Kenyans have been winning marathons all over the world. The Dutch have decided to try and keep them out by only giving 1% of the prize money to any foreigners who win the Utrech Marathon. I don’t think that’s racism, but I do believe it’s wrong anyway.

Don’t bet your life on outrageous claims by proponents of embryonic stem cell research. Someone  has, though.

Civility Watch: The Left has been sending death threats to the eeevil Koch brothers. The wrong Koch brothers.

Civility Watch 2: Who said, "Civility is the last refuge of scoundrels" and "Let’s not be civil"? (And said it in the same paper that blamed the Giffords shooting on incivility from Republicans.)

Civility Watch 3: If a Republican had said this, he would have been called "racist" or "Islamophobic". But a member of the Obama administration said it, so no outcry.

Do iPads cause unemployment? Does Jesse Jackson, Jr. think we should have banned cars to keep the buggy builders in business?

Hanging a small cross inside your company van is a firing offense in the UK, apparently.

A death panel in Canada pronounced their sentence on a baby in Ontario by saying that life support should be removed, against the parents’ wishes. Instead, they brought him to a country that, so far, does not have a fully socialized system (that would be America), and the child did so well that he was weaned off the ventilator and is now back home.  It’s still touch and go, I imagine, but critics said he’d never get off mechanical breathing. Way to go, baby Joseph! (Which begs the question; if the US goes fully socialized, where will Canadians go for good health care?)

And finally, the same old song. (Click for a larger image.)

Mr Schraub talks race. Before I get to the claim that slavery is America’s “Original Sin” I’d note that Mr Schraub says that the toxicity of being labeled racist makes “true dialog” about what constitutes racism impossible. ‘Cept that’s not really true. Racism is pretty a pretty simple thing to define. Racism is when one makes decisions or assessments based on race, e.g., voting for Mr Obama on account of his racial makeup. And yes, that makes most “race” activists racist themselves, which on reflection is quite obvious. Those who are conscious and likely to notice race are those more likely to make decisions based purely on that. Racism is felt quite universally to be a bad thing, yet given its prevalence, especially amongst those most vocal about the evils of racism and the neutrality of the definition given, perhaps what Mr Schraub is hinting at is that we need a better discussion of why racism is wrong. If one were to assume that the progressive/left is more racially conscious than the right … and therefore more racist is born up by the data linked last week that highlighted the finding that Black elected officials when elected from a mixed race district were more likely to be Republican than Democrat and those who were Democrat were more often from majority Black districts. In past conversations, Mr Schraub noted that race theorists indeed are aware that their work might serve to heighten and strengthen malign race consciousness that they hope to combat. Yes, but the personal imperatives of personal employment in their chosen field seems to defeat that idea quite handily. 

However, the primary point of this essay is to examine original sin in the context of American history.

St. Augustine of Hippo is perhaps the primary theologian influencing thought regarding Original Sin in the Western strand of Christian theological thought. There are a lot of parallels between that theology and strands of thought about slavery and race in America. Both notions suffer however, from the same sort of mistake. St. Augustine, in summary, taught that Adam’s primordial sin in the garden passes on to all of us. Adam as proto-human committed the sin of disobedience. All men, from birth, share in that guilt. From this viewpoint then, the importance of Penal Substitution and Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross becomes a linchpin of Western soteriology. 

This is however, a quite unnatural way to view justice. If my father steals, I and my children do not share in his guilt. The weight and import (the guilt if you will) of his crime, legal or moral, do not pass to his children. We don’t even consider that in sexual crimes, if a child results, that the child of that act is legally or morally impugned or tainted by that act (well, we don’t justifiably view the child in that way). This is the crux of Augustine’s error.

A better way of viewing Original Sin, which is the prevailing view in the Eastern/non-Augustinian strands of Christian theology, was that we do not inherit guilt or sin from Adam. What we inherit is his exile. Adam, by not being repentant, was cast from the Garden and God’s presence. The consequences of that are estrangement from God and death entering the world. He was exiled. We, as his descendants, share his exile (and to the point, not his guilt). To look at the example from a criminal point of view as was done above, if my parents were exiled as a result of my father’s crime, then I grow up in that place of exile. I inherit the consequence, that is my residence, not the guilt or blame. I and my children are not accountable for this act. From a theological perspective this means in the East, it is the Resurrection which is the dominant soteriological event, not the crucifixion. 

Take this back to the notions about American, race, and slavery. Guilt is, contra-Augustine, not heritable. The social conditions and ethnic consequences do exist. However, nobody living today is accountable for the actions begun in the 16th century by Bartolomé de las Casas and the social mechanisms that unfolded from those social/economic innovations. Perhaps it is the prevalence of St. Augustine’s error found so prevalently that allows those who consider slavery America’s “Original Sin” implies that guilt and things like reparations logically follow. They, alas, don’t. 

Leave it to Newsweek to call family films "shameful" for not fulfilling their PC feminist quotas.  With so much that is actually shameful coming out of Hollywood, you’d think they’d have more to deal with than "Finding Nemo".

Robert Robb of The Arizona Republic asks:

What will it take for economic policymakers to understand that the chief problem today is uncertainty? And that until they quit moving significant pieces of fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy around, the uncertainty won’t abate?

Quite a lot, apparently.  If jobs start getting created after big Republican wins in November, it’ll likely be because the "Party of No" will be there to curb this uncertainty.

If 91% of white voters had voted against Obama, some would have called it partially due to racism.  If 91% of black support him, can that be partially attributed to racism?  Jerome Hudson considers this.

The New York Times trumpets how well the civilian court system is for dealing with terrorism it when a terrorist pleads guilty and is sentenced.  Um, that’s not a real test of the system, guys.  A trial is the way to test it, and a terrorist trial going on in the civilian system was dealt a huge blow.  Do we want to chance, perhaps, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed getting off on a technicality?

Glasses that give perfect vision for any type of eyesight, even if you need bifocals?  Looks possible!

And finally, the longest stretch of 9.5+ percent unemployment since the 1930s has not been mitigated one bit by the two highest deficits since 1945.  Given liberal claims, we ought to have been sailing out of this by now.  Can we finally put that "government spending fixes the economy" meme to bed?

Valor Take the time to view the sequence of events which led to Staff Sgt Robert Miller being awarded the Medal of Honor.

###

Bad News / Good News The Bad News – from Mark Dever (HT: Joe Carter),

One part of clarity sometimes missed by earnest evangelists, however, is the willingness to offend. Clarity with the claims of Christ certainly will include the translation of the Gospel into words that our hearer understands, but it doesn’t necessarily mean translating it into words that our hearer will like. Too often advocates of relevant evangelism verge over into being advocates of irrelevant non-evangelism. A gospel which in no way offends the sinner has not been understood.

The Good News – Most evangelicals are looking forward to having a whole lot of fun at church this coming Sunday (ostensibly so that non-Christians will like what they experience).

###

Anti-Anti-Government Uh, no, Tea Party protests, and the like, are not “anti-government”. Advocating small government is completely contrary to advocating anarchy.

###

Politics, as meant to be If the GOP makes gains in November, then it will be “hand to hand combat” in Congress next year. Bring it on! That’s what the founders counted on.

###

Huh? Janet Napolitano “doesn’t know the answer” to the question of what to do with illegal alien Nicky Diaz? What’s not to know? Aren’t illegal aliens supposed to be deported to their country of origin? Methinks the first part of “immigration reform” would be to start enforcing the laws as they stand.

###

Pessimism on U.S. Race Relations? Many people, prior to the election in 2008, categorically stated that they were voting for Obama because he was black [sic], and some people implied it was morally wrong to not vote for him, presumably because he would be the first black [sic] president. With that type of naive thinking (i.e., racist), are the results of this poll surprising?

Tossing around charges of racism seems to be in vogue, as of late. Indeed, with some playing not only the race card, but just about the entire race deck of cards, is it incongruous that there are Black members of the Tea Party?

Uncle Toms? Oreos? Or, maybe, just concerned U.S. citizens?

I wonder, are these individuals predisposed to intolerance?

This just in:  Shirley Sherrod is planning to sue Andrew Breitbart, whose blog ran with a story accusing her of being racist. There has been no confirmation to the rumor that the basis of Sherrod’s lawsuit is that Breitbart’s actions brought to light the ineptitude of both the Obama Administration and the NAACP, as well as causing Howard Dean to stick his foot in his mouth.

It’s been interesting to see the continued liberal ranting regarding the Sherrod incident – that of USDA offical Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign due to the publication of a partial video of her allegedly espousing racist views. Over the weekend, Howard Dean ignorantly attributed the whole mess to the “absolutely racist” FoxNews, despite the fact that Sherrod resigned before FoxNews had aired the video footage. Even Sherrod herself is cashing in on her Warhol minutes, claiming that Andrew Breibart (whose website the original video was posted) wants to take us back to the days of slavery.

Now, I thought that Obama’s election had elevated us beyond the racial divide of our past? I thought that Obama and, presumably, his administration, would usher in the era when persons were judged not by the color of their skin?

In Owning up to jumping the gun, my previous post on the Sherrod incident, the author of the piece at the New Mexico Independent refers to certain conservatives (originally) claiming that Sherrod was guilty of “reverse racism”. Well let’s be clear – racism is racism – any belief that one race is superior to another. There is no such thing as “reverse racism”, regardless of whether the views expressed are from blacks against whites. That blacks, or people of color, may suffer from racism more often than whites does not change the definition of the word racism.

Is there a turn in the tide regarding gun rights? As a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a DA in Wisconsin will not prosecute certain state laws restricting the use or carrying of firearms. Some of the laws he will not prosecute include:

prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;  prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;  prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;  and prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served.

###

Besides not letting them learn to read, black slaves couldn’t own guns either. Justice Clarence Thomas likens restrictions to the 2nd Amendment to tactics used by racists. From his opinion on the McDonald v. Chicago suit,

Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the ’76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence.

By the way, Otis McDonald, of McDonald v. Chicago, is black.

###

And lastly, regarding the 2nd Amendment, a cogent and well thought out argument. Excerpt,

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Written not by a Tea Partier or Right-wing Gun Nut, but by a very liberal author at Daily Kos.

###

Well, if we can’t ban gunsmoke, then how about… smoke?

Under the new law, smoking is prohibited in indoor and outdoor areas frequented by the public, including sidewalks, parking garages, bars, restaurants, stores, stadiums, playgrounds and transit centers. Lighting up outside is also banned in places that are within 20 feet of indoor areas.

###

There won’t be any smoke around our family meal, though. In Family Meal as Therapy, we read,

…there is something about a shared meal–not some holiday blowout, not once in a while but regularly, reliably–that anchors a family even on nights when the food is fast and the talk cheap and everyone has someplace else they’d rather be. And on those evenings when the mood is right and the family lingers, caught up in an idea or an argument explored in a shared safe place where no one is stupid or shy or ashamed, you get a glimpse of the power of this habit and why social scientists say such communion acts as a kind of vaccine, protecting kids from all manner of harm.

At risk to my standing at my place of employment, I make it a point to have dinner with my family. It matters.

###

What about Jeremiah 29:10? Never read a Bible verse; especially Jeremiah 29:11.

Cities across the United States are officially boycotting the state of Arizona. Presumably because of its recently enacted state law, which enforces Federal law regarding alien status in our country. In Berkeley, a group of UC Berkeley students engaged in a hunger strike, ostensibly to force university administration to sanction illegal activity with the confines of the campus. It is, indeed, interesting to note this excerpt from the post,

Their initial protest target was Arizona’s new immigration law, which requires police to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

No, the AZ law does not require police to stop anyone they suspect is here illegally. Consider this audio clip of an Arizona sheriff, regarding high speed pursuits during the past month.

The new AZ law is widely supported throughout the country, so one has to wonder why so many city governments are shoving their liberal views down the throats of their constituents?

Rest assured, politics is at play here. Is it no wonder, then, that we have Nancy Pelosi instructing clergy what to tell their congregants?

PolitiFact does a fact check on this statement from George Will:

"What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime," he said. "Now, the Arizona police — and I’ve spent time with the Phoenix Police Department — these are not bad people. These are professionals who are used to making the kind of difficult judgments. Suspicion of intoxicated driving, all kinds of judgments are constantly made by policemen. And I wouldn’t despair altogether their ability to do this in a professional way."

PolitiFact went to legal scholars and found out that, indeed, this is the case.

The legal scholars we spoke with told us to take a close look at two key sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that "every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.

Section 1306a says that, "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

Indeed, section 3 of the new Arizona law makes it a state crime if immigrants are in violation of either of those codes.

So, when it comes to that section of the law — arguably the "meat" of the new law — "it’s very clear that in this respect, George Will is right," said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University.

They ding Mr. Will on some misdemeanors that are also included in the Arizona bill, but overall, Will is correct.  And yet many liberals are overreacting and protesting or boycotting Arizona in response.  Some uninformed individuals are even boycotting New York over this.  Jim Wallis and the Sojourners are, unfortunately yet predictably, against this measure that simply allows Arizona to enforce the law that the feds won’t. 

2 words:  Knee.  Jerk. 

No, they didn’t.

Actually, the headline reads, Small Riot Breaks Out at Immigration Protest.

The protest was directed towards the signing of SB1070, in Arizona. The controversial Arizona bill clamps down on illegal “immigration” by requiring local police officers to question people about their immigration status if they suspect the person is in this country illegally. Illegal “immigration” advocates fear such a law will result in racial profiling. From the article,

Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.

Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

It appears that the first racial profiling to occur, upon the bill’s signing into law, would be on the part of the protester who, yelling at the man police escorted from the scene, shouted, “F*** you! F***ing racist!” (see video here).

From James Taranto’s column in the Wall St. Journal Online:

Ho Hum, a White Supremacist Rally
"A rally of about 40 white supremacists Saturday on the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall drew hundreds of counter-protesters, sparked brawls in which two people were severely beaten and ended with crowds of demonstrators hurling rocks and bottles at police and departing supremacists," the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. The violence came from those who had come to counter the hate:

A bare-chested middle-aged man with Nazi insignias tattooed on his chest and back walked into a crowd of hundreds of counter-protesters gathered near 1st and Spring streets.

Surrounded, the man mockingly bobbed his head to the rhythm of demonstrators chanting "Nazi scum." About a dozen protesters suddenly began pelting the man with punches and kicks. He fell and was struck on the back with the wooden handle of a protester’s sign, which snapped in two. Police eventually reached the man and pulled him from the melee, as blood poured from the back of his neck.

Another man was rushed by a mob on Spring Street. He was punched in the face and kicked for about 20 seconds before police made it to the scene. After that beating was broken up, the man began running south on Spring Street, only to be chased down by a protester and slugged in the face. He collapsed and his face slammed to the curb as protesters began pummeling him again.

The bloodied man was then escorted away by police. Both victims were treated and released, police said.

His sign, unclear in its intended meaning, read "Christianity=Paganism=Heathen$" with an arrow pointing at a swastika.

"Gosh, I think he just didn’t have a clear message. I don’t even think he was a Nazi," said one man, looking at the broken pieces of the sign left behind.

The Left insists that these sorts of folks come from the Right, and thus it would be safe to assume, then, that those counter-protesters were mostly from the Left.  For those who say that all this sort of physical violence comes solely from the Right (I’m looking at you, Dan) may need to rethink your premise.  I think violence from both sides, fringe (relative to both sides) though it may be, is a reality.  Many suggest that Limbaugh and Beck are to blame for violence.  How about Olberman and Schultz now?

Anyone?  Hello?  Crickets?

Taranto goes on to make a very salient point about this actual racism vs. the accused racism of Tea Partiers.

If you haven’t heard about this until now, you’re not alone. Blogger William Jacobson points out that the media hardly noticed:

Outside of the local media and a handful of blogs, the event received scarce attention. None of the usual suspects bothered to cover or comment on it. Firedoglake and Huffington Post covered it, but we saw none of the hyperventilated commentary and lecturing that is directed at Tea Parties.

How curious. Tea Party events which are not white supremacist events are met with derision and abuse, while a real white supremacist rally is met mostly with silence.

There is a lesson here. The attacks on the Tea Parties have nothing to do with stamping out white supremacy and everything to do with shaping the political dialogue to stamp out legitimate opposition to Obama administration policies.

[…]

But Saturday’s tumult is a timely reminder that in 2010, as in 1999 [the date of a Klan rally in LA]–and, for that matter, in 1977, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that neo-Nazis had a right to march in Skokie, Ill.–white supremacy is a fringe ideology that appeals only to a minuscule number of weirdos.

The people who claim to be alarmed by the "racism" of the tea-party movement know this as well as we do–which is why they respond to a display of actual racism as nonchalantly as we do. They desperately attack the tea-party movement for the same reason we cheer it: because it is made up of ordinary Americans anxious and unhappy about the ever-expanding power of government over their lives.

A mass movement of Americans concerned about preserving their freedom is a threat to the political agenda of the left. A gathering of a few dozen actual white supremacists is a threat only to whatever shred of dignity the supremacists may retain.

Sorry for the long quotes, but this is a point that Taranto has been making for some time (which is why I highly suggest getting the daily e-mail of his column), and this particular incident highlights precisely the the disingenuousness of it’s being used as a political football by the Left.  It’s the race card they play; a game to stifle dissent (such dissent formerly being the highest form of patriotism). 

We are post-racial only to the point that charges of racism aren’t used as some political ploy.  Actual racism is very much on the decline, as President Obama’s election highlighted brightly.  It shows that the Tea Party’s detractors have very little in their corner.  They’re reduced to name-calling. 

Tea partiers mostly white, conservative, male, pro-life, poll says

So says the New Mexico Independent.

From the post,

According to a recent Gallup poll, tea partiers are mostly white (79 percent), conservative (70 percent) and male (55 percent). While 68 percent of tea party supporters have not graduated from college, 55 percent—make more than $50,000 per year.

And yet, Timothy Johnson, a black tea partier, states,

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,”

That was from the article, Black conservative tea party backers take heat.

Do you think liberals on staff at the New Mexico Independent will note how black tea partiers are called Uncle Tom, Oreos, and traitors?

That interesting turn of the phrase goes to Andrew Breibart as he documents how desperate the Left has become in trying to paint the Tea Partiers with the broad, and very overused, brush of racism charges.  The latest example; as the Congressional Black Caucus paraded to the Capitol for the health care reform vote, they claim racial epithets were yelled at them.  However, with as many cameras, smart phones and video recorders as there were on the scene, not a single second of proof has emerged.  Click the link for the videos and other examples of this desperation.

Breibart says, regarding this political theater:

There is no reason in 21st century America on an issue that is not a black or white or a civil rights issue to have a bloc of black people walk slowly through a mostly white crowd to make a racial point. The walk in and of itself — with two of the participants holding their handheld cameras above their heads hoping to document “proof” — was an act of racism meant to create a contrast between the tea party crowd and themselves.

And it failed. 

Some scattered remarks on race prompted by this post (which in turn was prompted by my linking this post).

• In the first post, Dafydd (Mr Lizard?) points out that he says “To be a racist, one must, at the very least, believe in the concept of race — where “race” means some discrete and self-perpetuating subgroup of humans, defined by skin color and a certain morphology, but that also affects behavior and (some argue) thought itself.” Yet, in part this is in itself false. “Race” that is observable phenotypical inheritable differences between groups of humans, the prime notable example being skin color, do in fact track real differences regarding ability in a variety of ways. Northern Europeans and a few others have a genetic mutation which prevents the turning off of the ability to digest lactose. The notion that all racial differences have no impact on statistical distributions of cognitive and physical skills is a fallacy. Significant (statistical) differences of abilities and traits track along cultural lines because of historical geographical and social isolation allowed/allows the development of real measurable differences in the abilities of these subgroups in a range of arenas. Some of these differences are more significant in the modern world than others.
• Mr Schraub makes a interesting correction in his definition of racism. He writes, “And what is a racist? I’d say a concept or argument or behavior is racist if it causes or reinforces unequal inegalitarian distribution of benefits and burdens on racial lines.” The replacement of unequal with inegalitarian is interesting in the light of de Tocqueville’s observations of America. His prediction that American tendencies to move equality to a “cutting down the outstanding” to match the herd comes to mind. A premise of egalitarianism is one the axiomatic foundational political concepts for the left (as extended and distinquished from beyond legal/moral egalitarianism). The right remains with the older classical liberal notion of legal/moral egalitarianism. But, by including “egalitarian” concerns in a definition of racist ideas and racism, then it follows that a rejection (or more accurately a disregard) of egalitarianism might go far to explain why when the left, as so frequently occurs, accuses the right of racism that then the right has trouble figuring out the basis of that accusation. It also gives a hint why Mr Schraub (and others) apparently can talk of “unconscious” racism. That is because they use a notion which requires the premise of egalitarianism to work. For if one is “free” regarding egalitarianism (not driven at all by egalitarian concerns) the tracking of one’s concepts/arguments/behaviors with egalitarian concerns will be somewhat random … and therefore often be judged by egalitarians to be in contrary to those concerns. If you back off on your definition of inegalitarianism to purely moral and legal venues distinct from material then there’s another problem. For then racial concepts, arguments, and behaviourswhich the progressives utilize and promote are those which are racist and the legal egalitarian ones the right prefers are not. This, perhaps, is the reason for the correction seen above.
• Even if one accepts the definition of racism as being intrinsically tied to material egalitarian policy there is a problem of differing ideas of the presumptive consequences of policy. For example, take affirmative action as a race-based policy. The intention of the policy is egalitarian, it is meant to normalize material inequities by given enhanced educational and employment opportunities to races deemed disadvantaged. Opposition to this policy is normally thereforedeemed racist, by Mr Schraub’s definition. Yet, one might hold the opposite opinion, that is the effect of affirmative action is exactly opposite of the intent, that it enhances and sustains the unequal material norms that it hopes to diminish. In that case, from the point of view of those (like me) who believe that, support for affirmative action would be racist not the reverse. Thus you cannot (apparently) judge a policy/argument/behaviour as racist in any objective non-personal way. Racism becomes a purely subjective relativistic concept.  Or in other words it becomes completelyuseless.
• A famous writer once observed that race and racism, specifically regarding Black America, is the “most important” factor for American (US) historical development. This however, mostly betrays the fact that the writer himself was concerned chiefly with Black American issues. For it is categorically false that this in the “most” important factor for American development. Technology, foreign events and currents, and even the interaction of the multiple cultural heritages in the waves of immigration to these shores dwarf the Black/White matter regarding our historical development. Compare for example the historical impact on today’s America from two events that occurred in the late 50s, that being the transistor and the civil rights movement. Which impacts today’s America more? Clearly the former has more impact.

Finally a summary of these points follows.

While race as broadly defined (White/Black/Asian) is not useful, narrower cultural groups do in fact track with real differences of ability. Second, including ideological concepts in a definition of racism is less than useful, unless the purpose is to cast aspersions on those who don’t hold to your ideology. Third, even within the concept of those ideological concepts, using material egalitarianism within a definition of race is problematic. Finally, race itself is less important than many (if not most) race theorists imagine, so if you really want to change the world become a scientist or engineer and not a lawyer or social worker. 😀