Thursday, October 06, 2005

Governmentium: A New Scientific Discovery

Thanks to John McAdams for this most interesting discovery.

Science finds heaviest element

This hurricane mess and gasoline issues are proof that it exists. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named “Governmentium.” Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium – an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.


Monday, October 03, 2005

God Is Superior To Darwinism

Despite what we fallible humans do or don't do in the name of God His teachings, as found in the Holy Bible, are superior to any man-made doctrine or unscientific theory.

Leo has linked to a couple of articles which I find to be very interesting. He gives us a heads up on what might be a new tactic which the media will use in an attempt to discredit Christianity. Here was my reply which has been edited for clarification:

Leo asks:

1) Are murderers really committed to the God who condemns hatred, revenge and murder?

2) Are immoral people really committed to the God who calls all to holiness and purity?

Dawn says:

The answer is no and no.

90% of the people in our country may believe in God, but they certainly do not obey or fear God. Believing in God is not enough. Fearing and obeying God is the key and the sign of a true Christian. Most people who claim a belief in God, including those who attend church and pray regularly, do not properly fear God and have a very distorted view of the true and living God, which is aptly shown by this "study".

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Modernism and post-modernism have taken the fear of God away from the people in the church and the shame and taboo of immorality in both church and society.

Today, the church teaches that God is all loving (and He is) and all forgiving (and He is that too), but they neglect to teach that God is just and that there are both earthly and eternal consequences to our actions, good and bad. This has lead to the "secularization" of the church. The church has left its first love and become yoked with the world making it very difficult to see much of a difference between the Godly and the ungodly. Holiness has flown out the window and you are bigoted and judgmental if you point out the unholiness within the ranks. I'm afraid some people are in for a very rude awakening come judgment day.

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Society has taken away the shame of homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography, unwed pregnancies, cohabitation, adultery, abortion, etc. Unfortunately, the same goes for much of the church.

Add to that the fact that our government is soft on crime (not to mention corrupt) and becoming softer everyday. There is no fear of punishment on the part of the criminal. In most cases, they have it better in prison than they do outside of prison. Our prisons should be a place that people do not want to go.

Add to that the fact that political correctness denies us the ability to face and fix our problems, thus they continue to mulitply.

One of the articles stated that the non-violent and non-lethal violent crime rate in the secular democracies is not disproportionately higher than that of the U.S., but the murder rate in the U.S. is substantially higher. So if we were to get our act together and truly serve God, and our government would enforce the law and/or return to a tougher stance on crime by meting out punishments swiftly and quickly, like the death penalty, or actually require prisoners to serve the sentences pronounced instead of releasing them early, the U.S. would not have higher crime rates than the secular deomocracies, but rather the secular democracies would have a disproportionately higher rate of crime than that of the U.S.

Benjamin Franklin was right on the mark when he stated that "religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others." Because, in Franklin's mind, he was speaking in terms of true religious worship and practices, namely Christianity.

We don't have the raw data, but taking the "results" of this "study" at face value show it to be grossly flawed in its premise. To relate religion (which is the code word for Christianity) to a high crime rate is absurd. God forbids the very practices which bring about crime. What was proven by this study is that America is a Christian nation in name only. The people who profess a belief in God but do not conduct themselves in a godly manner might as well be Darwinists because they're acting like the animals from which Darwinists believe we've evolved.

This "study" is also a woefully transparent attempt to discredit God and to proclaim Darwinism as intellectually superior. Nothing could be further from the truth for God's ways are perfect. If we, as a "Christian" nation, would but obey His word we would be that "shining light on a hill" that once we were further exposing Darwinism for the danger that it truly is given its logical conclusion: to each his own no matter what it takes, for tomorrow we die.

Labels: ,

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Bennett's Blunder?

This excerpt is what the hooplah is all about concerning Mr. William Bennett. I have emphasized the part which has been taken out of context and blown-up out of all proportion.

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky. (emphasis added)

I understand that what Bennett said (and I deeply respect Bennett, BTW) seemed insensitive in our highly charged, politically correct climate, but it was a true statement. Statistically, blacks make up the highest percentage in America's crime rate, though they are obviously not the only race with crime issues. However, not allowing people to speak candidly about the cause and effect of our social ills has exacerbated the problem, especially in the black community. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, we should be doing whatever it takes to resolve the issues which serve to destroy us from the inside out. Sometimes the truth hurts.

A good start would be to allow open and honest dialogue. Identifying and addressing the issues which plague our society head-on is the only way we will ever be able to overcome our obstacles.

Bennett merely stated a truth within a hypothetical, and admittedly "reprehensible", so-called solution to the crime rate. The sad fact is that Bennett truly believes this practice to be reprehensible while some who hold to a liberal mindset are actually
DOING IT! Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for the link.

Statement By Bill Bennett, Sep. 30, 2005

From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005

"On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website:

"I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.

"Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.

"The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.

"A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.

"In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine."

Bennett's record DOES speak for itself. I don't believe that Bill Bennett has a racist bone in his body. The truth is that liberals are not really concerned with "racism", rather they are mostly concerned with demonizing conservatives in any way they can by twisting their words and/or pulling them out of context. Some of the headlines about Bennett's comments read, "Media Matters exposes Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down""; "Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime"; "Bennett's remarks are the real crime"; etc.

Where was the outrage when Senator Charles Rangel compared president Bush to
Bull Connor. An absurd comparison. Or where is the outrage when blacks make racist statements about whites? There is none. But when a good and decent man, whose record speaks for itself, makes a hypothetical, but true, statement he is unduly lynched by the liberal mob mentality. The double standard is sickening.

Did Bennett blunder? Only if you've got problems with your reasoning, critical thinking, and comprehension skills.

Labels: ,