Science Comes Up Short

In a couple of weeks my column concerning the importance of Science and Religion will be printed in the Lode. In the mean time, I couldn't help but notice this piece from Craig Westover:

Science can always teach us how we might do something; it can never determine for us whether that "something" is something we ought to do. That is the realm of the liberal arts education, without which science loses most of its humanity and much of its usefulness.

Specifically, we need religion. This is a most unfortunate point for those who do not deign to draw their morality from Organized Religion and, instead, come to conclusions on their own--somehow. But as C. S. Lewis pointed out in The Abolition of Man, it is impossible to invent a "morality"; even those who reject, say, the Judeo-Christian ethics in regards to such-and-such do so by asserting some other portion of that system of morality.

For example, one could profess that murder, when undertaken for some greater good, is acceptable moral behavior. In fact, the High Priest Caiphas, used this line of thinking when he reasoned that it would be better for one man to die than that the people should perish and thus recommended that Christ be crucified.

Westover's piece, which should probably be read in full, concludes:

Science can teach us the dangers of secondhand smoke; it cannot teach us the value of liberty and freedom. Science can provide pro and con arguments for national immunization; it cannot tell us whether ignoring evidence of harm to some children is better than jeopardizing a program that is doing much good for many children. Science can indicate the world is getting warmer; it cannot value the human consequences of the myriad policy trade-offs doing "something" might entail.

Education that helps us sort through the values that make good trade-offs is as important, if not more so, as the scientific training that provides data to support our decisions. A scientist may convince us the polar ice caps are melting, but it will be a poet who makes us weep for the polar bear.

It is rare that one finds such insight in the editorial pages. I may have to become a more regular reader of Mr. Westover.

Tis Still the Season

I can’t help but believe that the world hasn’t a clue when it comes to Christmas. Ignoring the folly of substituting “season’s greetings”—whatever the deuce that may mean—or “happy holidays”—that is, a concession that the celebration belongs to those who still cling to the conception of holiness—for expressions of “Merry Christmas”, most people simply have no idea what the festivities are all about. And the best way to ascertain precisely this is to travel back to a little town called Bethlehem, as it was some two millennia ago.

I do not propose to prove that the Christ child was who He later said He was, namely, the Son of God. Instead, I ask the reader to set aside all prejudice in order to better understand the position of the shepherds, those who were first to know and worship Him. Throughout the Old Testament, one cannot fail to notice the hopeful expectation of the Israelites for the Messiah, he who would liberate them from bondage. Scholars would debate amongst themselves to discover attributes of the Promised One, but ultimately no one knew what he would be like. The birth of the child in a manger took every one by surprise. In truth, it was a double surprise.

Now, even though there was disagreement over how the Messiah would come, it was generally understood that in order to fulfill the ancient prophesies, he must be a powerful sort of man. Then, as now, no one would have expected a Prince, even a Prince of Peace, to start His life from a stable. It is not the commonly conceived springboard for revolutionaries.

But the real surprise, the true delight of the shepherds, was that this child was the Son of God. The world has eventually excepted that, on occasion, a very great man may start from the most meager of beginnings; but in a very real sense the world has never gotten over the second surprise. Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ is a quarrel for the ages; but it is impossible to deny that His birth has echoed throughout all time.

The modern mind, enlightened as it is, will be quick to reject the thought of God deigning to become man; but the shepherds did except it. They left their flocks and worshipped. If we are ever to understand the reason for Christmas, it is important to remember two things concerning this most extraordinary event.

First, the shepherds had been waiting a long time for their Messiah. Advent, the period of hopeful expectation before Christmas day, lasted for them, not a period of weeks, but a number of generations. It is all but impossible for modern Christians to feel during a month-long yearly ritual what the shepherds, and all of Israel, felt during their entire lives. Nonetheless, this is the point and purpose of Advent.

Second, Christ was better news that they could ever have expected. True, they did not yet understand how God had sent His Son to die, thus destroying forever the bonds of sin and death. But though their knowledge was limited, it was clear that something significant had happened. The abyss between God and man had been bridged; never before had the heavens felt so near.

The shepherds eventually returned to their flocks, but it is all but inconceivable that their lives were the same. For them, the Christmas season had only begun. It is a pity that we have gotten the order so reversed.

On Christmas day, the songs ring out, proclaiming a child born long ago who would be the Savior of the world. But, once the day is over, our songs cease. Oh, how backward we have things! The prophecy has finally been fulfilled. It is now time for the joyful news to be proclaimed. Christmas day is not the end; it is only a beginning. The stores may tear down their decorations, but the season has only just begun. If we pay close enough attention, we may notice that the heavens are still very near.

Victim to Be for the Queen to Be

This from Bryan York over at National Review:

When Republicans were asked, "If the 2008 Republican caucus were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?" these are the results:

John McCain 27%
Rudy Giuliani 26%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Condi Rice 4%
George Pataki 1%
Jeb Bush 1%
George Allen 1%
Sam Brownback 1%

Keep in mind that the leader of the pack was too liberal to earn the nomination in 2000; instead the GOP nominated the bulwark of conservatism known as George W. Bush who thereupon ran to the left. Keep in mind that the second place stooge is on his third marriage, favors gay marriage and is pro-choice--good family values, that--favors gun control

The fellow in third is Mormon, which means he's probably unelectable--though he might serve well as fodder for the Lizard Queen to devour. Newt Gingrich, in fourth, has no qualms with restricting speech rights. What a swell pack of gentlemen. I know I'm looking forward to voting for the GOP, yes sir.

The same shows Hillary doing poorly, but I see little reason to fret. Edwards and Obama are soft candidates. They are likeable, at least Obama is--I cannot understand the affinity for the slimy lawyer from North Carolina, except that anyone looks good when they stand next to John Kerry. But I really can't see Obama winning an election. To be perfectly blunt, he's too young and stupid. Oh, I know he's written a book and all that, and he's charismatic as all get-out, but can anyone really see him delivering a substantive speech? I can picture him smiling, and he could probably be trained to give powerfully good sound-bites, but I cannot fathom him articulating an interesting position, much less one genuinely controversial.

I shouldn't underestimate the power of charisma, especially in a nation so packed with imbecilles as is ours. Talk to anyone about President Clinton; nine-tenths of the comments concerning him will have nothing in the way of substance. Liberals liked him, but they cannot come up with anything he did which they liked; conservatives loathed him, but they are likewise ineffectual at discussing the reason why they loathe him so. But he was a Clinton, and he won two elections.

All of which brings me to his lizardly wife. Hillary is far too smart to let Obama get the best of her in a debate. She would carve him up and eat him for dinner. She is, for all her flaws, an intelligent woman who knows how to win.

Obama has peaked too early. If he is smart, he will gracefully step aside and get ready for 2016. Much can change by then, but by all accounts he should have a better chance when he is a bit older.

The Clintons should not be underestimated, and I stubbornly cling to my prediction. Beware the queen.

The Worthless War

In reading American history, I cannot help but be surprised that a relatively small number of casualties will cause us to sacrfice our soldiers at an alarming rate, and at numbers that far surpass the original number of casualties. One should be careful when conducting algebraic experiments in terms of human lives, but it is not entirely insignificant that more troops have died in Iraq than civilians died on September11th.

The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday...

The deaths raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks claimed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Now, the War in Iraq is a dubiously noble endeavor. The form of government is far less important than the character of the citizens, and it is thus foolish to assert that democracy will save the Iraqis from whatever ills with which they are besetted. More importantly, we cannot erect a democracy in Iraq. It may have been an honest mistake to think plausible what has since proven to be impossible, but this is no longer the case. The War in Iraq has been lost. Idiots, cowards, or some combination thereof, the politicians must spin, spin, spin to convince us otherwise. Meanwhile, the troop continue to die. Notes Fred:

One day soon people will ask aloud: How did we let 3000 GIs die for the weak ego of a pampered liar and his desperate need to prove he's half the man his father was?

The troops from now on will die for a war that they already know is over. They are dying for politicians. They are dying for nothing. By now they must know it. It happened to us, too, long ago.

The talk among pols now is about finding an “exit strategy.” This means a way of pulling out without risking too many seats in Congress. Screw the troops. We must look to the elections. Do we really want an exit strategy? A friend of mine, with two tours in heavy combat in another war, has devised a splendid exit strategy. It consists of five words: “OK. On the plane. Now.” Bring your toothbrush. Everything else stays. We’re outa here.

It is a workable exit strategy, one with teeth, and comprehensible to all. But we won’t use it. We will continue killing our men, calculatedly, cynically, for the benefit of politicians. The important thing, you see, is the place in history of Bush Puppy. Screw the troops.

Face it. The soldiers are being used. They are being suckered. This isn’t new. It happened to my generation. Long after we knew that the war in Vietnam was lost, Lyndon Johnson kept it going to fertilize his vanity, and then Nixon spoke of the need to “save face”—at two hundred dead GIs a week. But of course Johnson and Nixon weren’t among the dead, or among the GIs.

Harsh words. But the truth has been known to hurt. God help the poor troops. We're certainly not doing them a damned bit of good.

Ban Everything

The Lode website is up and running again, but for some reason all the articles are from about a month ago. Newpapers aren't terribly good at being up to date, but this is a mite ridiculous.

Anyway, this is a bit unfortunate because once again something I wrote drew a reaction from the ordinarily sleepy Tech crowd, and, without a link, I will be unable to replicate the fellow's comments in total.

Briefly, he took issue with my assertion that secondhand smoking is not to be feared and certainly not to be made illegal. The brunt of his piece highlighted various statistics which, apparently, prove that secondhand smoke is deadly and something one must avoid on pain of, well, death I suppose.

I do not doubt the validity of the statistics, though I am fairly certain that they have been manipulated in such a manner as to impress most fantastic and ominous visions upon the nervous reader. I will readily grant that, given a choice between clean air and air which is infused with cigarette smoke, only a fool would prefer the latter. The issue is not, as is commonly thought, whether or not secondhand smoke is dangerous. The questions are: How dangerous is it--and what extent of it is considered to be substantially dangerous; and is it possible to avoid this assumed danger without resorting to meddlesome laws?

Puritan proponents are hesitant to answer these questions for the same reason I am hesitant, namely, an honest ignorance of the specifics of the case at hand. But we can determine, from their behavioir and their boisterous proclamations, how they would answer these questions if pressed.

Anti-smoking zealots evidently believe: 1) secondhand smoke is so dangerous that it must be banned; 2) any amount of secondhand smoke is dangerous enough to merit the ban; and 3) secondhand smoke cannot be avoided. When put succinctly, the advocation of smoking bans becomes preposterous--which it is--and we need only examine the three implicit replies to get to the heart of the folly behind all the silly crusading aimed at doing away with secondhand smoke.

If secondhand smoke were only a nuisance, it would need not be banned. But it is so toxic, so onerous, so deadly, that bar patrons must be saved from themselves and cannot be allowed, under any circumstances, to be near anyone who smokes.

Further, we cannot assume that patrons can indulge in such paltry doses of secondhand smoke that they will suffer no harm. This is an especially curious point, but it is not in the least surprising. That it is entirely possible for a man who does not smoke and a man who does smoke to enjoy a drink together at a bar is beyond consideration. The non-smoker is suffering for every moment he spends with his deplorable companion. We must cease his suffering by making his friend suffer--whether this suffering will in turn make the non-smoker suffer is an insufferable question as it is surely impossible for a non-smoker to ever care for one who cares for tobacco.

Lastly, as is implicit in any form of puritanism, we cannot allow any men to think for themselves. No one ever says this, of course, but it can be readily inferred. If a man can prevent himself from pelting his lungs with secondhand smoke, which he assuredly can, but he will not be allowed to do so, it is only because whomever it is that makes the laws says that he can not. And as he is capable of choosing, it must be that he is too stupid to choose rightly.

But there is another point to all this nonsense about secondhand smoke. If secondhand smoke is all that we have previously said that it is--a point I am not willing to concede--what on earth are we to think of firsthand smoke? If an hour spent in a smoke filled tavern is enough to give a man cancer, a solitary cigarette, inhaled firsthand, must do all the more. And if a solitary cigarette, what of a pack, or, heaven forbid, the packs and packs a smoker may use in the course of his lifetime? In short, if secondhand smoke is so perilous, why not simply ban smoking altogether?

My rejoinder is easily concocted. Tobacco, in and of itself, is not evil; no created thing is. That it can be abused is only admitting that it exists. I do not propose that man only be allowed to use things which cannot be abused because there are, to my knowledge, no such things. And if a world were comprised of only those things which are, if not wholly good, at least unlikely to be used for ill, I would think it a terribly boring world. For one thing, it wouldn't have any people.

Merry Christmas

I hope to resume regularly scheduled semi-coherent tirades shortly. In the mean time, I hope you and yours have a truly wonderful Christmas.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

No Column This Wewk

In lieu of my column discussing the necessity of religion and science The Lode has printed her usual garbage. Look for the aforesaid essay to appear in the next week's edition, that is, some time mid-Janurary.

My break draws short. I know not whether I shall post at all, or how frequently; but know that eventually I shall be back.

Bonne chance mes amis!

The Smoking Ban

...is coming to my state:

A statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants looks likelier than ever.

For several years the biggest obstacle to the ban has been the Republican majority in the state House of Representatives, which was swayed by the concerns of restaurant and bar owners who said the ban would hurt their business. With Democrats set to take control of the House in January, supporters believe their time has come.

For which I'm to blame, as the good Fraters point out:

And yet, the smarter-than-thou libertarians will continue to assure you that there is no difference between the two parties.

The mistake here lies in assuming that Republicans could have prevented a statewide smoking ban. True, they would have stood up to it for a limited period of time, but eventually Republicans would have lost power, whereupon the liberty-loathing Democrats would have banned smoking anyway.

As I mentioned in last week's column, there's not point to sliding gradually into tyranny. Conservatism is a failed idealogy, and the smoking ban is a perfect example of this.

I'll be lighting up my pipe this weekend in honor of the home state slipping into sheer idiocy. Since most of the bars I go to don't allow smoking and most bars frown upon pipe smoking, this won't affect me much, but it bothers my libertarian bones.

For the record, there is no difference between the two parties and I am smarter than you. So there.

Not Just Bush

The Democrats are fairly stupid, too:

Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

But remember, Democrats are Tough on Terror. And we're going to defeat Terror. And so on and so forth...

Nominate The Diversity

and watch the democrats wiggle...

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton's combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

I can't say I'm terribly happy to see Bolton go; he just never irked me as much as many of Bush's other appointments. If we insist on remaining a part of the UN, our ambassador thereto should have our interests in mind. My objection is to Bush's policy, which is inimical to our own well-being, but I would never fault him for finding someone to promulgate that policy to that hallowd hall of international stooges.

If Bush does nominate this Muslim chap, and assuming he's similar in type to John Bolton, it will be fascinating to watch the democrats turn him out without appearing as intolerant racists or some such twaddle. Personally, I don't care about the diversity inherent in his nature, at least as we measure such in this strange country of ours; if he is turned out it should be due to his attributes, or lack thereof. I only note that the liberals in the Senate may become squeamish shortly, as they are hit, again, with the full weight of their own bankrupt principles.

Also, assuming this goes through, what are the odds Bush gets credit for nominating the first Muslim--I'm assuming--to hold this position? I'm guessing slim to none.