). Therefore, God is the most plausible explanation.

AXIOLOGY (Moral Law)
(Definition of “Objective moral values”- To say that there are “objective moral values” is to say that there are some things that really are morally wrong)
(example)
In Germany in the 1940’s, the Nazis were torturing and murdering millions of Jews. It would be unthinkable to suggest that the Nazis were doing the right thing because it was “right for them” or “right for their culture to do so. It is obvious that torturing and murdering innocent people really is morally wrong (an objective moral value).
(A summary of this argument)
Objective moral values cannot exist without a Supreme Lawgiver
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, there must be a Supreme Lawgiver. God is the most plausible explanation.

TELEOLOGY (Purpose and Design)
Design and purpose points to a designer
There is great design in the universe
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the Universe. God is the most plausible explanation.

On the Origin of Atheism

2009-07-07T13:13:00.002-07:00

The atheists I've encountered often tell me how their conclusion (that is, their religion) is based on logic. Is it logical to insist that life arose, by itself, from non-living matter? Even Darwin hesitated to speculate on the origin of life (even though his seminal book was called "Origin of Species"), and Darwin had no idea how complex the simplest form of life is. No, atheism is based on PRIDE. Jesus Christ said, "How can you believe (in me), when you receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory of God?"

The Declaration of Independence

2009-07-04T05:47:00.002-07:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Entertaining Ourselves To Death

2009-07-01T12:58:00.008-07:00

The title of the post refers to both the quantity and the (lack of) quality of the entertainment that Western Civilization indulges in. I could go in several different directions about that, but the thing that's bugging me now is the movie industry. More specifically, films marketed to children. If Follywood had any morals, they would only make clean movies attractive to kids. Current feature Land of the Lost is not clean. It's filled with profanities (almost 100), illicit sexual content, and many other problems. I'd deem it for mature audiences only, but mature people would be repelled by the filth in this production.

LOTL is the latest in a long tradition of awful Hollyweird offerings that lure children. A glance at the "Family" section of an online video retailer reveals such trash as Marley & Me, Mike Myer's Cat In The Hat, and Steve Martin's Pink Panther.

There are films with no cussing and no sexual situations that are still dirty in my book. Inherit The Wind and Disney's Pocahantas are full of twistory--much of what is presented is the opposite of what happened. The Golden Compass is a Narnia-style tract for atheism.

"How am I supposed to know what's a good movie for my family?" I'm glad you asked. Simply go to pluggedinonline.com before you go to the theater or DVD store.

Sanford Spirals Downward

2009-06-26T06:43:00.003-07:00

A story line that goes back to David and Bathsheba and beyond--powerful male gambles everything on a fling in the hay. Yes, many women are attracted to men in power (even if they look like Mr. Sanford). But it takes two to tango. "What was he thinking?"--the question that always gets asked.
An acquaintance of mine was describing a hunting jaunt: The guys were in an open Jeep, scouting for rabbits. They saw a pair mating in the distance. As the hunters approached, the female broke away from the male's grasp to flee for her life, and the male was also running behind her, but not to flee. He soon tackled her and resumed his attempt to make baby bunnies. This gave the hunters a chance to catch up, and soon both of our furry friends were in a stew.
The moral of the story is that your sex drive can drive you off a cliff. It's like a drug or alcohol--under it's influence, you do things you otherwise wouldn't think of doing. Adultery is like a plague in America's homes, destroying families.
These three short chapters in the Biblical Proverbs are a powerful antidote to this influence.
Yes, this is a slightly adjusted reprint from my post 14 months ago. Sanford acted like Spitzer, so it was worth a second look.

Random Rants

2009-06-24T07:06:00.013-07:00

Why does adultery destroy the careers of politicians, while apparently enhancing the careers of Follywood stars?

If Iran had a Second Amendment, the pro-mullah thugs who raid homes in the middle of the night would have Second Thoughts before doing so.

I occasionally see people jog while wearing heavy sweatsuits in 90 degree heat. I wonder, did it ever occur to them that they'll gain back the extra sweat-weight when they drink water?

It seems that the knee-jerk hostility known as Bush Derangement Syndrome in the angry Left crowd has been replaced by PMS: Palin Malevolence Syndrome.

I'll never buy another song or album. Why should I when it's so easy to custom-make playlists on YouTube that work just like albums?

I make the world's best smoothies. Today's creation: I threw 2 bananas, 5 strawberries, 4 ice cubes, some milk, and a small slice of cherry pie into the blender. Awesome.

One of the reasons I never use Google's search engine is that GoodSearch (powered by Yahoo) donates to my favorite charity every time I use it.

Observing the response to the immorality of Governor Mark Sanford, one sees a lot of hatred, a lot of irrational guilt-by-association arrows being shot. This is a more thoughtful examination of the episode. And I'm reminded of this.

Remembering Greatness

2009-06-14T17:09:00.008-07:00

This week marked twenty-two years since President Ronald W. Reagan delivered a speech that was a key ingredient for the dismantling of the "Evil Empire"--the USSR and its satellites. When Reagan made this demand, the so-called experts criticized and ridiculed, but it is universally recognized today that this was a shrewd move, and Reagan is usually assigned the lion's share of credit for the demise of Soviet communism.
At a time when the Republican Party is navel-gazing and soul-searching, with many saying it needs to "move beyond Reagan", thankfully many are insisting that Reagan the still the soul of the GOP.
I hope he is. As I consider his other accomplishments--

–cut taxes
–reduced inflation
-lowered unemployment
–rebuilt military
–restored American morale

--I must remind you that he did all of these with a mostly Democrat Congress and mostly hostile media (no talk radio and no Fox News yet).
For these reasons and more, Reagan is my all-time favorite President. My hope is that the Republican Party can get its act together soon and give us heroes who will one day out-Reagan even Reagan himself. God knows we now have at least as many challenges as we had in the 1980s, one of which is overcoming the misdeeds of the bungling amateurs occupying the White House today.

Not Funny

2009-06-10T13:21:00.011-07:00

There are thousands of examples one could cite of the "What if it was the other party?" phenomenon, in which a conservative or Republican gets crucified for something because he's a Republican, or else a liberal or Democrat does something despicable and the media say, "So?" The latest incident is the disgusting joke David Letterman told last night about baseball player Alex Rodriguez supposedly impregnating Sarah Palin's fourteen year old daughter Willow at Yankee Stadium.

That's the incident, and here's the typical media reaction.

The only comparable example of a Republican going that low and that sleazy for laughs in my memory is when Rush Limbaugh implied that then-teenager Chelsea Clinton was somewhat canine in appearance. He apologized repeatedly, but he was severely and universally chastised, and the issue still comes up sixteen years later.
I don't expect Letterman to apologize. In fact, last night's attempted humor was 'piling on'--the previous night, he said Palin's businesswoman-like attire is the "slutty flight attendant look". The man is obviously desperate and wicked.

Update--
Even though it was well-publicized that fourteen year old Willow was with her parents at the ballpark and eighteen year old Bristol was not, Letterman insists tonight that he meant Bristol was impregnated by Rodriguez. Allahpundit of HotAir.com sarcastically explains:
"(Letterman would) never condone statutorily raping a girl who’s underage. All he meant to do was goof on the idea that Palin’s eldest daughter, a single mother with a baby, is a whore. Everything cool now? Let’s move on."

Grim Remembrance

2009-06-04T20:28:00.005-07:00

It's been 20 years today since Red China brutally crushed the hope of freedom in Tiananmen Square. Today, China is just as brutal, but the IOC awarded them with hosting the Olympic Games, during which NBC recklessly heaped praise on many aspects of that oppressed society, and GM CEO Obama just sold the Hummer portion of GM to a Chinese company, and Google still works hard to prevent the Chinese people from using the internet to advance the cause of freedom.

Please check out HotAir's take on the anniversary.

Strange Bedfellows

2009-06-03T19:24:00.007-07:00

What is it about pro-homosexual, pro-feminist secularists like President Obama that makes them want to get lovey-dovey with homosexual-killing, women-enslaving theocrats like Iran's President AckMyDumbJihad? Kinda reminds me of the Canadian leftists marching arm-in-arm with Muslim leaders against Mark Steyn a few months back (Steyn was being prosecuted by the Canadian Inquisi-, uh, I mean government for the crime of hurting Muslims' feelings).

Obama is even lying to try to impress his Islamic hosts:
--his dad, described as "agnostic" during the campaign, is now being called a Muslim;
--his grandmother, labeled as a "Christian" during the campaign, is now supposedly planning a trip to Mecca;
--and did you know that the USA is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"?
Not to mention the fact that Obama's middle name, verboten during the campaign, is fashionable now. (Remember how baking-cookies-stand-by-your-man Hillary Clinton became Hillary Rodham Clinton the day after Bill's inauguration?)

Will this turn into another apology tour for Obama? We can all see how much good the last one did. Even the left-wing British Guardian newspaper noted that Obama has criticized his own country on foreign soil more than any other sitting President ever (but not nearly as much as Jimmah Cahtuh and Billy Clinton did during W's eight years).

The only answer I can come up with to the question I opened with is that maybe the love of big government has the West's liberals and Islam's radicals making eyes at each other.

It's Wrong To Murder Murderers

2009-05-31T19:00:00.005-07:00

During the first several decades of Christianity, Roman and Jewish authorities persecuted the Church, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Christians. A Christian in those days might have reasoned to himself that if he killed one of the persecutors, there might be fewer deaths of Christians. I'm glad that there is no record of that ever happening, but that twisted logic appeared today in the murder of George Tiller. Scott Roeder thought that he ought to take the place of God and punish Tiller, the infamous partial-birth abortionist. Not only will there be just as many abortions taking place next month as this month, Mr. Roeder, but the tide of public opinion--which had been swinging in the pro-life direction--just might swing back the other way, thanks to you, Mr. Roeder. We ought to leave justice up to God. We do not live in a theocracy, and God does not tell anyone to murder in his name.

A Call For A Criminal Justice Revolution

2009-05-30T14:40:00.011-07:00

Now that President Obama has spent half of our children's and grandchildren's life earnings on liberal programs and rewarding political allies, government needs some money-saving ideas. Ah-nold has threatened to release thousands of California's inmates from prison because of their especially awful budget crisis (is it a coincidence that the most leftist states are in deepest recession?), but he might not have to if he follows my prescription.

Simply put, you give inmates a choice. You can have a traditional sentence, or your sentence can be reduced by two-thirds if you agree to:

1) Solitary confinement with no visitors except family, clergy, medical and legal professionals;
2) Productive labor for eight hours a day at whatever task is assigned to you (this must be something that can be done within the prisoner's cell);
3) No media of any kind except reading materials that can be considered educational or spiritual; and
4) Excellent behavior.

What about exercise?
Millions have done aerobics in the few square feet in front of their TVs. Inmates can do the same, except without the TV. Not to mention push-ups, sit-ups, jump-rope, isometrics, and running in place.

It would be far cheaper to keep an inmate in "lockdown" all of the time. An inmate who accepts this offer wouldn't be able to intimidate or be intimidated by other inmates. He wouldn't be pumping himself up in the weight room to facilitate overpowering the guards during the next riot. Therefore the prison would need fewer guards. New prisons could be made smaller, especially since many inmates would leave 66% faster, so there would be fewer inmates. The prospect of solitary confinement keeps the incentive to avoid prison. And the fact that it's a choice made by the convict keeps the ACLU away.

Outrageous Money-Making Scheme

2009-05-26T20:24:00.006-07:00

Hey, let's get a bunch of tall guys to put on silly clothes and fight each other over who's better at putting a toy ball through a metal ring. We'll need to get a ton of taxpayer dollars to build a place to play this game, of course, and maybe a lot of those taxpayers will actually pay a bunch more money to visit the arenas that they paid for because they'd really want to see these games.

OK, I guess it's a silly idea...no one would fall for such an outrageous money-making scheme.

Remember those who have paid dearly for our blessings

2009-05-24T22:00:00.005-07:00

I searched the internet in vain to learn who this quote originated with, but it's still worth repeating:
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to his country for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
Thanks to all who have served honorably in our armed forces, and a special appreciation goes out to those who have lost loved ones serving our country. God bless you.
A happy yet pensive Memorial Day to all.

Historical Presidency Indeed

2009-05-19T07:01:00.012-07:00

It's a well-accepted fact that the President of the United States is the most powerful man on Earth, and this has been true for decades. I would submit that our current President is the most powerful man in history.

As Presidents go, Barack Hussein Obama is an especially powerful one. Big-spending politicians are more powerful than budget-cutters (that's why most politicians are big spenders), and no one has ever been in the same spending league as Obama. He has lavishly rewarded with tax dollars those who helped his campaign. Unions, big-city mayors, ACORN, and Planned Parenthood are just a few of his many partners.

Not only is Mr. Obama the President; he is, in effect, the CEO of GM, Chrysler, and many financial corporations. Empowered by taxpayer-funded bailouts, Obama fired GM's CEO, he forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat, and he has dominated the business world like no one ever has.

State governments are genuflecting to Obama. He takes massive amounts of tax dollars from the states and sends them back to states according to who needs rewarding and who needs influencing.

Obama also has tremendous sway over other powerful institutions. Most media are slavishly devoted to him. Universities throw out beliefs and traditions to accommodate him.

Soon Obama will become significantly more powerful, when he takes over another one-seventh of the US economy. Yes, his health-care plan will start out as optional, but it will by design put private health care out of business.

I find solace in the hope that Obama's stranglehold on power will end in three and a half or seven and a half years, depending on election results. That is, of course, if we have elections.

Altruism, Vengeance Not Condusive To Darwinistic Survival

2009-05-11T04:50:00.007-07:00

My Miniature Pinscher killed a sparrow. I didn't see it happen, but I heard and then saw the ruckus as the surviving birds swirled around, threatening revenge on Buster. Why would they do that? Why would they take turns swooping down within a couple of feet of the one who had just demonstrated his willingness and his ability to kill? (He's killed at least twenty birds in his eight years of guarding our home) It couldn't have been some maternal or familial instinct to protect the species, you Darwinists out there, because most of the eight or nine birds that were trying to intimidate Buster were pigeons or blackbirds. Only one sparrow sought to avenge it's bird-of-a-feather.
Again I ask, why would they do that?

Lady Justice's blindfold, by Jeff Jacoby

2009-05-11T04:47:00.001-07:00

JUDICIAL dispassion - the ability to decide cases without being influenced by personal feelings or political preferences - is indispensable to the rule of law. So indispensable, in fact, that the one-sentence judicial oath required of every federal judge and justice contains no fewer than three expressions of it: "I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God."

There are biblical echoes in the wording of that oath - a reminder that the judge's obligation to decide cases on the basis of fact and law, without regard to the litigants' wealth or fame or social status, is a venerable moral principle.

"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike," says Moses in Deuteronomy, instructing the Israelite judges. "You shall not distort justice; you shall not respect persons, and you shall not take a bribe."

Elsewhere they are reminded that it is not only the rich they are forbidden to favor. "Neither shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute," Exodus firmly warns. Judges may not bend the law, not even to help the underprivileged.

Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under "a government of laws and not of men" only so long as judges stick to neutrally resolving the disputes before them, applying the law, and upholding the Constitution even when doing so leads to results they personally dislike. That is why the judicial oath is so adamant about impartiality. That is why Lady Justice is so frequently depicted - as on the sculpted lampposts outside the US Supreme Court - wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales.

And that is why President Obama's "empathy" standard is so disturbing, and has generated so much comment.

Time and again, Obama has called for judges who do not put their private political views aside when deciding cases. In choosing a replacement for Justice David Souter, the president says, he will seek not just "excellence and integrity," but a justice whose "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," would be "an essential ingredient" in his jurisprudence. In an interview last year, he said he would look for judges "sympathetic" to those "on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless."

When he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Obama declared that the "truly difficult" cases that come before the Supreme Court can be decided only with reference to "the depth and breadth of one's empathy," and that "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

But such cardiac justice is precisely what judges "do solemnly swear" to renounce. Sympathy for others is an admirable virtue. But a judge's private commiserations are not relevant to the law he is expected to apply.

If Obama means what he says, he wants judges who will violate their oath of office.

"We need somebody who's got the heart - the empathy - to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007. "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

With such criteria, what would remain of the rule of law? What would happen to "Equal Justice Under Law," which is carved above the Supreme Court's entrance? What would be left of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" to every citizen?

Lady Justice wears a blindfold not because she has no empathy for certain litigants or groups of people, but because there is no role for such empathy in a courtroom.

"Our constitution is color-blind," wrote Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, in his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, "and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Harlan had supported slavery; he believed whites were superior to nonwhites. He had his empathies, but he confined his judging to the law.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Ten Non-Theological Reasons To Oppose Homosexual Marriage

2009-05-08T10:17:00.012-07:00

If homosexual marriage becomes entrenched in the law...
1) there can be no rationale to refuse polygamists the right to legally wed...
2) there can be no rationale to refuse incestuous relationships the right to legally wed...
3) there can be no rationale to refuse inter-species relationships the right to legally wed...
4) through this precedent activists will force churches, religious counseling agencies, religious schools, and everyone else to hire homosexuals against their consciences...
5) every government institution (including schools) and every institution that has any government assistance (such as tax exemptions) will eventually be forced to portray homosexual marriage as normal...
6) it will become illegal to prevent children from being adopted or foster-cared by homosexual couples, even though more than ten thousand studies have concluded that the ideal for raising kids is having a father and a mother for a variety of reasons...
7) the health-care system, already strained, will be devastated with hundreds of thousands of new dependents, many of whom are infected with STDs, including HIV...
8) the Social Security system, already strained, will be devastated with hundreds of thousands of new dependents...
9) many retirement policies, already strained, will be devastated with hundreds of thousands of new dependents.
Finally,
10) homosexual intercourse is disgusting, dirty, and unhealthy in and of itself, and homosexuals are much more likely to add even more dangerous and unhealthy sexual methods and instruments to their sexual expressions, and homosexuals are generally extremely promiscuous (not the marrying type). So it would be wrong for the State to sanctify homosexuality.
Instead, the State ought to promote the cure.
For further information, see
http://www.wevotevalues.com/11arguments.pdf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity

Sloppy or Deceitful?

2009-05-07T13:03:00.013-07:00

Are reporters and commentators intentionally confusing the issue or just being sloppy when they brand a large segment of society:
1) "anti-stem cell research",
2) "anti-evolution",
3) "anti-tax",
4) "homophobic",
5) "anti-Muslim",
6) "anti-immigration",
7) "anti-environment"?
My opinion is that some are sloppy and some are deceitful.
I am:
1) anti-embryonic stem cell research (since adult stem cell research kills no one and is far more promising,
2) anti-macro-evolution, since examples of micro-evolution are all around us, but there has never been an example of macro-evolution,
3) anti-punitive-tax and anti-confiscatory tax (see my post on economics),
4) anti-homosexual marriage (reasons listed here) and anti-special rights for homosexuals, because law ought to apply to everyone equally,
5) anti-Islamofascism, because Muslims ought to enjoy the freedom to live and worship as I do, unless their extremism leads them to try to deny my right to live and worship freely,
6) anti-illegal immigration, because many wonderful legal immigrants (including my wife) have been a blessing to America, but illegal immigrants are by definition law-breakers,
7) and anti-environmental extremism and hysteria, such as the preposterous global warming tomfoolery.

Dirty Harry's reassuring words

2009-05-05T10:51:00.005-07:00

Captain Ed at HotAir.com writes that Harry Reid sent out a highly subjective message this morning about the imminent Obama nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court. Basically Reid said that if we liked B. Hussein Obama's Cabinet appointees, we'll like his court nominees. Here's the video of Reid. And below is Ed's tally of BHO's attempts at staffing:

Let’s recap the Greatest Transition Evah^TM:

Bill Richardson - Original Commerce Secretary appointee, had to withdraw when Obama administration found out that federal investigators weren’t joking around about a pay-for-play probe that had been public since last August.
Tom Daschle - Original HHS Secretary nominee, withdrew when he admitted not paying taxes on lobbyist bennies, a double-whammy on Obama’s stated ethics standards.
Tim Geithner - Confirmed as Treasury Secretary despite evading tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes, despite having been reimbursed by his employer to cover them. Blames TurboTax, and the Senate somehow buys the excuse.
Judd Gregg - Obama’s second abortive attempt to appoint a Commerce Secretary, who bolts when Obama tries undermining his authority on the Census and ignores his budgetary concerns.
Hillary Clinton - Pay-for-play allegations almost derail her confirmation as Secretary of State.
Hilda Solis - The Labor Secretary has to explain tax problems of her own.
Kathleen Sebelius - Doesn’t tell the entire truth about her connections to late-term abortionist and has a pay-for-play scandal on the horizon. Confirmed, but probably shouldn’t start working with an interior designer just yet.
Third choice at Commerce Gary Locke’s unanswered ethics problems.
On the lighter side, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s belated realization that oil production falls under his purview.

Plus, we have the sub-Cabinet appointment fiascoes:

Approaching two dozen waivers for the no-lobbyist pledge in the first two weeks of his presidency.
Sanjay Gupta.
Vivek Kundra’s criminal record.
Nancy Killefer’s tax problems.
Chas Freeman’s intemperate 9/11 comments and connections to China.
Urban czar Adolfo Carrion.
Annette Nazareth at Treasury.
Auto czar Steve Rattner’s alleged involvement in a kickback scheme with a New York pension fund.

This isn’t even quite an exhaustive list. Reid thinks this track record should reassure us? What’s he trying to do, audition for VP?

Keep up the good work, Ed!

Offensive, Me?

2009-05-03T20:35:00.010-07:00

I've been in a social network for some weeks now. When I was invited to join a pro-life sub-group, I was eager to do so, since abortion is just about the worst evil perpetrated by mankind today. I was asked if I wanted to add a reason why I was joining, so I wrote a couple of sentences.
As I'm learning, pretty much everything you do in this network is on display for all of your "friends" to see. So my stated reasons for joining this controversial group were available for saints and sinners alike to read. What surprised me is that the only one (so far) to complain has been someone who I thought shared many of my views, including that of the right to life.
Which kind of person saddens me more, someone who agrees with me but tries to shut me down, or someone who radically disagrees with me but respects my right to speak my mind? Unfortunately, the latter is extremely rare, since it's well-documented that the Left usually tries to quash the voice of the Right. I think it's more unfortunate that there are those seemingly on my side of the spectrum who also want to silence me.
Why would this be? Perhaps he is embarrassed that a "friend" would stir things up in his social circle. Maybe he has more compassion for those who disagree with us than for the millions of children being slaughtered. It might be that he hasn't really thought through the magnitude of the issue; like most of us, too busy watching Idol and working overtime and having fun.
Anyway, I still love him, and I hold out hope that he'll one day be an active ally in the War On Our Children.
Incidentally, one friend--a co-worker--whose views I had no idea about came to me and told me he was moved by what I wrote. He said that he never thought of the issue that way before.
As long as there's hope that one person will be moved by my words, I won't be silenced.
Update: He apologized!
Second Update: I just heard Joe Dallas explain very simply and profoundly the reason why I feel compelled to rock the boat sometimes: God has called his people not to please others, but to serve others.

Counterintuitive

2009-04-28T06:55:00.004-07:00

Being a mailman, I can’t help but notice that there are certain mags that always feature sex on the cover, whether it’s the how-to articles in every issue of Cosmo, or the "cheesecake" in many other publications. Not to mention that TV, movies, & internet (occasionally including HotAir) have lots of sex all ’round. So…why is erectile dysfunction continually growing (no pun intended) as a social phenomenon? Why the ever-increasing need for sexucation & sex therapy? And why are the sexually happiest couples those who use few or none of the sexual “resources” I’ve listed above?
http://old.mbconf.ca/mb/mbh3704/mattox.htm

A Call For A Health Care Revolution

2009-04-26T08:00:00.007-07:00

John C. Goodman is the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. His brilliant essay on the incredible depth, the cause, and the cure of our health care mess can be found here. I'll excerpt the cure part of it here:

Cleaning Up the Mess

The only sensible alternative to relying on a welfare state to solve our health care needs is a renewed reliance on private sector institutions that utilize individual choice and free markets to insure against unforeseen contingencies. In the case of Medicare, our single largest health care problem, such a solution would need to do three things: liberate the patients, liberate the doctors, and pre-fund the system as we move through time.

By liberating the patients I mean giving them more control over their money—at a minimum, one-third of their Medicare dollars. Designate what the patient is able to pay for with this money, and then give him control over it. Based on our experience with health savings accounts, people who are managing their own money make radically different choices. They find ways to be far more prudent and economical in their consumption.

As for doctors, most people don’t realize that they are trapped in a system where they have virtually no ability to re-price or re-package their services the way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it will pay for, what it won’t pay for, and the final price. One example of the many harmful effects of this system is the absence of telephone consultations. Almost no one talks to his or her doctor on the phone. Why? Because Medicare doesn’t pay a doctor to talk to you on the phone. And private insurers, who tend to follow Medicare’s lead, don’t pay for phone consultations either. The same goes for e-mail: Only about two percent of patients and doctors e-mail each other—something that is normal in every other profession.

What about digitizing medical records? Doctors typically do not do this, which means that they can’t make use of software that allows electronic prescriptions and makes it easier to detect dangerous drug interactions or mistaken dosages. Again, this is something that Medicare doesn’t pay for. Likewise patient education: A great deal of medical care can be handled in the home without ever seeing a doctor or a nurse—e.g., the treatment of diabetes. But someone has to give patients the initial instruction, and Medicare doesn’t pay for that.

If we want to move medicine into the 21st century, we have to give doctors and hospitals the freedom to re-price and re-package their services in ways that neither increase the cost to government nor decrease the quality of service to the patient.

In terms of quality, another obvious free market idea is to have warranties for surgery such as we have on cars, houses and appliances. Many are surprised to learn that about 17 percent of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days—usually because of a problem connected with the initial surgery—with the result that the typical hospital makes money on its mistakes. In order for a hospital to make money in a system based on warranties, it must lower its mistake rate. Again, the goal of our policy should be to generate a market in which doctors and hospitals compete with each other to improve quality and cut costs.

We won’t be able to make any of this work in the long run, however, unless we pre-fund the system. Today’s teenagers are unlikely to receive medical care during retirement if they must rely on future taxpayers, because taxpayers of the future are unlikely to be agreeable to living in poverty in order to pay their elders’ medical bills. This means that everyone must start saving now for post-retirement health care. I would propose that everyone in the workforce put a minimum of four percent of his or her income—perhaps two percent from the employer and two percent from the employee—into a private account, invested in the marketplace, that would grow through time. These private accumulations would eventually replace taxpayer burdens.

In summary, if health care consumers are allowed to save and spend their own money, and if doctors are allowed to act like entrepreneurs—in other words, if we allow the market to work—there is every reason to believe that health care costs can be prevented from rising faster than our incomes.

The Market in Action

Let me offer a few examples of how the free market is already working on the fringes of health care. Cosmetic surgery is a market that acts like a real market—by which I mean that it is not covered by insurance, consumers can compare prices and services, and doctors can act as entrepreneurs. As a result, over the last 15 years, the real price of cosmetic surgery has gone down while that of almost every other kind of surgery has been rising faster than the Consumer Price Index—and even though the number of people getting cosmetic surgery has increased by five- or six-fold.

In Dallas there is an entrepreneurial health care provider with two million customers who pay a small fee each month for the ability to talk to a doctor on the telephone. Patients must have an electronic medical record, so that whichever doctor answers the phone can view the patient’s electronic medical record and talk to the patient. This company is growing in large part because it provides a service that the traditional health care system can’t provide. Likewise, walk-in clinics are becoming more numerous around the country. At most of these clinics a registered nurse sits in front of a computer terminal, the patient describes his symptoms, and the nurse types in the information and follows a computerized protocol. The patient’s record is electronic, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance.

We’re also seeing the rise of concierge doctors—doctors who don’t want to deal with third-party insurers. When this idea started out in California, doctors were charging 10-15 thousand dollars per year. But the free market has worked and the price has come down radically. In Dallas, concierge doctors charge only $40 per employee per month. In return, the patient receives access to the doctor by phone and e-mail, and the doctor keeps electronic medical records, competes for business based on lowering time costs as well as money costs, and is willing to help with patient education.

Finally, consider the international market for what has become known as medical tourism. Hospitals in India, Singapore and Thailand are competing worldwide for patients. Of course, no one is going to get on a plane without some assurances of low cost and high quality—which means that, in order to attract patients, these hospitals have to publicize their error rates, their mortality rates for certain kinds of surgery, their infection rates, and so on. Their doctors are all board-certified in the United States, and they compete for patients in the same way producers and suppliers compete for clients in any other market. Most of their patients come from Europe, but the long-term threat to the American hospital system can’t be denied. Leaving the country means leaving bureaucratic red tape behind and dealing instead with entrepreneurs who provide high-quality, low-cost medicine.

As these examples suggest, liberating the medical market by freeing doctors and patients is the only way to bring health care costs under control without sacrificing quality. Continuing on our current path—allowing health care costs to rise at twice the rate of income under the aegis of an unworkable government Ponzi scheme—is by comparison unreasonable.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Conservative vs. Liberal Economics

2009-04-22T18:38:00.002-07:00

First, the liberal:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
--Karl Marx

Next, the conservative:
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.
--Thomas Jefferson.

If you're a liberal, no doubt it is because you can't quite follow Tom's train of thought.

I'm A Right-Wing Extremist

2009-04-17T21:39:00.004-07:00

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently issued guidelines to her agents regarding how to spot potential terrorists. Under suspicion are those who believe in states' rights, or are pro-life, or anti-illegal immigration, or believe in the Second Amendment, and even military veterans.
In other words...(drum-roll, please)
You might be a right-wing extremist if:
1) you don't want to burden future generations with a debt of many trillions of dollars
2) you wouldn't have a huge, toothy smile if you met the evil clown Hugo Chavez
3) you believe in God, yet you don't believe his initials are BHO
4) you think you know how to spend your money better than bureaucrats and politicians do
5) you rely on facts and common sense to guide you, not feelings
6) you believe that our American war veterans are heroes and not potential terrorists
7) you think that Congress and the President should read a bill before signing it
8) you think that higher aspirations do not take higher taxes
9) you believe that babies should be raised, not razed
10) you don't bow to Saudi royalty