Understanding the Financial Crisis

Yesterday the House voted down the $700 billion bailout bill. The stock market tanked (although it's gained back about half of what it lost as of 1.30 pm today). No one really knows what will happen next.

I'm not an economist and I don't really know what to think about all of this. On the one hand, I'm horrified by the idea of handing out taxpayer money to banks and individuals who made bad investment decisions. As a friend in HR is fond of saying, people will keep doing what you reward them for doing. If you bail people out after they made risky investments, they have a pretty good incentive to do it again, and hope for another bailout. I'm also generally against increasing the reach of government and against government intervention in the markets. The bailout package reads to me like creeping socialism.

But. A lot of very smart people, including a lot of conservatives, are pretty worried about this crisis and are absolutely convinced that the government needs to intervene to prevent a worldwide crash. I don't know, maybe they're right. Maybe things will get a little clearer over the next few days, as Congress is on a break over the Jewish holidays and there won't be any legislative action.

For now, I'm just trying to learn a little more about where things stand, how we got here, what happens next. I thought I'd share a few useful links along those lines.

On how we got here: I'm pretty convinced that a large share of the responsibility lies at the feet of Democrats in government and elsewhere who forced banks to make high-risk mortgage loans to low-income, mostly minority populations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a major part of this system and fueled the risky subprime mortgages by securitizing the debt. Of course, there is blame to go around, and there were points at which Republicans were in the majority and could have pushed harder for better regulation of Fannie and Freddie. For the record, Bush and McCain among others worked hard to reform Fannie and Freddie but didn't manage to get anything through Congress. Links on this topic:

• Boston Globe
• Matt Lewis on Townhall
• Jay Tea on Wizbang
• Ed Morrissey on Hot Air

What the bailout actually contained: The Wall Street Journal has a fairly complete explanation, although it seems like a few of the details are a little thin. But I think that's because Treasury Secretary Paulson hadn't quite figured out how everything would work, not because the WSJ omitted details in its reporting. Ilya Somin has some thoughtful analysis and links on whether it was a good idea.

Playing politics: Like Glenn Reynolds said:

You know, it would be easier for me to believe this was a crisis, if the people in charge were acting like it was a crisis, instead of just an opportunity for graft. Then again, to some of these people, everything is just an opportunity for graft.

Other bloggers with good thoughts on the politics of the vote include The Anchoress and Besty Newmark. In particular, Nancy Pelosi and some other House Democrats seem to have gone out of their way to make the vote more, rather than less, partisan.

And don't miss the ACORN angle: ACORN, a liberal community organizing group with a record of voter registration fraud, actually gets government (taxpayer) money to help low-income people get mortgages. Over the past two decades they seem to have be part of the problem of encouraging the system to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. The original Democrat-proposed bill would have directed a bunch of the bailout money to ACORN and similar groups. ACORN has significant ties to Obama and other prominent Democrat politicians:

• Mona Charen on Townhall
• Ken Blackwell on Townhall
• New York Post, here and here

Exxon Mobil continues pro-family stance

Shareholders continue to hold ground despite pressure from homosexual activists groups. This shows unique leadership in a corporate environment where “bending the knee” to a small but powerful gay lobby is commonplace. Read more.

What the heck is wrong with the world?

By Rich Bordner

What the heck is wrong with the world?

I just read a poll that shows that a majority believes Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 in only 9 of the 17 countries surveyed. What is most astounding is the percentage of people in some countries that believe it was an inside job. Look at Mexico's response!!!

Geeeez....I just talked with a colleague at my school yesterday that claimed the U.S is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. What the???

One commentator quipped that its like Al Qaeda is the Rodney Dangerfield of the globe. They claimed they did it, sent videos out claiming responsibility, and folks were cheering on the streets in certain Al Qaeda-heavy countries, and still they don't get no respect!

Seriously, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, you watch waaaaay too much Youtube. That, and Hollywood, rather than commonsense, dictates too much of your thought process.

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure #2

As I've mentioned on this blog before, my dad is fond of saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." He's pointing out that it is often possible to twist numbers so they seem to support your point of view. You shouldn't just accept statistics as valid just because they sound official and scientific.

Here's a really good example: the current presidential polls. This is a really good post looking at the last five weeks of the Gallup tracking poll. Gallup releases the total numbers, and then also breaks down the numbers by party identification (liberal dem, moderate dem, independent, liberal repub, etc.) The alert blogger at Wizbang, DJ Drummond, looked at these party ID numbers and did a bunch of math and concluded (emphasis in the original):

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response.

People do change party ID over time. But we're talking about something like an 8% swing in one week for this poll to be accurate. I think that's pretty unlikely. In the past 10 years there's never been more than a 2% change in those identifying as Democrats between elections (the biggest Republican swing is 3%). And that is over a period of 2 years, not one week. Basically, the pollsters are trying to guess at the electorate's party ID, and they all guess differently, and they change their guesses week-to-week.

That's not the only reason you should take polls with a grain of salt. For starters, you may remember that both polls before the election and exit polls of actual voters overstated Democratic support in 2000 and 2004. I'm not sure why this is true--perhaps it is tied to weighting by party ID! But it is historical evidence of the problem.

You should also know about the registered voter/likely voter issue. We know that everyone who is registered to vote doesn't actually vote each year. So pollsters ask some questions to try to guess who is a "likely voter" and then release numbers based on their choice for president. But, really, these are at best educated guesses. This year, the guesses are confused even more because Obama is a candidate with particular appeal to the youth vote (under 25); this group traditionally has very low turnout. No one can know in advance who will vote. When you look at a poll, it's important to check whether it is of registered voters or likely voters. If it's registered voters, it may be overstating the Democratic vote, based on historical turnout patterns; if it's likely voters, it might be influenced by the pollster's guesses--possibly biased--about who will actually vote.

There are a whole bunch of other things that can influence a poll. For example, pollsters are starting to get worried about cell phones, which don't get called for most polls. If people have only cell phones and no landline, they can't be in the survey. If these people all tend to vote in one particular way, it could bias the results. A new Pew Report suggests that this might make a 2-3% difference in the results. Another factor can be the age and gender of the interviewer, especially for in person interviews such as exit polls on the day of the election. Inexperienced interviewers might also have trouble getting enough respondents to cooperate.

Finally, pay attention to the margin of error. Most polls of 1000 or so people have margins of error around 2.5-3%. Remember, this applies to both candidates. So, if the number for McCain is 47% with a 3% margin of error, then the real number is assumed to be 44-50%. Likewise for Obama. If the spread between the candidates is less than double the margin of error, it is really showing a race that is too close to call. Also remember that, if the whole poll has a margin of error of 3%, if it then breaks down different groups (men, women, by race, from a particular state), the margin of error for those subgroups will be larger than 3%.

So that's some stuff I know about surveys, from my job and from a lot of reading about this stuff. Bottom line, don't just read a headline about a poll and assume that it is honest truth! The poll that counts is the actual vote.

If you're a statistical geek like me, and you want more info on this topic, you might want to check out pollster.com. For exit polls in particular, this pollster.com page is a good place to start, with lots of links.

Loving through Adoption

If there was a ship lost at sea full of orphan babies, the world would rally together to save them. Yet, today, there are a million children around the world who live without the love of a permanent family. These children seem to have no hope, lost in a world that does not want them. But God loves them. And God has filled the hearts of couples stretching all over this country with His love for these children. One case in point, about a month ago, some friends of mine were finally able to bring home their new son from Russia after enduring many hurdles over a long 3 ½ year adoption process. There is probably no better champion of adoption than one of my heros, multi-award-winning Christian singer and song writer, Steven Curtis Chapman. Here’s a recent Focus on the Family radio broadcast were he discusses his own family’s experience with adoption. Lastly, here’s the video of he and wife – along with their children – on Larry King Live where they shared about the tragic death back last spring of their little daughter, Maria Sue. This segment will melt your heart and inspire you to trust God through your own storms of life.

David Barton coming to Columbus

CCV.org reports that American historian, author and founder of Wall-Builders, David Barton, will be speaking at Genoa Baptist Church on the evening of September 30th. Barton’s main topic will be the Christian’s role in the civic arena, including a clarification, from an historical perspective, of the controversial separation of church and state issue.

Could Euthanasia come to Britain?

From Hot Air:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

As Ed Morrissey points out, this is one obvious and natural end result of "free" national health care. If care isn't rationed through price by the free market, it has to be rationed in some other way. (I know "rationing" sounds like some sort of scary word, but it's just a basic economic concept--the supply and price of goods and services is affected by the demand.) You just can't give unlimited care to everyone in the country--there aren't enough doctors, hospitals, nurses. You have to make choices about how to distribute the care, and you end up with LONG waiting lists and denials of service. When this isn't enough, the government starts thinking about how to cut further, and one choice is to make less care available to old, very sick people.

Note that the article starts out talking about allowing people the option to choose euthanasia, but Warnock soon starts talking about people with dementia, who by definition wouldn't have the capacity to make that kind of choice for themselves. So, who makes the choice? Family? Doctors? A government bureaucrat in the health care system?

If you believe every human life is precious and sacred, this trend should be a big concern.

And that's not even mentioning that "free" health care isn't free at all. If the Democrats succeed in enacting some sort of nationalized health insurance system, believe me, we will pay for it big time in taxes. If the experiences of places like Britain and Canada are any indication, we'll also pay in time--weeks and months spent waiting to get approval to get a doctor's appointment, see a specialist, etc. (I know this happens to some extent in the US too, mostly driven by insurance companies, but from everything I have read it is far worse in countries with socialized medicine.) You might have to pay extra money in addition to your taxes to get care outside of the system--for people in the UK, this includes "medical vacations" to places like India to get medical care, and a LOT of Canadians cross the border into the US for treatment. Finally, the whole world will pay a price because research into new drugs and procedures will be reduced, with no free-market incentive to spur innovation.

Media Bias: Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson

Remember that big interview Sarah Palin did with Charlie Gibson of ABC News? Well, ABC released the full transcript of the original interview, not just what was shown on TV. Newsbusters describes how ABC did some serious editing to make her look less knowledgeable and experienced, more like a warmongerer, more like a "scary fundamentalist" and less like a reasonable Christian. Really interesting read, you should definitely check it out.

Also read Charles Krauthammer on Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. Liberals are crowing that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and thus betrayed her ignorance of foreign policy. Krauthammer says Gibson got it very wrong and betrayed his "establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension" in the process.

This kind of clear media bias in misleading editing just shows why you can't believe everything you hear on TV. You need to make sure you're getting information from a variety of sources and checking it against what you know. I know, this is harder and takes time and effort and thought, but it's important.

(I know the interview was something like a week and a half ago, so I apologize for the tardiness of this post, but if you live in central Ohio you know we've been dealing with crazy power outages and so on. Anyway, I think it's still relevant.)

One Issue Voter?

By Rich Bordner

There's a common thought afoot in evangelical circles when it comes to the current political climate:

"We shouldn't just focus on abortion. We need a more holistic approach to politics and social justice. Poverty, AIDS, etc. are 'life' issues too."

In fact, I just talked with two members of my church recently on this very topic. Both are voting for Obama. Both claim to be pro-life. Both will vote for Obama for economic, environmental, and global (i.e., anti-Iraq war) reasons.

As its stated, the statement is true. Poverty, et al, are things we evangelicals (actually, Christians of all stripes) need to battle. However, the upshot of this has been to put abortion on the back burner, treating it as less important than the other concerns. This has steered many evangelicals towards voting for Obama. This is a problem, for several reasons:

1) This presumes that the Democratic solution (traditionally, it has involved some form of bigger dependence on government) to poverty and such is the best solution. This is far from obvious. Liberals and conservatives alike both care about the poor and the ill. What is up for debate is which has the better solution. Far too often, it is assumed that liberals are the ones who care because they are for a government program dealing with the problem.

2) Imagine we are in Germany around 1940: "Hey, Hitler is doing wonders for this country's economic stability. Yeah, what he's doing with the Jews is sad, but hey, we gotta put food on the table! Our nation's pride and economic stability are important concerns too, not just 6 million Jews being slaughtered." That would be horrendous. Protecting innocent life should ALWAYS be front and center.

3) Similarly, around 40 million babies have died from abortions ever since Roe v. Wade. Given this, putting abortion on the backburner is the least compassionate thing we can do; it will show that we really don't care about "the least of these."

4) Obama is crazy when it comes to abortion. Not only has he pledged that he will do everything in his power to uphold and solidify Roe v. Wade, but his voting record is about as extreme as it gets. In fact, in Illinois, he led the opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which would have secured medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions. He swears that the reason why he voted against it was because it lacked "neutrality language" in regards to Roe V. Wade, but he shot down the attempt to put such language in the bill!

5) Some prefer to talk of "reducing the number of abortions" through caring for women in crisis pregnancies (mostly through some form of government funding) rather than attacking the law head on. This eases their conscience in voting for Obama. Of course, reducing the number of abortions is a laudable goal, but that shouldn't be the only thing we do. As Melinda Penner at Stand to Reason has pointed out in a recent blog, this leaves a very odious doctrine ensconced in our law: that the unborn are not fully human and are not worthy of protection under the law. That, my friends, needs to be shown for the evil it is. Therefore, if we do not relentlessly attack that plank of our law with everything we have (including our vote), we must ask ourselves just how pro-life we really are.

6) Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if McCain is likely or not to completely topple Roe v. Wade. Most likely, he will not, given that he will probably be working with a Democratic legislature. What matters is: who is likely to make progress, any progress, towards outlawing abortion. McCain: certainly yes. His voting record alone speaks to that truth. At the very least, he will keep us from moving the other way, towards entrenching Roe further in our law and societal soul. Obama: certainly not. He will move us in the other way, both through perhaps vetoing anything that remotely smells pro-life, through funding the industry of abortion, and through appointing judges that play fast and loose with the Constitution. That's how the problem started in the first place, after all.

Therefore, if this was the only issue/reason I had for not voting for Obama (in actuality, the reasons are many), I wouldn't think twice about it. Despite the public chiding one issue voters get, my conscience would be clean.

Democrats and the Housing Mess

If you follow politics at all, you've probably seen the clips of Obama attacking McCain and the Republicans over the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But he's not being very honest with these attacks. The truth is, Bush tried to reform these agencies in 2003, and McCain cosponsored a bill to provide more oversight in 2005. Democrats in Congress killed both attempts.

Ace of Spades has a GREAT post explaining what the Republicans have tried to do about this crisis over the past 5 years, and how the Democrats prevented any meaningful reforms. And don't miss the fact that at least 4 key players in the subprime mortgage industry are now top Obama advisors:

Penny Pritzker, "the Michael Milken of subprime mortgages," is Obama's Finance Chair.

Jim Johnson, disgraced former CEO of Fannie, was Obama's vice presidential search chairman, at least until he resigned under fire due to his role in providing subsidized sweetheart loans to Democratic Senators during his stint at CountryWide.

Franklin Raines, who participated in the accounting scandals to fix Fannie's books and deliver unwarranted bonuses to its top executives, is a top Obama adviser.

Obama Economics Adviser Austan Goolsbee continued defending and lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry's no-money-down-no-credit-check policies at least until September of 2007.

Finally, Ace mentions that the Democratic Congress plans to adjourn for the season without doing anything to address the issue:

Congress Adjourning! Harry Reid admits he has no idea what to do. So he's packing it up, leaving yet another crisis on the table for more responsible people to figure out.

Actually, Harry Reid and the Democrats always knew what to do. They knew the problem was this trillion dollar giveaway to credit-poor homebuyers. They further knew that by making money for homes so cheap and so artificially plentiful, they were driving up the cost of homes to astronomical levels. That's the way it works -- the more cheap, devalued dollars chasing after goods, the more the good rise in price.

Ultimately people who were simply not credit-worthy enough to buy houses at all were not merely buying houses -- they were buying houses that were well beyond their means to purchase even in a normal market, but furthermore, were inflated in price to double their fair value. So ultimately these legions of bad-credit-risks found themselves paying mortgages valued at 150% or 200% or even more of what their actual homes were worth.

So what did they do? They did what anyone would do: They walked away from the mortgages.

They both hyperinflated the housing market and created the bubble, and put the American taxpayer on the hook for all the excesses they created. And would not check -- because they were too busy appeasing ACORN and taking money from Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Raines, Johnson, and Pritzker.

They created the housing bubble. They created the financial meltdown -- which occurred, inevitably, when the bubble burst.

And now they want to go home.

For more background on this crisis, check out Investor's Business Daily editorials here and here. In my opinion, IBD is a great source for economic news that doesn't get reported in the mainstream media. If you want to learn more about economic issues--including housing, oil, financial markets, government regulation of the economy--it's a great place to start.

Obama’s empty rhetoric

At the recent Saddleback civil forum, Obama says he wants to see a reduction in abortions. There are so many interesting things to point out about this statement. For one, these comments reflect a typical all-talk and no action track record of the Democrats. David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, expanded on this point recently during an interview with Newsweek:

"I think saying they want to reduce abortions is empty rhetoric…I have not seen the pro-abortion side agree with the pro-life side on anything that would actually reduce the number of abortions."

O'Steen explains how pro-choice politicians constantly obstruct legislation that would actually reduce the numbers, such as bills that would require that a women get an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.

The fact is, Obama – like the other Democrats – have done absolutely nothing to reduce abortions.

Male and female He created them...

Ran across an interesting article in the New York Times. Apparently sociologists are starting to catch on to what we already knew--men and women are actually different. We have different attitudes and approaches to life. Crazy, huh? Of course, this is upsetting for liberals, because they want to believe that men and women are exactly the same, and that any differences between the genders are evidence of some sort of societal sexism, of discrimination that must be addressed through government action. But it just reinforces what Christians believe--that the genders are created differently, for complementary purposes, not identical:

When men and women take personality tests, some of the old Mars-Venus stereotypes keep reappearing. On average, women are more cooperative, nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive. Men tend to be more competitive, assertive, reckless and emotionally flat. Clear differences appear in early childhood and never disappear.

What’s not clear is the origin of these differences. Evolutionary psychologists contend that these are innate traits inherited from ancient hunters and gatherers. Another school of psychologists asserts that both sexes’ personalities have been shaped by traditional social roles, and that personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.

To test these hypotheses, a series of research teams have repeatedly analyzed personality tests taken by men and women in more than 60 countries around the world. For evolutionary psychologists, the bad news is that the size of the gender gap in personality varies among cultures. For social-role psychologists, the bad news is that the variation is going in the wrong direction. It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India’s or Zimbabwe’s than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France. The more Venus and Mars have equal rights and similar jobs, the more their personalities seem to diverge.

In Memory

I've been thinking about it all day, and I've finally decided I can't say anything better than this, from Dave Barry, 2 days after 9/11/01. It's still true. I can't excerpt it, it's all too good--just read it.

Patriotism vs. Nuance

Bill Whittle is one of my favorite writers. He has put out some really amazing essays on his blog about American exceptionalism, patriotism, the emptiness of the left, etc. (Fair warning--He does occasionally use some rough language.) Just found out he is now writing for National Review and turned out some interesting thoughts about the convention. Read the whole thing--it covers a whole range of issues, from Republican values to Sarah Palin to McCain's time as a POW. But this part brought tears to my eyes:

And a final thing: I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was “blessed by hardship,” until he had been broken and remade — and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it — well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for — that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy — to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don’t know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism — pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday — not its promise, always and only its promise — but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for. (italics in the original)

Everything wrong with the left, everything I believe about this country, right there in one paragraph.

A few thoughts on Sarah Palin

By Rich Bordner

Boy, t'ain't there uh mighty buzz about that thar Sarah Palin! I've been listening and watching the past few days, so I figure its a swell time to jump in with a few thoughts of my own. In no particular order:

1) There've been quite a few obviously biased smear attacks on Palin (example: compare the US Weekly covers). The other night at the MTV Music Awards, British host Russell Brand (like his opinion matters) took his own swipe, saying Bristol Palin's child was not a "boy or girl, but a P.R stunt." Things like this are low...very low indeed. But I hope the left and those sympathetic to it keeps it up. I seriously do. If they do, then January 20, John McCain will be taking the oath of office. In the process of their scard-ey-cat antics, they have managed to offend just about everyone except those in their little club. The average American citizen is a sleeping giant to the Dems, and if they continue the smears, they will manage to wake it on November 4...oops.

2) She's intelligent, capable, thoroughly conservative, ATTRACTIVE, and feminine. She appears comfortable being a feminine woman. I like that. Many feminists have trudged about telling us that women must act like men in order to be equal to them. Bullfeathers. Palin trashes this stereotype, and that makes me giggle.

3) Some Democrats are expressing concern about Palin being a mom (especially to a newborn special needs child) and potential V.P. That is a valid concern to raise. Despite what society tells us, you can't have/do it all. The awesome mom/thriving career woman thing is just not feasible. Ask around. Many women have tried, and are frustrated that the day care is raising their children. This doesn't disqualify her for the V.P position by any stretch, but lets not kid ourselves that a mom can feasibly be devoted to a high-demand career and be 100% devoted to raising her children. Life as a parent, as one blogger at Stand to Reason put it, is all about sacrificing your ambition for your family. Have some pulled it off? Probably. Is it feasible/wise? Nope.

4) Giuliani, in response to the questions, quipped that such family and career questions have never been asked about men. Refer to comment #2 and 3. I'm with Melinda at Stand to Reason; it's more natural to ask that question of women than it is to ask it of men. And besides, the question has been asked of men, though not as much. I have asked it about my own career. I haven't seen very many head wrestling coaches/teachers who have been great teachers, have built highly successful wrestling teams, and who have been devoted fathers. In fact, I have seen absolutely 0. Somethin's gotta give. Therefore, I am prepared to give up my dream of coaching a team if it infringes on my family life.

5) HOWEVER, since when has the Democratic party been the party of "family values?" Shouldn't they be the ones cheering the loudest for Palin's choices? Their concern rings hollow, to say the least.

6) Some have leveled a charge of hypocrisy on the Republicans' part. Supposedly, their defense of Palin's family (Bristol's pregnancy, etc) and their insistence on traditional family values are at odds with each other. But this is pure sophistry. One can do a knockout job as a parent, can instill good values in their children, and their children can still go off, sin, and make mistakes. Just because Bristol sinned doesn't mean Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. Bristol is an individual with her own mind. We just don't know how Sarah Palin raised her family, and its stupid to speculate. It would be quite different if Sarah Palin herself became pregnant out of wedlock, but that isn't the case. HELLO? Isn't this obvious? If anything, Bristol's decision about what to do after the pregnancy happened (keep the child, marry the father: two signs of repentance) affirms that mom did something right.

7) Despite Obama's claims, McCain can still play the "no-experience" card. Palin's executive experience is miles ahead of Obama's. Plus: Palin is a V.P. candidate. Obama is the Presidential candidate. Gigundous difference. Can I take my Captain Obvious cape off now?

Anyway, just my two cents.

CBS News: Accident or Intentional?

I thought I would share something interesting I noticed at the end of CBS's coverage of the Republican National Convention last week. Right before signing off following John McCain's speech, CBS News anchor Katie Couric referenced an affiliate website people could go to for extended live coverage of that night's festivities. I immediately went to this site. Interestingly enough, however, I did not see what she promised I would see. Rather, I saw the “closing ceremonies” of the Democratic National Convention. Was it just an error on their part? Well, they are either guilty of unprofessionalism – for having the wrong streaming content, or they are guilty of lying. You be the judge. Based on their track record, I’ve made my decision.

Jumping the Shark

Teaching Evolution in Florida

The New York Times recently published a profile of a Florida biology teacher who was involved in developing that state's standards for teaching evolution in high school. It's pretty dismissive of people of faith who believe in creation rather than evolution--and that's why I found it an interesting read. It offers some good insight into the liberal worldview that considers Christians to be backwards, anti-science fundamentalists.

For example, Mr. Campbell (the biology teacher) had this to say about the previous standards, which didn't require teaching evolution as the origin of the human species:

But at the inaugural meeting of the Florida Citizens for Science, which he co-founded in 2005, he vented his frustration. “The kids are getting hurt,” Mr. Campbell told teachers and parents. “We need to do something.”

Get that? He believes kids are hurt when they AREN'T taught hard-core evolution. He went on to say, in response to a question about why intelligent design isn't taught along with evolution:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”

Another thread running through the article is the importance of knowing how evolution is taught and preparing Christian kids to protect their faith. I remember reading in one of Lee Strobel's books (either The Case for a Creator or The Case for Faith) that high school biology was a major cause in his loss of his childhood faith. I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to have a perfect answer of how to teach the origins of life in public high schools. But, it seems to me that it's not enough to just tell our kids that our faith is Truth and the stuff they learn in science class is some sort of distraction. True, at the end of the day Christianity does require faith--you can't literally prove every tenet of our faith using scientific methods. But it seems to me that providing scientific arguments against evolution, and pointing out the holes in the theory from a scientific standpoint, are important elements of the discussion.

One last thought--I was encouraged by the Christian students quoted in the article, who were holding to their beliefs even as they sat through the classes on evolution:

When the subject of evolution came up at a recent [Fellowship of Christian Athletes] meeting, several of the students rolled their eyes.

“I think a big reason evolutionists believe what they believe is they don’t want to have to be ruled by God,” said Josh Rou, 17.

Wow, he gets it. Not only does he know evolution is wrong, but he knows how the liberal worldview benefits from replacing God with some confused theory about the origin of life.