a cosmopolitan woman who recounts her decision to undergo "selective pregnancy reduction." Let me translate that for normal people who reject the euphemisms of the pro-death camp. The privileged woman finds out she is carrying triplets. The thought of having to move from Manhattan's East Village to a suburb, where "I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise," fills her with dread. So she undergoes "selective pregnancy reduction"--killing two of her eight-week-old unborn children... Imgao Dei also has chilling photographs such as this:Yeah... you know that thing inside of you is a human being.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Another case of our superior morality...
Please check Imago Dei for some very insightful posts. In What is happening?, he relates an article by Michelle Malkin regarding, as Michelle puts it,
Voters, voters, we need voters...
Per the L.A. Times (registration required), S.F. Voters to Decide if Noncitizens Can Vote Ballot measure would affect only school board elections. A legal challenge is expected.
Testing state law for the second time this year, San Francisco city leaders approved a controversial ballot proposal Tuesday that could allow noncitizens to vote in school board elections. The proposal, the first in the state but not the nation, would permit any adult with a child in public school — parent, guardian or caretaker — to vote regardless of citizenship status. ..."Every time you're on the cutting edge of any issue you're going to have legal issues," said Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, a Green Party member who introduced the proposal. "This body has taken a strong position on things like gay marriage, domestic partnership…. I don't think this is any different." ...David Chiu, an early proponent of the ballot proposal, said that at least one in three students in San Francisco's public schools has an immigrant parent. Chiu, co-founder of the public relations firm Grassroots Enterprise, said his organization had pushed for voting rights in part because long waits to become citizens had left immigrant parents disenfranchised when their children were in school.Isn't it amusing to see how people rationalize stupid ideas? Regardless of whether an issue may be completely looney, if you label it as cutting edge, then you've somehow legitimized it. And what's up with the idea that long waits to become citizens justifies letting non-citizens vote? Just imagine how many beauracratic processes we could circumvent if we applied that type of reasoning across the board.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
On better morality...
It can be interesting to read secularist comments with regards to what they consider to be the relativistic nature of morality. It’s interesting because, try as they might, they can never get away from affirming the ultimate nature of morality. Take Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars and his post The WorldNutDaily on Morality.
In the aforementioned post he takes WorldNetDaily’s Mychal Massie to task for his article titled Morality Doesn’t Evolve. To illustrate why he thinks that morality does evolve Ed uses a couple of examples from the Bible that have to do with slavery and war. After quoting Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:20-21; 1 Timothy 6:1-5; and Ephesians 6:5-6, Ed states, “Clearly, our morality today is far advanced from biblical morality in regard to slavery.” With regards to war he quotes Numbers 31:14-18, and then states, “Under modern laws of war, this is the absolute height of savagery.”
The seriousness of this topic is revealed as he conlcudes by stating:
By the way, this issue is probably the single biggest thing that led me to leave Christianity so many years ago. I realized that if someone today said that God had told them many of the things that the authors of the bible attributed to God, we would quite literally consider them insane. If a Hitler or Stalin claimed that God told them that it was okay to kill everyone in a neighboring country except the virgin women, to be taken as the spoils of war, we would consider that to be the very essence of insanity and savagery. Yet when Moses makes that same claim, no one blinks at it. Well, I blinked. I do not for a moment believe that God would command anyone to do something so clearly barbaric, not today, not yesterday and not ever. And no one, not even the staunchest fundamentalist, would disagree with me if it happened today. But they won't apply the same standards to biblical events and figures. At any rate, it should be clear to all but the most blinded that in regard to these two issues, slavery and war, our modern moral standards are entirely opposed, and infinitely superior, to biblical moral standards.It is not my intent to address the theological questions that Ed raises in this post. There are certainly other bloggers more capable of addressing how the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants relate to the Davidic and New Covenants (e.g., Mark Roberts, Jollyblogger, and Wheat & Chaff); as well as resources addressing the differences between culturally specific legal guidelines and universally applicable commandments (e.g., What We Can’t Not Know). What I’d like to address is the thought that Ed expresses in his last sentence: “…our modern moral standards are entirely opposed, and infinitely superior, to biblical moral standards.” In fact, he prefaces his quotes from the Bible with the same thought, “Not only has our morality "evolved" since biblical days, it has evolved for the better.” Did you catch it? – it has evolved for the better. For anyone to claim that one form of morality is better than another presupposes some separate standard with which to compare the two. Regardless of whether a secularist wants to admit it, he is, in effect, appealing to a higher standard that all "forms" of morality must answer to. This leaves the atheistic naturalist in a sticky predicament, for if nature is all there is, and morality has any authority at all, then where did it come from? The logical conclusion is that morality is, in reality, an illusion – some sort of sick joke that humanity has fallen for. For a mere naturalist (i.e., not necessarily an atheist), the issue is partly resolved through deism. Yet even the deist is left wondering how (and if) an impersonal deity interacts with human morality. A non-interacting deity might as well be a non-existent deity; and the implications of an interacting, authoritative deity seem to be self-defeating for the concept of deism itself. If morality is relative and can change over time, then who’s to say that one version is better than another? Yet, if we can understand that one application of morality is not only better than another, but that certain moral principles apply to all people at all times, we had better well understand that we aren’t in charge. Postscript: For another look at how morality seems to be “evolving,” check Joe Carter’s post The Negation of Love: Abortion and the “Culture of Me,” in which he highlights how twisted views of morality have resulted in pre-abortion women writing “love” letters to their soon-to-be-killed unborn children. One chilling example is,
For my little angel: Although I say goodbye to you today, you will always be in my mind, heart, and soul. Please understand that this wasn’t your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment. My own creation, you are and forever will be beautiful and pure. I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. I LOVE YOU! Always and unconditionally, Your Mommy.Please read the comments section at Joe’s post as well for insight into how our 21st century culture attempts to rationalize such letters. Also, check the Touchstone article Her Mother's Glory, by Robert Hart, in which he discusses the connection between his giving his adopted daughter away at her wedding and a victim of rape, left pregnant by the rapist.
Monday, July 19, 2004
But it makes the point...
In church yesterday, our interim pastor used a story as an illustration for the closing of his sermon. Now this is a typical tactic for just about any public speaker - highlight your point(s) by using a story that the audience can relate to. But I got a bit uneasy when, after he started the story, I realized I had heard a different version of it years ago.
Here's the story (attributed to a Randy Walker):
I remember hearing the same story as a youth, except the main player (the hapless diver) was a rich executive who had returned home early from a business trip. He decides to dive into his pool and experiences the same fate as the aforementioned Chuck Murray. According to the Urban Legends Reference Page, the University of Cincinnati had two Charles Murray's enrolled in the 1960s, but neither of them were at the school in 1967 and neither of them were divers. Also from Urban Legends,In 1967 while taking a class in photography at the University of Cincinnati, I became acquainted with a young man named Charles Murray who also was a student at the school and training for the summer Olympics of 1968 as a high diver. Charles was very patient with me as I would speak to him for hours about Jesus Christ and how He had saved me. Charles was not raised in a home that attended any kind of church, so all that I had to tell him was a fascination to him. He even began to ask questions about forgiveness of sin.
Finally the day came that I put a question to him. I asked if he realized his own need of a redeemer and if he was ready to trust Christ as his own Saviour. I saw his countenance fall and the guilt in his face. But his reply was a strong "no."
In the days that followed he was quiet and often I felt that he was avoiding me, until I got a phone call and it was Charles. He wanted to know where to look in the New Testament for some verses that I had given him about salvation. I gave him the reference to several passages and asked if I could meet with him. He declined my offer and thanked me for the scripture. I could tell that he was greatly troubled, but I did not know where he was or how to help him.
Because he was training for the Olympic games, Charles had special privileges at the University pool facilities. Some time between 10:30 and 11:00 that evening he decided to go swim and practice a few dives. It was a clear night in October and the moon was big and bright. The University pool was housed under a ceiling of glass panes so the moon shone bright across the top of the wall in the pool area. Charles climbed to the highest platform to take his first dive. At that moment the Spirit of God began to convict him of his sins. All the scripture he had read, all the occasions of witnessing to him about Christ flooded his mind. He stood on the platform backwards to make his dive, spread his arms to gather his balance, looked up to the wall and saw his own shadow caused by the light of the moon. It was the shape of a cross. He could bear the burden of his sin no longer. His heart broke and he sat down on the platform and asked God to forgive him and save him. He trusted Jesus Christ twenty some feet in the air.
Suddenly, the lights in the pool area came on. The attendant had come in to check the pool. As Charles looked down from his platform he saw an empty pool which had been drained for repairs. He had almost plummeted to his death, but the cross had stopped him from disaster.
You've also got to wonder why a diver of Olympic stature isn't concerned about noting the surface of the water - remember that little stream of water that is constantly sprayed onto the surface, creating ripples, in order to give the diver a point of reference? Now I'm not faulting our interim pastor... he most surely received the story thinking it to be true. Yet a little bit of research can help verify accounts and / or claims that, on the surface, seem a bit too contrived. Still, what concerns me is just how many people in the congregation, if told about the story's lack of authenticity, would care? Would they be more concerned with whether the story helps make the point the pastor is delivering, or would they think that the story's veracity is more important? Would people accept the story, simply because it made them feel better?You have to wonder about a university that would grant one of their top athletes -- a guy who's in training for the Olympics -- special pool privileges, then close their pool for repairs and drain it, without even notifying him about their plans.
...you have to wonder about a diver who walks around a pool, climbs up a ladder to a diving platform, and stands overlooking the pool in a building "under a ceiling of glass panes" on a night when "the moon was big and bright" yet didn't once notice the absence of light reflecting from where the water should have been. And you really have to wonder about an experienced diver who plunges into a darkened pool from a high-dive platform without having first checked the water to ensure that there are no objects (such as people) in his landing area.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Are the pics working?...
I'm having trouble confirming whether or not my 1978 / 2004 pics, as well as the two pics from my recent vacation, are showing up properly on the blog.
If they aren't showing up, can someone explain why?
Thanks.
The weekly "Who Cares?" award...
It's barely been a day since the announcement that Shaq is leaving the Lakers and I am thoroughly sick of the story.
Chainsaws are for wimps...
I take off on vacation and come home to find out I've been awarded the Golden Axe by my friends over at The Rough Woodsman. Among their many kind words are:
New Covenant is brimming over with lucid in-depth writings churned out by its tireless author, Rusty Lopez, who displays abundant polemical patience in debating Origins with evolutionists who have sold their souls to Philosophic Naturalism.Thanks guys! Make The Rough Woodsman a regular stop... especially if you've got an axe to grind.
I'm back in the saddle again...
Well I thought I had posted an entry back on July 2nd that stated I'd be away for a couple of weeks... was it there (then)?
Anyway, I just got back from a 3,700+ mile roadtrip through the Southwest and into the Lone Star State. Highlights of the trip include numerous samplings of New Mexican cuisine, stopping at Cracker Barrel three times, and indulging in my cousin Edward's superb Texas BBQ (brisket and sausage).
Here are a couple of shots from the trip...
Just outside the Church Street Cafe in Old Town Albuquerque. Meal for the evening was "old style" chile relleno (stuffed with pork) with green chile on the side.
The San Felipe church in Old Town Albuquerque.
Just outside the Church Street Cafe in Old Town Albuquerque. Meal for the evening was "old style" chile relleno (stuffed with pork) with green chile on the side.
The San Felipe church in Old Town Albuquerque.
Friday, July 02, 2004
DarkSyde debate (part 2)...
[Rusty] the Cambrian Explosion, [DarkSyde] DS~There's plenty of reason why we see more metazoan fossil remnants in certain Cambrian Strata. Not the least of which is that there is one, and only one, fairly large Cambrian strata holding huge numbers of fossils so exquisitely preserved that we even get soft tissue. The Burgess Shale. There are several smaller areas in less rich biomes from around the same time, but nothing like the Burgess. It helps to actually have the proper sediments, exposed, of the time period in question. It also helps to have critters with hard endoskeletons and hard shells. There was also apparently a large and severe series of Glaciations that occurred just prior to the Cambrian which would have limited the habitable areas of the Earth-remember all life was at this time almost exclusively underwater and dependent ultimately on cyano-bacteria. That glaciation seems to have ended right before the Cambrian Explosion. And when I say extreme, I mean perhaps all the way to the equator. There is more and more evidence for this scenario called "The Snow Ball Earth Theory", and it's quite fascinating...the mechanism for reversing the glaciation is ingenious and I leave it to the interested reader to learn what it was. Hint: It's something the BushCo admin wants to deny exists.Saying we have no clue what the heck happened, throwing your arms in the air and claming it must have been magic, is very much an argument from ignorance. I agree. But that’s not what I’ve done. I’ve written a bit on the Cambrian Explosion here, and anyone who wishes to study it will find out that the more we learn about the event, the more we realize how profound it was. Further research has shown that the explosion of body plans occurred in less than five million years. Note that the evolutionary paradigm posits that further research will show that the “explosion” actually took longer than what the evidence currently says. Yet continued research into both large Cambrian strata locations (i.e., Canada and China) demonstrates that the opposite is true. I am aware of the Snowball Earth theory and agree that it is a fascinating read (ref. Rare Earth by Brownlee & Ward). I also agree that the methods involved are ingenious which, by the way, is an adjective modifying a process of a mind. I’m not quite sure why Dark raises the issue of the glacial period just prior to the Cambrian. The evidence at this time certainly points to the Cambrian Explosion occurring as soon as optimally possible. From the viewpoint I present, it fits in with the notion of a purposeful plan. Please check my posts on how the presence of a plan indicates design at these posts: post1, post2, post3, post4. That there is evidence of life forms prior to the Cambrian Explosion is not the issue of concern with regards to the event. What is the issue are the variety of complex body plans that appear in a geologic instant. By Dark’s own description, the types of life forms we see prior to the explosion are immensely different from those that appear during the explosion. The question continues to be, how did the diversity and complexity appear so suddenly? I agree with Dark that the event continues to be enigmatic, and I also agree that it is an exciting field for further study… let’s see where the data from continued research will point us. For further reference: The Cambrian Explosion Biology's Big Bang (PDF), by Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson and Paul ChienThe "explosion" took place over about 10-20 million, and that's just that we know of! Twenty-million years takes you from tiny mouse sized mammals to Hyeno-dons and Indricotheriums. Some of the largest animals who ever live. It takes you from small birds to 600 pound Androgorlinis Terror birds. It's about the same or more than the length of time it took for whales to evolve from artiodactyls. We now have many many fossils of Precambrian critters. That period preceding the Cambrian is called the Edicarian (Or Vendian for you diehards) and we have a smattering of fossil creatures, fossil burrows, sponges, from well before the Cambrian, etc. We also have an enormous number of cyno-bacteria communities preceding the Cambrian by BILLIONS of years. We have chemical signatures for widespread life going back 4 billion years. We would not expect to find jellyfish, simple annelids, or other gelatinous creatures, very often if ever. They wouldn't have much chance of fossilizing even under ideal conditions. Nevertheless the exact series of events which may have produced a large radiation of novel lifeforms just before the Cambrian has not been resolved and remains an exciting and fruitful field of investigation. Saying we have no clue what the heck happened, throwing your arms in the air and claming it must have been magic, is very much an argument from ignorance.
[Rusty] molecular motors, [DarkSyde] DS~If you saw a real electron micrograph of a eu-bacterial flagella, it would not look like the nice little symmetrical gizmo Dembski uses in his presentation! It would look like a collage of weird blobs. But in anycase, so what? Don't stop with bacteria, we Humans have not only molecular 'motors' (our muscle tissue for example), we have molecular cameras, molecular 'combat' troops, molecular microphones and molecular speakers.The issue isn’t whether an actual bacterial flagella looks like the clean animations we see presented to us. It also doesn’t matter whether the graphics are presented by an ID proponent like Bill Dembski or within a secular Biochemistry textbook like this. What matters is whether the structural makeup of the flagellum is analogous to a rotary motor. Not only is it analogous, it is a direct analog! The parts are given their various names, mimicking human artifact counterparts, precisely because of their corresponding function. Check my post On Plans, templates, and similarities… for additional comments. Unfortunately, appealing to possible co-opting in conjunction with forever lost intermediate forms is hardly a slam-dunk apologetic for evolution. Once the molecular structures are unpacked from the use of evolutionary lensing and unwarranted extrapolations, we’re left with irreducibly complex structures. In his review of Bill Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, H. Allen Orr overconfidently claims that the so-called irreducibly complex structures Michael Behe writes about are accessible through Darwinian evolution. Bill Dembski has written a devastating response to Orr’s review which can be found here. The exact details of how and why those various structures evolved is something we're likely to never know in absolute full detail. C’mon Dark, that sounds like an argument from ignorance or, at least, circular reasoning (e.g., “well, we know they evolved… we just don’t know how.”).. Life is made of molecules. The exact details of how and why those various structures evolved is something we're likely to never know in absolute full detail. We can see what the selective advantage would be in most cases, in a few cases we have extant creatures showing what appear to be earlier, or perhaps rudimentary, forms of those structures. And we have fossil showing some of the larger types of structure which appear to be in the process of being co=opted for a secondary use. But we'll probably never know the precise series in each generation that selected for the precursors of those structures on a molecular, or the precise change in the base pairs which produced them, ever. It would be like saying that if you can't trace the exact footsteps of the Romans who cut down the tree and what kind of ax they used, and the exact tools carpenters who fashioned the cross used, and the exact each step that Jesus walked carrying that cross, then none of it ever happened, it's all conjecture and myth.
[Rusty] convergent evolution, [DarkSyde] DS~I'll need an example, here but I can broadly say that similar parameters of a biome might produce similar superficial form and furthermore than NS would predict it. One would expect this if natural selection has any say about the matter. You expect that creatures who fly would have something like wings which catches air. The classic example being ichthyosaurs, sharks, penguins, and cetaceans. They torpedo shaped, and I wonder why that would possibly beI don’t have time to go into the topic of convergent evolution at present. Suffice it to say that there is not a consensus among evolutionists on this topic. The late Stephen J. Gould is oft-quoted as stating that if one were to rewind the tape of history on planet earth, and let events play out again, that we’d end up with a much different world than the one we have. Also, it should be noted that there are examples of convergent evolution in which dissimilar environmental parameters were involved, as well as examples of similar environmental parameters with differing morphological structures. One can read up on it at this link. Notice the evolutionary lensing that is occurring here. We hear statements to the effect of, “notice how well adapted evolution has made the shark.” When queried as to how we know that evolution did it, the response is along the lines of, “well they’re here, aren’t they?” Don’t you see the circular reasoning here, let alone how the design explanation is willfully ignored?? Even octopi assume a smooth streamlined profile when trying to haul ass. You wouldn't expect a free swimming sea creature to resemble an open parachute if the idea was to move quickly!
[Rusty] speciation rates, etc.). [DarkSyde] Not sure what you mean here. We've observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. So it goes without saying we know it can happen. We also have many examples of related taxa which can produce fully interfertile offspring, infertile offspring, and in some case where there is normally no offspring but occasionally a hybrid can be produced. See ZONKEY . Evolution/diversifiation explains this. It explains why brown bear and polar bears can still reproduce with each other. It explains why tigers and lions can reproduce but only very rarely produce fertile ligers or tigons. It explains why burros and zebras can reproduce. How does IDC explain it?I’ve stated above that speciation has not been observed. We'll just have to leave it that we disagree on this. What I am referring to by speciation rates is that the average rate of speciation, as indicated by the fossil record, falls woefully short of what we currently observe. Add to that the fact that species will go extinct, regardless of human intervention, and the question arises as to just where are all these new species that we should be seeing?
[Rusty] This is not an argument from ignorance. [DarkSyde] It most certainly is, with a bit of denial and misinformation used to spice it up. It's classic DI or Hugh Ross material.No comment.
[Rusty] It is precisely because of how much we've learned that we know how intractable the problems are. [DarkSyde] Intractable means to me 'can never be solved.' But in your usage, solved to what degree? We can resolve that birds evolved from reptiles or that humans evolved from earlier primates in a number of independent ways. We can't yet, and we may never, resolve on a step by step, individual generation to individual generation why some of it happened. Does Intelligent design and manufacture lay contingent on evolution being false? Or is perhaps your personal religious convictions that rely on evolution being invalid, and IDC could simply be a method of creation used by the Creator just as He used stellar-nucelosynthesis? What is the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design? Is it compatible with evolutionary biology? What evidence would you accept for evolution, or against antievolution?There once was a time when chemists thought they could turn lead into gold. They don’t think that way anymore. I doubt any chemist could get funding for a renewed attempt at alchemy. Note that it isn’t because of ignorance that we know we can’t turn lead into gold, but because of knowledge. Some evolutionists like to paint ID proponents as enemies of science with no inclination for continued research. But let’s take a look at what Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards have to say in their recent book, The Privileged Planet:
We live in a universe with laws and initial conditions finely tuned for the existence of complex life. Although narrowly constrained, they do not inevitably give rise to such life. They are necessary but not nearly sufficient for it. In extremely rare pockets of that universe, conditions are congenial to the existence of beings who can observe the starry heavens above and ponder the meaning of their existence. In at least one of these places, despite struggle and adversity, some came to believe that the world around them was a rational, orderly universe, accessible not only to rational thought but also to careful investigation. Centuries of study, amplified by technological tools and innovation, have given rise to an unparalleled knowledge of the world around us. The combination of those preliminary discoveries now gives rise to another: The same rare conditions that have sustained our existence also make possible a stunning array of discoveries about the universe. There is a purposeful value in this. Because of it, and only because of it, can our aspirations for scientific knowledge and discovery be satisfied. Careful investigation, study, and observation of the natural world ultimately succeed. With enough persistence, the natural world discloses itself to us in ways that we do not, and sometimes cannot, anticipate. Once perceived, the thought creeps up quietly but insistently: The universe, whatever else it is, is designed for discovery. What better mandate could there be for the scientific pursuit of truth? Scientific discovery enjoys a sort of cosmic prestige, but a prestige apparent only to those open to the possibility that the cosmos exists for a purpose. (emphasis in original)Whether or not my personal religious convictions apply here is not the issue. Everyone has personal convictions. Any implication that those people with religious convictions are incapable of objectively analyzing empirical data is not only without merit, but it is itself a personal conviction. The question comparing naturalistic evolution with that of stellar formation and whether or not God uses both is a good one. Although the answer delves into the merits and logical implications of methodological naturalism, with which I’ve addressed here, we should also understand the differences between the two. Stellar formation is not dependent on natural selection. Given the same set of parameters, we should see the same results. Granted, the more complex the situation (e.g., the formation of an Earth-like planet within a solar system like our own), the more complex the parameters. But the processes involved are essentially dependent on the laws of physics. With naturalistic evolution the situation is essentially dependent on chance. That is, given the same set of parameters, the outcome cannot be ascertained beforehand because the outcome is not pre-programmed into the physics. The kicker is we are told that the complex, information-rich structures that make up life’s diversity arose through purely chance means; as opposed to the natural means in which stars form. Now one of the reasons why I do not consider the option that it is God who is using naturalistic evolution is because the theory allows, and sometimes demands, that it can circumvent mindful design through chance and determinism. In other words, it attempts to explain away the need for God. You leave me with a series of good questions Dark. I don’t have the time to hit them now, but I hope to get to them as the Summer progresses. Enjoy.
A legend dies...
Film legend Marlon Brando dies at age 80, per MSNBC.
Marlon Brando, who revolutionized American acting with his Method performances in “A Streetcar Named Desire” and “On the Waterfront” and went on to create the iconic character of Don Vito Corleone in “The Godfather,” has died. He was 80. ...His image was a studio’s nightmare. Millions of words were written about his weight, his many romances and three marriages, his tireless — and, for some, tiresome — support of the American Indian and other causes,... ...Brando’s private life turned tragic years later with his son’s conviction for killing the boyfriend of his half sister, Cheyenne Brando, in 1990. Five years later, Cheyenne committed suicide, still depressed over the killing. ...The actor followed with “Last Tango in Paris.” One of his greatest performances was overshadowed by an uproar over the erotic nature of the Bernardo Bertolucci film. ...He married actress Anna Kashfi in 1957, believing her to be East Indian. She was revealed to be Irish, and they separated a year later. In 1960 he married a Mexican actress, Movita, who had appeared in the first “Mutiny on the Bounty.” They were divorced after he met Tarita. All three wives were pregnant when he married them. He had nine children.Per CNN,
Brando reportedly wound up millions of dollars in debt defending Christian, and the star subsisted during his final years almost entirely on small residuals from his films, Social Security benefits and a pension from the Screen Actors Guild.Such a sad existence, yet, we're to believe it is the stuff legends are made from.
Bill: round 2...
Bill Cosby has more harsh words for black community, per CNN.
Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and "going nowhere." He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job." Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them. He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black community's "dirty laundry." "Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street," Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund's annual conference. "They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."Yes, Bill! How refreshing to see someone of his stature take a stand for common sense. Here is a man who has gotten to where he is through intensely hard work. He remembers what it was like before the Civil Rights Act. He's ashamed of the lack of drive he witnesses today. But I doubt that he is surprised. Handouts upon handouts upon handouts have not delivered our ghettos out of poverty. Greed and laziness wreak havoc on morale and vision. Self-centered victim mentalities trample underfoot the virtue of responsibility. Perpetual drunkeness prevents rational enlightenment. The problem is... the same issues affect our culture at large.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
DarkSyde debate (part 1)...
In my posts regarding naturalistic evolution I’ve had the pleasure of having comments from a person who goes by the web name of DarkSyde (hereafter referred to as Dark). During a recent volley tied to my post Naturally Necessary, Dark decided to respond via e-mail since the free Haloscan comment provider I use limits comments to 1,000 characters.
I will post Dark’s entire e-mail in two parts, and reply to each section accordingly. For those new to the series it might help to review some of my recent posts on this topic: Naturally necessary…, The obvious nature of evolution…, On the one hand…, and The world goes round and round…
On to Dark’s e-mail:
[Rusty] Then, as DarkSyde alludes to, why not rely on a naturalistic explanation for speciation events? [DarkSyde] Well, for starters we've seen speciation happen, and we've seen drunk drivers pass out behind the wheel and flip over. We've never seen species created by superanatural means, and we've never seen a poltergeist wrest control of the wheel of a car and force it off the road for some unfathomable reason. That's why we lean towards naturalistic explanation in both cases.I would argue that we’ve never seen speciation happen. One should note, however, that the definition of “species” can be tricky, and that is probably where Dark and I would disagree. Not knowing what Dark is referring to I will venture to point out that varieties within a species should not qualify: e.g., one bird species that, over time, migrates its habitat location from one end of the globe to the other, with the resulting species unable to breed with the original species; or bacterial resistance to antibiotics. In each case we see that the source is the same type of animal as the final (i.e., birds are still birds, and bacteria are still bacteria). With regards to a supernatural explanation for an event (in this case, speciation), we must be careful not to exclude an explanation simply because we’ve never witnessed it. The core of the issue isn’t whether we’ve witnessed the event ever occurring by supernatural means, but whether the supernatural is an admissible potential explanation for the event. Certainly it is admissible. Any explanation is admissible... whether it is the proper explanation is a different story. Before we can ascertain whether an event was supernaturally caused we need to first analyze whether the event was intelligently caused. Upon observing that the words “John loves Mary” are written in the sand, we reasonably conclude that the words appeared through intelligent action. There is a miniscule chance that the interaction of the waves on the seashore is what caused the words to appear, but the most reasonable explanation is intelligent causation. Note, however, that even if the words were written by John, he was constrained to act within the laws of physics, i.e., within nature. Although a supernatural explanation is allowed as a potential explanation, the natural, intelligently caused explanation appears sufficient. Now consider an event in which human intervention is unlikely or, perhaps, impossible. The options for explanation are: 1) purely natural causation due to determinism and chance or, 2) intelligent causation. The determining factors here should be similar to those in our “John loves Mary” example – the probability of a highly specific event occurring by chance vs. by intelligent causation. If it can be shown that the probability of an event occurring through purely natural means is unreasonable, then the intelligent causation option should be explored. If no intelligent beings exist with the power to accomplish the task, then is it not unreasonable to conclude that a being exists with the power to do so? This is not simply an argument from ignorance, for one of the primary reasons that we conclude supernatural activity is our ever increasing level of knowledge of the event in question. This increased knowledge reinforces our determination of the unlikelihood of an event occurring through purely natural means. There are some adherents to methodological naturalism who declare that the supernatural must be excluded from contention (when analyzing natural phenomenon). Yet their own paradigm forbids them from justifying their exclusion of the supernatural. By definition, they are limited to analyzing events through empirical means. If supernatural events have the property of passing through empirical filters, then the naturalist has no way of analyzing the supernatural event. But the naturalist is further constrained from declaring that supernatural events cannot occur, because he has no empirical tests to show that this is the case! What to do? There are at least four options: 1) Assume that the supernatural does not occur, 2) Posit that the supernatural may occur, but since we have no way to detect it, we must exclude it from contention, 3) Posit that the supernatural does occur, but since we have no way to detect it, we must exclude it from contention, or 4) Posit that the supernatural does occur and that we have the means to rationally conclude it has occurred. One may protest that a supernatural being may choose to cause an event within the natural realm, and then proceed to cover-up all natural evidence pointing towards the supernatural act. Of course this is certainly a possibility. I, however, am not positing just any supernatural being, but the God of the Bible. Based on the characteristics we believe God to have, it does not follow that He would act in a supernatural manner, and then cover-up His tracks in an attempt to deceive us. In other words, I am positing that if God acts in a supernatural manner to cause certain natural events with which we have the ability to analyze, then He will have left us with the means by which to determine that the events were supernaturally caused. This leads us, actually, to the core of my recent posts regarding what I will now refer to as “evolutionary lensing.” Evolutionary Lensing occurs when one imposes the evolutionary paradigm on the empirical data, instead of letting the data point wherever it might.
[Rusty] Simply because it is not the best fit for the data. Now I'm certain that most, if not all, evolutionists would disagree with that statement. [DarkSyde] LOL...Yes, they would disagree until they were purple in the face and in need of CPR and a defib unit. You brought up data...The best fit for what data? We can certainly cherry pick data which supports IDC, or YEC, or even flat earthism for that matter. That's a good part of what IDCist spend their time doing by the way is cherry picking and dismissing data, quotemining, and distorting legit science. The classic routine portrays, or flat out contrive a problem as intractable for evolutionary biology, and then declares IDC the winner by default. That argument takes two primary scientific forms. 1 Simply ignore evidence we do have such as transitionals or genetic base pair comparisons as being tentative, misinterpreted, or down right fraudulent, and then say "SOooooo, where are all the transitional fossils Darwinist predicted?" Then ignoring request for what data would be acceptable and responding instead with something like 'but you can't prover it's a transitional'. The second simply makes stuff up, the classic strawman. Nebraska Man, or Java Man, or for YEC'ers, the Lunar Dust 'problem', and then goes from there along the same vein. (Re: Lunar Dust, I realize you're not a Young Earther Rusty and I intended no guilt by association with that remark) That's precisely why I ask, ahead of time, what kind of evidence the IDC'ist will accept. I do so in large part because I don't want my opponent to be able to rig his answer down the road by dismissing the evidence ad 'not convincing'. It's also a fallacious argument. E.G.: It's like saying if you prove the Shroud of Turin is a clever fake, or that the prettified hand of John the Baptist is a fake, then Christendom is all invalid. Another tact has been to attack the scientific methodology as being hopelessly, erroneously, and fatally exclusive of supernatural possibilities. It's a highfalutin philosophical argument which I have neither the inclination or patience to pursue. I suggest John Wilkins or Brian Lieter if you wish to discuss this in depth.This issue hits the nail on the head with regards to why evolutionists appear baffled as to why anyone would consider Intelligent Design. The many laughing evolutionists, purple in the face, and in need of paramedics, are under the assumption that data equates to proof. Yet data is simply just that… data. Notice that I stated the evolutionary conclusion is not the best fit for the data… not cherry-picked data but data – all the data, past, present, and future (that’s a scientific prediction, by the way). We must tie back to Evolutionary Lensing in order to fully appreciate this problem. Many times an evolutionist will respond to a creationist with a boat-load of data, assuming that the data is fully supportive of the evolutionary paradigm. If the creationist balks, or chooses not to respond, it is seen as a win by default for the evolutionist. Yet my whole point has been that the evolutionist is guilty of reading his theory into the data. To illustrate my point let’s look at Tim Berra and Berra’s Blunder. Briefly, Berra is a biologist who wrote a book titled, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. One of the examples he used in showing how the fossil record gives us evidence for evolutionary change is none other than the Chevrolet Corvette or, rather, a series of Corvette models spanning multiple years. In Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Berra stated,
“If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleoanthropologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.” (emphasis in original)This is a classic example of Evolutionary Lensing. Berra has explicitly stated that the similar structures we find in the fossil record are analogous to intelligently designed human artifacts. The problem is that the corvettes did not evolve through Darwinian descent with modification – they were designed. So my response to the oxygen deprived, purple faced, evolutionists is to catch your breath and apply a bit more objectivity to your data. A footnote to the problem of Evolutionary Lensing would be the phenomenon of unwarranted extrapolation. We see this occur time and time again in evolutionary analysis. Data is first interpreted through Evolutionary Lensing, and then unwarranted extrapolations are made. I took H. Allen Orr to task for this in my analysis of his review of William Dembski’s book No Free Lunch. That the beaks of finches vary in size because of varying amounts of yearly rainfall is taken to mean that the birds can eventually evolve into other species. That bacteria display resistance to antibiotics is taken to mean that simple, single-celled life evolved into the diversity of life we see today. That chimps and humans share a genetic similarity is taken to mean that they both have a common ancestor. There are two problems with these types of analyses: 1) the means by which the change is posited (i.e., descent with modification) has not been shown to actually produce the changes needed and, 2) the correlation of the data to the design scenario is completely ignored. While there certainly are creationists (and evolutionists) who have cherry-picked and / or fudged their data, that really isn’t the issue. Take a book like Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. His analysis could hardly be considered cherry-picking. Or take the stance of Reasons to Believe. Anyone who closely follows their efforts will notice that they are open to reviewing all the data and they have, on occasion, admitted when they have overstepped their interpretation of the data with regards to its support of the design scenario.
[Rusty] Yet it doesn't take too much digging to find out that there are some very real issues within the naturalistic paradigm that currently have no satisfactory answers (e.g., the origin of life,) [DarkSyde] DS~There are unknowns in all of science. One could accurately say that the ultimate nature of gravity is intractable, yet objects still fall. In abio, there's plenty of competing scenarios. But you're essentially correct that we have no overarching theory for abiogenesis which does for the formation of life what evolution does for diversification/speciation of life since then. It's my view that we never will fully know. It's also a nasty, physical science which necessitates lots of chemistry knowledge and has nothing in the way of grandiose mechanisms readily comprehendible to the average guy such as you and I. We don't know the details. That's ignorance in my book. Those events may have been supernatural or natural, but they likely left no discernible record either way as far as we know.I would refer readers to the book Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana. While the issue of descent with modification is rightfully excluded from the issue of life’s origin, the implications of intelligent causation are not. The book does an excellent job of explaining how increased knowledge, over the past 50+ years, has strengthened the claim that intelligent causation is responsible for life’s origin. Such an analysis spells doom for the naturalistic scenario, for if we find that the Divine foot has come in the door from day 1 of life here on Earth, then what's to stop Him from acting since then? (to be continued)
Monday, June 28, 2004
Those Imperialists...
U.S. returns sovereignty to Iraq: Surprise ceremony comes two days early, per CNN.
Members of Iraq's interim government took an oath of office Monday just hours after the United States returned the nation's sovereignty, two days ahead of schedule.Such an odd methodology for the imperialists of the United States to employ in their quest for free oil, as they dominate the world through their imposition of decadent, Western democracy.
Friday, June 25, 2004
News tidbits...
How is it that a journalist can get within aiming distance of insurgents?
Sources: Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism
Now that's really surprising...
Moore defends 'Fahrenheit': Filmmaker presses points in CNN interview (CNN) -- The Bush administration "made a half-hearted effort" in pursuing Osama bin Laden immediately after the September 11 attacks, and devoted resources to invading Iraq instead, Michael Moore said in an interview, defending points he's made in his new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."Let's see, 9/11 happened on... 9/11/2001, and we invaded Iraq in early 2003 only after pursuing OBL and taking care of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yeah Michael, a very objective, if not half-hearted, assessment. Lewinsky: Clinton lied about relationship You're kidding?!
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Naturally necessary...
Updated content of this post on 6/24 p.m.
In the comments section of my post The obvious nature of evolution, I've been discussing with DarkSyde my misgivings with how evolutionists presuppose their theory on the data. In one of his responses he stated,
Here's a good example Rusty. You're a cop and you get called to the scene of a car wreck. A single car is upsidedown off the road, the driver is dead. He tests at .25 for blood alcohol... Do you assume the driver lost control for an 'unknown' reason or do you assume he was drunk? Do you view the accident through the biased lens of naturalistic explanations? Isn't that an unsupported assumption? Why would you dismiss supernatural influences? Would you be willing to explain to a judge, jury, and insurance company, that there may have been a supernatural event which caused this wreck and since no one 'saw' the wreck, no one can be 'certain' that drinking played a role, so it could have just as plausibly have been demons? Why is 'naturalistic' assumption not an issue for you in accident investigation or weather forecasting, but it is in evolution?First off, I think we should clarify how events may occur in the natural realm simply given the laws of physics. In their book The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards write,
This unstated presupposition against design is apparent in the definition often given to the notion of "contingency." Properly speaking, a contingency is simply something that happens but doesn't have to happen. Philosophers, therefore, contrast contingent events and necessary events, the latter being events that for some or another reason have to happen. Most scientists see an event as "necessary" if it determined by the laws of physics. In either the philosophical or the scientific setting, an event can be contingent because it is the result of chance or because it is the result of a free choice. Contingency is the arena of both freedom and accident. The naturalist collapses all contingencies in the natural world into the category of "chance." But it's not the only option, it's just the only option the naturalist is willing to consider. A good way to foreground the disguised presupposition is to avoid the word "contingency." Instead, we should split contingency into its two possible forms, and so speak of chance, design, and necessity.Thus when analyzing the example of the dead drunk driver, such as DarkSyde referenced above, we aren't simply looking for a natural cause vs. a supernatural cause. We must further unpack the natural causation into the categories of chance, design, and necessity. Note that an event may also be a combination of the aforementioned categories (e.g., design and chance, as in a hit-man's errant bullet striking an innocent bystander). Therefore, an event could fall within the laws of physics without being necessary. If I'm understanding DarkSyde's question properly, what he refers to as a naturalistic explanation would actually fall into the chance and design category. It is unlikely that any investigator on the accident scene would posit that the event was caused by necessity; that is, would they conclude that the laws of physics mandate that all drivers with a .25 blood alcohol level will end up dead next to their upside down car? This leaves us with chance and / or design as the cause. Is there a chance that a sober driver may end up as our drunk friend? Sure, but the chances increase dramatically when one chooses to drink oneself silly. Hence it is a reasonable conclusion to posit that our dead friend designed his way to his current state by drinking too much, getting into a car, and letting the laws of probability take over. Could this have been a mob hit simply made to look like a drunk driving accident? Yes, but once again the naturalistic / necessity explanation is thrown out in favor of the design option. Why is the supernatural not invoked in this instance? The reason why the supernatural is not invoked is because the evidence points to the drunk driver as the cause of the accident. It is the best fit for the data. Then, as DarkSyde alludes to, why not rely on a naturalistic explanation for speciation events? Simply because it is not the best fit for the data. Now I'm certain that most, if not all, evolutionists would disagree with that statement. Yet it doesn't take too much digging to find out that there are some very real issues within the naturalistic paradigm that currently have no satisfactory answers (e.g., the origin of life, the Cambrian Explosion, molecular motors, convergent evolution, speciation rates, etc.). Note that this is not an argument from ignorance - it is precisely because of how much we've learned that we know how intractable the problems are. Therefore, I am positing that the chance / necessity combination is insufficient to explain the empirical data. Not only is it insufficient, but it ignores an alternative explanation that is more than compatible with the data - that of Intelligent Design. There are, of course, many other reasons why I posit the God of the Bible as the Intelligent Designer. In time, I'll post them on this site.
And if you believe that...
On Larry King Live, Ron Reagan expressed surprise that people considered some of the comments in his eulogy at his father's funeral to be a slam on President Bush. Yeah, right. Here's the excerpt:
KING: You said, dad was also a deeply unabashedly religious man, but he never made the mistake of wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. Were you referring to the president? REAGAN: You know, it's interesting. KING: Everyone thought that. REAGAN: I know. I wasn't watching TV much after I delivered the eulogy for a few days. But after a couple of days I started getting calls from people saying, boy you really stirred something up, didn't you? I thought, well, what? Well, you know, the stuff you said about Bush. I said, I didn't say anything about Bush, why would I mention George W. Bush in my father's eulogy? No, no, no, no, the stuff about the religion. I thought, ha, funny, you then everybody thought I was talking about George W. Bush. And then I heard -- everybody thought I was talking about George -- but people connected with George W. Bush thought I was talking about George W. Bush. And then I began to think, maybe I was, I just didn't know it. KING: Do you think he wears his religion on his sleeve? He certainly refers to it more than your father ever did. REAGAN: Well, you know, there was that answer he gave to the question about, did you talk to your father about going into Iraq? No, I talked to a higher father, you know, the almighty. When you hear somebody justifying a war by citing the almighty, God, I get a little worried, frankly. The other guys do that a lot. Osama bin Laden's always talking about Allah, what Allah wants, that he's on his side. I think that's uncomfortable. KING: Do you have thoughts on the war? REAGAN: Sure, I have thoughts on the war. KING: And what do you think? REAGAN: And I think we lied our way into the war. KING: You think it's a mistake? REAGAN: Absolutely, a terrible mistake. Terrible foreign policy error. We didn't have to do it. It was optional. And we were lied to. The American public was lied to about WMD, the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, which is virtually nonexistent except for fleeting contacts. But they're still trying to pull that one off now, Cheney and all are out there flogging that. KING: Can I gather from that, that you will not support this president? REAGAN: No, I won't. KING: Will you support his opponent? REAGAN: I will vote for whoever the viable candidate is who can defeat George W. Bush, yes. (emphasis added)Okay Ron, from now on we'll just make sure to note that when you're talking, you might be saying something... you just won't know it.
Overreaction?...
Beating by LAPD Officer Airs on TV: The case is seen as a test for Bratton as parallels are drawn to the Rodney King incident of 1991, per the LA Times.
The televised beating of a suspected car thief Wednesday by a flashlight-wielding Los Angeles Police Department officer was described by a top department official as "Rodney King-esque," drawing comparisons with the 1991 beating of an African American man by LAPD officers that led to catastrophic riots a year later. Television news crews in helicopters recorded the early morning car chase that ended in Compton shortly before 6 a.m. when about half a dozen LAPD officers ran after an African American man who bolted from a stolen Toyota Camry.Okay, so you steal a car (allegedly), lead police on a 30 minute car chase, ditch the car and make a run for it... and you think that maybe the cops chasing you won't be a little ticked? Yes I know that the excessive use of force is unwarranted, and there should certainly be an investigation into the actions of the police officers in this case, but to compare a ten second beating with that of Rodney King's is ludicrous.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
The obvious nature of evolution...
My recent evolution-related posts The world goes round and round, and On the one hand highlighted how evolutionary dogma can sometimes drive scientists to make certain assumptions regarding the data they are analyzing. A recent example can be found at the Panda's Thumb in a post titled, Thalassocnus on The Loom, in which we read of an aquatic sloth that adapted to an aquatic lifestyle over the course of several million years.
The post links to a more detailed explanation at corante.com in a post titled, Taking the Plunge. Carl Zimmer writes about the myriad of so-called transitional fossils we now have for whales or whale-like animals. He states,
All these discoveries have apparently made whales unsuitable for creationist rhetoric. Yes, you can still find some pseudo-attacks on the fossils, but you have to look hard. The more visible creationists, the ones who testify at school board meetings and write op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, don't bring up whales these days. The animals apparently no longer serve the cause. It's hard to distract people from evidence when it can kick them in the face. Whales, moreover, were not the only mammals that moved into the water. Seals, sea lions, manatees, and other lineages evolved into swimmers as well, and paleontologists are also filling in their fossil record. It's fascinating to compare their invasions, to see how they converged on some of the same strategies for living in the water, and how they wound up with unique adaptations...Notice how the reason we know that seals, sea lions, manatees, etc., all evolved into swimmers is simply because we find fossils that the evolutionist takes to be transitional. Of course, how the transition took place is glossed over (as you'll see). Never mind that large mammals, such as whales, are extremely sensitive to environmental changes and that the chance of species extinction are probably higher than species evolution. Never mind that although whales and seals are both mammals, they have very different morphological qualities - like how they breathe, for one example. Never mind that the changes proposed to go from a land-based mammal to a saltwater-based whale have to occur in an incredibly short amount of time - incredibly short, that is, for chance evolution. Zimmer continues,
In 1995 Christian de Muizon of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris and his colleagues announced the discovery of sloth fossils in Peru dating back somewhere between three and seven million years. The rocks in which they found the bones had formed in the sea; the same rocks have yielded other ocean-going creatures including fish, sea lions, and weird dolphins with walrus-like tusks. The sloths, de Muizon concluded, were aquatic as well. Terrestrial sloths have much longer lower leg bones than upper ones, but the Peruvian sloths had reversed proportions. Manatees and otters also have reversed legs, which suggests that the sloths' limbs were adapted for powerful swimming strokes. The front of their skull was manatee-like as well: its jaws extended out well beyond its front teeth, with a rich supply of blood vessels. Like manatees, de Muizon argued, the sloths had powerful muscular snouts they used to root out sea grass. (emphasis added)He goes on to detail evolutionary adaptations that supposedly show how the sloths transitioned from land to sea. This is all so obvious isn't it? Yet notice how the theory drives the conclusion:
De Muizon's group have yet to sort out all the differences throughout the entire skeletons of all five species. We'll have to wait for those papers. But there's enough in print now to raise some interesting questions. In whales, seals, and manatees alike, their arms and hands became flippers--stubby, webbed, fin-like limbs. Thalassocnus still had big, long-clawed fingers on its hands. De Muizon proposes that they would have enabled the sloths to hold onto rocks to stay submerged as they fed on sea grass. Manatees don't need to do this because their bones are especially dense; the sloths had not yet acquired this adaptation. It seems that Thalassocnus only traveled part of the way down the road to a marine life before they became extinct. Why they became extinct (as opposed to manatees, for example), is also intriguing. Did something happen 1.5 million to 3 years ago that ruined their home? Perhaps the coastal waters off Peru became too cold. If the sloths had spread further along the coast, they might not have been so vulnerable. Other mammals moved into the water at very restricted sites as well. For their first few million years or so, whales could only be found off the coast of Pakistan. If some Indian volcano had blanketed the neighborhood in ash, we might never have known what a whale looks like. (emphasis added)That the sloth fossils are transitional is assumed. Therefore, any anamolies in the data is viewed only through an evolutionary lens. Long-clawed fingers, as opposed to arms that turned into flippers, must have a Darwinian explanation. They obviously had not yet acquired that adaptation. Therefore, they only traveled part way down the evolutionary road before time ran out for them. How they traveled down that road is a question that, well... it's obvious, isn't it?
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Cause and effect...
Dozens Killed in Attacks Near Chechnya, per FoxNews. 
South Korea: Hostage killed, per CNN.
Why are so many people under the impression that if we acquiese to the demands of terrorists, we will be left alone?
A series of bombings in Spain, just prior to national elections, seems to result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Cause, and effect. Yet where is the sympathy that's extended towards Russia for staying out of, and voicing opposition to, the war in Iraq? What happened to the phenomenon of cause and effect?
Of course, it's still there. The terrorists, far from being completely illogical, understand how the West reacts to their version of cause and effect. If you don't leave, we'll murder the innocent! It's because of your past deeds that we murder the innocent! With fanatics, there can be no appeasement.
It is incredible, given the history of heinous acts committed by terrorists, that so many people in the West continue to believe that these cowards will play fair.
And yet, the peace protests continue...
Many Chechen fighters trained and fought with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Russia says many Arabs and other foreigners fight side-by-side with the Chechen rebels. The Chechen militants also are said to receive support from Al Qaeda and have strong contacts with the Wahhabi Muslim sect of Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Al Qaeda chief Usama bin Laden. The deeply fundamental beliefs of Wahhabism are believed to be bin Laden's spiritual foundation.
South Korea: Hostage killed, per CNN.
Why are so many people under the impression that if we acquiese to the demands of terrorists, we will be left alone?
A series of bombings in Spain, just prior to national elections, seems to result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Cause, and effect. Yet where is the sympathy that's extended towards Russia for staying out of, and voicing opposition to, the war in Iraq? What happened to the phenomenon of cause and effect?
Of course, it's still there. The terrorists, far from being completely illogical, understand how the West reacts to their version of cause and effect. If you don't leave, we'll murder the innocent! It's because of your past deeds that we murder the innocent! With fanatics, there can be no appeasement.
It is incredible, given the history of heinous acts committed by terrorists, that so many people in the West continue to believe that these cowards will play fair.
And yet, the peace protests continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
