Hugo Chavez is clearly a closet Marxist but when asked why he was such an avid socialist he summed up socialism by describing it as “love”. “Socialism is Love” is perhaps the best description, in the fewest words, of socialism and communism that I have ever heard. If you consider the motives of many of the outspoken Liberals, Socialists, and even Marxists, you see that what they are seeking is to ensure that everyone shares in the wealth and advantages of society as a whole. Truly a worthwhile objective but then why have these altruistic philosophies failed in practice – or have they failed”
It seems clear today that Communism has failed. Lenin overthrew the Czar in 1917 and purged not just the aristocracy but the capitalists, the business owners, and even the farmers who owned land. Everything was taken over by the state and was to be run for the benefit of everyone. The very foundation of Marxism is expressed in this one phrase:
“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”
This simple phrase indicates that everyone will work to their capacity and give to the state all of their output so the state can redistribute the wealth they generated according to the needs of everyone. In practice this means that if you can generate $100 but only require $10 to support yourself then the state returns $10 to you and distributes the remaining $90 according to the “needs” of others. Of course in practice it seems that members of the Communist Party had more needs than non-members and senior party members had even more needs. Intellectuals, artists, and professionals were generally viewed as parasites because they didn’t produce anything tangible and were treated accordingly.
The stark reality is that the left wing of society closed its collective eyes to the failure of Communism under Lenin and Stalin. The Western Intelligentsia continued to extol the glories of the Worker’s Paradise even when it was obvious that it was nothing short of a crude dictatorship that was systematically murdering thousands of people. This self-deception continued right up to and beyond the fall of the USSR. Castro came to power as a “socialist” whose objective was to overthrow the evil Dictatorship of Bautista with a free and democratic – albeit socialist – government. However, once Bautista was gone, the free and democratic government never materialized, instead Castro declared himself not just a “socialist” but a Marxist. Elections were held but the only party was the Communist Party and the only candidate Fidel. Gone was any semblance of freedom. This same scenario is being played out today in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez who describes himself as a “socialist” while he is rigging elections, nationalizing industries, and wrecking the economy in the his efforts to spread the wealth. Even Chavez himself hints that he is a Marxist, but few people in the media or on the left are willing to call him what he is – a Marxist Dictator cut from the Stalinist cloth.
Every communist regime from Lenin until now has been a disaster economically as well as politically. There has never been a Communist government voted into office and once in control no communist regime has ever been unseated electorally – all have been overthrown by violence. Fortunately few communist regimes remain but those that do are repressive and examples would be North Korea, Viet Nam, and Cuba. Of course many of the fellow travelers would point out that China is “communist” and very successful. However, modern China is no longer a “communist” nation but rather an updated version of Imperial China. The country has adopted many of the trappings of a capitalist society like entrepreneurship, profits, and individuality. Of course there is little freedom of the press, assembly, or speech, but then those things weren’t characteristics of Imperial China either. China has let the capitalist cat out of the bag and they will never be able to put it back, so China will slowly continue its evolution from Communism to Capitalism.
But what of those nations that are truly socialist – countries like France and Sweden? Aren’t they successful? Obviously it depends on how you measure success, but keeping in mind that one of the primary objectives of socialism is employment not profitability or productivity, then the socialist countries of Western Europe do not perform well.
The Gross Domestic Product per capita of France is 26% below that of the US, Sweden is 22%
And Germany is 38% below that of the United States. When viewed in terms of Gross Domestic Product per Employed Person the United States produces $81,024 per person while France produces $63,097, Sweden $63,401, and Germany $59,052 and these are countries where employment is a primary objective and the rationale for government control. But the unemployment rate in the US is at 4.5% while France and Germany have unemployment rates of 9% and Sweden 7%.
The obvious conclusion is that capitalism undoubtedly has greater swings in employment it has greater productivity and wealth generation than any of the socialist countries and ironically less unemployment. So while the socialists and Marxists show their “love” for the poor and downtrodden at the expense of the rich and successful, the overall result is a reduction in overall wealth and greater unemployment, not considering the flight of capital and brains as the more educated and aggressive members of their society flee their loving embrace. One is reminded of George Orwell’s “New Speak” where “Love is Hate”. This certainly seems to apply to Communism and Socialism.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why Are Cavemen White?
The scientists assure us that Darwin is correct even in the face of mounting evidence that he may not be correct or at best not 100% correct. Once again scientists have found what is believed to be a new Dinosaur which they label a transitional fossil between a herbivore and carnivore. Heady stuff for the world of Paleontology but before we pop those champagne corks and toast Darwin, perhaps we should look a little closer. This claim is actually based on some teeth which are normally found in herbivores on a skeleton that appears to be a carnivore. Hmmm – is it possible that this was an omnivore? Is it possible that like all of those cuddly Grizzly Bears we see in Yellowstone that this particular Dinosaur was not really a transitional fossil but simply another Dinosaur? Plus if this is a “transitional” fossil what was this Dinosaur transitioning from and changing into? It seems once again that the term Evolution has once again been applied to a classic case of adaptation because at the end of the day – this new fossil was a Dinosaur, his predecessors were Dinosaurs, and presumably any further change would have resulted in a herbivore Dinosaur – not a new species, or at least there is no proof that it was a new species. But this does open some questions.
We are assured by the Bible that God created man. The reason for this is not known but possibly as a joke. Then the Evolutionists assure us than man was not divinely created but evolved from some hominid that was the root stock of both Homo sapiens and Apes. These early Hominids were small apelike creatures with small brains who were covered in hair and lived in Equatorial Africa. They went through a series of evolutionary improvements and grew taller, stronger, and smarter (uncertain about the British Aristocracy), but remained hairy – although less so. These early precursors of man migrated North to Europe, Eastward to Asia and eventually covered the globe except for North America and South America which were settled by Homo Sapiens. This hierarchy of development can be seen in virtually every museum and every textbook but the examples always show these early men as white. Why is that?
Were early men like Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal white? Were the first men Caucasian even though they developed in Equatorial Africa? Were the Hominids that remained in Africa black and remained black, while those that migrated North evolved into whites? If we are to believe that mankind evolved into the five races of man, then how did this happen and why? First, it seems obvious that the division of Homo sapiens into five races was not an example of evolution but just an example of adaptation since the races are not separate species. But then how and why did the different races develop since their various characteristics don’t seem to fit their indigenous environments. For example the white race seems to be indigenous to the North, which tends to be cold and not overly sunny, but why are they white and not black? After all black tends to absorb more heat and it would seem this would be a desirable characteristic while you are slogging through a snow bank. On the other hand the white race seems to be more hairy and thus a hair covering would be useful in the North. But whites also tend to be bald and we are told that you lose a great deal of heat through your head so you should wear a hat in the cold weather. So baldness doesn’t seem like a desirable adaptation.
Then of course we have the Negroes who have black skin, not prone to baldness, have little body hair, and what hair they do have tends to be “wooly”. Blacks are indigenous to Africa which tends to be pretty hot so why is their skin black and why are they not bald? Did the early Hominids have wooly hair or straight? If straight why did they develop wooly hair? If wooly why did the other races lose this characteristic? It would seem that if you lose heat through your head that baldness would be an evolutionary advantage just as a lighter skin would be in the Equatorial Heat. Does the black color give them an advantage in the jungles of Africa since they would blend with the shadows? What about the broad nose and thick lips that are present in Negroes but not in other races? What evolutionary advantage did they bring? But then we have the Northern Negroes – the Ethiopians who have black skins but Caucasoid features. Do they represent a transition between Negroes and Caucasians?
What about Orientals? They have sallow (yellow) skin and almond shaped eyes with very little body hair. The males do not have heavy beards and what beards they do have tend to be wispy. Why is that? What evolutionary advantage does a lack of hair provide? What advantage is brought by the shape of the eyes and what condition prevails in China that is unique to China that would account for the adaptation?
Obviously the list of questions goes on and on. We have the Red race unique to North America but who are not indigenous. The common belief is that they migrated from Asia across the land bridge to Alaska. This certainly seems possible and the Eskimo’s (Aleuts) show definite signs of being Oriental in origin but they are quite distinct from the Indians who are in turn quite different – even visually – from the Brown race that inhabits Latin America. Where did these people come from? They certainly didn’t evolve where they are found.
Steven Gould (alarm bell) of Harvard has postulated “Punctuated Equilibrium” meaning rapid evolution – to account for the lack of transitional fossils. Even if we accept this rather labored theory it opens even further questions regarding man. Hominids are found in Africa and nowhere else but Neanderthals are found in Europe and nowhere else, although there is Peking Man in China. Given that the Hominids are in fact early men and given that Gould’s theory is logical, and given that the various races evolved in some place other than Africa, and given that their distinct racial characteristics provide some survival advantage as yet unknown, then why after three million years and extensive evolutionary changes did all of these variations remain Homo Sapiens instead of adapting into different species like their brother apes did?
It seems that science may not have all of the answers and we are once again left with Faith Based science or the very difficult alternative that God for some unknown reason made Man into different colors with different characteristics but he made them all the same. Except of course the Cave Men, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon who we are assured were white. Where the others came from God only knows.
We are assured by the Bible that God created man. The reason for this is not known but possibly as a joke. Then the Evolutionists assure us than man was not divinely created but evolved from some hominid that was the root stock of both Homo sapiens and Apes. These early Hominids were small apelike creatures with small brains who were covered in hair and lived in Equatorial Africa. They went through a series of evolutionary improvements and grew taller, stronger, and smarter (uncertain about the British Aristocracy), but remained hairy – although less so. These early precursors of man migrated North to Europe, Eastward to Asia and eventually covered the globe except for North America and South America which were settled by Homo Sapiens. This hierarchy of development can be seen in virtually every museum and every textbook but the examples always show these early men as white. Why is that?
Were early men like Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal white? Were the first men Caucasian even though they developed in Equatorial Africa? Were the Hominids that remained in Africa black and remained black, while those that migrated North evolved into whites? If we are to believe that mankind evolved into the five races of man, then how did this happen and why? First, it seems obvious that the division of Homo sapiens into five races was not an example of evolution but just an example of adaptation since the races are not separate species. But then how and why did the different races develop since their various characteristics don’t seem to fit their indigenous environments. For example the white race seems to be indigenous to the North, which tends to be cold and not overly sunny, but why are they white and not black? After all black tends to absorb more heat and it would seem this would be a desirable characteristic while you are slogging through a snow bank. On the other hand the white race seems to be more hairy and thus a hair covering would be useful in the North. But whites also tend to be bald and we are told that you lose a great deal of heat through your head so you should wear a hat in the cold weather. So baldness doesn’t seem like a desirable adaptation.
Then of course we have the Negroes who have black skin, not prone to baldness, have little body hair, and what hair they do have tends to be “wooly”. Blacks are indigenous to Africa which tends to be pretty hot so why is their skin black and why are they not bald? Did the early Hominids have wooly hair or straight? If straight why did they develop wooly hair? If wooly why did the other races lose this characteristic? It would seem that if you lose heat through your head that baldness would be an evolutionary advantage just as a lighter skin would be in the Equatorial Heat. Does the black color give them an advantage in the jungles of Africa since they would blend with the shadows? What about the broad nose and thick lips that are present in Negroes but not in other races? What evolutionary advantage did they bring? But then we have the Northern Negroes – the Ethiopians who have black skins but Caucasoid features. Do they represent a transition between Negroes and Caucasians?
What about Orientals? They have sallow (yellow) skin and almond shaped eyes with very little body hair. The males do not have heavy beards and what beards they do have tend to be wispy. Why is that? What evolutionary advantage does a lack of hair provide? What advantage is brought by the shape of the eyes and what condition prevails in China that is unique to China that would account for the adaptation?
Obviously the list of questions goes on and on. We have the Red race unique to North America but who are not indigenous. The common belief is that they migrated from Asia across the land bridge to Alaska. This certainly seems possible and the Eskimo’s (Aleuts) show definite signs of being Oriental in origin but they are quite distinct from the Indians who are in turn quite different – even visually – from the Brown race that inhabits Latin America. Where did these people come from? They certainly didn’t evolve where they are found.
Steven Gould (alarm bell) of Harvard has postulated “Punctuated Equilibrium” meaning rapid evolution – to account for the lack of transitional fossils. Even if we accept this rather labored theory it opens even further questions regarding man. Hominids are found in Africa and nowhere else but Neanderthals are found in Europe and nowhere else, although there is Peking Man in China. Given that the Hominids are in fact early men and given that Gould’s theory is logical, and given that the various races evolved in some place other than Africa, and given that their distinct racial characteristics provide some survival advantage as yet unknown, then why after three million years and extensive evolutionary changes did all of these variations remain Homo Sapiens instead of adapting into different species like their brother apes did?
It seems that science may not have all of the answers and we are once again left with Faith Based science or the very difficult alternative that God for some unknown reason made Man into different colors with different characteristics but he made them all the same. Except of course the Cave Men, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon who we are assured were white. Where the others came from God only knows.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Chicken Little and Global Warming
We are being bombarded today by such eminent intellects as Al Gore, the Media, and a gaggle of “Scientists” who maintain that Global Warming is not only a fact, but that if we don’t do something to reverse this trend we are doomed because the planet is doomed. The underlying premise is that the industrialization of society has changed the planetary climate dynamics forever and that as a result Earth will become uninhabitable. Of course this is precisely the position taken by Chicken Little who was convinced the Sky was falling because something fell on his head. Critical analysis was never part of Chicken Little’s world just as it isn’t part of the current gaggle of alarmists who are convinced that civilized nations are essentially evil and are greedily destroying the planet at the expense of those poor people in Africa and other places not under the sway of industrialization.
The reality is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that supports the current positions regarding global warming. While it is generally acknowledged that the Earth is warming there is virtually no evidence that mankind is responsible or even that any actions by man can even affect the climate. Most recently it has been determined that the Martian polar caps are melting and the surface temperature of other planets e.g. Pluto is also increasing. How industrialization has had this impact in our solar system is unexplained but I’m confident these gifted scientists and intellects will ultimately find a connection to American Industry. In fact, these anti-industrialists have been sounding the global warming – or is that cooling -- alarm for some time Beginning in the 1970”s and into the early 1980’s the media supported by a group of “scientists” with no specified credentials in Climatology became concerned almost to the point of panic that the climate of the Earth was changing and we needed to do something drastic and immediate. The public was aroused to near panic and the congress was pushed to take action, to sign the Kyoto Treaty, to demand that the Auto Industry (Ford, GM, and Chrysler – never a foreign manufacturer) take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions before we entered a new Ice Age. That’s right – those same scientists supported by the same media were citing examples of glacier advances, lowering temperatures, and the imminent disaster facing us as arable land was lost to frost and snow. The world was about to starve because of carbon emissions and it was all due to Western Democracies (read America) polluting the atmosphere with capitalist driven industrial carbon pollutants coming from our factories and automobiles.
Today nothing has changed except the failure of the Ice Age to appear as predicted. In fact the same evidence is presented by the same people using the same media to predict the Earth is warming, the ice caps are melting, and we (America) is destroying the planet through greed and rampant industrialization. Proof of this is warming trend is cited as the habitat of the Polar Bear shrinks the bears are immediate danger of becoming extinct. The census conducted by rhe Canadian government notes that the actual population of Polar Bears has increased is glossed over -- apparently because the factual data does not support the faith based science regarding man's destruction of the planet. Unfortunately the geologic record shows that the Earth has gone through climatic cycles since the beginning of time. At one time Antarctica was tropical and at one time Europe and large portions of North America were covered in Ice and all of this occurred before Man was even a gleam in God’s (or is it Darwin’s) eye. In fact there is solid geologic evidence that there have been mass extinctions of life throughout geologic history brought on by a variety of causes but none (sadly) tied to Mankind or America. The scientific reality – supported by empirical evidence – is that a single volcanic eruption can do more to affect the climate of the Earth than everything ever done by Mankind since God (or some enterprising ape) created man.
Scientists do not totally support the alarmists about global cooling or global warming because they fully realize that Earth’s climate is cyclical and has always been so. The Earth’s temperature demonstrated a cooling trend from 1940 to about 1965, why this happened is unknown but then that trend began to reverse and today it is acknowledged that the temperature of the Earth is increasing but why is not known. Of course at the height of the global cooling scare Fortune Magazine stated:
[F]or nearly half of the current century mankind was apparently blessed with the most benign climate pf any period in at least a thousand years. During this kindly era the human population more than doubled....[It]began with a pronounced warming trend after about 1880. Mean temperatures peaked in 1945 and have been dropping ever since.
This statement is fascinating for a number of reasons, first because the thousand years indicates that climate change cycles are far longer than the alarmists are using to justify their attack on the industrialized nations. The second interesting point is that virtually none of the things which the global warming / cooling alarmists point to as the cause even existed for much of this thousand year period. The industrial revolution didn’t even start until the 19th Century and the automobile, which is cited as the primary cause of climate change didn’t come into widespread use until well into the 20th Century. During this period around 1970 virtually all of the media and “scientists” agreed that “we have been living in warmer than normal times – and we may have to face an increasingly cold future (Popular Science). Then we have Newsweek which stated
“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions (which is to say global warming) the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."
At this point it seems clear that no one knows why the Earth goes through climate change and any data – even data going back a hundred years is of no value. To use data collected only in the last hundred years to predict catastrophic climate change is laughable and certainly not scientific. In fact the “scientists” who are in the forefront of the global warming /cooling school of thought generally do not have any credentials in Climatology and are attempting to use these scare tactics to get approval of the Kyoto Treaty which would dramatically impact American Industry, which appears to be their hidden agenda.
The reality is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that supports the current positions regarding global warming. While it is generally acknowledged that the Earth is warming there is virtually no evidence that mankind is responsible or even that any actions by man can even affect the climate. Most recently it has been determined that the Martian polar caps are melting and the surface temperature of other planets e.g. Pluto is also increasing. How industrialization has had this impact in our solar system is unexplained but I’m confident these gifted scientists and intellects will ultimately find a connection to American Industry. In fact, these anti-industrialists have been sounding the global warming – or is that cooling -- alarm for some time Beginning in the 1970”s and into the early 1980’s the media supported by a group of “scientists” with no specified credentials in Climatology became concerned almost to the point of panic that the climate of the Earth was changing and we needed to do something drastic and immediate. The public was aroused to near panic and the congress was pushed to take action, to sign the Kyoto Treaty, to demand that the Auto Industry (Ford, GM, and Chrysler – never a foreign manufacturer) take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions before we entered a new Ice Age. That’s right – those same scientists supported by the same media were citing examples of glacier advances, lowering temperatures, and the imminent disaster facing us as arable land was lost to frost and snow. The world was about to starve because of carbon emissions and it was all due to Western Democracies (read America) polluting the atmosphere with capitalist driven industrial carbon pollutants coming from our factories and automobiles.
Today nothing has changed except the failure of the Ice Age to appear as predicted. In fact the same evidence is presented by the same people using the same media to predict the Earth is warming, the ice caps are melting, and we (America) is destroying the planet through greed and rampant industrialization. Proof of this is warming trend is cited as the habitat of the Polar Bear shrinks the bears are immediate danger of becoming extinct. The census conducted by rhe Canadian government notes that the actual population of Polar Bears has increased is glossed over -- apparently because the factual data does not support the faith based science regarding man's destruction of the planet. Unfortunately the geologic record shows that the Earth has gone through climatic cycles since the beginning of time. At one time Antarctica was tropical and at one time Europe and large portions of North America were covered in Ice and all of this occurred before Man was even a gleam in God’s (or is it Darwin’s) eye. In fact there is solid geologic evidence that there have been mass extinctions of life throughout geologic history brought on by a variety of causes but none (sadly) tied to Mankind or America. The scientific reality – supported by empirical evidence – is that a single volcanic eruption can do more to affect the climate of the Earth than everything ever done by Mankind since God (or some enterprising ape) created man.
Scientists do not totally support the alarmists about global cooling or global warming because they fully realize that Earth’s climate is cyclical and has always been so. The Earth’s temperature demonstrated a cooling trend from 1940 to about 1965, why this happened is unknown but then that trend began to reverse and today it is acknowledged that the temperature of the Earth is increasing but why is not known. Of course at the height of the global cooling scare Fortune Magazine stated:
[F]or nearly half of the current century mankind was apparently blessed with the most benign climate pf any period in at least a thousand years. During this kindly era the human population more than doubled....[It]began with a pronounced warming trend after about 1880. Mean temperatures peaked in 1945 and have been dropping ever since.
This statement is fascinating for a number of reasons, first because the thousand years indicates that climate change cycles are far longer than the alarmists are using to justify their attack on the industrialized nations. The second interesting point is that virtually none of the things which the global warming / cooling alarmists point to as the cause even existed for much of this thousand year period. The industrial revolution didn’t even start until the 19th Century and the automobile, which is cited as the primary cause of climate change didn’t come into widespread use until well into the 20th Century. During this period around 1970 virtually all of the media and “scientists” agreed that “we have been living in warmer than normal times – and we may have to face an increasingly cold future (Popular Science). Then we have Newsweek which stated
“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions (which is to say global warming) the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."
At this point it seems clear that no one knows why the Earth goes through climate change and any data – even data going back a hundred years is of no value. To use data collected only in the last hundred years to predict catastrophic climate change is laughable and certainly not scientific. In fact the “scientists” who are in the forefront of the global warming /cooling school of thought generally do not have any credentials in Climatology and are attempting to use these scare tactics to get approval of the Kyoto Treaty which would dramatically impact American Industry, which appears to be their hidden agenda.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
An Alternative View to Rehabilitation
Until now these articles and essays have been original but recently I came into possession of an unpublished paper regarding Corporal Punishment, that I found very provocative and which forms the basis for these comments.
Although crime in the United States has shown an overall decline of 4.4% the reality is that there is a large criminal element in the US and our prisons are bursting at the seams. While crime has declined in virtually every category, drug abuse, prostitution, and disorderly conduct have shown increases with drug abuse increasing 24% between 1995 and 2005, with much of this increase attributed to the young. The obvious conclusion is that the youth of America are increasingly unruly and undisciplined. The argument has been made that much of this increase in criminal behavior is due to the declining use of “spanking” or other mild forms of corporal punishment, especially in the schools. Teachers today are virtually powerless to provide any discipline to an unruly student. One school in Memphis, Tennessee banned corporal punishment, and found it had adverse effect, specifically[1]:
1.The students know they can’t be paddled so they are more disrespectful than ever
2.The unruliest kids curse at and even threaten to hit their teachers
3.Students taunt their teachers with “What are you going to do? Beat me?
4.Reports of weapons on campus are up 27%
5.Gang related activity is up 9%
6.Threats to school staff up 19%
7.Battery against staff is up 46% system wide and 131% in middle schools.
The use of corporal punishment has been on the decline since the 19th Century and beginning in the 20th Century the focus has increasingly been on ‘rehabilitation” with the idea that felons simply need to be understood and given the education and tools necessary to become productive citizens. The complete failure of this philosophy is not acknowledged even though it is self-evident from the recidivist data.
Prior to World War II spanking was commonplace and virtually all of the men who fought in WW II were spanked as children, but today 67% of the children and grandchildren of those men think spanking or any form of corporal punishment is “child abuse”. The fallacy of this thinking seems to be demonstrated by the statistics cited above and this brings us to the use of corporal punishment as a deterrent. However, in the case of Michael Fay who was caned in Singapore amidst an international diplomatic incident, it appears not to have worked. Since returning to the US he has been injured while sniffing butane, arrested for drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and alcoholism. On the other hand, he was in the US so it cannot be determined if he would have continued his self-destructive and criminal lifestyle had corporal punishment remained a threat.
So the question becomes should corporal punishment be provided for young offenders as an alternative to prison? These are the results from a recent poll:
1. 62% said it should be a mandatory punishment for young offenders administered by a Judge
2. 63% said it should be a mandatory punishment for adult offenders administered by a Judge
3. 40% said the punishment should be done in public and 33% said it should be done in the presence of the victims.
4. If the offender is an adult 54% think it should be done in public and 24% said it should be done in the presence of the victims.
5. 43% of those polled thought it would act as a deterrent and 39% felt it would enhance the effectiveness of the punishment.
However, virtually all of the research on the effectiveness of corporal punishment has been done relative to children and little to none on criminals – young or old. The studies have also been done primarily by psychologists who start with the a priori position that corporal punishment is ineffective and virtually all of the research deals with spanking as opposed to punishment for youthful and young adult offenders where the punishment can be more severe.
Saudi Arabia employs very draconian punishments generally based on Shar’ia (Islamic Law) and these include floggings up to 1000 lashes and beheadings as well as mutilations. While this level of corporal punishment is unacceptable in any civilized society, the reality is that Saudi Arabia has an extremely low crime rate. Malaysia and Singapore are more Westernized but use judicial corporal punishment in the form of canings. In both places the crime rate is very low and much lower than in the US.
Recently two boys (aged 18) who were unemployed, homeless, and hungry, broke into a church looking for food, but they vandalized the church causing in excess of $100,000 in damages. Had these boys faced the possibility of being given 6 to 10 strokes they might have considered other alternatives, especially if these strokes were delivered in public. Shame and humiliation have virtually disappeared from our society and punishments occur so long after the crime that there is little correlation between the two. However, rapid and public humiliation and punishment would tie these together and based on the empirical evidence, it would lower the crime rate for these petty crimes. The objective should be punishment and humiliation because it is clear rehabilitation does not work, no matter what the ACLU and a gaggle of psychologists say.
[1] Cada, Corporal Punishment, 2007
Although crime in the United States has shown an overall decline of 4.4% the reality is that there is a large criminal element in the US and our prisons are bursting at the seams. While crime has declined in virtually every category, drug abuse, prostitution, and disorderly conduct have shown increases with drug abuse increasing 24% between 1995 and 2005, with much of this increase attributed to the young. The obvious conclusion is that the youth of America are increasingly unruly and undisciplined. The argument has been made that much of this increase in criminal behavior is due to the declining use of “spanking” or other mild forms of corporal punishment, especially in the schools. Teachers today are virtually powerless to provide any discipline to an unruly student. One school in Memphis, Tennessee banned corporal punishment, and found it had adverse effect, specifically[1]:
1.The students know they can’t be paddled so they are more disrespectful than ever
2.The unruliest kids curse at and even threaten to hit their teachers
3.Students taunt their teachers with “What are you going to do? Beat me?
4.Reports of weapons on campus are up 27%
5.Gang related activity is up 9%
6.Threats to school staff up 19%
7.Battery against staff is up 46% system wide and 131% in middle schools.
The use of corporal punishment has been on the decline since the 19th Century and beginning in the 20th Century the focus has increasingly been on ‘rehabilitation” with the idea that felons simply need to be understood and given the education and tools necessary to become productive citizens. The complete failure of this philosophy is not acknowledged even though it is self-evident from the recidivist data.
Prior to World War II spanking was commonplace and virtually all of the men who fought in WW II were spanked as children, but today 67% of the children and grandchildren of those men think spanking or any form of corporal punishment is “child abuse”. The fallacy of this thinking seems to be demonstrated by the statistics cited above and this brings us to the use of corporal punishment as a deterrent. However, in the case of Michael Fay who was caned in Singapore amidst an international diplomatic incident, it appears not to have worked. Since returning to the US he has been injured while sniffing butane, arrested for drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and alcoholism. On the other hand, he was in the US so it cannot be determined if he would have continued his self-destructive and criminal lifestyle had corporal punishment remained a threat.
So the question becomes should corporal punishment be provided for young offenders as an alternative to prison? These are the results from a recent poll:
1. 62% said it should be a mandatory punishment for young offenders administered by a Judge
2. 63% said it should be a mandatory punishment for adult offenders administered by a Judge
3. 40% said the punishment should be done in public and 33% said it should be done in the presence of the victims.
4. If the offender is an adult 54% think it should be done in public and 24% said it should be done in the presence of the victims.
5. 43% of those polled thought it would act as a deterrent and 39% felt it would enhance the effectiveness of the punishment.
However, virtually all of the research on the effectiveness of corporal punishment has been done relative to children and little to none on criminals – young or old. The studies have also been done primarily by psychologists who start with the a priori position that corporal punishment is ineffective and virtually all of the research deals with spanking as opposed to punishment for youthful and young adult offenders where the punishment can be more severe.
Saudi Arabia employs very draconian punishments generally based on Shar’ia (Islamic Law) and these include floggings up to 1000 lashes and beheadings as well as mutilations. While this level of corporal punishment is unacceptable in any civilized society, the reality is that Saudi Arabia has an extremely low crime rate. Malaysia and Singapore are more Westernized but use judicial corporal punishment in the form of canings. In both places the crime rate is very low and much lower than in the US.
Recently two boys (aged 18) who were unemployed, homeless, and hungry, broke into a church looking for food, but they vandalized the church causing in excess of $100,000 in damages. Had these boys faced the possibility of being given 6 to 10 strokes they might have considered other alternatives, especially if these strokes were delivered in public. Shame and humiliation have virtually disappeared from our society and punishments occur so long after the crime that there is little correlation between the two. However, rapid and public humiliation and punishment would tie these together and based on the empirical evidence, it would lower the crime rate for these petty crimes. The objective should be punishment and humiliation because it is clear rehabilitation does not work, no matter what the ACLU and a gaggle of psychologists say.
[1] Cada, Corporal Punishment, 2007
Monday, April 09, 2007
God And Creation
The march of science continues unabated and Quantum Physics continues toward its seemingly inexorable conclusion that God not only exists but is the Creator of all. Of course this is not now nor has it ever been either the intent or the objective of science or its acolytes. When asked these scientists will answer that they are simply seeking the truth, which without doubt they are, but alas this quest for truth seems to be forcing them into a position that many find untenable. There seems to be a general consensus now that the “Big Bang” did in fact initiate the universe, which has expanded from a point no larger than the period at the end of this sentence to the universe as we see it today. The universe is expanding and the galaxies fartherest away accelerate to beyond the speed of light – ultimately to disappear.
Scientists understand what happened in the first trillionth of a second following the “Big Bang” and understand the creation of space and mass. They can explain how atoms were created, the formation of the elements, the stars and the planets. In short – science feels comfortable that they understand the formation and mechanics of the universe following the Big Bang, but there is only one small and insignificant detail that constitutes the bug in this magnificent ointment and that is that small little dot – that insignificant little bundle that represented the total energy and space of the entire universe. Where did it come from? Where precisely was it located since the Big Bang also created space as well as energy and mass. This niggling little dot represents an enormous stumbling block to science because something must have triggered the Big Bang and created that little dot. Of course the obvious answer is God and some scientists are increasingly coming to the realization that there is no other explanation to this conundrum other than a divine one. And this places us square in the realm of religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Once you leave the world of physics and science behind you move into the world of the Bible, the Vedas, the Kabbalah, and various mystics and philosophers. From these sources the creation of the universe and the creation of all living things seems to have followed this course.
In the beginning there was nothing not even the consciousness of God, then God stirred and became aware. This awareness was the “I am that I am” and once God was aware that he was he chose to create companions. In a great burst of energy God created all of the souls and these were his companions whom he gave his power and free will so they would be true companions. But eternity – even with God – is a long time so God created the Earth and placed living things on it for the amusement of his companions.
The Book of Enoch clearly states that God created the world out of nothing, he created the heavens and angelic hosts, and that God created the souls of men before the foundation of the Earth. The Book Enoch was not included in the Bible for many unknown reasons but speculation is that his description of the Fallen Angels was so shocking to the Bishops that canonized the Bible that they declared it heresy. Unfortunately Enoch’s description parallels the description offered by mystics and psychics (i.e. Edgar Cayce). The souls began to watch the Earth and the animals and some desired to experience what they saw the animals experiencing so they would enter the bodies of the animals and then withdraw, but gradually these souls became entangled in the bodies through the material experience. Because these souls became trapped on the Earth God created man, but these were the first men. Enoch describes that Angels married women from these first men and begat giants. These were the fallen Angels described by Enoch.
At this point things get a little confused because some have interpreted these “giants” to be the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic, others have taken this literally to mean “giants” like we see in the various fairy tales and legends. It is worth noting that the Titans of Greek Mythology were also giants. But others think (e.g. Cayce) that these early men lay with animals and begat the monstrosities we seen in legend and myth. These were the Centaurs, the Fauns, the Satyrs, and the other half man half animals described in various cultures around the world. Nevertheless it is these first men that were destroyed in the Flood and the source of the wives for Cain and Abel. Once God destroyed these first men he then created the perfect man – Adam and the first woman – Eve.
To return to the beginning for a moment, science has a rather complete understanding of the creation after the Big Bang but they are snagged on the problem of where that pesky dot came from, there remains another problem just as large and that is the origin of life. Current thinking is that somehow various amino acids got together and formed self-replicating cells and from this sprang all life. Essentially Darwin is correct and from these simple cells evolution (defying the laws of entropy) created all of the life forms on Earth. Unfortunately there is a small problem and that is what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. While the Pre-Cambrian is characterized by simple life forms like worms and pond scum, the Cambrian is suddenly alive with many complex life forms, complete with eyes, skeletons, sex, and complicated lives. This pattern continues throughout the Geologic Ages as various species simply appear without any known precursors.
Paleontologists are attempting to answer these problems with ever more complicated theories in an attempt to prove Darwin is right and Evolution is the answer to life on Earth. They might be right but so far it looks like God might have had a hand in it. The origin of the Universe and the origin of Life may forever be hidden from us, but it is very difficult to explain our world and the universe without incorporating God We are told that God created man in his image and if this is so, then I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best “Man is a God in ruins”.
To read Enoch try the following link.
The Book of Enoch
Scientists understand what happened in the first trillionth of a second following the “Big Bang” and understand the creation of space and mass. They can explain how atoms were created, the formation of the elements, the stars and the planets. In short – science feels comfortable that they understand the formation and mechanics of the universe following the Big Bang, but there is only one small and insignificant detail that constitutes the bug in this magnificent ointment and that is that small little dot – that insignificant little bundle that represented the total energy and space of the entire universe. Where did it come from? Where precisely was it located since the Big Bang also created space as well as energy and mass. This niggling little dot represents an enormous stumbling block to science because something must have triggered the Big Bang and created that little dot. Of course the obvious answer is God and some scientists are increasingly coming to the realization that there is no other explanation to this conundrum other than a divine one. And this places us square in the realm of religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Once you leave the world of physics and science behind you move into the world of the Bible, the Vedas, the Kabbalah, and various mystics and philosophers. From these sources the creation of the universe and the creation of all living things seems to have followed this course.
In the beginning there was nothing not even the consciousness of God, then God stirred and became aware. This awareness was the “I am that I am” and once God was aware that he was he chose to create companions. In a great burst of energy God created all of the souls and these were his companions whom he gave his power and free will so they would be true companions. But eternity – even with God – is a long time so God created the Earth and placed living things on it for the amusement of his companions.
The Book of Enoch clearly states that God created the world out of nothing, he created the heavens and angelic hosts, and that God created the souls of men before the foundation of the Earth. The Book Enoch was not included in the Bible for many unknown reasons but speculation is that his description of the Fallen Angels was so shocking to the Bishops that canonized the Bible that they declared it heresy. Unfortunately Enoch’s description parallels the description offered by mystics and psychics (i.e. Edgar Cayce). The souls began to watch the Earth and the animals and some desired to experience what they saw the animals experiencing so they would enter the bodies of the animals and then withdraw, but gradually these souls became entangled in the bodies through the material experience. Because these souls became trapped on the Earth God created man, but these were the first men. Enoch describes that Angels married women from these first men and begat giants. These were the fallen Angels described by Enoch.
At this point things get a little confused because some have interpreted these “giants” to be the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic, others have taken this literally to mean “giants” like we see in the various fairy tales and legends. It is worth noting that the Titans of Greek Mythology were also giants. But others think (e.g. Cayce) that these early men lay with animals and begat the monstrosities we seen in legend and myth. These were the Centaurs, the Fauns, the Satyrs, and the other half man half animals described in various cultures around the world. Nevertheless it is these first men that were destroyed in the Flood and the source of the wives for Cain and Abel. Once God destroyed these first men he then created the perfect man – Adam and the first woman – Eve.
To return to the beginning for a moment, science has a rather complete understanding of the creation after the Big Bang but they are snagged on the problem of where that pesky dot came from, there remains another problem just as large and that is the origin of life. Current thinking is that somehow various amino acids got together and formed self-replicating cells and from this sprang all life. Essentially Darwin is correct and from these simple cells evolution (defying the laws of entropy) created all of the life forms on Earth. Unfortunately there is a small problem and that is what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. While the Pre-Cambrian is characterized by simple life forms like worms and pond scum, the Cambrian is suddenly alive with many complex life forms, complete with eyes, skeletons, sex, and complicated lives. This pattern continues throughout the Geologic Ages as various species simply appear without any known precursors.
Paleontologists are attempting to answer these problems with ever more complicated theories in an attempt to prove Darwin is right and Evolution is the answer to life on Earth. They might be right but so far it looks like God might have had a hand in it. The origin of the Universe and the origin of Life may forever be hidden from us, but it is very difficult to explain our world and the universe without incorporating God We are told that God created man in his image and if this is so, then I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best “Man is a God in ruins”.
To read Enoch try the following link.
The Book of Enoch
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Political Science
As incredible as it may sound, the reality is that Global Warming is in fact a hoax, not the warming part because it is commonly agreed that the Earth is growing warmer, but in the cause. Those outstanding scientists, Al Gore and Bill Moyers have declared that it is humanity in the industrialized world (read America) who are destroying the planet and should be stopped. In fact, these champions of the Constitution and supporters of every left wing cause are calling for Nuremberg style trials for anyone who has the temerity to challenge the fact that global warming is the direct result of human activity. The fact that these left wing politicians have no credentials whatsoever seems to be lost in the rhetoric just as their support for this gross abridgement of free speech is ignored. Where is the hue and cry from the ACLU or the media as these icons of the left attempt to equate skeptics of global warming to the perpetrators of the holocaust? In fact Mr. Gore refers to these skeptics as “global warming deniers” in a veiled attempt to equate this term to “holocaust deniers”. Of course no one is denying that the planet is growing warmer but it is the cause that is in dispute. But this is the “inconvenient fact” that is ignored by this group of left wing non-scientists who cannot separate the fact of global warming from the cause. It is the CAUSE that is disputed not the warming.
Roger Pielke a Climatologist at Colorado State University points out there has never been an actual debate regarding the causes of global warming and that they hysteria surrounding the issue of Global Warming is being generated by people such as Al Gore who have no credentials and no real knowledge of the science. But Professor Pielke isn’t the only reputable scientist who harbors doubts about the source of the warming. The Alfred P. Sloan Professor at MIT, Richard Lindzen does as well. Professor Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real and even accepts that carbon emissions might be causing global warming but then – he inserts his heretical caveat – they also might not be responsible. He compounds this heresy with this comment ``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change". If this wasn’t enough to convince Moyers and Gore that Lindzen should be burned at the stake he adds to his crime of announcing other inconvenient facts such as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," and ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and finally and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
Based on these statements Professor Lindzen has been demonized by the left – not on the basis of his science – but on the basis of his temerity in speaking our against a politically correct if not scientifically sound – position. Professor Lindzen maintains he has been subjected to a Congressional Star Chamber proceeding conducted by (then) Senator Al Gore. The left has accused Professor Lindzen of being on the payroll of the auto companies ( he accepted a $10,000 fee as an expert witness years ago) in an effort to discredit him. However, no one has yet challenged his science or the facts he has offered to support his statements.
But there are other skeptics like Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Professor Reiter’s name appeared as one of the scientists endorsing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reiter called the report a sham and said that it included the names of scientists whom he knew did not agree with the exaggerated claims made in this report. He had to threaten a law suit to have his name removed. Professor Reiter is an expert in malaria and this report attempted to tie the increase in malaria to global warming, which Professor Reiter denies. In fact Malaria has been on the increase since Rachel Carson’s book “A Silent Spring” was used by the left wing non-scientists to ban DDT. Carson’s work and book were later unmasked as a hoax but the damage was done and DDT remains banned and Malaria, which was nearly wiped out by DDT is now on the rise again, especially in Africa. But this is simply an earlier example of how these left wing pseudo-scientists like Gore and Moyers seize on some politically correct position and use their celebrity to do great damage.
Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. It seems that IPCC Fourth Assessment Report claimed that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases and this was announced in a press conference. Landsea in an open letter, stated: "To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."
There are many other examples of scientists being intimidated, threatened, and demonized by the politically correct left wing non-scientists. As it turns out there is little dispute among scientists that the Earth is growing warmer but is the cause that is in question. However, those who attribute this Global Warming to the Industrialized West (read America) quote these scientists who acknowledge that the Earth is warming as agreeing with them, which is patently false. The hoax is that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases, which has not been proven and has little support among reputable scientists. This is a vivid example of how science has become politicized and corrupted by individuals with an agenda and a public persona.
Roger Pielke a Climatologist at Colorado State University points out there has never been an actual debate regarding the causes of global warming and that they hysteria surrounding the issue of Global Warming is being generated by people such as Al Gore who have no credentials and no real knowledge of the science. But Professor Pielke isn’t the only reputable scientist who harbors doubts about the source of the warming. The Alfred P. Sloan Professor at MIT, Richard Lindzen does as well. Professor Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real and even accepts that carbon emissions might be causing global warming but then – he inserts his heretical caveat – they also might not be responsible. He compounds this heresy with this comment ``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change". If this wasn’t enough to convince Moyers and Gore that Lindzen should be burned at the stake he adds to his crime of announcing other inconvenient facts such as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," and ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and finally and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
Based on these statements Professor Lindzen has been demonized by the left – not on the basis of his science – but on the basis of his temerity in speaking our against a politically correct if not scientifically sound – position. Professor Lindzen maintains he has been subjected to a Congressional Star Chamber proceeding conducted by (then) Senator Al Gore. The left has accused Professor Lindzen of being on the payroll of the auto companies ( he accepted a $10,000 fee as an expert witness years ago) in an effort to discredit him. However, no one has yet challenged his science or the facts he has offered to support his statements.
But there are other skeptics like Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Professor Reiter’s name appeared as one of the scientists endorsing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reiter called the report a sham and said that it included the names of scientists whom he knew did not agree with the exaggerated claims made in this report. He had to threaten a law suit to have his name removed. Professor Reiter is an expert in malaria and this report attempted to tie the increase in malaria to global warming, which Professor Reiter denies. In fact Malaria has been on the increase since Rachel Carson’s book “A Silent Spring” was used by the left wing non-scientists to ban DDT. Carson’s work and book were later unmasked as a hoax but the damage was done and DDT remains banned and Malaria, which was nearly wiped out by DDT is now on the rise again, especially in Africa. But this is simply an earlier example of how these left wing pseudo-scientists like Gore and Moyers seize on some politically correct position and use their celebrity to do great damage.
Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. It seems that IPCC Fourth Assessment Report claimed that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases and this was announced in a press conference. Landsea in an open letter, stated: "To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."
There are many other examples of scientists being intimidated, threatened, and demonized by the politically correct left wing non-scientists. As it turns out there is little dispute among scientists that the Earth is growing warmer but is the cause that is in question. However, those who attribute this Global Warming to the Industrialized West (read America) quote these scientists who acknowledge that the Earth is warming as agreeing with them, which is patently false. The hoax is that global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases, which has not been proven and has little support among reputable scientists. This is a vivid example of how science has become politicized and corrupted by individuals with an agenda and a public persona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)