Until now these articles and essays have been original but recently I came into possession of an unpublished paper regarding Corporal Punishment, that I found very provocative and which forms the basis for these comments.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
Saturday, April 14, 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)