Good morning.

1. Four riders?
2. And seven strawmen.
3. Here’s the “play the race card by claiming the other guy is playing the race card” card.
4. Fear the ‘stache.
5. A book noted.
6. An election and doom if either party wins as the prediction.
7. This is not unrelated.
8. Best? Best!?
9. An academic economic result and a media bias experiment in progress.
10. Fiction and the Dems convention.
11. The sopranos and Iraq.
12. A question for the recall Walker crowd.
13. So … how do you make that argument?

Remember how Junk-DNA was supposed to be a blatant indication of the process of methodological naturalism? Remember how all that noncoding fluff in the genome was considered the result of the trial and error nature of the evolutionary process?

Yet, it seems that the junk is not so junky after-all.

In the following video by Dr. Fuz Rana, from Reasons to Believe, he tells us of the importance of the Encode DNA Project, and its findings. In the video he states that the Encode DNA team have determined that about 80% of the human genome consist of functional DNA seqences.

I recall a discussion I had years ago with a friend, who accepts the naturalistic evolutionary mindset, and his response to the apparent fact that so much of the genome was noncoding (i.e., “junk”) was, “And that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.”

What really makes sense, when one sees the vast integrated complexity of the genome, is that one is looking at the work of a designer. A mindless process? Or the process of a mind?

Over at the Corner, Hadley Arkes has some further analysis of the Democrats’ platform fiasco from their just concluded convention and comes up with this nugget:

For it’s not a matter of one word more or less, one or more mentions of God. The real heart of the issue is that most of the people in that hall, in the Democratic convention, really don’t accept the understanding of rights contained in the Declaration of Independence: The Declaration appealed first to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” as the very ground of our natural rights. The drafters declared that “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal,” and then immediately: that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” George Bush was not embarrassed to insist that these are “God-given rights,” as opposed to rights that we had merely given to ourselves. For if we had given them to ourselves, we could as readily take them back or remove them.

This is the real crux of the matter. Denying the existence of God (or at least failing to acknowledge His existence) makes it much easier to also deny that any of our rights are also given by God. The Democrats, at their core, don’t’ honestly believe what the Declaration of Independence says. Once you’ve disavowed the Declaration it’s not hard to disavow the Constitution as the two documents are closely linked to one another.

Tonight, the President said this:

On every issue, the choice you face won’t just be between two candidates or two parties. When all is said and done, when you pick up that ballot to vote, you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation.

The President is exactly right. The choice that voters face is clear. Two differing worldviews are on clear display to choose from. One party believes that our rights are God-given and therefore cannot be infringed upon by government. The other believes that government has the power to grant (and to take away) rights as it pleases. Which choice would you make?

Given the events of the past 24 hours at the Democratic National Convention, this suddenly becomes a fair question. Yesterday, delegates went ballistic when party officials tried to reinsert previously omitted language about God and Israel into their platform. Needless to say this created some bad optics for the Democrats as well as creating news at their convention. This was such a grave unforced error it’s not clear yet how much damage has been done.

But taking this in conjunction with the party’s full fledged endorsement of abortion on demand (“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”) as well as the ongoing controversy over the HHS mandate regarding conception and suddenly you get the feeling that there is outright animus towards people of faith.

This is not necessarily new but never has it been more obvious. As John Hinderaker points outs, “The Democrats, bluntly put, have become the party of those who don’t go to church.” Although I would disagree with him over whether religious beliefs informs ones view of the issues of the day (it does) he is absolutely correct to suggest that the Democratic platform is in direct opposition to the values that Jews, Christians, and Catholics in particular hold.

This point is further illustrated in Al Mohler’s excellent essay on the stark worldview choices we are facing in this election.

All of this begs the question whether a devout Jew, Christian or Catholic can sincerely also identify themselves as a Democrat. I frankly can’t see how anyone can.

Adam Young recently released his third CD, “The Midsummer Station”, with a whirlwind tour of media appearances, including “America’s Got Talent” and the Today show. Taking on the band name “Owl City”, this one-man band has already hit it big a couple of times now. You may have heard this on the radio.

And, if you watched the movie “Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole” (yes, a movie about a city of owls), you might have heard this during the end credits.

Owl City’s previous CDs have had, as their hallmark, whimsical, imaginative lyrics, much like these hits. It’s not the sum-total of his work, but it’s certainly been what he’s best known for. Also, as a Christian, while his lyrics on released material are not overtly religious, he has used words that, understanding his religion, add further meaning to them. For example, the chorus from his song “Galaxies” (another imaginative song):

Dear God, I was terribly lost,
When the galaxies crossed,
And the Sun went dark.
Dear God, You’re the only North Star,
I would follow this far.

Where, elsewhere, the “Dear God” would be simply an interjection for emphasis, here it’s a prayer.

(I say the lyrics are not overtly religious “on release material”, because he posted his rendition of “In Christ Alone” on his blog. I can’t find it there anywhere, but a YouTube video is here.)

With this as the backdrop, “The Midsummer Station” marks a few changes in the music of Owl City. First, there’s less of the one-man band aspect. His Wikipedia entry lists the current members as just “Adam Young – lead vocals, programming, keyboards, piano, synthesizers, guitars, bass guitar, drums, percussion, vibraphone”. But on Midsummer, there is collaboration on vocal, writing and producing credits. On the vocal front, the first hit off the CD, “Good Times”, pairs Young with Carly Rae “Call Me Maybe” Jepsen. Blink 182’s Mark Hoppus also appears for the track “Dementia”.

Secondly, this CD moves Owl City towards more in the way of a rock sound and slightly away from the previous very-electronic sounding, synth-pop music. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. My kids introduced me to Owl City, and I frankly loves the sound he put together on the previous CDs. So not moving too far from his roots is OK, as is his willingness to experiment with the sound and let go a little of the creative control.

Thirdly, the lyrics are less whimsical and more rooted in a concrete subject matter, even if the treatment is teenage-ish. Rather that musing about fireflies, Midsummer has two break-up songs, for example, in addition to the upbeat and uplifting songs. Adam said that the song “Dementia” was written when he was having some regrets. But not to leave it completely behind, “Metropolis” is a song that Superman might sing when he gets homesick.

There is one aspect of Owl City’s music that has not changed with this release; enunciation. Yeah, not something that you typically think of when listening to music. But hey, Mom and Dad (and I count myself as one of you), if you listen to this CD, you will not need a page of lyrics to know what’s being said. And yet, it doesn’t sound enunciated, not like a high school English teacher trying to get you to pronounce your words properly. It’s very natural and, with a combination of the sound mix and voicing, you always know the words. (Listen to one of the videos again to see what I mean.) I appreciate this, and even more so since he doesn’t try to drown out any Christian expression in the lyrics.

The song lyrics themselves might have felt at home in my high school years of the late 70s. And that may be why I like this CD; it’s a throwback to those fun days, where I can imaging blasting “Good Time” out the open windows cruising down the main drag with some buddies. It has cuts that would cause some teen being interviewed by Dick Clark on “American Bandstand” to say, “It’s got a good beat, and you can dance to it; I give it a 90.”

Some may find certain tracks a bit “cheesy”, and I can understand that. But overall, I like this CD and would definitely recommend it to, well, friends of my kids, as well as old guys like me who did like the pop music scene in the late 70s/early 80s. It’s got a good beat, and you can dance to it. I give it a 95.

Your neighbor across the aisle does not. Here is some unsolicited advice for the left wing on this topic. If you really think this is a problem, and you want everyone, not just your side of the aisle to push for it futilely … Here’s a newsflash for y’all. You’re selling it wrong.

Look at us over here on the right. We think the space program was cool. We love going to flight museums and wistfully wishing we (as a nation) were still flying SR-71s (RS-71 dammit, stupid Presidents). We gawk at daisy cutters and talk about yields and payloads. While we might take up on those government goodies that are “free” it sticks in our craw and we wish that ‘ol time Yankee rugged individualism wasn’t dying out, killed by bureaucratic mind-numbing cookie cutter schools among other things. Read these two books, here and here. That’s good reading. So, do you like Bob? We do.

In a past era, a Democratic President challenged his nation to go to the moon, not because it was easy but because it was hard. You want a nation to get behind you with a climate crises. Challenge them that way. Tell ’em to go out and fix it, not by sucking back our economy and going all green-ified on us, scrimping out toilet paper curbing consumption of interesting toys and things to do.

No. Fix it the old fashioned way, with a hammer, tongs, and big bad-ass technology. Challenge us that way, and you might get a rise out of us.

Of course it might alienate you’re side of the aisle, but you can’t break an omelette without making eggs, or something like that.

(with tongue firmly in cheek … and attempting to ignore the silly season somewhat)

Remember those flotilla that went to Gaza that were ostensibly to deliver humanitarian aid because the mean Israelis wouldn’t let any in? Never mind that Israel ships in humanitarian aid there all the time, tons of it. No, the real reason for the flotillas was to break the blockade; one that even the UN has admitted is understandable.

If the reasons were really humanitarian, there’s another place, very close by, that could use it. But all those alleged "humanitarians" seem to be blind to it. Ron Prosor, writing in the Wall Street Journal, takes them to task.

The conflict in Syria has also claimed roughly four times as many victims in the past 20 months as were killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past 20 years. The residents of Gaza continue to enjoy more international assistance than virtually any other population on the planet, but almost no aid is reaching the two million people displaced within Syria—roughly 10% of the country’s population.

The flotilla crowd has different priorities. They prefer to work around the clock to protest Israel’s legitimate defense against the terrorists who target its citizens and fire thousands of rockets into its cities. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised: It’s much easier to face news cameras in Tel Aviv than bullets in Damascus.

Indeed, Israel is the luxury destination of choice for this type of "human-rights activist." In Israel, these weekend revolutionaries are free from the dangers of arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and execution that abound in the totalitarian states that make up the rest of the region. Instead of trying to dig into the dark abyss of abuses in neighboring states, they prefer to lounge in the comfort of Israel’s democratic institutions, civil society and independent media, which offer a wealth of easily accessible information that they use to attack Israel.

Remember this the next time they try this stunt on Israel. And remember which US political party has been Israel’s most stalwart defender. (Hint: Not the one that excised it from their platform.)

These three day weekends … really shorten the week, I mean it’s Wednesday already.

1. I don’t feel the belonging thing they talk about.
2. Fisking Ms Obama.
3. Feeling the pain.
4. Just zipping along.
5. He “duped” me? Huh? Seriously?
6. Persuasion.
7. Learning to learn is the main point … the content is less important.
8. A question for the Keynesians.
9. Photo ID and the Democrats.
10. Who’s important.
11. Climate change and hurricane strength and frequency. Wow, that trend is so very clear.
12. The problem with complaining about a fictional Obama is that Obama did it first.

So, d’ya have a good laborious day yesterday? Munch munch munch.

1. Yikes.
2. Sneeze. (yes I’m very very allergic to those)
3. Liberal global energy policies and unintended consequences.
4. A park to confuse the urban liberal.
5. Some reading enjoyment in the pipeline.
6. Well, by one name it sounds like megalomania.
7. Some advice for the college bound.
8. On being responsive to your constituents.
9. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 2nd problem is not specific enough to answer … but I’ve not thought it through well enough. The problem as stated doesn’t state that the machines are identical. If for example the machines pipeline their production (machine 1’s output goes into machine 2 and so on … first off, if you start it up, machines 2-5 have idle time at the onset (unless they are pre-filled with production … which also isn’t stated). Additinonally there is no indication that the added 95 machines have the optimal “type” distribution for efficiency, as a worst case all additional machines are of type #1 and adding 95 more of them improves your rate not at all).
10. This complaint works just as well for the open immigration crowd.
11. Not a Democrat talking point in the wake of the GOP convention.
12. Isaac and priority.
13. Our national disease.
14. Swivel plane.
15. I’d weight the likely men to the earlier eras, TR is late … but was out and about a lot. How about not during their tenure but at their respective prime-of-life? Who then and if/how would that change your answer?

(And by "Obama’s budget", I mean the one unanimously rejected even by his own party.)

What are those "draconian cuts" that Paul Ryan has proposed in his budget? Is he really going to throw Granny off the cliff with his changes to Medicare?

The Independent Voter Network has an interactive graph where you can see the spending over the next 9 years with the two different budgets. You can also choose a specific area (Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt, security, etc.) to see how that particular area is affected.

What you’ll see is that, under the Ryan budget, spending increases every year. The "cuts" that Democrats and the media keep referring to use the typical DC definition. "If you don’t raise spending on X as much as I want to, you are therefore "cutting" spending to X."

The one exception is Medicaid, where spending dips slightly early on, but over the 9 year span does indeed increase slightly.

Point your friends at this page when they start believing the Democratic talking points. We simply cannot have a rational discussion on the debt problem facing us if we demagogue what amounts to a tepid response to the problem.

Good morning.

1. All those freshman starting school away from home … parents? The same everywhere.
2. A book recommended.
3. Harvard in the news, noted here and here.
4. Charity, culture, economics and more.
5. Not charity?
6. Obama and measuring success.
7. Sometimes the “A” for effort is all that matters. The winsome Ms Olson long ago accepted my proposal at a horrible failure of home cooked dinner. Only the soup was edible (actually the soup was amazing … everything else completely failed).
8. Journalism and disaster.
9. More on the GM plant closing that you haven’t seen elsewhere.
10. Comments?
11. How not to accuse Mr Ryan of being “Randian”.

Cancelled, due to lack of interest.

Good morning.

1. Windly things.
2. That cycle of life thing.
3. Syria.
4. Legal eagles (beagles?) talk hermeneutics.
5. A Mormon crosses the Tiber and talks about it.
6. Speaking of Mormons, apparently they’re Western WASPS.
7. While I’m not enamored of requiring by fiat what is discussed here … this, alas, is high on my I’d-really-like one (but won’t be able to afford) list and not my will buy when available list.
8. Preparation.
9. How not to deal with local OWS behavior.
10. So … now the “reality based party” will all jump behind vouchers?

Go and do the right thing, eh?

That’s the title of an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the results of a new study on how school vouchers affect their recipients.

President Barack Obama last month signed an executive order promising to "improve outcomes and advance educational opportunities for African Americans." The order instructs federal agencies to "promote, encourage, and undertake efforts" to increase "college access, college persistence and college attainment for African American students." Unfortunately, his administration remains opposed to the Opportunity Scholarship program in Washington, D.C., which lets students—mostly low-income and African-American—use a voucher to attend a private school.

Perhaps Mr. Obama will reconsider his position on vouchers now that we have for the first time tracked the impact of a voucher program all the way from kindergarten (in 1997) to college enrollment (in 2011). Our study compared students who won a voucher lottery with students who didn’t—the only difference between the groups was the luck of the draw, the gold standard in research design.

The study shows that an African-American student who was able to use a voucher to attend a private school was 24% more likely to enroll in college than an African-American student who didn’t win a voucher lottery.

Some take issue with voucher programs because the parents might actually spend the money on >gasp< religious schools (as noted in the article).

And given the money involved, they got better results for a lower cost.

These impacts are especially striking given the modest costs of the intervention: only $4,200 per pupil over a three-year period. This implies that the government would actually save money if it introduced a similar voucher program, as private-school costs are lower than public-school costs. To get a similar (19%) increase in college enrollment among African-Americans from a class-size reduction effort in Tennessee in the late 1980s, the public-school system had to spend $9,400 per pupil (in 1998 dollars).

But one of the barriers to this successful program is…politics, of course.

President Obama is certainly correct to identify the particularly steep educational barriers that African-American students must surmount if they are to become college-ready. And he seems to have nothing against private school per se, as he has long sent his own daughters to private schools. Yet—apparently thanks to opposition to vouchers from powerful teachers unions—the president still hasn’t taken the next step and helped open private-school doors for low-income children as well.

One more reason to consider when stepping into the voting booth this November.