Did you know?

From Drayton Bird's blog:

....did you know that NASA research shows a 5 year old is 98% highly creative ... whilst a 25 year old is only 2% highly creative? Did you know that doodling during a presentation doubles your chance of remembering things?

Missing my former political life?

Every time I start to miss my days working in politics, I read something like this and thank the good Lord above for my current job and life.

Some of my favorites from Heritage's 50 Examples of Government Waste:

The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them--costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually--fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve

Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job

A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent$13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece

Federal investigators have launched more than 20 criminal fraud investigations related to the TARP financial bailout

The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland

Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications

The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds

Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use

Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education

Sometimes, I am thankful the American people aren't paying attention, because if they were, we would probably be another revolution on our hands.

Missing Link?

It seems like at least once a year, archeologists and scientists find the ever elusive "Missing Link" to the human evolutionary chain.

The latest find is Ardi.

Followers of the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins are I'm sure rejoicing in the streets as they have once again "proved" the falsehood that is the Christian Bible.

I sent the article to the smartest person I know to get his thoughts on the matter. His thoughts are below:

OK. I read it, and just based on the information in this article I think the find is compromised in any number of ways. For example:

1. One statement indicates that Ardi walked upright, not on her knuckles, followed by a later statement indicating that Ardi's palm/finger structure would have been useful for supporting the weight of her torso. Why does that matter? It matters because it betrays the fact that the scientists know both consciously and intuitively that Ardi walked on all fours, thus the reason she would need to be able to support the weight of her torso by using her hands.
2. The find was dated using radiometric and geologic dating, both of which have suspect methodologies, which is why historical archaeologists have reverted back to comparative strata and comprehensive dating methodologies in addition to radiometrics and geology.
3. The find was discovered in a mixed find area, meaning there were a multitude of fossilized remains and bone fragments from a variety of animal types. Historically in finds like these, it has proven exceptionally difficult to confirm with a high degree of accuracy which of the various animal types particular fragments belong to, and scientists have often ended up mistakenly putting a bone fragment from one animal alongside another and claiming that it's a transitional species. It's not like they found the full skeletal remains here. You'll notice that they say they found 125 fragments of bone, not 125 bones, and certainly not a complete skeleton.
   
4. You'll also notice that they are at least being intellectually honest to some degree by not categorizing the find as a member of the genus homo. They instead categorize it as Ardipithecus. Why do you think that is? It's because the scientists know that this isn't a person. It can't be honestly classified in the genus homo, so in order to retain some degree of intellectual honesty they have to categorize it as something else. This ultimately forces the scientists to admit that while this might be "something pretty close" to the last common ancestor between humans and apes (in their opinion) it's not the last common ancestor. They can't honestly make that claim.
   
5. You get out what you put in. At the outset you can tell that the scientists have a naturalistic starting point. They're beginning with the presupposition that Darwinian Evolution is fact, and filtering all the data from their find through that point of view. That's not an intellectually honest or fair process. The data should lead to a conclusion, not a conclusion leading the data. In the end, poor presuppositions on the font end have produced poor results on the back end. The scientists can't even use this science to support the presupposition that Darwinian evolution is fact because their own methodology (even with the presupposition) led to the conclusion that this isn't a human.

Comments from the uninvited

Dr. Donald Palmisano, Dr. William G. Plested II, and Dr. Daniel H. Johnson, Jr. all have one thing in common: they were all left out of President Obama's Rose Garden event where he touted the benefits of socialized medicine.

After reading their Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal, I think I can see why President Obama left them off the guest list, and I can also see why the Wall Street Journal published their piece.

From the article:

The United States has the best health care in the world today, and thanks to the ever-expanding frontiers of science and medical innovation the brightest days are ahead. It is true that there are Americans who fall through the cracks of our medical system every day—and as a caring nation, we must do what we can to expand access to medical care to those who need it. But this can be accomplished without a costly and inefficient government overhaul of the entire system. One easy reform would be to enable individuals to buy policies offered in any state, not just where they live. This will enhance competition. But more government-run health insurance will only lead to disaster.

.....Today, Medicare already reimburses doctors less than what many of their treatments cost to provide. Now the government is saying that additional Medicare cuts are coming—thus forcing doctors to try and make up the difference in volume, by seeing more patients. If you ask patients about this, they understand that more volume means less time with the doctor. That's something that all patients and doctors should oppose. In time, it will be difficult to find a physician.

Hot Air?

Great read from Ross McKitrick, professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph in Canada:

From the article:

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency.

Only in America

As the great Don King used to say, "Only in America!"

Only in America could a fat, useless donkey like Michael Moore make a movie bashing capitalism while spending his entire career exploiting and taking advantage of the capitalist system.

Take this for example: His last movie, "Fahrenheit 911", had a worldwide gross of $222,446,882, with a production budget of only $6,000,000. For those of you who weren't math majors, that is a gross profit margin of 97.3%, and a gross return on investment of 3,607%.

ONLY IN AMERICA!!!!!!

Dr. J on Truth of Christianity and Miracles

I am taking an apologetics 101 course at my church, and I couldn't help but see what my hero Dr. Samuel Johnson had to say on the subject:

Johnson's response to those who denied Christianity:

"It is always easy to be on the negative side. If a man were now to deny that there is salt on the table, you could not reduce him to an absurdity. Come, let us try this a little further. I deny that Canada is taken, and I can support my denial by pretty good arguments. The French are a much more numerous people than we; and it is not likely that they would allow us to take it. 'But the ministry have assured us, in all the formality of the Gazette, that it is taken.' -- Very true. But the ministry have put us to an enormous expence by the war in America, and it is their interest to persuade us that we have got something for our money -- 'But the fact is confirmed by thousands of men who were at the taking of it.' -- Ay, but these men have still more interest in deceiving us. They don't want that you should think the French have beat them, but that they have beat the French. Now suppose you should go over and find that it really is taken, that would only satisfy yourself; for when you come home we will not believe you. We will say, you have been bribed. -- Yet, Sir, notwithstanding all those plausible objections, we have no doubt that Canada is really ours. Such is the weight of common testimony. How much stronger are the evidences of the Christian religion?"

On Miracles:

"Why, Sir, the great difficulty of proving miracles should make us very cautious in believing them. But let us consider; although God has made Nature to operate by certain fixed laws, yet it is not unreasonable to think that he may suspend those laws in order to establish a system highly advantageous to mankind. Now the Christian Religion is a most beneficial system, as it gives us light and certainty where we were before in darkness and doubt. The miracles which prove it are attested by men who had no interest in deceiving us; but who, on the contrary, were told that they should suffer persecution, and did actually lay down their lives in confirmation of the truth of the facts which they asserted. Indeed, for some centuries the heathens did not pretend to deny the miracles; but said they were performed by the aid of evil spirits. This is a circumstance of great weight. Then, Sir, when we take the proofs derived from prophecies which have been so exactly fulfilled, we have most satisfactory evidence. Supposing a miracle possible, as to which, in my opinion, there can be no doubt, we have as strong evidence for the miracles in support of Christianity, as the nature of the thing admits."

Is Basic Economics Intuitive?

Economist Bryan Caplan thinks so:

1. Counterintuitive claim: Free trade makes countries richer, even if the other countries have big advantages like cheaper labor or more advanced technology.

Intuitive version: We'd be better off if other countries gave us stuff for free. Isn't "really cheap"
the next-best thing?

2. Counterintuitive claim: Strict labor market regulation is bad for workers.

Intuitive version: Employers don't like hiring people if it's hard to get rid of them. Suppose you had to marry anyone you asked out on a date!

3. Counterintuitive claim: Egalitarian socialism creates poverty... even starvation.

Intuitive version: If everyone gets the same share whether or not they work, you're asking people to work for free. People don't like working for free, especially when the work isn't very fun. (This is my response to Sumner's Great Leap Forward Challenge: "But how do we explain to school children that millions had to starve because of a policy that encouraged people to share?")

4. Counterintuitive claim: Prices are determined by supply and demand.

Intuitive version: If the good were free, consumers would want a lot, but producers wouldn't feel like making much. If the good cost trillions of dollars, producers would want to make a lot, but consumers wouldn't want to buy any. In between there's got to be a price where consumers want to buy as much as producers want to make.

Endure Like Daniel

Below, I have included some inspiring words to start your Tuesday morning from Christian blogger John Mark Reynolds.

There are so many lessons to learn from the Biblical prophet Daniel. In his essay, Mr. Reynolds focuses on Daniel's ability to endure:

When tempted to despair about present rulers, dare to endure like Daniel.

When tempted to compromise in small things, dare to endure like Daniel.

When tempted to weariness by pagan culture, dare to endure like Daniel.

When tempted to doubt God’s promises, dare to endure like Daniel.

When tempted to flatter our rulers, dare to endure like Daniel.

When tempted to withdraw from public life, dare to endure like Daniel.

Phil Valentine on Useless Wars

Phil Valentine, a nationally syndicated radio host based here in Nashville, had a fantastic Op/Ed in today's Tennessean.

I haven't read the Tennessean in years, so I have to thank my wife for sending this along to me.

According to Valentine, the Op/Ed was written as a response to the following statement made by a Democrat friend regarding George W. Bush: "He got us into two useless wars that created the terrorists."

I bolded the phrase "useless war" because this phrase is really the focus of Valentine's opinion piece.

The left loves to berate Bush and those evil "Neo Cons" for "wasting" money fighting "useless wars". If they are so concerned about how we spend taxpayer dollars, why do they show zero concern for how we are wasting taxpayer dollars on the "useless war" against poverty and ignorance.

From the article:

"President Barack Obama will spend more on welfare in the next year than Bush spent during his entire time as president on the Iraq war. That bears repeating. Obama will spend more in one, single year on welfare than we've spent on the entire Iraq war. According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Iraq cost us $622 billion. Obama's welfare spending will reach $888 billion for the next fiscal year. He also spent $787 billion on a stimulus package that seems to be going swimmingly well, don't cha think?

.....The total cost of every American war starting with the American Revolution is $6.4 trillion in today's dollars. Since we began the war on poverty we have spent $15.9 trillion on welfare. Yes, we've spent two-and-a-half times as much on welfare in just 40 years as on all the wars combined.

And where has that war on poverty gotten us? Although LBJ proposed it in 1964, the programs were not fully implemented until 1968. The percentage of people living below the poverty level was 12.8 percent. The latest statistics put that number at 12.3 percent.

Nearly $16 trillion down the drain and nothing to show for it. Wait a minute, I take that back. We do have something to show for it. We have millions trapped in cyclical dependency on the government and the illegitimacy rate in the black community is now 70 percent; 25 percent in the white community."

Valentine, like many conservative talk-radio hosts, can be a bit of a blowhard, but that fact doesn't take away from the veracity of his opinion piece.

There is also one other thing that has really bugged me since Obama took office. Where are the war protesters now? Where are the posters depicting Obama as Hitler? Where is the talk about prosecuting the President of the United States for war crimes? Because the last time I looked, President Obama wasn't pulling troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The last time I looked, President Obama hasn't stopped spending money fighting terrorism at home or abroad. In fact, the last time I looked President Obama was increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and continuing White House support of programs like the Patriot Act.

The real "useless war" is not being fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. The real useless war is being fought right here in the United States by a bloated, inefficient, and bureaucratic federal government.

If we want to actually decrease poverty in this country, we need to all get up off our fat butts and do something about it as INDIVIDUALS. I am so sick of looking to the government and politicians for answers.