Say Anything Blog

I just walked in the door after driving home from the local theatre where Ben Stein’s “EXPELLED” is playing.  I haven’t taken any time to allow it to soak in, but thought I’d record my first impressions.  I’ll just say Mr. Stein’s work is profound and excellent.  I look forward to the debates that will undoubtedly follow over the next few months.  You can bet that the Darwinists will come out with guns blazin’ over this one.

It is a given that conservatives don’t trust government and that liberals don’t trust conservative government, but it is just as obvious that liberal government doesn’t trust its citizens.  Liberal politicians seek at every turn to control more and more aspects of every citizen’s life.  Take this recent story of gov’t control over the thermostat in private homes:
Big Brother to control thermostats in homes?

The very idea is repulsing and offensive.  That liberal government doesn’t even trust citizens to responsibly and economically adjust their own thermostat is another glaring example of what happens when power beyond what is necessary for public security is centralized in government. 

Healthy relationships require a mutual trust.  Conservatives find this impossible when government holds more power than intended.  Liberals, however, put much confidence in such centralized political power.  Remarkably, the fact that their prefered form of government doesn’t trust them to set their own thermostat, somehow merits their trust. 

Why?  Why would anyone trust a centralized power, especially one that doesn’t return that trust?  What kind of warped realationship is this?

One thing liberals and conservatives have in common is a distrust for government.  Oh, it’s not a common distrust; liberals don’t trust government to conservatives while conservatives don’t trust anything more than national security to any government, liberal or conservative.

The question arises though; why would liberals want to invest government with any more power than it already has given the fact that conservatives will inevitably control one or more branches of government at various times in the future?  In other words if it is conservatives liberals fear, why afford future conservative administrations or legislatures more power and more money?

Both liberals and conservatives correctly acknowledge the threat of government to its citizens, but for some reason liberals think that their leaders are immune or somehow inoculated from the greed and ambition which plagues most government officials. Like any disease the risk of infection increases when its presence increases.  Increasing the power and money government holds and controls only increases the likelihood of corruption.  If history is any indicator, corruption is more than likely, it’s inevitable.

Given the reality that power and money corrupts, why would anyone think that the highest authority of the land would be better trusted with more of it?
And, why wouldn’t that power and money be better trusted to us, the citizens? 

As free citizens, free market forces operate to limit such a centralization of money and power, and citizens must answer to the authority for any illegal use of power and money.  Government operates free from these corrective influences.  So tell me please, why is government the solution to any of the social problems we face?

(more...)

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.


And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

(more...)

What Atheists Can't Answer


By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17

British author G.K. Chesterton argued that every act of blasphemy is a kind of tribute to God, because it is based on belief. "If anyone doubts this," he wrote, "let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor."

By the evidence of the New York Times bestseller list, God has recently been bathed in such tributes. An irreverent trinity -- Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- has sold a lot of books accusing theism of fostering hatred, repressing sexuality and mutilating children (Hitchens doesn't approve of male circumcision). Every miracle is a fraud. Every mystic is a madman. And this atheism is presented as a war of liberation against centuries of spiritual tyranny.

Proving God's existence in 750 words or fewer would daunt even Thomas Aquinas. And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn. So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?

If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every culture, human beings can be good without God. And Hitchens is himself part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose.

But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.

The death of God has greater consequences than expanded golf time on Sunday mornings. And it is not simply religious fundamentalists who have recognized it. America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the "supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions.

None of this amounts to proof of God's existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement -- which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.

This form of "liberation" is like liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean. In this kind of freedom, something dies.

michaelgerson@cfr.org

Oh, boy!

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can’t fund without increasing the deficit: “I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.”

(more...)

Obama: GOP doesn't own faith and values

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

When any Republican makes a statement of faith, no matter how miniscule, or relatively meaningless, liberals cry foul.  But when any Republican makes a statement which they infer to equate America as some sort of Christian nation raised up by God to execute His justice on the earth, the cries of “separation of church and state” reverberate across the political landscape and into our homes via the liberal network media outlets.  It is the subject of Sunday talk shows, daily entertainment programs, and editorials in all the major newspapers. 

Let’s just wait and see how they respond to thier up and coming star, Senator Obama. 

To me this sounds an awful lot like the same kingdom building boasted by the New Evangelical Christians.  To me this sound like Christianizing the culture via government control.  But, to me this sort of expression is perfectly fine and violates no “separation of church and state”.  In fact, I think it is important that we know what candidates see as their role in our government and how their faith will work itself out in office.

So there I was at a local Friday night high school football game, when the band struck up the national anthem.  After removing my hat, my hand placed on my heart, and facing Old Glory, something occurred to me that struck me as, well, obvious. 

Maybe it was from listening to the worst in politics, (you know, the constant drumbeat of liberalism with its un-American big-gov’t refrain and the completely out of tune restrictions on liberty), that had cast such a dark shadow on my perspective of my country.  But something clicked the moment I heard the anthem and saw my flag.  Immediately all that Old Glory represents made me appreciate once again the blessings of liberty.  In other words, I was as proud as I had ever been to be an American.

(more...)

High School Bans American Flag



Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 - 11:56 PM Updated: 07:03 AM



SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. – On the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, students at one high school were not allowed to wear clothes with an American Flag.

Under a new school rule, students at Hobbton High School are not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.



The new rule stems from a controversy over students wearing shirts bearing flags of other countries.



Gayle Langston said her daughter, Jessica, was told to remove her stars and stripes t-shirt.



“Today she wanted to wear her shirt, and I had to tell her no,” said Langston. “She didn’t like it at all because I knew it would get her in trouble. Of all days, 9/11, she could not wear her American Flag shirt.”



The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.

Now why would any parent tolerate such an anti-American policy disguised as “fairness”?  Wouldn’t it be great if the students all showed up to school in flag appearal?  Wouldn’t it be fantastic to see parents stand up for what is right? 

Soon we will hear cries of “free speech” from liberal bloggers, the MSM, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU, and democrat elected officials, right?  Well liberal SABer’s, you’re up first, lets hear it.

Don’t hold your breathe conservatives.

UPDATE!!

SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C – A North Carolina High School that came under national attention over their rule that prohibited students from wearing items with the American flag, or any flag from other countries, has lifted the ban.

Superintendent Dr. L. Stewart Hobbs, Jr said they have lifted the ban on flags and “from this point on, all dress code changes will be made at the school board level.”

Hobbs said the county has a dress code policy in place and says individual school dress codes are not allowed.

He adds that principals cannot make a policy that exceeds the board policy, "The principal acted in good faith and said no flags."

According to Hobbs, the policy all stems from information from law enforcement of gangs wearing foreign flags as gang symbols and the board does have a policy to prevent gang signs in schools.

He said they are just as patriotic as other Americans flying the flag over the school, saying the pledge and have planned to have Constitution day at the school next week.

Under the previous rule, students at Hobbton High School were not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.

The board will be meeting with school attorneys to look into the issue further.

Well well, looks like another liberal can't stand the heat of "national attention". Chalk one up for the good guys.

TAS Live
Darwinism at AEI
By Tom Bethell
Published 8/20/2007 12:06:23 AM
This article is taken from the July/August 2007 issue of The American Spectator.

EARLY IN MAY, the American Enterprise Institute held a debate about Darwinism, a faith embedded in many debates, whether scientific, religious, or political. The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed, for the well-publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.

It stands to reason that somewhere, some atheist exists which does not hold to darwinism.  Please make youself known if you are out there listening.

...The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more “fit,” or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is “fit” (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient-such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag-the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It “explains” everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason. The impact of Darwinism on any and all political groups can be argued any way you want and it’s not very illuminating for that reason. So the AEI discussion frequently veered off into related areas.

Interesting to say the least. 

..In the question period, I asked Derbyshire if he could think of any observation that would count as falsifying Darwinism. He said: “I think miraculous creation would do it. The miraculous appearance of an entirely new species.”

That answer at least points us in a useful direction. Pursue it, and we might be able to clarify the Darwinian conundrum. The point is that in Darwinism a philosophical assumption, rarely explicit, circumscribes the “scientific” conclusions that are permitted. The assumption is this: Only naturalistic explanations can be allowed within biology. Naturalism implies the exclusion of mind, intelligence, or absolutely anything except atoms and molecules in motion. Nothing else exists. Everything must be explained in terms of physics and chemistry and anything beyond that will be derided as “creationism.” Good Darwinians are not allowed by their own rules even to entertain the possibility that intelligence was involved in the origin or development of life. No research is needed to come to that conclusion. It is axiomatic within the theory. [emphasis added]

This argument has been introduced on numerous occasions here at SAB. Given the simplicity and clarity of the argument its amazing that it is so readily dismissed by evolution proponents.  Of course, the evolutionist would answer is that the science based upon a naturalistic assumption works and therefore premise, i.e. naturalism, is correct.  Wow! First assume naturalism is correct then investigate causation in accordance with methodological naturalism (something that must be done or it isn’t modern science) then declare that the investigation proves the naturalism is the correct assumption.  Next obscure the circular reasoning with scientific rhetoric and there you have it. Of course building a scientific consesus around flawed science is easy (e.g. man-made global warming). 

Derbyshire responded: “Scientists embrace naturalism because science is a naturalistic pursuit. A working scientist is by definition naturalistic.”

That is incorrect. From scraps of unearthed rubble, archeologists infer design when no trace of the designer remains. A scientist investigating how automobiles are made goes to a factory and learns that the assembly line originated in plans and blueprints, which in turn originated in the minds of men.

Ah yes, the mind! But that, too, consists of nothing but atoms and molecules in motion, no? Which brings us to the Inner Sanctum of the materialist dogma: Mind itself is nothing but matter. Free will is an illusion, and so on. (Darwin accepted these propositions, noting “the general delusion about free will.")

There is no reason in the world to accept the materialist faith, but once you do, then something very much like Darwinism has to be true. Life exists-we got here somehow, along with billions of other organisms. So how did it happen? Must have been that animals self-assembled a little bit at a time, in a long chain of accidental survivals.

How long before people stop defending such a blatantly biased superstition and start thinking outside of Darwin’s naturlistic box?

The following questions are posed to anyone wishing to defend the anti-war position.  The questions are asked so as to highlight the left’s committment to America’s defeat in Iraq. 

What has the your side done to victoriously end the war in Iraq? 

What has your side done to hasten our victory in Iraq?

Who deserves credit for any positive news or success in Iraq?

Jury Refuses to Indict Doctor Accused of Killing Patients During Hurricane Katrina

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

NEW ORLEANS — A grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict Dr. Anna Pou, the cancer surgeon accused of murdering four seriously ill patients following Hurricane Katrina.

Pou and two nurses were arrested last summer after an investigation concluded they killed four people with a “lethal cocktail” at Memorial Medical Center during the chaotic conditions after the August 2005 hurricane.

Lawyers for the three said they acted heroically, staying to treat patients rather than evacuating.

Charges against nurses Lori Budo and Cheri Landry were dropped after they were compelled to testify last month before a grand jury, under legal guidelines that kept their testimony from being used against them. They waived their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The grand jury had been investigating the charges since March.

Incredible.  It would be one thing if the care of the other patients, whose potential for survival was higher, led to a necessary neglect of some patients as opposed to others resulting in the death of these four people.  However, nothing of the sort warrants a deadly cocktail. 

Our society continues to struggle to recognize euthenasia for what it is—murder.  It seems for some motive is enough to distinguish between murder and what they perceive to be mercy killing. What they fail to factor in is the fact that those who took these lives faced no deadly threat from their victims, nor were the victims a threat to any of the other patients.  Life was not preserved by these killings, rather life was taken.

Strangely enough, those who argue the killings were not murder will condemn all killing, other than euthenasia and abortion, as criminal.  This lack of discernment and subsequent confusion over issues of life and death is taking its toll on our society.

Update

The story now continues:

Charges against the nurses, Lori Budo and Cheri Landry, were dropped after they were compelled to testify last month before the grand jury under legal guidelines that kept their testimony from being used against them.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Morales had asked the grand jurors to return one charge of second-degree murder and nine of murder conspiracy against Pou.

He declined to comment after the judge read their decisions rejecting each charge.

When the levees broke in New Orleans following the hurricane's landfall, 80 percent of the city flooded. The lower level Memorial Medical Center was under 10 feet of water, and electricity was out across the city. Inside the hospital, the temperature topped 100 degrees.

At least 34 people died at Memorial, many from dehydration during the four-day wait for rescuers to evacuate them. In the "60 Minutes" interview, Pou acknowledged administering drugs to relieve pain but stressed: "Anytime you provide pain medicine to anybody, there is a risk. But as I said, my role is to help them through the pain."

Other doctors who were there described the situation as resembling a MASH unit during wartime rather than an urban American hospital.

"It was stifling. We were hoisting patients floor to floor on the backs of strong young men. It was as bad as you can imagine," Dr. Gregory Vorhoff, who stayed throughout the storm and eventually hitched a ride on a boat to seek help, told The Associated Press after Pou was arrested.

The four patients Pou was accused of killing ranged in age from 61 to 90. Foti said all four would have survived if they hadn't been given morphine and midazolam hydrochloride.

Pou, whose specialty is eye, ear, nose and throat surgery, gave up her private practice after she was arrested and has been teaching at LSU medical school in Baton Rouge.

The families of people who died at Memorial in the days after Katrina can still sue Pou.

Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, who sat in on the grand jury hearings, said investigators in her office still consider the deaths to be homicides.

Asked what the grand jury's decision does for Pou's reputation, she said, "I guess that depends on who's considering her reputation."