Newsflash: liberals are all talk!

I know I was shocked to discover that people who talk incessantly about how much they care about the less fortunate don’t actually do much about it. Well, at least not with their own time and money:

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals…. liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

This is hardly news to anyone who actually knows both liberals and conservatives. I know precisely one liberal family who has opened their home to people in need of short-term shelter, (and they’re practicing Jews), whereas the majority of the callous, insensitive right-wingers that I know have had at least one couple unrelated to them living in their house for an extended period of time for one reason or another.

The unfeeling bastards.

Who said feminists lack a sense of humor?

Feministe is upset by the latest rap feud, which threatens to make the Tupac-Biggie, East Coast-West Coast conflict look like the Honduran Football War compared to World War II:

Everyone loves privileged Ivy-league kids rapping about how much better their top-three university is than another top-three university. Especially when they throw in lines about how they rape Harvard women, among other pleasant images of slitting throats and packing gats. Classy, fellas. You do your school proud.

Notably, this seems to be a pattern among these fine young gentlemen. What’s with this week and waste-of-space college kids trying to out-do each other on the misogyny front?

Well, considering that no one on the planet has had more feminist propaganda shoved down their throats than the current generation of Ivy League students, Newton’s Third Law suggests that their attitudes will likely make Dr. Dre and Eazy E look downright progressive.

But who would want to rape a Harvard woman? They’re a smart, but homely lot indeed.

L. Ron Dawkins

Corsi and Smith argue that the deep abiotic theory of oil is a more reliable theory than the fossil fuel theory. It rejects the contention that oil was formed from the remains of plant and animal life that died millions of years ago. Instead, they believe in Thomas Gold’s argument that oil is abiotic: “a primordial material that the earth forms and exudes on a continual basis” and is “pushed upward toward the earth’s surface by the intense pressures of the earth’s core and the influence of the centrifugal force that the earth exerted upon the specific gravity of oil as a fluid substance.”

Even as a child, I never understood how oil was supposed to be produced by squishing plants and animals. If that were the case, then a) why is it so much more common than fossil material and b) why is oil in Venezuala pretty much the same stuff as oil in Saudi Arabia? And why can’t we just squash some ferns and lizards if we need to make more?

My dad once deeply upset a biologist with whom he was talking one day when he pointed out that the calcium in milk couldn’t possibly come from the cow’s bones; because he grew up on a dairy farm, he knew the amount of calcium in the milk produced over a cow’s lifetime exceeds the amount contained in its skeleton.

It’s interesting how arrogant scientists can be despite the fact that so much of our understanding of how the world works is based on their reasonable conjectures, never mind how much past reasonable conjecture is now known to be wrong. This bit in “The Selfish Gene” made me laugh out loud:

At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator…. Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines….

For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes, made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup. It does not matter for the argument, but this may not really be true. The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the latter case we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines.

As I have previously noted, much “science” is increasingly less concerned with empirical evidence and rather more devoted to ontological speculation. Now, there’s nothing wrong with such speculation and certainly it’s possible for it to somehow advance human knowledge. But to call it science is a misnomer; Richard Dawkins openly admits here that he has no more evidence for his hypothetical founding “Replicator” than he has for God. In this particular example, he is writing as a sciencist, not a scientist.

But don’t let that vital distinction slow you down when you’re criticizing those ignorant of the latest developments in scientific ontology… or should I say… scientology?

Outrage and anomaly

This vicious anti-semite is less than enthusiastic about a record number of Jews in American government:

Statistics about the election have been cascading down upon us like a heavy Pacific Northwest rainstorm. However, one astounding fact about the 110th Congress has been studiously avoided. Never before in American history have so many congressmen and senators been Jewish. At least 13 United States senators are Jewish as are more than 30 House members. In addition, many powerful committee chairmanships are to be held by Jews.

Nearly 10 percent of the seats in the United States Congress are to be held by Jews, whose numbers in the population at large are barely over 2 percent – yet few consider this worthy of mention. That is strange. What could account for such reticence?

Oh, wait, he’s a rabbi…. My take on this is that if a small minority wishes to get along with a much larger majority, history suggests it is counterproductive to pursue a disproportionate amount of political power. I mean, it doesn’t matter how politely and professionally you go about your business, at a certain point people are going to notice something is wildly askew; to give a tangential example, if you only watch television, you’d think that there were more Jews than Hispanics, Asians and evangelical Christians combined living in America. This is not exactly the case.

(Of course, to be fair, you’d also think that the only occupations in America are policeman, lawyer, FBI agent, fireman, doctor, nurse and stripper.)

The problem is that beyond a certain point, the innocuous explanations for the situation begin to become increasingly problematic. If Congress feels it has no choice but to act when there are two percent more male athletes than female athletes participating in varsity sports at a university, then how can it possibly sit by complacently when there are 500 percent more Jewish congressmen and senators than there “should” be?

America is not anti-semitic. But as Rabbi Lapin demonstrates, one does not have to be to wonder about these statistical anomalies either.