Discouraging news

I hate to bring bad news, but I came across the following piece commenting on our current economic situation. It's pretty depressing, but it's what could be expected from simply throwing money at our problems--

The signs of a deep and sudden slowdown in the US are becoming ever clearer as the "sugar rush" from the Obama fiscal stimulus wears off and the inventory boost fades. California, Illinois and other states are cutting spending, tightening US fiscal policy by 0.8 percent of GDP.

Thursday's plunge in the Philadelphia Fed's July index of new manufacturing orders to –4.3 suggests that the economy may have buckled abruptly, as it did in mid-2008. The Economic Cycle Research Institute's ECRI leading indicator has tumbled, reaching –8.3pc last week. This points to a sharp slowdown or recession within three months.

While US port data looked buoyant in June, the details were troubling. Outbound traffic from Long Beach fell from 139,000 containers in May to 116,000 in June. Shipments from Los Angeles fell from 161,000 to 155,000. This drop in exports is worsening the US trade deficit, eroding the dollar.

The US workforce has shrunk by a million over the past two months as discouraged jobless give up the hunt. Retail sales have fallen for the past two months. New homes sales crashed to 300,000 in May after tax credits ran out, the lowest since records began in 1963. Mortgage applications have fallen by 42pc to 13-year low since April. Paul Dales at Capital Economics said the "shadow inventory" of unsold properties has risen to 7.8m. "The double dip in housing has begun," he said.

Back to me--I can't wait until November. Let's clear Congress of both parties and start over. This bunch is looking after their own interests, not ours.

Keller--one more time

Let's see . . . I had just said I wouldn't get distracted and went back to summarizing key chapters in Tim Keller's book The Reason for God. Then I got distracted with another left-wing plot that I had to rant about. Sorry . . . I feel better now, so it's back to Keller again. This is an important book to share with non-Christians, so I do intend to finish it. In a later chapter he takes on another challenge to Christianity: the fact that many believe science has disproved belief in God. He uses Richard Dawkins as a good illustration for this idea. It was Dawkins who said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. In another book Dawkins argues that a person cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.

Keller challenges one reason for this belief, the fact that miracles have supposedly been disproved today. He starts by noting that the statement "no supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible" cannot be tested since it is not a scientific finding, but rather a philosophical presuppositions. Science, by its nature, can't discern or test for supernatural causes. This belief that miracles cannot happen seems to be based on the idea that there cannot be a God who does miracles. Of course, Keller says if there is a God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles. The idea that God does not exist actually is an article of faith since his existence can be neither demonstrably proven or disproven.

The author then challenges the idea that science is in conflict with Christianity. Take the idea of evolution. Christians may believe in evolution as a process without believing in philosophical naturalism, the idea that everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one. He uses as an example Francis Collins, an eminent research scientist and head of the Human Genome Project. This man believes in evolutionary science and critiques the intelligent design movement. However, Collins also believes that the fine-tuning, beauty, and order of nature nonetheless point to a divine creator. So here is someone who believes in evolution and God.

At this point I part ways with Timothy Keller. It is true that Francis Collins portrays himself both as a scientist and a sincere Christian. But his position, commonly known as theistic evolution, simply makes no sense. How can you have evolution, commonly defined as unguided, be guided by God? That term, theistic evolution, strikes me and many others as an oxymoron. I wish Keller had used other challenges to evolution from the intelligent design movement.

Okay, back to the issue of science being in conflict with Christianity. Keller says this idea is losing credibility with a growing number of scholars. The concept of a conflict between science and religion was a deliberate exaggeration used by both scientists and educational leaders at the end of the 19th century to undermine the church's control of their institutions and increase their own cultural power.

Keller uses two famous studies to show many scientists see no incompatibility between faith in God and their work. In 1916 40% of scientists who were surveyed said they believed in a God who actively communicates with humanity. In 1997 this survey was repeated -- the numbers have not changed significantly in 80 years. One theologian wrote that most of the unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science.

Going back to the idea of evolution, Keller looks carefully at Genesis 1. He says the relationship of science to the Bible hinges not only on how we read the scientific record but how we interpret certain key biblical passages, especially the first chapter of Genesis. He notes that Christians have a wide range of interpretations of this crucial chapter. Keller takes the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event. He believes Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a song about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. He sees Genesis 2 as an account of how it happened. He believes it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can't be taken literally then none of it can be. That isn't true of any human communication. His conclusion is that people considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. This person should concentrate instead on the central claims of Christianity -- the person of Jesus, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message.

There is one more chapter in Keller's book that I would like to examine next time. And, of course, this chapter represents a quick overview. There are plenty of good books and articles that deal with the issue of science and Christianity, so if you are interested, let me know and I can get you some more information.

A left-wing conspiracy??

For years it has been obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a cave that journalists favor liberal candidates. The book Bias explored this very well. But Fred Barnes, in a new essay, tells how a recent email discovery has taken this liberal slant to new heighrts (or depths). See what you think--

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.
WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill.

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:
"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire. . .

As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team.

Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join. As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team. . .

What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.

The first call I got after the Daily Caller unearthed the emails involving me was from Karl Rove. He said he wanted to talk to his "fellow racist." We laughed about this. But the whole episode was also sad. I didn't sputter at the thought of being called a racist. But it was sad to see what journalism, or at least a segment of it, had come to.

Back to Keller

It's really not the case that I get easily distracted. It's true that a couple of months ago I did several blogs on Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God and stopped with over half of the book still to discuss. But there's so much going on that I put the book aside. Okay, I'd like to get back to discussing one of his later chapters that deals with a difficult issue -- how a loving God can send people to hell.

This is very offensive for those outside the Christian faith. They see this belief as exclusionary, abusive, divisive, and violent. Instead, many focus on a God of love who supports people no matter how they live.

However, the idea that God will blindly love us is not how the ancients saw things. They understood there was a transcendent moral order outside of the human race. If people violated that order, there were severe consequences, so people had to learn how to live wisely through character traits such as humility, compassion, courage, discretion, and loyalty.

Today, people have it backwards. We don't change ourselves to fit reality; according to Keller, "we now seek to control and shape reality to fit our desires." We believe so deeply in our own personal rights that we can't conceive of a divine judgment day imposed upon us.

What Keller is saying is that our Western sensibilities are not always in tune with the way the past or other cultures today see things. One other example is the fact that secular Westerners get upset by the idea of hell, but they like biblical teaching about turning the other cheek and forgiving enemies. Those in traditional cultures see it just the other way around. Turning the other cheek makes no sense because it offends many who have beliefs about what is right. They do not have a problem of the God of judgment.

So Keller asks a key question -- why should Western cultural sensibilities be the ultimate way to judge whether Christianity is valid? We object to the concept of hell, but other societies do not.

Keller believes many people struggle with the idea that God is both a God of love and of justice. They can't see that a loving God could also be a judging God. But, he says, all loving people are sometimes filled with wrath. For example, if you love someone and you see somebody hurting that person, it's easy to get angry. Keller quotes another author, who says that "anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference." God is angry at evil and injustice because it destroys his creation and ruins its peace and integrity. If God did not get angry at injustice and seek to put an end to it, that God would not be worthy of worship.

In fact, lack of belief in a God of vengeance is what causes problems. People who are victims of violence often turn to vengeance, which leads to an endless cycle of bitterness and destruction. They are more inclined to seek vengeance if they feel there is no God who will eventually put all things right and punish those who deserve punishment. Think of the Nazis and the Communists -- loss of belief in a God of judgment can lead to brutality. If there is no ultimate accountability, we can do anything we want to our fellow human beings.

Keller defines hell as "simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity." When we build our lives on anything except God, that thing becomes an enslaving addiction. His quote from C. S. Lewis is powerful: "It is not a question of God sending us to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud." Yes, people in hell are miserable, but it is unchecked pride, paranoia, and self-pity that makes it so. Hell is a prison of their own self-centeredness. We have our picture incorrectly drawn -- God is not casting people into a pit where they cry out desperately "I'm sorry! Let me out!"

Keller's key point here is that hell is actually a testament to human freedom. God gives people what they want, including freedom from himself. As Lewis says, "There are only two kinds of people -- those who say 'Thy will be done' to God or those to whom God in the end says 'Thy will be done.'"

Keller relates an interesting exchange that he had with two women who were upset with his affirmation of hell. They told him that believing in eternal judgment made him a very narrow person. Keller responded, "You think I'm wrong about these religious questions, and I think you are wrong. Why doesn't that make you as narrow as me?"

This takes us through the five chapters in Keller's book. There are a couple to go, so I'll try to stay focused enough to cover them in the next two blogs.

Why are the numbers coming down for Obama?

Politico had a recent article covering reasons why President Obama has such low approval ratings. I thought the piece was fair and interesting. I want to share some of the author's findings here.

For one thing, the President has lost the support of independent voters. Why? They feel he has run around, chasing down a lot of different ideas. But they care about the economy, jobs, and spending -- three areas where Obama has shown himself to be an old-fashioned liberal. Independents were hoping he would be a new kind of politician above party politics as usual. They feel betrayed.

Secondly, we are seeing divisions within the Democratic Party. Some are disappointed with the way he has handled Afghanistan while others don't like his confrontations with education unions. Many supporters say they don't really know who he is and have a hard time being enthusiastic for his positions.

Next, many insiders report there is a likability problem. The President's staff is made up of a lot of abrasive people who have managed to irritate many they come in contact with. Some believe that Obama only cares about himself and does not support those who have to take tough political stands for him.

In addition, his staff is not seen as a strong one. His speeches have fallen flat, his people do a poor job selling his ideas, and his political team often botches their jobs. For example, several of the President's choices failed to make it out of Democratic primaries.

One huge reason has to do with the economy. High unemployment rates and a sluggish economy create concern among the public. People simply don't feel that the economy has turned the corner and is heading in the right direction.

Finally, there is the BP oil leak in the Gulf. Of course, the President is not responsible for the leak, but he has looked terrible in his handling of the disaster. He reminds people that big government cannot solve all of our problems, and, in fact, often create difficulties.

These reasons are good as far as they go. But I would add one important additional point -- the President has shown the American people what an increasingly powerful government would look like. They don't like what they see with increased deficits, arrogant pronouncements, inefficiencies, indifference to realities, foreign mismanagement, and other problems. Let's hope this November the public takes notice and does something about this.

Illegals, Arizona, and Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan says it so well, I want you to see a portion of her piece on illegal immigration and the new Arizona law.

We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, and the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence . . .
Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties . . .

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.
But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the common sense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.
Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

NASA . . . to boldly go . . .

Every time I think I have heard it all, something blindsides me. The latest really hit me hard because it has to do with NASA, the organization that got us to the moon, put the Hubble telescope in space to reveal some amazing photographs of the universe, and sent two incredibly hardy rovers to Mars where they have been exploring the surface for over five years.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden recently gave an interview with Al Jazeera. I was flabbergasted when I came across this statement by him: "When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he {Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Now, think about NASA. What does it represent? I think of science, careful calculations, the universe, the mysteries of the solar system, human and robotic exploration, incredibly complex machinery, clever fixes of difficult problems. What don't we think of when we think of NASA? Helping different cultures "feel good" about themselves. When did it become NASA's job to stroke egos across the globe? Apparently it's now the "foremost" task of this agency, thanks to our current President, who never misses an opportunity to grovel before the rest of the world.

Well, maybe I'm missing something here. NASA is always searching for new ways to do things, new technologies, new attempts to explore the frontier of space. Maybe the Moslem world has techniques to help NASA. Let's think about this . . . what recent developments has Islam given us? Beheadings, stonings, demotion of women, suicide bombings, threats, riots over cartoons. So, all we have to do is figure out how to channel this technology into rocket flight, long-distance communication between the planets, miniaturization of scientific instruments. Hey, if Charles Bolden can channel this hatred and ignorance into advanced technology, then President Obama has made a wise choice.

But I have my doubts. It was the Judeo-Christian worldview that gave us modern science. I would be much happier if NASA concentrated on its original mission and left pandering to the experts (cue Obama).

Groucho--part 2

OK, one more round of Groucho sayings. It's kind of like eating peanuts--hard to stop with just a few. Enjoy.



1. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.



2. Although it is generally known, I think it's about time to announce that I was born at a very early age.


3. I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.


4. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.


5. Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped.


6. I don't have a photograph, but you can have my footprints. They're upstairs in my socks.

7. I made a killing on Wall Street a few years ago...I shot my broker.


8. I married your mother because I wanted children, imagine my disappointment when you came along.


9. I sent the club a wire stating, Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

10. I wish to be cremated. One tenth of my ashes shall be given to my agent, as written in our contract.


11. I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it


12. Last night I shot an elephant in my Pajamas and how he got in my pajamas I'll never know.


13. Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.


14. Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.


15. Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.


16. She got her good looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon.

17. She's afraid that if she leaves, she'll become the life of the party.

18. There's only one way to find out if a man is honest...ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook.

19. There's one thing I always wanted to do before I quit...retire!

20. Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.

21. Time wounds all heels.


22. Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done for me?

23. Why, I'd horse-whip you if I had a horse.


24. When discovered by his wife, kissing the maid, Groucho said "I was just whispering in her mouth".

25. Will you marry me? Do you have any money? Answer the second question first.


26. You know I could rent you out as a decoy for duck hunters?

27. You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I'll bet he was glad to get rid of it.

Groucho's comments

I'm a huge fan of Groucho Marx. His humor is sharp, unpredictable, and makes just enough sense to be thoughtful. Enjoy some of these remarks of his--

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.

A hospital bed is a parked taxi with the meter running.

Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough.

Believe me, you have to get up early if you want to get out of bed.

Blood's not thicker than money.

Don't look now, but there's one too many in this room and I think it's you.

From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.

Go, and never darken my towels again.

He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?.

I did toy with the idea of doing a cook-book. The recipes were to be the routine ones: how to make dry toast, instant coffee, hearts of lettuce and brownies. But as an added attraction, at no extra charge, my idea was to put a fried egg on the cover. I think a lot of people who hate literature but love fried eggs would buy it if the price was right.

I didn't like the play. But I saw it under unfavorable circumstances - the curtains were up.

I have nothing but confidence in you, and very little of that.

I love everything about you. Your lips, your eyes, your voice. The only thing I can't stand is you.

I must say that I find television very educational. The minute somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.

I was going to thrash them within an inch of their lives, but I didn't have a tape measure.

I would horsewhip you if I had a horse.

I'd dance with you until the cows came home. On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows until you came home.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat animals who are.

I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.

My mother loved children - she would have given anything if I had been one.

Nobody is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.

Now there sits a man with an open mind. You can feel the draft from here.

Oh, I know it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at me. I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.


OK, there is plenty more wit and wisdom from Groucho, but I wanted to keep this short so all can savor his remarks. Maybe some more in a later blog.