Cousin Ardi?

Well, here we go again!

The banner headline reads, “Darwin could only dream of finding this!” What is “this?” It’s Ardi, short for a 4.4 million-year-old Ardipithecus Ramidus. By the way, Ardi is female and about four feet tall. The fossil remains of Ardi were found in the northern regions of Ethiopia in the Awash Region. Paleoanthropologists have been working in the Afar area for more than forty years. Ardi has actually been uncovered for about the past twelve years. These things do take time, you know. The old girl was in rather poor condition after all these eons of time and needed a lot of TLC. You see, she was in 125 pieces, providing the scientists quite a challenging jigsaw puzzle.

Shortly after my conversion to Christ in 1972, Dr. Richard Leaky discovered “Lucy” (Ardipithecus Afarensis) in 1974. This was another major cause for celebration by the evolutionists. One more nail in the coffin of all those God-fearing, Bible thumping, born-again types. Really? Then why is Christianity growing around the world? Perhaps Ardi will finally silence these pesky Creationists. Ummmmmm – not likely. For nearly one hundred and fifty years, evolutionists have been trying their level best to come up with the fossils that will ultimately prove the case in their favor. Remember the Scopes Trial? In Tennessee? 1926? That was supposed to be the definitive argument which would win everyone over to seeing the world through the eyes of evolution and science. Didn’t happen.

It was my distinct privilege to conduct a radio interview in 1976 at San Jose State University with the esteemed Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) situated in Southern California. He authored a book entitled, Evolution: The Fossils Say No. It’s a delightful read and pokes holes in the evolutionary theory, particularly regarding the so-called evidence of fossils, such as the Peking Man, the Nebraska Man, etc. All of these evolutionary fossil finds have been debunked by evolutionists themselves, which Gish substantiates in his book. One of my favorite lines used by Dr. Gish when describing the evolutionary process with tongue-in-cheek, is “From fish to Gish!” To read articles on the Ardi story, you might go to: www.icr.org.

Poor Ardi! She now finds herself lauded by the evolutionists as being in the bipedal (i.e., walking upright) chain of human development. Several problems become quickly apparent. First, she was compiled from the bones of at least thirty-five other ardipithecus bipeds. As was already mentioned, 125 bones and portions of bones were used from this mix in bringing her form together. As you may remember from your biology class in high school, the adult human body has 206 bones. So either Ardi is presumably missing a few bones, or she is far removed from our human structure and not likely to be any sort of relative. Second, her hands and feet are not designed for walking, but for climbing – straight up tree trunks. The thumb on the hands and the big toe on the foot are splayed much like a chimpanzee’s. Third, the big toe on the foot is much more a thumb than a big toe. Fourth, she is clearly missing bones in the effort to reconstruct her frame. Thus, a “best guess” approach is used to figure her figure. Go figure!

A telling comment is made by one of the experts in evolution, undermining the argument for Ardi being in the human chain. C. Owen Lovejoy, an expert in bipedality, wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies (any similarity between characters that is due to their shared ancestors) with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.” Oops! That’s not very scientific. To use theory, supposition and conjecture is not considered good science.

So where does all of this leave us? You will need to decide for yourselves. As for me, I have always enjoyed the magnificence of nature. To watch birds winging through the skies; trees standing solidly in place, a safe haven for birds, squirrels, and small boys who love to climb trees; the waters of a river meandering toward a lake or ocean, mesmerizing to youngsters with fishing poles in hand; people in motion all day in their endless pursuit of what might be around the corner, wondering how to make the most out of life; and the absolute awe of a baby sleeping contentedly in your arms. Now, tell me again where we came from?

The Bible states most clearly in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis that God made a conscious choice to create everything that there is. He did this because it pleased him to do so. He made you and me in his image and likeness. That is, we think rationally; we have the ability to decide right from wrong; we are fully capable of loving and being loved; and we can choose to go against our natural instincts. Most importantly, we were made to be in relationship with God, and to worship him. At our very core, we are spiritual beings. We are going to worship someone or something. Just make sure it’s the right God. The God of the Bible.

Ardi has been gone from this earth for a while. But she knows who God is. Do you?

It's the Law!

I guess one of the most inane, stupefying statements ever uttered while I was a kid, and there were many of them, was the one that went something like this: “Laws were meant to be broken.” Huh?

Now I will grant you that when our original parents, Adam and Eve were in the garden they blew it by disobeying God’s laws. To the misfortune of the human race we have continued this act of disobedience with no sign of stopping. But to suggest that we can wantonly disobey laws without suffering the consequences is nothing short of insane! No society that tolerates lawbreakers can expect to survive for very long.

Recently renowned film maker, Roman Polanski, was arrested in Europe and extradited to the United States where he is to face charges of rape and sodomy of a thirteen year old girl when he was forty-four. It is not necessary to elaborate on the sordid details of what took place other than to say Mr. Polanski is a degenerate predator who is totally out of touch with civilized society. When asked about his sordid behavior his comment was, “Why should I be in trouble? I didn’t hurt anyone. All I did was act out of my desire for a young girl.” Mr. Polanski was engaged to marry a fifteen-year-old girl just the year before his ravaging of the thirteen-year-old. In a sane and reasoned world, this man would be labeled a pedophile.

It is stunning to hear the defense of this man’s behavior. I don’t mean just from those in the Hollywood set – I’m talking about those who have called radio talk shows – and conservative shows at that! Has our nation lost its soul? Have we forgotten what morality is?

Then we are introduced to the dalliances of late-night show host, David Letterman. This man is a super star in the world of comedians and has been the most popular late night host since Johnny Carson. So when he gave his mea culpa a few nights ago the audience reaction was – laughter. That’s right. The audience laughed. Then came the defenses of Letterman. He wasn’t married when he had these flings with women who worked for him, goes one of the defenses. One problem: He has been in a conjugal relationship with the same woman since 1986, and has a five year old son with her. They married earlier this year. His wife apparently pressed him to come clean on the relationships.

Here are two men who abused their positions of power and influence to seduce children and women. In the case of Mr. Polanski, he has broken well established laws intended to protect children from predatory adults, and which is also meant to protect all members of society from those who prey on the unsuspecting. As for Mr. Letterman, he hasn’t broken any civil laws. But he has abused his power. The argument is given that he was engaged in behavior between consenting adults.

What is troubling to me is the lack of morality that seems to be so prevalent in our society today. One of these men has broken a civil law, while the other has been a boorish cad.

However, both men have violated the law – God’s law. God gave us laws long ago, which if we were to follow, we would spare ourselves enormous heartache and trouble. For most of us, the first thing that comes to mind is the Ten Commandments. If you and your neighbors were to live by these commandments, you could leave your doors unlocked, garage door open, the keys in the car, etc. Don’t scoff at this. Many of you reading this can remember a day when you grew up in such an environment. The 1950s was the last decade for many of us to enjoy the vestiges of a godly America.

The immortal words of Edmund Burke come to mind, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Together you and I can make a difference. We do not have to accept such abhorrent behavior that erodes and destroys our families and nation.

Is the soul of America worth fighting for? I believe it is. Won’t you join me in speaking out against these cancers in society? There are many more of us than you might imagine. Let your voice be heard. Let’s make a difference.

Just Do It!

Where, I ask you, is the courage in our elected leadership? I have never seen such a vacuous cluster of do-nothings and ne’er-do-wells in my life. I’m referring to the issue of the War on Terrorism and the spinelessness of our Congress to support it.

I have been watching with dismal abhorrence for the past several months while these pampered political popinjays parley over whether to send more troops to bolster the war effort in Afghanistan. They readily agree to a Stimulus Bill that presumes many trillions of dollars at the expense of the American taxpayer, but they are unwilling to vote in favor of continued support for the war effort, either in manpower or funds. This is unconscionable! These are our sons and daughters. Our husbands and wives.

I guess what really got under my skin recently on this whole issue was when Congress wanted assurances of victory. Then they might authorize more troops and money. Pardon me? Assurances? If I hadn’t heard this myself, I’m not sure I would have believed it. There are primarily three certainties in war: First, death – and lots of it! Second, destruction – and lots of it! Third, confusion – and lots of it!

Let’s start with this matter of death. The moment you begin to sling arrows at one another, people begin to die. It is inevitable. Our military takes extreme measures to avoid “civilian” casualties. Yet, in the final analysis, it is impossible to completely avoid such casualties when we are fighting against terrorists who dress in civilian clothing and mix in with crowds, or use civilians for cover knowing American soldiers will hesitate to fire when civilians are present. We have refined our weapons to such a degree that we can bomb a building from the air and only destroy that building, leaving the neighboring buildings perfectly intact. The Rules of Engagement (referred to as ROE) for our military do not permit the wanton killing of anyone, even the bad guys if they can be taken alive. This is in keeping with the basic Judeo-Christian teaching that has been a bedrock principle since our nation’s development. We value life – even the life of our enemy. This principle has certainly become highly suspect in our secular national realm – case in point: wholesale abortion. But within the military life is valued.

Now let’s look at destruction. With the types of munitions that our nation has developed over the years we are capable of destroying anything with startling precision and accuracy. What is typically destroyed in combat? Tanks, bunkers and buildings. This is where enemy military are to be found. This makes them a target. In the vernacular of military verbiage, to take out such a target is referred to as “neutralizing” the objective. Though it tends to ruffle our sensitivities, our military is designed to “kill people and break things.” It exists to do this so that you and I can live in peace, and to be free from the fear of enemies who want to kill us and destroy our nation. Here’s something I want you to think carefully about: Without question we are the strongest nation on earth, and we have the best trained military bar none, and we have the most powerful weapons known to man in our arsenal. We have nuclear weapons capable of destroying entire nations, dropped from a bomber flying higher than radar can detect. Because we have these weapons, we could very easily have dropped them on Iraq, or Afghanistan, without ever placing one soldier in harms way on the ground. So then why do we send our troops to these hellish regions of the world to face death and hardship, conditions of war long forgotten by those of us in the comfort of our homes? It is because of a moral code that is engrained in our makeup as Americans. Some of our enemies, such as Iran, would have no such code to hold them back from seeking to annihilate us along with Israel and anyone else they felt like incinerating. Just listen to the ranting of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has publicly stated numerous times that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. And the United States too. Do you doubt him?

Lastly, there is confusion. War and confusion go hand-in-hand. You can plan and strategize till the cows come home, but when the bullets start flying and the bombs and rockets are coming in bunches, most plans go right out the window. The objective then becomes one of completing the mission any way you can. If you need to take that hill from the enemy, then do it. When the dust has settled, and you have successfully won the battle, how it was accomplished may look nothing like what was planned.

We would do well to learn a little lesson from history. The bigger and more powerful army does not always win the war. We learned this sad lesson a mere forty years ago when our military was not allowed to win in Vietnam. Congress refused to continue supporting that war effort then, and it would appear we are repeating the same folly this time as well.

Is this what we want for our nation? To turn tail and run? Remember: Each time Congress pulls the rug out from under our troops, we further emasculate our military. Our enemies will see us as weak and indecisive, ripe for the picking.

So here’s a word for Congress: No more waffling on the war. Just do it!

A Rose by Any Other Name

Socialism.

Here’s a word that is typically viewed by Americans as a bad thing. But is it really? Let’s find out what this is all about.

Webster’s Dictionary has three definitions for socialism based upon the use of the word in the context of a sentence or discussion. Socialism is: 1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2) a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property, b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3) a stage of society in Marist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

In what is called the Cultural Dictionary, there is this definition for socialism: an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communist.

Within our own government we have experienced a slow movement in thinking, then policy, and ultimately programs that place us on the path to becoming increasingly more socialistic. Socialism is able to safely thrive in a democracy because a democracy is “the rule of the majority.” So if the majority of Americans can be persuaded to accept and embrace socialism, then this will be reflected at the ballot box.

During the past one hundred years, America has found it necessary to engage in wars that threatened, not just the very existence of other nations, but the existence of freedom itself. Our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers are today being denigrated and vilified as imperialists instead of the liberators they were, taking on fascism, communism, autocratic dictators and various other egocentric despots and defeating them.

I have been working my way through a book that is not light reading by any means. It has caused me to sit and mull over many of the things being offered. The book is, Common Sense, by Glenn Beck, a popular TV and radio talk show host. On the topic of government, he writes, “Our collective experience since the Founding has taught us that all governments of every stripe are fascist in nature. They will gobble up as much money, resources, and people as possible unless adequately checked. Governments are never static; they always grow. Communism, fascism, socialism, imperialism, and statism are all different ends accomplished through the same means: totalitarian, absolute government control over the individual. All these ‘isms’ simply reflect the mistaken belief that progressively larger governments are needed to address our problems.”

The first president to openly espouse socialism was Republican Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th president. Surprised? Don’t be. In a speech entitled, The New Nationalism, he said this about human welfare: “Personal property is subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require.” Our 28th president, Democrat Woodrow Wilson, was in agreement. “It is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.”

If you’re like me, you probably found yourself having to stop and reread those statements by Roosevelt and Wilson. Both parties from that time till now have continued to erode the freedoms of the nation by encroaching on our individual liberties and freedoms.

Beck writes, “When Americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. They are saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure.”

President Ronald Reagan warned us of the problem with government. He said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” A current Rasmussen telephone survey report finds that 59% of voters agree with Reagan, and just 28% disagree.

Our first president, George Washington, said this in regards to the problem with government. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

In light of current events, and the fact that our elected officials are supposed to work for us, do you honestly believe the government is representing you? Are your rights as an individual being protected? Is Congress making decisions that protect our nation from our enemies?

Let me remind you again. There are mid-term elections in November 2010. Are you registered to vote? There is power in an informed electorate! Get informed and get registered. Start today!

Cap-and-Trade

Following up on last week’s article about tort reform, I thought I’d address yet another misunderstood and confusing topic currently ballyhooed in the arena of political speechifying: Cap-and-Trade. Somehow you and I on Main Street America are supposed to know what all this stuff is. Most of us do not have the time or the inclination to research these topics being deliberated primarily within the hallowed halls of Congress.

Here’s my non-partisan, apolitical, reasonably unbiased, and thinly researched opinion on cap-and-trade.

To begin with, opponents of cap-and-trade have a name for this that is more descriptive to their position. They refer to this as “cap-and-tax.” So, right away you can see that each side has drawn their own conclusions as to the direction this bill might take us.

A definition of Cap-and-Trade I found (www.whatis.techtarget.com) says, “A cap-and-trade system is a market-based approach to controlling pollution that allows corporations or national governments to trade emissions allowances under an overall cap, or limit, on those emissions.” The goal of cap-and-trade is “to steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner” (web site for Center for American Progress).

This all sounds real good, and most people would be in favor of reducing harmful emissions, particularly of man-made emissions, such as bio-fuels (oil and gasoline products, typically), but there are some underlying issues here that need to be considered before a final decision is made. Principal among these is the issue of Global Warming. To buy into the cap-and-trade approach to resolving the problem, you have to have bought into the argument that man is causing global warming, if in fact there is even any global warming going on. Because we have automobiles, trucks, trains, factories, etc., we are polluting our environment, which is having an adverse effect on the world’s temperatures.

I remember flying into Los Angeles in 1965, leaving my beloved New England for a state that all of us back in the east were convinced was about to experience the mother of all earthquakes and slide off into the Pacific Ocean. Little did I realize that I would be completing my senior year in high school nine months later in Los Angeles, California. O, the ignominy of it all! The day I flew in to LAX it was raining. After the plane had rolled to a stop at the gate and I along with the other passengers were standing ready to de-plane, I became aware of a slight, but growing, burning sensation in my throat, and my eyes were watering from a stinging sensation. I thought, “What in the world is going on here?” Then I remembered the problem L.A. had with something called smog. Even with the rain, the smog managed to do its worst. Two years later I was playing football for a local college in L.A. It was brutal during practice sucking in this brown air. It was not uncommon for a player to be retching on the sidelines from being poisoned by smog. In 1974, after my stint in the Marine Corps, I was back in college, only this time at San Jose State University. San Jose also had a terrible smog problem. It is nasty and unhealthy, make no mistake. California took strong measures to reduce and practically eliminate this problem. But the question is, “Did this smog create global warming?” This is something I’m not convinced of. I also remember back in the late 70’s that the scientists were all telling us that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. So my question is, “Is it that the planet is getting colder, or warmer? Could it be that we have had that much of a change in only thirty years when we’ve been working so hard to reduce emissions?” During this time we’ve introduced unleaded gas, and placed stringent regulations on factories and businesses that were the main culprits in coughing out pollutants. We have cleaned up our air, and rivers and lakes. There’s still more to be done, but which is it – cooling or warming? You can’t have it both ways!

Once you accept the premise that this is all about global warming, then you can see where cap-and-trade comes in. You’ve heard of the “carbon footprint.” This is the calculated amount of carbon dioxide emitted by an individual, a business, or a country. The intent is to reduce this emission. Ultimately, we would be returning to a pristine condition on earth where man no longer interferes with the ecology. Ah, but that invites me to address this topic from a biblical and theological perspective. I’ll save that for another day. In the space I have left, allow me to draw a conclusion to the cap-and-trade issue.

Cap-and-trade is a tax on those businesses that cannot effectively reduce their emissions to meet a certain set of standards established by bureaucrats. A limit on emissions (the “cap” part of cap-and-trade) is set for companies to meet. Some companies will do so easily, while others will find this difficult – not because they are not willing to go along, but because they produce a product that is more likely to generate excessive emissions. Over time, each of these companies will be required to lessen their emissions. The “trade” part of cap-and-trade is allowing a company which is having difficulty meeting its cap to borrow (trade) from a company that is meeting its cap easily. If you fail to either meet the cap (or trade with those who do), bureaucrats will place levies on these companies which will economically destroy them.

There is a huge amount of money at stake here. My question is, “With this much money involved, do we really want big government to control cap-and-trade?”

Tort Reform

What exactly is tort reform?

This expression has been bandied about quite a bit lately, usually associated with the Health Care Bill before Congress. I have a suspicion that there are a number of us who are somewhat confused as to what tort reform actually is. Here goes….

From my layman’s perspective, I will attempt to explain what tort reform is. Here’s the Legal Dictionary definition of tort reform: “change or alteration of laws imposing civil liability for torts especially to limit liability for punitive damages.” Have you got that? No? How about this: “Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages.” Still confused? So am I. Entering into the topic of tort reform is daunting, so bear with me.

Let’s start with the word “tort.” What is the meaning of this word? The root of the word means “twisted.” Webster’s Dictionary says, “A wrongful act for which a civil action will lie except one involving a breach of contract.” What? This doesn’t help! Stay with me – I’m trying to figure this out. Here’s another way to look at tort: “Tort requires those responsible (or ‘at fault’) for harming others to compensate the victims, usually in money. The person injured can get a monetary payment to make up for their loss. This can include loss of income (while the person recovers), medical expenses and a payment for pain and suffering – even loss of a body part.” Lovely! Not really satisfied with these definitions, I called my brother, John, an attorney for a Washington DC law firm which handles corporate law. He told me that tort is simply a situation where a person or property is harmed or damaged, or a person’s character is wrongly besmirched.

Elsewhere it has been stated that “the classical purpose of tort is to provide full compensation for proved harm. This is known under the Latin phrase ‘Restitutio in integrum’ (restoration to the original state). In other words, the idea underpinning the law of tort is that if someone harms someone else, they should make up for it.”

At first blush this is all very reasonable in the manner in which it is intended. However, a major problem with tort reform is what is referred to as “frivolous lawsuits,” and then the “trial lawyers” who make a living on such cases. This is a situation where in medical circles, lawsuits are often leveled against doctors who have allegedly mishandled a patient either through misdiagnosis, or a botched surgical procedure. The tort idea was originally intended to protect the patient from a physician’s malpractice. Because of the supposed “deep pockets” of the physicians and especially the health care industry in general, many frivolous lawsuits appeared. Frivolous lawsuits are when there is no evidence of a doctor failing to perform his duties as a physician; but so as to avoid having to go to court it is simpler and less expensive for doctors and insurance companies to settle such matters out of court. Those seeking to reform the health care industry are attempting to limit the amount of money asked in compensation for alleged malpractice. Doctors pay annually enormous amounts of money for malpractice insurance. Most do so in order to continue to practice medicine. Some doctors refuse to pay for malpractice insurance, trusting that their services will be appreciated by those they treat. They do so at great risk, because they could be sued and lose everything they have worked for. They also refuse to pay for malpractice insurance because it allows them to keep their costs to their patients down.

My friend, Will, is a retired Navy doctor. He gave me an interesting view on all of this. When I asked him what his thoughts were on tort reform, he responded, “Shakespeare said it best: ‘Kill all the lawyers.’” He then told me that tort reform is not in any of the health care bills presently before Congress. I asked him why that was. He said it is because Congress is afraid to take on the trial lawyers. He postulates that as much as 30% of current medical costs could be significantly reduced simply by removing the excessive number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors.

Recently, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, Howard Dean, made a very enlightening statement in a town hall meeting. “Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka ‘Tort reform’), Dean responded by saying, ‘The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.’”

Let me sum this up with a quote I ran across. This admonishment from James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States (1881), is something each and every American needs to remember this time next year when we are preparing to vote on our congressional representatives in the mid-term elections.

“Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body (Congress) be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.”

Pay attention. Get informed. And vote!