WND strikes again

Color me very impressed. Last year, Jack Cashill's textual analysis of Dreams From My Father, Obama's purported autobiography, led him to conclude it was written by Bill Ayers. Last week, a new Obama biography by Christopher Anderson appeared to support that claim, and now Bill Ayers reportedly confirmed it to Ann Leary of Back Yard Conservative.

"That's what I do, education," he said. "You shouldn't believe everything you hear about me... You know nothing about me."

To which she responded, "I said, I know plenty--I'm from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I'll post this."

I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.

But he didn't scowl, and didn't run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: "I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father... Michelle asked me to." Then he added "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties."

Anne responded, "Stop pulling my leg!"

But he repeated insistently, "I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers' other writing.]"

Anne responded, "I believe you probably heavily edited it."

Ayers stated firmly, "I wrote it."

Anne ended the conversation by saying "why would I believe you? You're a liar."

I don't know if Ayers wrote it or not, but I'm entirely confident that Obama didn't. Very few politicians and public figures write their own books, and Obama is far too much of an empty suit to have written the two that have his name on them. The only thing that's credible about it is the narcissism involved in "writing" two autobiographies when he hadn't accomplished a damn thing.

Comments ()

Busted!

Paul Krugman has been writing about how he knew the stimulus package would be too small. But what size stimulus package did he actually recommend in November 2008?

I wrote this morning’s column partly because I had a hunch that the Obama people might be thinking too small on stimulus. Now I have more than a hunch – I’ve heard an unreliable rumor! So let’s talk about stimulus math, as I see it.... When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.

The stimulus package which Krugman is now saying he knew was too small was $787 billion. Needless to say, his response was completely predictable. Note also that he thought GDP was going to be $15 trillion in 2009... it was $14.2 trillion in the second quarter. That must be one hell of a jobless, but V-shaped recovery he's anticipating, as it would require 11.3 percent economic growth over the third and fourth quarters.

Thanks to MM, who dug this one up from the NYT archives.

Comments ()

Mailvox: the government as economic actor

BT wants to know the difference between government stimulus and private investment:

I know you are vehemently opposed to the government intervention in free market. Now, I understand what can happen if Government dictates the prices and directly regulate demand and supply like the old communist countries. But what is wrong with government playing as yet another individual player in a free market? For example, can we not consider the stimulus package just like an investment from a private party? I believe that if a wealthy individual throws in 700 billion dollars into the market, that can indeed pull up a sinking economy. So, why not the Government act as such an individual? I guess the discussion should be more about the source of the Government funds. If the 700 billion is something that Government "saved" from the tax money, then it is "good money" that cannot devalue the currency and hence the stimulus is good. On the other hand, if Government prints these 700 billion, then currency gets devalued. But again, if this surplus 700 billion can create an economic activity that nullify the price devaluation, then printing money is also worth it, right?

The reason is two-fold. First, government money doesn't come from nowhere, it is either taken out of the private economy or printed. Printing the money is bad because it directly reduces the value of money through inflation. It would have to generate at least $700 billion in new economic activity just to break even; since the calculated multiple of World War II government spending was 0.8, this means that inflation-based government spending is always a net loser even when it is considered to have been successful.

If the spending is tax-based, then this requires that the $700 billion in government-dictated economic activity be more effective than the $700 billion in private economic activity it replaces. Given that government spending tends to go to places like Goldman Sachs, ACORN, and various government bureaucracies, there can be no doubt that this is very seldom going to be the case. The government is an economic actor, it's just a crude and extraordinarily inefficient one.

The essential problem is that very few people spend other people's money with anything close to the same degree of care and efficiency that they spend their own. This is particularly true of the sort of narcissistic, superficial individuals who are drawn to careers in politics. In the immortal words of PJ O'Rourke, giving money and power to politicians is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys.

Comments ()

George Will slaps around the Obamas

And he does so with all the deep contempt of a genuine wordsmith for a cheap charlatan:

In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

What is going to do Obama in is not the fact that his political ideology is evil, though it is, or that his economic ideology is hopeless, though it is too. It's not the disinterest in all things martial. It's not even the widespread doubts about his legitimacy that most threaten him. The reason that the American people who previously adored him are beginning to turn on him is that the man has repeatedly shown himself to be a very unpresidential pretentious ass.

I always thought the man was a lightweight laughingstock and very much appreciate the way in which his administration is actually managing to outperform its comedic potential. By the end of his first - and likely, only - term, I expect a majority of the American people will agree with me.

Comments ()

Mailvox: God detests you

Whereas I merely hold you in intellectual contempt. If I were a typical atheist whiner, I'd worry a lot more about the former than the latter. Bob writes:

I came here with the genuine wish to learn why people believe what they believe and find myself so terribly disappointed. Here is a blogger that instead of explaining himself prefers to sling insults at others. I do not understand his letters to the comprehensible Luke and so am branded unintelligent. I am not unintelligent. I put it to Mr Vox that an intelligent man would be able to explain himself in words that the average person can understand (and certainly me). I also put it to Mr Vox that it is his responsibility to explain himself in words that the average person can understand as he is a Christian and his words could very well save the idle reader. Alas instead he insults the idle reader who is now adding another name to the list of hateful Christians, increasing the size of the wedge between me and faith.

Bob appears to have missed the point that the unintelligence is relative, not absolute. And actually, Bob is learning quite a bit about the Bible, God's attitude towards men like him, and the guidance it actually provides to Christians here. I must also point out that Bob is not only a whiner, but a proven liar, as I have explained numerous things in great detail in my two letters to Luke as well as in the associated comments. I deny that I have slung any insults that are not accurate and independently verifiable observations; a commenter may find it insulting when I point out that he has completely failed to understand something that is both logical and supported by the relevant documentation, but that does not change the observable fact that he failed to understand it. Those who don't like it when I describe them as lacking in relative intelligence would be wiser to demonstrate the superior intelligence they claim to possess rather than its opposite.

In THE RULES OF THE BLOG I make it very clear that I will respond in the manner I am addressed. This includes passive-aggressiveness and snark, which will be treated in the same manner as more direct attacks. If you think any professional writer, let alone a Superintelligence, is incapable of detecting such faux-civility, let me assure you that you are delusional. As I also point out in the rules it is wise to ask if your assumptions are correct before you elect to launch a critical attack based on those assumptions. I have been writing controversial opinion commentary on a very public site for eight years, so the chances are reasonably high that I saw and successfully dealt with your argument long before you first formulated your thoughts on the subject, particularly if they are related to a subject as old as Christianity.

Let me give an example from the comments yesterday. Instead of simply asking the obvious question: "isn't that a circular argument", Silver Bullet first incorrectly asserts that my explanation for why I am a Christian involves circular reasoning. Then, after I and others explain that he has improperly summarized my explanation and correctly inform him that there is no circular reasoning involved, he improperly summarizes it again, then assumes a condescending posture, claims that my dissertation is "ridiculous" and that my response to his criticism is "ignorant." At no time has he ever stopped to simply ask the obvious question: "why do you believe that your argument is not circular?" He's not the least bit interested in being informed, he's simply an unintelligent, illogical ankle-biter who merits nothing better than a brutal and contemptuous slapdown. It is very easy to demonstrate how he has been wrong about the logic of the explanation - note that it's not even an argument - from the start. Also note that he substitutes "Why do you believe in the Christian God" for "Why are you a Christian" throughout his comments, which is incorrect but irrelevant as I can show his illogic even using his own rephrasing.

1) Why do you believe in the Christian God?
Why do you believe in the government.

2) Because I believe in the Christian definition of evil.
Because I believe in the government's definition of crime.

3) What is the Christian definition of evil?
What is the government's definition of crime?

4) That which is defined as evil in the Bible.
That which is defined as crime in the statutes.

Now, Silver Bullet's logic claims that because “violation of the government's laws” and “that which is defined as crime in the statutes” are interchangeable in meaning, the argument is intrinsically circular. He explains, as to an 8 year old, that a statute can’t confirm government-defined crime since government-defined crime is based on the statutes. Now, this would be true if it weren't for the obvious fact that the actions which the government defines as crime can be confirmed to exist independently of the statutes.

Returning to the subject, it's clear that Bob is more familiar with Sunday School theology than with the Bible, let alone any sophisticated Christian analyses. Not only is it not my responsibility to explain anything to anyone who willfully refuses to seriously entertain reasonable answers to questions he has asked, it is actually my duty to help other Christians avoid the dishonest snares that this sort of deceiver often makes a habit of laying. According to the Bible, God considers it righteous to detest the sort of dishonesty we see on a regular basis from a certain type of atheist. He also detests the thoughts of the wicked, His curse is on them, He discards them like dross, and promises to destroy all of them even as He laughs at them. One can even reasonably interpret His detestation of their sacrifices to indicate that He despises their good deeds. This message of Divine detestation for a certain kind of individual is consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

So, who are the wicked? Those who detest the upright. Those who suppress the truth. Those who abuse those who correct them. Those who say: "No one sees me... I am, and there is none besides me." (Isaiah 47:10)

Now, please note that I am not describing atheists such as Luke here, at least not on the basis of the evidence of his two letters to date. Ignorance and errors of logic are very different from dishonesty; anyone can be wrong but no one has to lie, misrepresent, or otherwise attempt to deceive. There are indisputably a number of atheist regulars here who I have found to be honest, intelligent, and even in some cases genuinely truth-seeking. They simply lack faith for a variety of reasons, some of them very understandable. For example, who can truly blame Charles Darwin for the shattering of his Christian faith after the death of his beloved daughter? After all, few have the fortitude of Job; every Christian should pray that his faith is never put to such a terrible test.

It's worth noting that even the Bible distinguishes between godlessness and wickedness, although the two often coincide. But isn't it amazing that a text more than two thousand years old can so perfectly describe the behavior of certain individuals today?

A fool's lips bring him strife,
and his mouth invites a beating.
- Proverbs 18:6

Finally, brothers, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you. And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith.
- 2nd Thessalonians 3:1-2

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
- Romans 1:29-30

Fortunately, wickedness is a choice, as is repentance. And every mocker, every fool, every dishonest, godless, would-be critic here knows that they have consciously made that choice, even if they will never admit it to anyone. No doubt it would tear at the heart of a better man than me that some so firmly prefer wickedness to wisdom and deception to truth, but I have to confess that their self-destructive choice does not trouble me in the slightest.

Comments ()

Vikes-Pack round one

I like the Vikings tonight because I think Favre is more fired up about playing the Packers than the Packers are about playing Favre. Also, the banged-up Green Bay offensive line should give Jared Allen and the Williams twins a chance to beat up on Aaron Rodgers.

For the sake of the Meerkats, I'd like to see a shootout, though, since I've got Rodgers, Jennings, Harvin, and Shiancoe going tonight.

Comments ()

Rothbard anticipates Krugman... again

Which is really rather remarkable, when you consider that the man has been dead for some time now. The amusing thing is that Paul Krugman has no idea how utterly predictable both the failure of the Obama economic plan and his own reaction to it was:

[T]he worst of it is that it was more or less predictable. I went back to my first blog post — January 6, 2009 — worrying that the Obama economic plan was too cautious. I wrote:

This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats. I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.” Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.

Alas, I didn’t have it wrong — except that unemployment will, if we’re lucky, peak around 10 percent, not 9.

Here's a prediction: U-3 unemployment won't peak around 10 percent and when it doesn't, Krugman will come up with yet another excuse for his failed Keynesian theory that will relate to how the stimulus was either not implemented properly or was implemented too late on too small a scale... even if there is a third stimulus plan next year. It's amusing to note that according to his recent column, he genuinely believes that the $1.2 trillion stimulus plan of Romer's that he preferred to Obama's $787 billion plan - which is right around the $1.18 trillion plan that he implicitly recommended at the time - would have magically made the vital difference.

None of this is any surprise, of course, which is why I was able to anticipate Krugman's excuse-making two months before he began laying the foundation for it and ten months before he actually started making excuses. The reason it wasn't a surprise is because, as Murray Rothbard explained in America's Great Depression, this is the usual result when Keynesian theory fails in application, as it reliably does.

"Suppose a theory asserts that a certain policy will cure a depression. The government, obedient to the theory, puts the policy into effect. The depression is not cured. The critics and advocates of the theory now leap to the fore with interpretations. The critics say that failure proves the theory incorrect. The advocates say that the government erred in not pursuing the theory boldly enough, and that what is needed is stronger measures in the same direction."
- Murray Rothbard, America's Great Depression, 1963

But as bad as Krugman is when he's ineptly trying to make forecasts using his own flawed Keynesian models, he's utterly hopeless when trying to critique other theories that he quite clearly doesn't know or understand. Here he unwisely attacks Arnold Kling, and, by extension, Joseph Schumpeter.

It’s all there: mass unemployment is necessary, because you have to shift resources away from sectors that got too big, stimulus is a bad thing because it slows the necessary adjustment. And now as then, the whole notion falls apart when you ask why, say, a housing boom — which requires shifting resources into housing — doesn’t produce the same kind of unemployment as a housing bust that shifts resources out of housing.

Sweet John Maynard but the man can really be astoundingly obtuse at times. He seriously can't figure out why a boom doesn't produce the same kind of unemployment that a bust does? It's as if the Keynesian focus on the aggregate economy completely destroys an economist's ability to focus on anything smaller than the entire economy, like an economic sector or an industry. He does have a point, though. It never made sense to go back to Schumpeter's 1934 macroeconomics, since Mises already had this process nailed down in 1912 in his Theory of Money and Credit.

The housing boom, which was fueled by debt, causes resources to be shifted out of other sectors into housing. This doesn't cause unemployment because the women who leave their office jobs to become real estate agents and the men who leave their auto manufacturing jobs to become construction workers aren't unemployed. Once the creation of new debt subsides, whether it is because the central bank increased interest rates, banks stop lending, or consumers stop borrowing, the bust begins but the housing industry workers who lose their jobs can't go back to their old jobs because those jobs don't exist. It's not as a decrease in demand for housing necessitates an increase in demand in some other sector of the economy. So, in this case, they become unemployed.

The reason stimulus is a bad thing is because it props up the malinvested industry at an artificial level of demand and pays for workers who would otherwise be unemployed to make things that no one is willing to pay for at current prices. (Or, as is more often the case these days, is unwilling to go into additional debt for in order to buy.) As the September plunge in car sales shows, the industry will collapse as soon as the government stops propping it up. And, to the extent it prevents capital resources and those otherwise unemployed people from going out and working in more productive industries, it harms the prospect of future economic growth.

Comments ()

24 days out

Here's a bit more news about my forthcoming book. First, I'm pleased to be able to say that the publisher has agreed to make The Return of the Great Depression available for only $1.99 on Kindle and Scribd. Second, I sent pre-release galleys to a few writers and business executives with whom I am acquainted; you may recall that the Mogambo Guru thought rather well of the book. Here's what an executive at a large European industrial concern had to say about it. I should probably mention that by "large", I mean that its revenues would pass for national GDP in some parts of the world.

“The upward and downward excess we have been observing in the global economy for the last years suggested there was something wrong. It must be recognized that the system is addicted by false and questionable principles of monetary policy which finally brought many enterprises to unreliable business forecasts and disastrous, unsustainable capital expenditures. This book is an analytic and courageous accusation against those principles, and suggests disruptive, clear-cut, and practical solutions which are quite far from those recently adopted by governments and central banks. I strongly recommend it as vademecum to any business executive.”

It was interesting how this executive found RGD to be useful in articulating the reasons behind what he was already observing in his professional capacity, which spans four continents. The ominous synchronicity between book theory and business reality here is that two weekends ago, he told me that the moderate improvement his industry had seen since the spring appears to have been little more than inventory restocking, as the industry's new orders are now looking worse than they were in January.

Comments ()

WND column

Ireland Surrenders Again

So, it was all for nothing. All the pain, bloodshed and sacrifice has gone for naught. The Rebellion of 1878, the Young Irelanders, the 1919 War of Independence, Sunday, bloody Sunday, the bombings in Belfast, the assassination of Lord Mountbatten, last year's "No" vote and every other aspect of the long and bitter struggle for Irish independence was to no purpose. On Oct. 3, 2009, the voters of the Republic of Ireland threw away their hard-won sovereignty out of fear, naiveté and greed for nothing more than the deceitful promises of the Eurocrats.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has more on the debacle.

Comments ()

It's already negative

As I've been saying has been the case for months now, the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund is officially OUT. From the FDIC:

11. When is the DIF expected to go negative?

FDIC estimates that the DIF balance as of September 30, 2009 will be negative.

I have the negative balance now between -$4.8 billion (est. losses) and -$15.3 billion (est. losses x average historical multiple for actual bank losses). Of course, the FDIC claims this is "a non-event for depositors", which would appear to indicate that the fund was never anything but a publicity stunt in order to keep depositors placid.

Comments ()

NFL Week 4

While the Border Battle will be even more heated than usual this week - which would appear to settle the ongoing question regarding whether the Bears or the Vikings are now Green Bay's primary rivals - I'm quite curious to learn if the Jets are for real. Sportswriters love a swaggering, gambling defense, but as TMQ has repeatedly pointed out in the past, such defenses tend to crumble at inopportune times. I'm also a bit skeptical of Sanchez being all that he's cracked up to be.

I think Baltimore looks like the most impressive team thus far and if they're able to beat up on what looks like a less than invulnerable Patriots team, this will establish them as the early Super Bowl favorite. While last week's game was incredibly exciting and San Francisco isn't the complete pushover they were expected to be, the reality is that the Vikes haven't looked at all dominating in beating three weak opponents they were expected to beat. On the other hand, an easy schedule and an absence of injuries are two of the primary factors underlying success in the NFL and you can only beat the teams you play. If they can beat Green Bay convincingly this week, they'll merit being taken seriously as a potential contender. Otherwise, the jury will remain out.

Comments ()

'Ware the weasel

Good on Boris! I don't believe David Cameron has any intention of holding a referendum unless he is absolutely forced to do so:

David Cameron today dug in over Europe and set himself at odds with Boris Johnson by refusing to say whether the Conservative Party would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it comes into force before the general election. The Tory leader will try to face down his party this week in Manchester by claiming that the Conservatives should have “one policy at a time”: to promise to hold a referendum while the treaty is still being debated elsewhere in Europe.

Daniel Hannan or some other popular Euroskeptic ought to challenge Cameron for the Tory leadership if he will not commit explicitly to holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and abrogating it if the English people vote against the it. Cameron being a moderate EUnik was obviously hoping that the Irish would relieve him of having to take a public Euroskeptic position, but if he won't, UKIP will become the UK's second party.

Which they may do anyhow. It's not as if the EU is going to become any more popular as hope that the European economy is in recovery now slowly dissipates.

Comments ()

Because 453 years of British rule wasn't enough

Remember this vote the next time someone tells you, with a straight face, that people want to be free:

Irish voters approved the European Union's Lisbon Treaty in a substantial shift of sentiment, with 67% voting in favor and 33% against, according to the final count announced Saturday.... The Irish last June rejected the treaty—which will establish a permanent president and foreign minister for the EU, and give more authority to Brussels— by 53% to 47% in a referendum.

Fools. Utter, utter fools. They so richly deserve exactly what they're going to get. Fortunately, given the complete cluelessness of the Irish electorate, this is the last time they'll be permitted to vote on anything meaningful. I used to wonder how Hitler won overwhelming plebiscites supporting his outrageous centralization and expansion of power. It's not a mystery anymore.

Comments ()

A rethink may be in order

Let me get this straight. The plan is to stick around occupying Afghanistan until these guys have been made into a more effective military?

An Afghan soldier on guard at a joint base with U.S. troops shot dead two American servicemen and wounded two others as they slept, a provincial official said on Saturday.

It's over. It hasn't worked. It was never going to work. Deal with it.

Comments ()

Letter to Common Sense Atheism II

Dear Luke,

I was a little disappointed by the way your second letter appeared to indicate that this discourse is already on the verge of devolving into the very sort of debate that you originally proposed avoiding. Fortunately, I think we can avert that by focusing on the question you originally posed to me, namely, why I am a Christian. Evolution has no more to do with why I am a Christian than the ontological argument, and for all that you might like to discuss those things, they are simply not relevant to the subject. Now, as to the six sections of your last letter, the first two can be readily dismissed. Regarding the first, I can only say that when I initiate a public discourse with an established figure whose views are well-known to the audience, I prefer to operate out of as little ignorance as possible. If you happen to feel otherwise, that is certainly your prerogative.

As to the second point, entitled “Creationism and evolution”, I must inform you that you are both off-topic and incorrect. It is not possible for you to have investigated the matter, much less to have discredited what I wrote, as you clearly did not understand what I am talking about in any of the three statements I made. If you do happen to investigate them in the future you will discover, as others have before you, that it isn't even possible to credibly dispute them. Perhaps if you had read more of my work, you would know that my criticisms are seldom the expected ones, even if they happen to look superficially similar to those that have been articulated before by others. And you would also know that professional, academic, and scientific consensus mean absolutely nothing to me when I have examined the supporting facts and logic and reached contrary conclusions. As it happens, in three weeks my publisher will release a book in which I detail the fatal flaws that render invalid a theory that predates the modern evolutionary synthesis and is equally well-established in its scientific field. But, as I noted previously, precisely none of this is relevant to the topic at hand! You wrote to claim that you can't let me get away with my answers, but I am afraid you have no other choice. You chose to ask an irrelevant question and I answered it. It is of no concern to me what you might happen to think of the answer as neither my answer nor your opinion is pertinent to the present discussion.

Now onto the third point, which happily is a relevant one. You wrote:

You write as if Christianity is the only worldview that has an account of evil, but this is absurd. All religions have an account of evil. So evil is just as much evidence for their truth as for the truth of Christianity.

There are several problems here. You begin by incorrectly identifying an implication that simply is not there. I have never denied that other religions possess accounts of evil. Every worldview except that of the rational materialist has a more or less coherent account of evil, but the salient point is that those accounts of evil are all very different. Therefore, the question is: of those various accounts of evil, which most closely parallels the evil that we can observe and experience in the material world? For example, if we say that rape is evil, are we saying that it is an illusion, a personally distasteful confluence of atoms, a minor property crime against the father, or a grievous offense against God's Will involving the desecration of one of His fleshly temples? Clearly your conclusion is incorrect because evil cannot provide the same evidence for the truth of competing accounts of evil. Also incorrect is your description of the Christian concept of evil as “a roaming magical force that hunts us down and seeks to destroy us”. Evil can be external but it is internal as well, because the Christian concept of evil is simply that which violates the Will of God. Satan is merely one of many evils, perhaps the greatest example of it, but far from the only one.

I very much agree with you when you write that “an all-good, all-powerful God doesn’t fit very cleanly with the amount of pointless suffering we see all around the world.” Of course, your statement does little more than confirm your unfamiliarity with both the Bible and Christian theology that I originally suspected, for as I wrote in my previous letter: “[U]nless you can understand why the first book in C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy is called Out of the Silent Planet, unless you fully grasp the implications of the temptation of Jesus in the desert, you cannot possibly understand much about Christianity or the degree of difference between it and other religions.” The Christian God does not rule this world. The being that Jesus described as “the prince of this world” in John 14:30 does. To fail to understand this vital point is to completely fail to understand Christianity, since one cannot possibly understand the significance of the Redeemer if one does not understand from what, and from whom, Man must be redeemed. While it is true there are Christians who disagree with me on this point and insist that this world is precisely as God planned it and therefore the best of all possible worlds, that evil is an integral part of God's perfect plan, and that the whole Redemption of Man is merely some sort of elaborate Kabuki dance where the pre-ordained steps are robotically followed, but my view of omniderigence is well-documented.

Since your understanding of my argument was demonstrably incorrect and your criticism of it verifiably false, it is clear that my belief in Christianity remains rationally justified even if I cannot conclusively prove its truth to anyone else's satisfaction. I am curious, however, in your interest in seeing me argue for the existence of evil. While I have no objection to doing so given the obvious relevance of the matter, I must first understand something about your definition of evil. Do you believe in the existence of objective evil or do you believe that evil is a purely subjective matter?

I also note that given your obvious failure to correctly grasp some central aspects of Christian theology, the rational basis of your rejection of Christianity is necessarily called into question. As I'm sure you understand, the truth or falsehood of Christianity is not dependent upon your intellectual limitations. Or mine, for that matter.

On the fourth point, you write:

No doubt, Christianity is different. Every religion is different from all the others. But uniqueness is no measure of truth. Raëlism is pretty unique. So are Jedi-ism, Scientology, the John Coltrane Church, and many other things. But that does nothing to increase their probability of being true.

You're correct, the mere fact of uniqueness does nothing to increase the probability of anything being true. The problem is, that is tangential to the point I actually made when I wrote that Christianity was a better guide to human behavior than those other religions, and than the very best models the social sciences have produced despite having two thousand more years of human experience upon which to draw. That does increase its probability of being true, even from the secular, scientific perspective.

On the fifth point, I am pleased that you find my perspective to be consistent. That you find it terrifying is entirely appropriate, since I think people should be terrified by the idea that the world is ruled by an intelligent, evil, genocidal being. I would find it terrifying too, were it not for the fact that I believe in a greater power that has given men the ability to be free of that rule. Fear, and freedom from it, is an important theme in the Bible as we would not so often be told “do not be afraid” if there was not something to quite reasonably fear. However, I have to point out that it is fundamentally unreasonable to fear my perspective if the Christian worldview is incorrect. The madness that could hypothetically lead me to conclude I am hearing a divine command to commit murder, for example, is not only no more likely to occur than any other form of lethal madness, but possesses an inherent restriction upon it that other forms of madness do not. Since God has not hitherto issued any such direct commands to me or anyone else of whom I am aware in quite some time now, the Biblical directive to test such phenomena would naturally call for some rather strict criteria. And, since Christians have been scientifically demonstrated to be happier and less subject to the sort of mental disease that such a scenario requires than non-Christians, it is obvious that any fear of Christians mistakenly believing they are divinely appointed to commit havoc is neither reasonable nor scientific.

On the sixth point, I have no problem whatsoever admitting that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, even if it were demonstrated to be an incontrovertible historical fact, does not conclusively prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that there is an immortal soul, that Heaven exists, or that Jesus is the only way to it. This isn't in dispute; Jesus not only knew all this himself, but he outright predicted that there would be many men who would refuse to believe despite the wondrous signs they had been shown. Richard Dawkins is only one of numerous atheists who insist that they would not believe in God even if they encountered him directly. Belief is only half of the salvation equation anyhow, and it is the less important half.

The reason Christianity is rationally justified even though the ontological argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument, the magical resurrection of Jesus, and the existence of evil do not entail the complete truth of Christianity – which, according to 1 Corinthians 13:11, every Christian knows we cannot know – but they still suffice to establish the Bible as the most credible authority regarding that which is unknown. This would, in Daniel Dennett's terms, justify the doxastic division of labor on the part of the Christian, in fact, it would make it a logical necessity. If we accept your hypothetical suggestion that the Bible genuinely confounds our current understanding of science, then obviously the most rational position is to accept the tenets and dictates of Christianity than to cling to the inferior verities of science, to say nothing of those other religions whose claim on observable, experiential reality is even more tenuous. This, of course, has nothing to do with why I believe, much less worship, but I think it should satisfy your desire to assert that various common arguments on behalf of the existence of God don't actually prove the truth of Christianity.

Belief, like love, is less a state of being than a continuous series of choices. However, it is clear from your consistent misunderstanding of my statements that the choices you and I have made to believe or not believe are different ones, based on fundamentally different concepts. I hope that I have clarified some of those concepts so that you have a better grasp of what those differences actually are. If, in your next letter, you would clarify whether you believe in the existence of evil or not, what you believe its nature to be, and whether that nature is objective or subjective, I can then begin to inquire further as to the foundation of your beliefs.

With regards,
Vox

This was written in response to 2nd Letter to Vox Day.

Comments ()

The Federal Reserve is wrong again

I don't mean wrong in the sense that they have announced that the economy is recovering, but it really isn't. Well, yes, they're wrong in that regard too, but I have something a little more specific and immediately verifiable in mind:

The Fed's forecasts, released as part of the minutes from its April meeting, show that its staff now expects the unemployment rate to rise to between 9.2% and 9.6% this year. The central bank had forecast in January that the jobless rate would be in a range of 8.5% to 8.8%, but the unemployment rate topped that in April, hitting 8.9%.

Mish notes the fact of two Fed forecasts, one in January and one in May. Each declared a maximum U-3 unemployment rate, first 8.8 percent, then 9.6 percent. Today, the BLS announced that U-3 unemployment hit 9.8 percent, with U-6 unemployment at 17 percent.

Note that the Fed's vast team of academic economists armed with PhDs can't get to within 98 percent precision in two tries, the latter only four months out, while I was able to forecast U.S. housing prices at 99.3 percent accuracy eleven months in advance. (The mid-range of their nine-month forecast was only at the 88.8 percent level!) Now, bearing in mind that I have absolutely no idea what the price of money or the size of the money supply should be, why in the name of the netherest nether Hell should anyone believe that they do?

Comments ()

Reading List

1. We are Doomed by John Derbyshire

2. Ilium by Dan Simmons

3. Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg

---

End the Fed by Ron Paul: 10/10. I'll be reviewing this in more detail soon and have requested an interview with him. A fascinating book; it significantly surpassed my expectations.

The Empire series by Conn Iggulden: 6/10. Lightly alternative historical mind candy. It was entertaining enough and the man clearly did his homework, but I still don't see the point of trying to turn Brutus and Caesar into David and Jonathan just to get a bit more dramatic bang out of that final "et tu, Brutus?" The relationship was never really convincing and it weakened Caesar's character significantly. Caesar winds up coming off a bit schizophrenic, as Iggulden is forced to juggle between portraying the historical Caesar capable of his astounding actions and the kinder, gentler romantic that Iggulden wants him to be in order to serve the story. Brutus, on the other hand, would be convincing if only he wasn't the bestest blade in the West... I mean, Rome.

The Painter of Battles by Arturo Perez Reverte: 8/10. A brutal book by a very good writer. Introspective and sparse, it paints an intriguing portrait of the narcissistic and unintentional evil of the compartmentalized intellectual. Shows definite flashes of greatness which are countered by occasional periods of textual tedium. The sort of book that leaves you staring at the ceiling afterward, contemplating Man's capacity for pointless depravity.

The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics by Michael Shermer: 7/10. I reviewed it at WorldNetDaily.

Comments ()

After the storm, or eye of it?

The Economist assumes the former. The facts suggest the latter:

Despite a welcome return to growth, the world economy is far from returning to “normal” activity. Unemployment is still rising and much manufacturing capacity remains idle. Many of the sources of today’s growth are temporary and precarious. The rebuilding of inventories will not boost firms’ output for long. Across the globe spending is being driven by government largesse, not animal spirits. Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is cushioning the damage to households’ and banks’ balance-sheets, but the underlying problems remain.

Auto sales collapsed to the level of previous lows as soon as the government funding was withdrawn. The same thing is going to happen to the rest of the economy, especially since most of the recorded "growth" in GDP is actually the result of a decline in imported goods sold. In the second quarter, the $71.2 billion fall in imports contributed more to GDP than the $41.4 billion increase in government spending.

Comments ()

Post demand-pull

And this is what happens when the demand curve snaps back. As soon as C4C ended, Ford and GM sales both dropped 37 percent. Credit-fueled demand never lasts once the money spigot is turned off.

Jun: Ford 153,210, GM 174,850
Jul: Ford 165,279, GM 188,156
Aug: Ford 182,149, GM 246,479
Sep: Ford 114,655, GM 155,679

According to Reuters, Ford had a 17.3 percent market share in June, prior to C4C, which suggests a September total of 660,000. GM had a 20.4 market share, indicating 760,000. Taken together, it comes to an estimate of 710,000 monthly sales and an 8.5 million annual rate.

Comments ()

Ron Paul on The Daily Show

Once again, an excellent performance by Dr. Paul. It was almost flawless, as the only thing he missed was to point out, in answer to one of Stewart's questions, that corporations are government entities created by governments. I just received my copy of End the Fed from his publisher and will be reviewing it soon.

Comments ()

Not the best start

Gene Quinn, a defender of patent law and IP, lays down an impressive challenge:

I challenge anyone to a debate on this topic anywhere, at any time, to be moderated by a mutually agreed panel or moderator. I know as well as everyone here that I will never be taken up on that offer. I wonder why? If I am so stupid and irresponsible and ignorant then someone take me up and prove to the world I am as such. Of course there will be no takers because in a true debate none of the nay-sayers stand any chance and would be exposed for what they truly are. Nevertheless, the challenge is made. I am sure the silence will be deafening. Or wait, even better... the response will be "there is no point in debating you because you are ." We all know that is what they are going to say, and rational people will understand that to be nothing more than cowardice.

Really? In order to disabuse Mr. Quinn of his belief in the cowardice of IP opponents, I sent him an email inviting him to a debate on the matter in Europe next spring. It will be interesting to see if he genuinely meant what he wrote or if it was mere rhetorical bluster. Being the holder of some IP myself, I'm far from a militant on the issue and am quite willing to be convinced if Mr. Quinn can present a compelling case, but at present I am deeply, deeply skeptical of the economic benefit of intellectual property protections by government.

Stephen Kinsella of the Mises Institute also didn't hesitate to dispel Mr. Quinn's doubts about the willingness of IP skeptics to take him on. Kinsella is far more versed on the subject than I am, but since I have more actual experience creating IP than he does, I expect our approaches would vary greatly.

UPDATE - The gentleman is well up for the challenge. We've exchanged email and if we can manage to coordinate things next spring in the venue I have in mind, will debate the issue then. I'll be sure to arrange that either a transcript or a video will be made available.

Comments ()

2nd Letter to Vox Day

Luke responds. Read the rest of his letter at Common Sense Atheism.

Vox,

Thanks for your reply. I’ll break this letter into sections for easier reading. I wish we had fewer differences to write about!

1. Research and discussion
You asked me why so many atheists want to discuss religion with you before reading your book on the subject. But that’s not an atheistic tendency. It’s a human tendency. We are all short on time. But I know how you feel. Every week I am barraged with questions about ethics that are answered in my short and well-organized Ethics F.A.Q., which is linked from above the fold on every page of my site!

I have skim read your book, enough to know that you and I agree about much of what the New Atheists have written. But no, I did not read every word. I have not browsed your blog archives. And I wouldn’t expect you to read my book or blog archives, either. I think we can clarify our views for each other well enough as we go along.

This was written in reply to my previous letter.

Comments ()