Does it Feel Good? Continued...

Continuing on the "Does It Feel Good?" vs. "Does It Do Good?" theme from the other day....

Gun Control: Calls for gun control after a public shooting even though none of the proposals would have prevented the shooting.  More gun control feels good.

The minimum wage: The overall net value is nothing.  It makes those getting the raise temporarily more happy (until prices adjust) and some people a lot less happy when they lose their job.  At best liberal economists will argue that it does no harm overall, admitting that it probably does no good.  But it feels good.

The Keystone Pipeline: Everyone acknowledges that it would've actually reduced carbon emissions and would have also reduced the risk of oil spills.  But environmentalists hated it and Obama killed it.   Why?  Oil pipelines don't feel good.  Killing the pipeline was environmentally "symbolic."

Paris Climate Talks: The talks were full of talk and not much else.  There are no legally binding agreements, and no means of enforcement.  But getting that many countries together to talk about "Climate Change" feels good. (Ask NPR).

Affirmative Action: It stigmatizes minorities and mismatches their current abilities with requirements.  But even if it did neither ill nor good, it definitely feels good.

That's all for now.  I bet if we thought about it we could come up with a pretty long list.

A Drawback of Finitude

My tenderhearted (& future existentialist?) five-year-old son has been crying at night for the last week or two.  When I have finally gotten him to tell me why he says:
"Today is over and it will never happen again."

He reminds me of one of the best reasons to think that God is timeless.

Yale Students Sign Petition to Repeal 1st Amendment

To laugh, cry, or both?

We need more of this--more exposure of what a consistent ideology looks like for the general public to see.  That would be a start.

Women to Register for Military Draft?

Here.

Women could soon have to register for the draft — if the US military is serious about achieving “true and pure equality,” according to a top military official.
“If your objective is true and pure equality then you have to look at all aspects [of the roles of women in the military],” declared Army Secretary John McHugh.

Makes sense to me if your goal is equal opportunity (to die) and outcomes through force of government might.  Of course, if your goal is military might, then it makes little sense in the first place to have mixed combat units.  But strengthening the military was never the goal.

See also The Truth About Women in Combat

Right and Left Explained in 5 Minutes

Right: Does it do good?  Left: Does it feel good?

This seems about right, at least as far as pithy explanations go.  It's certainly true that the left tends more towards subjectivism about value.

These fundamental stances explain the outrage and cries of racism directed towards Justice Scalia for noting a fact--that a lot of blacks flunked out of school due to affirmative action policies--and that they might be better off going to a lower tier school and passing.  (Of course, as Scalia himself noted, this question only applies to those blacks (etc.) admitted with lower qualifications.)  In short, he asked whether those policies actually do good.  Simply asking that question is impermissible.  Why?  Those questions might make some people feel bad.  This is essentially the objection that a panel on NPR reached the other day.

Ohioans and Arkansans Till We Die

Who's the Media Watchdog's Watchdog?

On NPR this afternoon (paraphrase):

According to the Founders, the media is to be the watchdog of politics.  But who watches over the media?  Who is the media's watchdog?  [NPR's] On the Media, that's who.

But, as journalists are want to say, this begs the question: who watches over the media's watchdog?

Me.

Who's Checking the Fact Checkers?

Time for a Moratorium on Immigration From Muslim Lands?

Unless you've been in a cave, you know that Donald Trump has called for a temporary halt (you wouldn't know it's temporary from most headlines) to immigration of Muslims, though the details, as usual for Trump, aren't very clear.

How about that proposal?  What is wrong with a temporary halt?  There are of course questions of international law no doubt, but what if anything would be wrong with a temporary halt in immigration from predominantly Muslim nations?  Can Americans not even have a reasonable debate about the question?  Why not?

The Maverick on an important question who anticipated Trump several days ago (and then I have follow-up thoughts):

And now San Bernardino.  It is surely 'interesting' that in supposedly conservative media venues such as Fox News there has been no discussion, in the wake of this latest instance of Islamic terrorism, of the obvious question whether immigration from Muslim lands should be put on hold. [TB: Again this was written prior to Trump's remarks]. Instead, time is wasted refuting silly liberal calls for more gun control.  'Interesting' but not surprising.  Political correctness is so pervasive that even conservatives are infected with it.  It is very hard for most of us, including conservatives, to believe that it is Islam itself and not the zealots of some hijacked version thereof that is the problem.  But slowly, and very painfully, people are waking up. But I am not sanguine that only a few more such bloody events will jolt us into alertness.  It will take many more.

So is it not eminently reasonable to call for a moratorium on immigration from Muslim lands?  [TB: This by the way if perfectly legal.] Here are some relevant points.  I would say that they add up to a strong cumulative case argument for a moratorium. 

1. There is no right to immigrate.  See here for some arguments contra the supposed right by Steven A. Camarota.  Here is my refutation of an argument pro.  My astute commenters add further considerations. Since there is no right to immigrate, immigrants are allowed in only if they meet certain criteria.  Surely we are under no obligation to allow in those who would destroy our way of life. 

2.  We philosophers will debate until doomsday about rights and duties and everything else.  But in the meantime, shouldn't  we in our capacity as citizens exercise prudence and advocate that our government exercise prudence?  So even if in the end  there is a right to immigrate, the prudent course would be to suspend this supposed right for the time being until  we get a better fix on what is going on.  Let's see if ISIS is contained or spreads.  Let's observe events in Europe and in Britain.  Let's see if Muslim leaders condemn terrorism.  Let's measure the extent of Muslim assimilation. 

3. "Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center." Here.  Now immigrants bring their culture and their values with them.  Most Muslims will bring a commitment to sharia with them.  But sharia is incompatible with our American values and the U. S. Constitution.  Right here we have a very powerful reason to disallow immigration from Muslim lands. 

4.  You will tell me that not all Muslims subscribe to sharia, and you will be right.  But how separate the sheep from the goats?  Do you trust government officials to do the vetting?  Are you not aware that people lie and that the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya justifies lying?  

5.  You will insist that not all Muslims are terrorists, and again you will be right. But almost all the terrorism in the world at the present time comes from Muslims acting upon Muslim beliefs.  Pay attention to the italicized phrase. There are two important related distinctions we need to make.

There's more.  Read the rest.

Is the Maverick right?  The case has some compelling force but more can be said.

Let us first get a couple preliminaries out of the way.  I can imagine the following, knee jerk reaction from some Christians:  "Jesus said love your enemies, the Old Testament prophets said good things about immigrants, therefore, U.S. policy should never restrict Muslims in any way from entering the U.S.!  Islamophobe!  Racist!"  This is about the level of argument I've been seeing recently.  Of course to anyone who has even slept through a critical thinking class it will be noted that the argument is invalid.

Not much better is the claim that Christians are to avoid fear and that Christianity is all about taking risks, therefore... Well, I don't know what follows the "therefore."  Certainly no particular policy proposals which follow cogently simply from Bible verses.  Moving from Bible verses to public policy without any other premises is a recipe for a non-sequitur.

Risk is not one of the theological virtues.  Risk is only good if the risk is prudent, i.e., wise.  It's not wise to give a homeless person a cup of soup if you have to walk your children through a field of landmines; it is manifestly unwise since the risk of death outweighs the benefit of a full belly.  Such examples are legion.  Nor is it always irrational to fear, though no one would fear, or course, in ideal conditions.

However I can also envision a not initially unreasonable response from some Christians.  Muslims are better off converting to Christianity.  Christians, at least, will agree to this (as well as non-Christians who esteem Christianity over Islam).  It might be asked, how better to bring about Muslim converts than by admitting them into the United States where there are lots of Evangelical Christians? Most Muslims appear to be assimilating well enough.  Few are terrorists.  In fact you (Borland!) have recently been posting excerpts from Nabeel Qureshi who converted to Christianity in the United States and whose Muslim parents appear to be fine, upstanding citizens.  In a similar vein, see also Francis Beckwith.

However there are questions worth asking: Are all Muslims going to hell?  (How about their children?)  How likely is Muslim conversion to Christianity in the U.S. now and in the future?  Would one be throwing pearls to swine or to sheep?  I don't know, I'm just asking.  It certainly seems less likely the more Muslims immigrate at a time: birds of a feather flock together.  If the epistemic probability of conversion is quite low, but the probability higher that an equal number of "non-saved" will be killed than those converted at this time, is it reasonable to think that refraining from a temporary moratorium is worth it? As I see it, it would not.  For based only on "souls saved" the cost would outweigh the benefit.  Not only is it bad that the "non-saved" are lost, it is bad for Muslims to kill innocents.  So it seems to be manifestly unreasonable never to suspend entry from Muslim lands if there is not reason to think that the costs outweigh the benefits for all concerned, those concerned including future generations of Americans who are not now able to weigh in on public policy.

Jesus' ethics is an ethics of love.  Christians no doubt have duties of love.  Christians are to be neighbors to those who are persecuted, to refugees in war-torn lands, as well as to their neighbors of proximity.  As such there is reason to lend assistance, for example, to Syrian refugees.  Such assistance could come in many forms, acceptance of refugees into the U.S. being one of those; monetary benefits another; relocation to other countries yet another.  Moreover, Christians in the U.S. have duties as well to U.S. citizens and future citizens down the line who have yet to born.  It does not follow from the fact that Christians have a duty to love their neighbors that they should advocate, for instance, for open borders as some Libertarians and Democrats suggest.  Nor does it follow straightaway that there should be a moratorium on taking in people from certain Muslim majority countries.  Wisdom requires looking at the available data and using it to make the best decisions we can in the midst of competing ideologies and factions in our democratic country--taking into account the concerns of many.

A few other questions: Do sovereigns of a country have a right to control immigration?  Do they have a right of refusal?  (Open borders?) Are you for a Christian theocracy?  Or do you think that Christianity instead should compel one to support a representative democracy?  Is Islam in its various manifestations compatible with a representative democracy?  Which variations are compatible?  Is Islam logically compatible, but does it tend towards theocracy or some other type of government?  Is there a reasonable cap to the number of Muslim immigrants a western democracy could withstand without political upheaval and social turmoil?  Would a political revolution be a good thing?

Some Christians suggest that it would.  Christianity thrives under persecution, they say.  But must it?   Surely Christianity would thrive in heaven where there is no persecution.  Surely Christianity does not need persecution in order to thrive, and surely it is preferable to thrive and not be persecuted.  Did Christianity thrive in the communist Soviet Union?  Has it in Muslim dominated countries?  In India?  Has it sometimes thrived where there is little persecution?  Will it thrive in a future United States under radically different conditions in the future?  Are such questions open for discussion?  The left loves to call for "conversations."  Are we allowed to have one about this?

Some future predictions are dire, especially for Europe.  Are such predictions right?  Can they not at least be entertained, discussed by reasonable people, and debated?
I leave you with Matthew Bracken. Hopefully he's wrong.  Excerpt:

Islam is similar to a self-replicating supercomputer virus. It is a hydra-headed monster, designed by its creators to be an unstoppable formula for global conquest. It’s almost impossible to eradicate, because it has no central brain or control center. Islam is like a starfish: when you cut off a limb, another grows to replace it. The names of the Muslim leaders, and the names of their Islamic groups, are transitory and ultimately unimportant. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are succeeded by Al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State, but they will all pass from the scene and be replaced by others. While Muslim leaders and regimes have come and gone, Islam itself has remained steadfastly at war with the non-Muslim world for 1,400 years.

Islam does not recognize secular national boundaries. To devout Muslims, there are only two significant realms of the world. First is the Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam, which is the land of the believers. The other is the Dar al-Harb — the House of War, which must be made Islamic by any means, including violent jihad. The expansion of Islam is sometimes held in check for long periods, but more often Islam is on the march, acquiring new territory. Once conquered by Islam, territory is rarely taken back, Spain being a notable exception.

The Muslim world produces almost no books or new inventions. Short of finding oil under their feet, most Islamic nations are backward and impoverished. So wherein lies the power source for Islam’s nearly constant expansion over the past fourteen centuries? The motor and the battery of Islam are the Koran and the Hadith, or sayings of Mohammed. A messianic Mahdi, Caliph or Ayatollah with sufficient charisma can accelerate Islam’s pace of conquest, but individual men are not the driving force.

Secular “Muslim in name only” strongmen from Saddam Hussein to Muamar Qadafi can hold Islamism in check for a period with brutal methods, but strongmen are often assassinated or otherwise removed from power, and in any event, they cannot live forever. Once the secular strongmen are gone, fanatical mullahs are able to stir their zealous Muslim followers into sufficient ardor to reinstall a radical Islamist regime under Sharia Law, according to the Koran.

This pattern of secular strongmen being followed by fanatical Islamist leaders has recurred many times over the past millennium and longer. Do not be fooled by modernists like King Abdullah of Jordan. To the true believer of Islam, any king or strongman is never more than a rifle shot or grenade toss away from being kinetically deposed, and replaced by another Islamist fanatic.
The persistent virulence of Mohammed’s 7th Century plan for global domination means that it is always ready to erupt in a fresh outbreak. Islam is like a brushfire or ringworm infection: it is dead and barren within the ring, but flares up where it parasitically feeds off the healthy non-Islamic societies around it. What produces this uniquely fanatical motivation, from within nations and peoples that otherwise seem devoid of energy and new ideas?

[...] 

Going into 2016, I believe that Europe is primed to become the central theater of a third world war. Like an overstrained zipper suddenly failing and bursting open from end to end, the European conflagration could well reignite simmering conflicts from the Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, due to interlocking alliances (NATO, including Turkey, vs. Russia), and the Sunni-Shia divide (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, which has been imported into Europe).
Yes, World War Three. But why now?

The rest of the story. 

A Transage Transgender "Mirl"?

A 6-year-old girl (who was formerly a 52-year-old man) deserted her wife and 7 children.

[Stefoknee Wolscht] thinks [ze] is actually a six year-old girl—not just a woman, but a six year-old girl—stuck in the body of a 50-something man.

At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his “true” life.
“I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children,” Wolscht admits. “But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult right now and I just live my life like I couldn’t when I was in school.”

He explains, “Well, I have a mummy and a daddy. [An] adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive. In fact, her youngest granddaughter… When I was eight. A year ago, I was eight, and she was seven. And she said to me, ‘I want you to be the little sister, so I’ll be nine.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t mind going to six.' So I’ve been six ever since.”

Identity change is now a fountain of youth.  Fascinating times in which we live.

I pity this guy and his family and have anger for all his sick enablers.  What he does not need is "play therapy."

Ted Cruz's Interview On Law

Excellent interview of Ted Cruz by Princeton's Robert George.  Among other things they discuss the Obergefell decision.  I haven't seen this sort of high level, engaging interview with any other candidate.  It's an hour long but well worth it.

Lincoln was absolutely right. I agree with President Lincoln and courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. The court interprets the law, applies the law, but courts don’t make law. And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. One candidate, Hillary Clinton, agrees with the court and embraces gay “marriage” and is happy that unelected judges had purported to tear down the marriage laws of all fifty states. On the Republican side, they’re quite a few Republicans who, when the gay “marriage” decision came down, they described it as the settled law of the land. It’s final; we must accept it, move on and surrender.

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama’s talking points and I think they are profoundly wrong. I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate. It was lawless. It was not based on the Constitution. I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. It is five unelected judges declaring themselves the rulers of three hundred and twenty million Americans. And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott, that state and local officials will refuse to obey this lawless decision. It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

The Story of Ted Cruz and Family

A heartwarming story of Ted Cruz and his Cuban immigrant family. It's only 11 minutes. (It's not "leaked" in any scandalous sense, by the way, but it's definitely worth watching.)

Trump and Hillary are in trouble.

Muhammad the Violent

Nabeel Qureshi:

     As I continued reading from volume 1, hadith 3, I found many hadith with teachings I had heard often, including that Muslims should avoid harming others (1.10), feed the poor and greet the strangers kindly (1.11), and even follow the golden rule (1.12).  No doubt, this was the loving, peaceful Islam I had always known.
     But when I arrived at hadith 1.24, my jaw dropped.
     In it, Muhammad says, "I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity...then they will save their lives and property from me."
Were my eyes playing tricks on me?  Muhammad was saying that he would fight people until they became Muslim or until he killed them and took their property.  That was impossible!  It ran counter to everything I knew about Muhammad, and it contradicted the Quran's clear statement that "there is no compulsion in religion."
     I simply could not believe it, and so I hurriedly moved on to the next hadith.  But 1.25 said that the greatest thing a Muslim can do after having faith is to engage in jihad.  As if to clarify what kind of jihad, Sahih Bukhari clarifies, "religious fighting."
[...]
     As I read through [Sufi biographer] Lings' book, I came across another section that challenged what I knew about Islam.  Titled "The Threshold of War," the chapter seemed to say that it was the Muslims who were the first aggressors against Mecca after Muhammad had migrated to Medina.  Muhammad sent eight Muslims to lie in wait for a Meccan trade caravan during the holy month.  Even though this was a time of sacred truce for Arabs, the Muslims killed one man, captured two others, and plundered their goods.
[...]
     ...Muhammad ordered a warrior to assassinate a mother of five, Asma bint Marwan.  She was breastfeeding a child when she was murdered, her blood splattering on her children.  When the assassin told Muhammad he had difficulty with what he had done, Muhammad showed no remorse.
[...]
     [I]n the aftermath of the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad captured and beheaded over five hundred men and teenage boys from the Jewish tribe of Qurayza.  After the Muslims killed the men, they sold the women and children into slavery and distributed their goods among themselves.
    Since this account was found in both hadith and sirah, the Muslims online could not argue that it was fabricated.  They instead looked to justify Muhammad's actions, usually arguing that the Jews had been treacherous and deserved what they got.  Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, pp. 219-222

A Gun Proposal I Can Get Behind!

Think of how many lives this would save!

Guns: NY Times Calls for...SOMETHING!

Front page editorial here.

Noteworthy quotations:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

This of course, is silly.  The guns are designed to fire for all sorts of purposes just like any other gun.  And why shouldn't citizens but sufficiently well-armed if the cops are?  The NY Times doesn't say.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true....They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. 

HA! It doesn't matter if taking away arms from law abiding citizens will do any good!  We have to do something!  Hoplophobia alive and well in New York!  All one can do is laugh.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Chilling.

Brian Doherty has the takedown here.  Excerpt:

The move the Times proposes with such ceremony and passion is so purely symbolic, so driven by a superstitious desire to placate fate by acting as if it is doing something to stop grotesque acts of terror like in San Bernardino, and so motivated by a desire to sock it to a huge proportion of their fellow citizens over a contentious and heated political and constitutional issue, and is being offered with such emphasis (first front page editorial in nearly a century) that one could imagine the Times is only proposing such a move as a stalking horse for seeing if the government can get away with successfully banning and confiscating a class of weapon, by starting with one with such a tenuous connection with public safety on a national level.
It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit—again, except for the benefit of showing Americans who believe that they have an inherent right to own weapons of self-defense if used in a peaceful fashion, as the staggeringly overwhelmingly vast majority of them are, that the Times and those in government they speak for have the power and will to give it to them, good and hard.

In other NY Times related propaganda news, does the Times think its readership is this stupid?  I guess so.  No mention at all that the "bill" to eliminate terror was not actually a bill but an amendment attached to yet another bill to defund Obamacare, neither of which had a prayer of becoming law.

Military Opening up ALL Combat Roles to Women

Here.

Well of course they will open all combat jobs to women.  I predicted it.  This has been a foregone conclusion for years in spite of any and all empirical studies or lack thereof.  Because the issue has never ever been about making the U.S. stronger militarily (as if the Navy Seals have really been slacking recently.)  The left loathes the U.S. and would love to have it knocked down a few pegs.

When is the last time you heard someone on the left complaining that our military is not strong enough?  When have you heard the Chomskys say that they want a stronger U.S. military and military presence in the world?  It's not about making the military stronger, as Obama the feckless and mendacious promises, it's about fundamentally changing America as progressives want to change it.  The '60's sexual revolutionaries are the institution.

Bill Clinton: First Ladies Man?

From a book I read this past year.  Interesting speculation from a close associate of the Clintons:

     "Everybody continues to talk about how badly [Bill] wants Hillary to run.  Why would he want to be the first spouse?" asks a close associate of both Clintons, and who suggests that Bill actually dreads the prospect.  "What's he going to do?  Live back in the White House and do the Christmas cards?"  The former president, who likes to dominate any conversation, is all but certain to be frustrated being confined to the East Wing, kept out of cabinet meetings, and out of the national security meetings in the Situation Room.  A man who has spent the last decade doing pretty much whatever he's wanted to do suddenly will have to have his movements, trips, and associations vetted and cleared by aides to his wife for fear of conflict of interest.
     What does all this portend for 2016?  A former president deeply conflicted.  On the one hand motivated by the altruistic thought that his wife deserves a shot at the presidency.  And on the other prone to give in to his darker qualities--selfishness and self-destructiveness.
     "He'll work his ass off to get her elected," one longtime Clinton friend suggests.  Taking a sip of coffee, he pauses before qualifying his statement.  "But in the back of his mind he would always be thinking, 'Maybe I'd be better off is she weren't elected.'"  He smiles.  "He could sabotage her.  ANn he'd be like, 'Oh, oops.'  And with him, honestly, it could be subconscious, but it's there. If it's there.  If it's conscious, if he's purposely doing it, that's some crazy shit."  ~Daniel Harper, Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine, pp.276-7

House of Cards?

The Concept of a Miracle

Miracles are often defined as violations of laws of nature, perhaps also with the proviso that they come from a god.  An alternative way of understanding a miracle is an event brought about by a supernatural being which no natural agent has the power to bring about.

Humeans sometimes complain that miracles just are violations of laws of nature (foot-stomp), and that there is something illicit about (re)defining miracles in such a way to avoid law violations.  But it seems to me that Humeans might be dead wrong in making this objection.  The ancient Greeks and Hebrews certainly had a concept of a miracle, but did they have a concept of a law of nature?  Probably not if we understand a law of nature as either a proposition describing powers of natural things, a universal, or a regularity.  Rather I suspect their concept of a miracle was simply an event or action brought about (or elicited) by an immaterial being or god.

Would they have added the proviso that no natural agent had the power to bring about the event or duplicate the action?  That I don't know.  The History Channel often provides a naturalistic account of alleged miracles.  For instance, a sea parting is unusual but it certainly seems like something that natural agents have the power to do.  Turning a rod into a snake would have definitely seemed unusual, but if one believed that natural agents could perform magic, then this would be another case where it might have been thought that a miracle could be duplicated.