Nov 21 2009

Chill out, everybody

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 12:41 pm

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

In the meantime, Obama and the Left want to saddle us with onerous carbon cap and steal legislation.

This is not a good time to be poor, because the developed world doesn’t want you to get electricity into your village.


Nov 20 2009

Britain R.I.P.? Part three

Category: societyharmonicminer @ 10:45 am

The previous post in this series is here.

This is simply unbelievable.  The British have lost their minds, along with any semblance of common sense.  And the American Left wishes we were more like them.

But the once great nation, whose Glorious Revolution was the seed of American freedom, is dying, fast.  There may always be an England.  But it won’t be the England we knew.

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday, after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.

“I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke’s garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included “reporting found firearms”.

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: “Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?”

To which, Mr Garnett replied: “No, I don’t believe so.”

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge, therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.

“You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

“Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?”

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

The next post in this series is here.


Nov 19 2009

The Left at Christian Universities, Part 14: Does the secular Left believe its faith more firmly than the Christian academy believes its own?

Category: higher education,left,religion,theologyharmonicminer @ 10:16 am

The previous post in this series is here.

There is very little here with which to disagree, so I present in its entirety this post at BLOG and MABLOG

Carl Henry once said, “If evangelicals lose the battle for the mind of contemporary man it will be in their own colleges.” That’s the kind of prophetic and semi-inscrutable statement that we could use a lot more of, and which unfortunately, we don’t hear a very much any more. Since Henry wrote those words, the tide of the battle to which he referred has generally gone against us, and it was grim in his time. There are some hopeful signs here and there, but by and large, the Christian establishment for higher education has presented to a disintegrating world mere echoes of that disintegration, instead of a robust alternative to it. The academic fads that tear through the secular halls of learning stroll through our halls of learning. The virulent forms of unbelief that plague the postmodern mind commend themselves (always in milder forms) to us. We have come to believe that Christian counterculture consists of driving down the road to perdition at a slower rate of speed. But slow damnation is not the biblical alternative. The higher education of evangelicalism resembles the unfortunate politician that Winston Churchill once compared to a seat cushion — he always bore the impress of the last person who sat on him.

Henry again. “My guess would be that on balance the secular universities more effectively communicate humanism than many of our religious colleges succeed in communicating biblical theism.” They catechize their own more effectively than we do. They train their next generation in the tenets of their faith more rigorously than we do.

When the secular great ones assemble in their magnificent banquets, and a faithful believer comes into their hall, his presence will generally take one of two forms. Either he will attend as John the Baptist did, with his head on a platter, or he will attend as Daniel did, in order to translate the words of judgment that were written on the walls by a celestial hand. But we show up with all the confidence of a leper in a rented tux two sizes too large.

This is all very general, so let me mention a few specific areas where Christian higher education has lost its bearings and consequently its way. Our institutions (generally) do not exhibit biblical faith and fidelity on matters of: human sexuality that reflects God’s image, male and female; the doctrine of biblical creation; the meaning of history and the glory of Christendom; the serious idolatry of Enlightenment categories; the risible idolatries of postmodern rejection of Enlightenment categories; and the foundational need for Christian colleges to be free of financial entanglements with the secular state. For starters.

In short, Christian higher education no longer believes that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. Having begun with Carl Henry, let me conclude with another of his most trenchant observations.

“The intellectual decision most urgently facing humanity in our time is whether to acknowledge or disown Jesus Christ as the hope of the world and whether Christian values are to be the arbiter of human civilization in the present instead of only in the final judgment of men and nations.”

And so let me propose a little thought experiment. Suppose that glorious statement above were to be presented to the board of trustees of every Christian seminary, college and university in North America, as well as to every faculty senate, and suppose it were presented for a straight up or down vote. How would the vote go? How would the truth fare? Exactly, and therein lies our problem. And the only way out is repentance.

So, now I am prepared to answer the question posed in the title of this post, “Does the secular Left believe its faith more firmly than the Christian academy believes its own?”

The answer? It depends on what you mean by the notion of “the faith of the Christian academy.”

And therein lies the problem, since, it seems, no one is quite sure these days.  And sadly, with all of that, there seem to be all too many matters of essentially complete agreement between the Christian academy and the secular Left at secular institutions.  Those matters of agreement seem to be far more determinedly defended by Christian academics than the things that make them distinctively Christian.  We can talk about whether Jesus’ message and life were more about personal salvation or corporate lifestyle and social justice, but woe to anyone who questions the underpinnings of anyone’s secularly defined disciplinary methodology, or the theory of knowledge that underlays it.  After all, some things are just too important to trifle with.

Did Jesus rise from the dead?  It depends on what you mean by “rise from the dead.”    If Jesus rose from the dead, does that matter to us today?  It depends on what you mean by “matter.”  Or maybe “today.”  Or “us.”  Or even “Jesus.”

But in some quarters, “diversity” and multiculturalism are without doubt absolutely required perspectives, more or less without nuance, for all good Christians who are listening to the Holy Spirit.

Whatever the Holy Spirit may actually be, I mean.  And whatever you mean by “Christian.”

H/T:  Melody

The next post in this series is here.


Nov 18 2009

The Next Great Awakening Part 12: Nothing is complete without God

Category: philosophy,religion,scienceharmonicminer @ 9:47 am

The previous post in this series is here.

Perry Marshall has put up a brief introduction to the mathematical thought of Kurt Gödel.  After a brief explanation of it, he draws connections to the idea of the mathematical necessity for a Creator in Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct.  Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.

Therefore Atheism violates the laws of mathematics.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical, it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.

Everyone understands the Incompleteness Theorem in a personal way, and knows that it applies to the most important issues of life.

Only the most trivial, least important aspects of life involve things that can be proved in the way the objectivists wanted to do it. You can’t “prove” that you love your child, that there is any point to existence, that you are loved by the person whom you hope loves you, that you don’t plan to do some great evil tomorrow (or, for that matter, that you didn’t yesterday, the “negative” being notoriously difficult to prove), etc.

Yet we all live as if our lives matter, as if at least some other people’s lives matter, as if love is real, as if we are certain that their is some underlying rationality to the universe that is not containable within it, etc.    Scientists live and work in that latter assumption whenever they assume that the “laws” of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen, which is an unprovable notion, but foundational for the ability to DO science.  And the very idea that the universe may be understandable requires an assumption about its nature and, probably, its origin, that cannot be “proved.”

In other words, in the business of being a human being and living a normal life, very little of high and immediate importance can be proved.  Yet we all, with very little exception, live as if some of our foundational assumptions are true.  Love exists.  Rationality exists.  People matter.  It matters how we live.

These things are, while not “provable,” nevertheless as true as Euclid’s postulates, demonstrable by the simple observation that without them, nothing makes any sense at all.

The First Postulate, of course, is that God IS.  And it is surely true that, without God, nothing makes any sense, any sense at all.   Not love, not rationality, not human life, not the universe, not anything.

The Second Postulate:  everything that exists makes the most sense when understood in its relationship to our Creator.

Some will argue that only the First Postulate deserves the label “postulate,” but I think the Second Postulate protects us from Deism.

God is involved with us, and with everything that is, right now.

The Third Postulate is that God has revealed Himself to us, in Christ, in human lives and traditions, in words and history, and in nature.

I think these postulates are all one needs to seek God, who is surely seeking us, and does not require us to “prove” that He is there before being in relationship with Him.

What’s really interesting is that Gödel appears to have tried to “prove” the existence of God….  perhaps a sign of lack of faith in the implications of his own work, though his faith in God seems to have been strong.

The next post in this series is here.


Nov 17 2009

This and that on technology and faith

Category: religion,technologyharmonicminer @ 9:00 am

On the intersection of faith and technology, Four Questions for Technology from the Biblical Story

The Enlightenment and Evangelicals

evangelicals, in our adoption of technology, need to recognize that we are taking the fruit of a sickly tree. The ideology that undergirds technological production in our era is not neutral, but is grounded in an impulse to subordinate the whole world to our whims and wills.

One famous physicist is afraid that physicists may find what they’re looking for, as described here: In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for

Any day now, if all goes to plan, proton beams will start racing all the way round the ring deep beneath CERN, the LHC’s home on the outskirts of Geneva, Switzerland.

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is worried. It’s not that he thinks the LHC will create a black hole that will engulf the planet, or even that the restart will end in a technical debacle like last year’s. No: he’s actually worried that the LHC will find what some call the “God particle”, the popular and embarrassingly grandiose moniker for the hitherto undetected Higgs boson.

What’s interesting to me is that physicists are so sure that the universe is going to be understandable, with enough data in hand. Why, exactly, should anyone expect such a thing?

Framed for Child Porn, by a PC Virus

Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Read the article linked above. It should convince you of two things: original sin is a true doctrine, and you should really, really keep your anti-virus and anti-spyware software updated.

And then there is Twitter Theology.

Twitter Theology


Nov 15 2009

Introducing the Shacklephone

Category: humor,Intelligent Design,musicsardonicwhiner @ 9:10 am

No, it’s not a new competitor for the iPhone.

A few of my musician friends are attempting to invent a conceptually new musical instrument we will call the Shacklephone.  It will have keys, strings, a brass mouth-piece, frets, a slide, a bassoon mouthpiece, valves, a bell, a resonating body, and a sustain pedal, not to mention a MIDI interface, balanced audio input/output, AES/EBU digital audio interface, wordclock i/o, SMPTE timecode i/o, 64GB of RAM and a satellite transmission capability.  There will be Bb Tenor Shacklephones, Eb Alto and Eb Contrabass Shacklephones, and, of course, C Melody Shacklephones.  It will be the only musical instrument that is all things to all musicians.  There will even be drum and Shacklephone corps, using anti-gravity-equipped marching Shacklephones.  The special F Gospel Shacklephone will automatically scoop all notes.

Who needs physical modeling synthesis when you’ve simply included something of all the instruments?  Much like the music of Scriabin was supposed to have done, but didn’t, the Shacklephone will usher in the new age of enlightenment and agape love among all humanity.  The very age of Aquarius, with a dose of galactic alignment thrown in for good measure.

Professional design assistance is needed.  Anyone who would like to submit artist renderings of the proposed instrument could share in the royalties from the (doubtless) extensive sales anticipated for it.

The first prototype is scheduled to be rolling out of the Shacklephone factory sometime in the year 2012, and will be delivered to Yo-Yo Ma, who is developing a method book for novice Shacklephonists.  Bono has requested one so that he can Shacklephonically pursue world peace.  Persistent rumors at the Huffington Post suggest that Bill Clinton, the first black president, plans to appear on late night TV playing the Bb Marching Shacklephone (we all know of his fondness for astroturf…  shoot, didn’t he have his pickup truck bed lined with it?) as he tries to help Hillary unseat Obama in the 2012 elections.  I don’t think it will help, but it will be fun to watch.  He was always good at playing the blues.

Because of the possibility of Shacklephonio-political implications, the factory’s location will remain undisclosed until the first production run is complete and delivery has been made.  This should help avoid the appearance of former ACORN workers now employed by the Office of Universal Care Health Enforcement (OUCHE) trying to shut the place down to protect Obama’s re-election prospects…  since, of course, when the new age dawns, no one will be voting for him.

Wait:  didn’t I hear something else about the year 2012?

Must remember.


Nov 14 2009

Missionary Zeal

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 9:24 am

From Memri

Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri, which aired on Al-Nas TV on August 10, 2009.

Mahmoud Al-Masri: My dear brothers, we want to repent, and we want to take by the hand those people who have not yet repented. We should feel pity for them. By Allah, we should not be tough with them. These people are sick. They are sinners. We should feel pity for them, we should care for them. We should act like doctors who care for the sick. You should care for them and feel great pity for them, and seek any ingenious way to make a person repent.

I’d like to tell you a very nice story. Once there was a Muslim who lived next to a Jew. The Muslim saw in the Jew a measure of goodheartedness, however small, and he wanted to find any way to make him convert to Islam. So he went to him and asked: “Don’t you feel the need for Islam? Why don’t you become a Muslim?” The Jew said: “The only thing preventing me from becoming a Muslim is that I love drinking alcohol. I would have become a Muslim ages ago, but the only thing stopping me is that I am an alcoholic.”

The Muslim devised a plan. He said: “No problem, become a Muslim, and continue to drink.” The Muslim didn’t meant this, of course, but he said to him: “Become a Muslim, and continue to drink.” The Jews said: “Fine.” He said: “I proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” The Muslim said to him: “Now you have become a Muslim. If you drink alcohol, we will carry out the punishment for drinking alcohol on you, and if you renounce Islam, we will kill you.” So the man remained a Muslim and never drank alcohol again. This was a nice trick by this good Muslim.

Now, THAT’s evangelism.


Nov 12 2009

Giving it away

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 10:33 pm

In a review of Christopher Caldwell’s new book on Europe and Islamic immigration, Jacob Laksin discusses The Crescent and the Continent

….mass immigration in Europe was predicated on several assumptions, nearly all of them false. Needing cheap labor to fuel their expiring postwar industrial economies, Europeans assumed that the immigrants they turned to would be temporary; that they would not qualify for welfare; and that those who remained would assimilate and shed the cultural mores and habits of their home countries. The Europeans were wrong on all counts. When its textile mills and factories closed in the sixties and seventies, Europe was left with a vast, imported underclass with one tenuous link to its adopted countries: the welfare payments on which it had come to rely.

The demographic transformation was profound. Europe has always had immigration, but the scale of its midcentury influx was without precedent. And one group led the way. In the middle of the twentieth century, there were practically no Muslims in Europe; today, it is estimated, there are about 20 million, including 5 million in France, 4 million in Germany, and 2 million in Britain. Equally dramatic was the change in immigrants’ economic fortunes. In the sixties and seventies, Germany’s Turkish migrant workers actually boasted higher labor-force participation than native Germans did. Today, unemployment in Germany’s Turkish community tops 40 percent—three times the national unemployment rate. Nor is Germany an outlier. Some 40 percent of Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands are on welfare, Caldwell reports, as are two-thirds of French imams.

Will the USA learn before it’s too late that importing low skill workers is not the solution to American economic woes? It’s not looking promising, from where I sit….  And that’s at least partly because too many politicians think importing low skill workers IS the solution to their political woes.


Nov 10 2009

The economics of wood chopping

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 10:19 am

A friend of mine has been asking me to explain why free market friends insist that the economy is not a “zero sum” game.  To him, it seems as if anyone who makes money must be getting it from someone else, who then doesn’t have it.  On his understanding of the situation, there are winners and losers, and people who wind up with more money are the winners.

We live in a remote area at 4500 feet elevation.  It can get quite cold, and there is no natural gas service underground.  If you want to heat by burning gas, you have to buy propane.  In our area, almost everyone has a large propane tank on their property, and has propane delivered once each month.   It’s expensive, compared to natural gas, and with a large house in cold weather you can spend a lot of money heating the place.

We have a wood stove in my home.  We put it in last year, because the propane bills were killing us.  Last year, instead of spending up to $500 per month on propane bills during the coldest weather, we heated our home for the entire winter on about $600 worth of wood, which we had delivered.  (It looks like the wood stove will pay for itself by the end of this winter.)  Basically, it costs about $150 for a really big pickup truck full of wood.  Four of those did it for the season.  The guys who delivered it are mostly tree-cutters themselves.  They are hired to cut down trees, and they simply cut them up and take them to their lots.  They let the wood sit there for several months or a year to “season” it, then they cut it up into wood-stove size pieces with chainsaws and power-splitters, and they sell it.

So, this year, I thought I’d really save some money, and instead of having the wood delivered, I’d go get it in the national forest, where the forest service very kindly sells low cost permits for people to pick up wood that the forest service people have cut down already, and (with some help from a kindly brother-in-law with a trailer and a chainsaw) I’d cut it up myself.  So far, I’d say I’ve spent about 10-12 hours of time messing with it (my brother-in-law has spent even more).  My back hurts, and my legs are sore.  And I’ve only got, so far, about as much wood as 1 and 1/2 pickup truck deliveries.  So there’s plenty more work to be done.

For a really entertaining time, come and watch as I try to hit a splitting wedge with a six pound sledge hammer.  I have one eye that works, and have never had any depth perception…  so it’s really dumb luck if I manage to make solid contact with the wedge.   My 11yr-old daughter comes out and watches sometimes….  she’s not very good at pretending not to laugh.

If you are forming the impression that, on an hourly basis, this attempt at economizing isn’t paying for itself, you’ve got the right idea.  You may sing the glories of self-reliance, you may tell me I needed the exercise anyway, but the fact is that my brother-in-law and I are making not much more than minimum wage for doing this, in terms of the money we’ve “saved.”  Since I can make money plying my trade, at a considerably higher rate, and work is generally available when I want it, I’m losing money trying to save money.  And that doesn’t even count the money my brother-in-law spent buying a professional grade chainsaw.   He’s a lawyer, which means he’s used to making enough money in a couple of hours to buy my whole season’s worth of wood.  But luckily for me, he considers the whole thing something of an adventure.

So, what’s the point of all this?

I pay for wood to be delivered, and it comes relatively cheaply and with minimal work remaining for me to do.  The people who sell it to me make money, so they get value from the transaction.  I get value, because I can spend my time doing something more economically productive than chopping wood, at which I am singularly unskilled.  Or I can just kick back.  Or some of both.

The “zero sum” way of thinking doesn’t explain this transaction.  The choice is not between one person collecting and chopping wood for himself (me) or someone else doing it the same way I would do it, but whom I have to pay.    The choice is between an unskilled and ill-equipped person doing it (me) or a skilled and well-equipped person doing it (the people I pay).  I MAKE money by paying them to do it, if I can use that time to do something else of benefit to me.  They make money because of their skills and investment in equipment, which allows them to do efficiently what I would have to do very slowly and inefficiently.  So they make more money, and so do I, and value is created in the economy that wouldn’t be there if I just chopped my own wood.

Even if we take money out of the equation, it’s clear that everyone isn’t equally skilled and well-equipped to do everything, and so even in a barter economy there is not a “zero sum” of net economic value in the society.  Every time someone becomes more productive, the entire society gets richer, because there is more value available.  When a lot of people become more productive, by a combination of capital investment, skill acquisition and greater efficiency, value is created, which in a money-based economy means that there is simply more money to go around in the system.

This basic fact of economics was best explained by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations.”  You don’t want to read the original, unless you have insomnia.  But here is a very entertaining introduction to it.

In a more or less free market, and even in a mixed economy like what we have now (somewhat free, somewhat regulated), “zero sum” thinking just doesn’t reflect reality.

It never has, or we’d still be living in log cabins and riding around in horse drawn wagons.


Nov 09 2009

Hypocrisy, plain and simple

Category: Islam,Obama,terrorismamuzikman @ 8:55 am

November 6, 2009. President Obama comments on the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas in which an army major gunned down dozens of fellow soldiers:

We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

July 22, 2009. President Obama comments on the arrest of Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, arrested in his own home after being mistaken for a burgler:

I don’t know not having been there and not knowing all the facts what role race played in that (incident), but…the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home… There is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, that’s just a fact.

Mr. President, your hypocrisy in the Fort Hood case is glaring.  The way in which you chose to respond to the news of the tragedy was a public disgrace.  And in spite of the efforts of you, your administration and the sycophant press, there will be no denying that yet another mass killing of the helpless has been perpetrated, apparently in the name of Islam.  Our country has a significant history in that respect as well, wouldn’t you agree?


« Previous PageNext Page »