The myth of the flat earth

It would appear that the Darwinist habit of attempting to shift the discourse by attacking their critics in lieu of defending their beliefs is not a new one:

Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it.

While I was aware that the Catholic Church had never declared any doctrine of a flat earth, I wasn’t aware that the Darwinists had dug so deeply into the obscure and the heretical in order to provide a basis for their misleading accusation of a dogmatic Christian belief in a flat earth. Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes – this is the first I’ve ever heard of either man – weren’t exactly Tertullian and Origen, much less Augustine and Aquinas. Also, if anyone is in possession of any information that contradicts the information at the link, I’d quite like to see it.

Because as it stands, this tends to call the intellectual honesty of the nineteenth century champions of Darwinism into question in addition to further demonstrating the historical unreliability of the secularist camp.

A RINO’s doubts

David Brooks wonders why he calls himself a Republican:

It made me wonder, are they really my guys? Do I have guys anymore?

Certainly in childhood I felt a strong affinity for the Democrats. Everybody I knew was one. The Democrats were obviously forces for justice and morality. Then sometime in adulthood I did come to naturally assume that the Republicans were the vehicles for the things I thought were best.

But you never know the workings of your own mind until you get an unexpected cold blast from somewhere deep inside. The thought that I’m part of the G.O.P.’s fan base sent such a blast, though it’s complicated.

Needless to say, he is very far from the only Republican to wonder why David Brooks calls himself a Republican. There’s certainly very little that’s “republican” about his ideology as evinced in his columns. And Gail? They really don’t….

Health care: the economic obstacle

It is up to Mr. Orszag to help the president deliver on two bold promises: to provide near-universal health care without adding to a budget deficit already at record levels, and to reduce health-care costs for regular Americans and businesses. Those promises have Mr. Orszag on a quest to whittle down health-care costs currently borne by the federal government and to find ways to change how medicine is practiced. But the history of medical cost control, like the push for universal health care, has been fraught with trouble. It’s much harder to cut spending than increase it — as Congress demonstrated when it created, then expanded, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and when it added prescription-drug coverage to Medicare.

Translation: The Obama administration’s goal is “to provide near-universal health care” (expanded demand) and “to reduce health-care costs for regular Americans and businesses” (decrease in price). Now, even those of you who are not economics majors should have learned enough here to know that increased D combined with decreased P requires a big shift of the supply curve downward. To the extent Obama’s plan implements his two goals, an similar order of magnitude downgrade in the amount and quality of medical services are unavoidable. There is no way to avoid this as the economic logic is remorseless.

Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg explains how ObamaCare cannot possibly be considered a “right” in any meaningful sense of the term.

Fake Steve Jobs on China

His fake conscience is uneasy:

We all know that there’s no fucking way in the world we should have microwave ovens and refrigerators and TV sets and everything else at the prices we’re paying for them. There’s no way we get all this stuff and everything is done fair and square and everyone gets treated right. No way. And don’t be confused — what we’re talking about here is our way of life. Our standard of living. You want to “fix things in China,” well, it’s gonna cost you.

This is a real problem. One simply can’t manufacture anything in the West if one wishes to be able to sell it to Western customers. And then, the fact that Western customers aren’t actually paying for a significant percentage of these things, but buying them on credit only compounds the problem.

Add David Ricardo’s theory of Comparative Advantage to the list of things supposedly settled of which I have grown skeptical.