Lab-Created Meat

I know some on the right dislike NPR because of its liberal slant, but it has many excellent and interesting programs. While I was driving tonight, I happened to hear a fascinating segment on lab-created meat -- not artificial meat, but real meat grown from stem cells.

tissue scientists are taking stem cells from pigs and putting them in nutrient broth-filled petri dishes, where they rapidly grow. The biggest slab of meat grown so far is about the size of a contact lens and contains millions of cells. The next step, Specter says, is trying to take these cells and turn them into muscle tissue, using biodegradable scaffolding platforms.

There are all sorts of implications and possibilities for this research, which will no doubt occur to anyone else who reads a lot of science fiction. You can listen to the story at the link above.

The Juan Williams Political Correctness Firing

I was going to write more about this incident, but Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic, someone I often disagree with, has the best piece I've seen about it. As he calls it, "Juan Williams Fired by NPR For No Particular Reason." Williams made the fatal mistake of admitting that he gets nervous seeing Muslims on a plane, and that's essentially what got him fired. Here's Goldberg.

The first quotation reflects the views, I'm guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country (and in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world, as well). With some regularity, Muslim men associated with radical Islamist organizations have been trying to kill American civilians, here and abroad. A group of 19 Muslim men succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their mission nine years ago. The majority of Muslims abhor terrorism, and Muslims are the disproportionate victims of Muslim terror, but the essential truth remains that most of the world's spectacular terrorism today -- thwarted and achieved -- is committed by Muslims. Juan Williams misunderstands one crucial fact: Muslim terrorists who are attempting to commit acts of terror seldom if ever dress in "Muslim garb"; they dress, for obvious tactical reasons, in a manner meant to help them blend in with surroundings. So Williams is wrong, I think, to be particularly suspicious of traditionally-dressed Muslims. But is he wrong to worry about Islamist terrorism? Of course not.

Fear and nervousness as a reaction to seeing something are not the same as cool rational analysis. The reason many people instinctively associate Muslims with terrorism is not bigotry, it's because of the numerous terrorist acts and attempted acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. But Juan Williams should have known better than to dare admit that he shares this reaction to Muslims on a plane. When you work for a liberal outfit that puts a premium on political correctness you know that you have to censor yourself.  Free speech is not valued on the left at all, unless it is speech they agree with. Daring to offend groups the left panders to, which definitely includes Muslims, simply cannot be permitted.

Assorted Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is not a big issue for me because I have a middle position. The extreme positions on both sides are simplistic, and those who adopt them tend to ignore any evidence that undercuts their often fanatically held beliefs on the subject. 

Last night while I was driving around working, I caught bits and pieces of an NPR discussion/debate on illegal immigration. I didn't hear the introductions, but on the anti-illegal side was some state senator (I think), with an ACLU representative taking the pro-illegal position. The senator portrayed illegals as basically an evil horde of invaders who depress American wages, suck up social services, and commit crimes. The ACLU guy refused to even use the term "illegal alien" -- since of course we can't offend people who commit illegal acts by labeling them illegal -- but referred to them repeatedly with the ridiculous euphemism "undocumented workers." To him, illegals are all great people who help the U.S. economy. Both guests referenced only cherry-picked data that supported their own preconceived notions. The ACLU individual, as is typical on the left, basically accused those who disagree with his position of racism. The senator overemphasized a few sensational crimes committed by illegals as evidence that they represent a lethal criminal threat to American citizens.

In reality, illegal immigration has both benefits and costs, neither of which is easy to quantify. It is obvious that most illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to find work, and make up part of the workforce. By working, by purchasing goods and services, and by paying indirect taxes, they clearly contribute to the economy. At the same time, however, they impose costs, particularly in terms of social services like medical care. The actual cost-benefit ration probably depends on each region in question, possibly right down to each individual locality. As for crime, although most illegals come to work, as with any population, a small minority are prone to criminal behavior (not counting the crime of illegal immigration itself). For every wave of immigrants that enter the U.S., some will be criminals. But this applies to both legal and illegal immigrants, which undercuts the crime argument as a factor in keeping out illegals -- unless one opposes all immigration. Again though, it depends on locality. If an area has a particularly high number of criminal illegal aliens, obviously that area is going to view illegal immigration as a major criminal import problem. 

Illegal immigration is both a problem and a benefit. Which side outweighs the other depends  on your outlook, the statistics you choose to accept, and where you live. If you own an office building cleaning service in New York, staffed with hardworking illegal immigrants who do a good job for low wages, your perspective is probably quite different from a property owner in Arizona whose land is constantly trespassed on by illegals. 

Leftist Thinks Taliban Is Part of "Our Human Family"

I was skimming through left-wing sites just for amusement, when I saw this "Open Letter to NPR's Morning Edition."

Yesterday, I was shocked to hear Morning Editions' reporter talking about the current military situation in Afghanistan using the phrase "an area infested with the Taliban".

Hmm, and what's shocking about that?

The use of the word "infested" is extremely problematic because no matter what you think about the Taliban, they are human beings and the people who live in that area are human beings. When an area is "infested" with rats, it is okay to annihilate them. But when you use the language on humans, you are using words that are unacceptable and dangerous.

I know this is obvious to most people, but when you are fighting enemies, you are trying to kill them. In other words, you are in fact attempting to annihilate them -- unless they surrender, a negotiated settlement is reached, or the war ends for some other reason. There is nothing "unacceptable and dangerous" about saying an area is infested with enemies, or even with specifically comparing them to rats, insects, or vermin of any type. The Taliban are very much like a type of vermin. The world, and Afghanistan itself would be far better off if the human beings who make up the Taliban were exterminated. That's one reason the U.S. is doing its best to kill as many of them as possible.

Dehumanizing other people is wrong even when they are our enemies and even when they do horrific acts. They are still human beings and thus part of our human family and when we forget this, it reflects badly on the state of our society and the state of our individual souls.

Nonsense. Dehumanizing the enemy is not only necessary, but desirable. Along with helping to overcome normal human inhibitions against killing other people, it may decrease the psychological trauma experienced by those doing the killing. And when we are talking about our military personnel, that's a good thing. Pretending that enemies are part of "our human family" is pseudo-mystical gibberish, that serves no purpose, other than to make it more difficult to do what is necessary in order to protect our interests. 

This laughable whine at Pacific Views is yet another example of just how clueless many on the left are about military affairs. Aside from the obvious stupidity of her post, the author is apparently unaware that the term "infested" is commonly used to describe situations related to enemies, and has been for a long time. For example: we had to be alert, because the entire area was infested with snipers. Or, this province was infested with guerrillas. The NPR reporter was just using a standard description and no doubt meant nothing by it. But Mary at Pacific Views is apparently ever-alert for anything that she thinks sounds too harsh toward our enemies. 

Wasting Money in Afghanistan

No, I'm not talking about the new surge, but about U.S. aid money. While I was driving home this afternoon, I happened to catch an NPR interview with retired General Arnold Fields, the U.S. chief inspector for Afghanistan reconstruction. (I don't have a link for the interview, but I just heard it about a half hour ago.) Fields said that although he isn't certain, best estimates are that only 25-30% of U.S. aid money actually goes toward projects for which it is earmarked.  That's right, up to three quarters of U.S. aid for reconstruction isn't actually going where it is supposed to. So where does it go?

Fields said that maybe 10-15% of the money is used for security. Ok, that's a legitimate expense. But what about the remaining 50+%? The general couldn't answer the question. He has no idea exactly what happens to all that money. Keep in mind that this is the inspector general of the oversight organization for our reconstruction efforts. He can't answer a question about what happened to more than half of our aid money. When people talk about rampant corruption in Afghanistan, this is the massive scope they are talking about. It's so great that even the people supposedly monitoring it can't keep track. Unfortunately it involves our money.

Who Decides?

I was driving today and listening to NPR. I guess because it's a pseudo-holiday, one of the shows was a rebroadcast of a discussion with Professor Michael Sandel, a political philosopher at Harvard. He was talking about justice, morality and philosophy, and how those concepts apply to everyday political issues. He said one thing that I thought illustrates the striking difference between how left & right perceive the world, and particularly the difference between those who advocate collectivism, versus those who prefer individual freedom. I don't have a transcript so this is a paraphrase, but he said something like the following.

Let's look at judges. How much does the Chief Justice of the U.S. make, a couple hundred thousand a year? But there is a judge that makes $25 million a year: Judge Judy. Is it just that she makes so much more than the chief justice? Could you reasonably argue that she deserves that far greater amount? I don't think so.

When I heard that I thought, what a typical leftist comment. Who are you to decide whether one person deserves more money than the other? It has nothing to do with justice. People like this professor don't like the free market. They think they are better equipped to decide who gets what. This is how wealth redistribution is justified. They don't think it's fair that person X makes more money than person Y. Therefore, they will take money from person X by force, and give it to person Y.  And what if you don't like this, or disagree with their opinion about what is "just"? Well, that's too bad. If you get in their way or resist, they'll throw you in jail. They don't like freedom at all. They deny this, and attempt to get around it by redefining freedom to mean getting things you need. They'll say things like "you aren't free if you don't have enough to eat, or you don't have adequate health care." But by that definition it's better to be a well-fed, well-taken care of slave, than a free person who struggles to get by.

Any time you hear someone talking about  how things aren't fair or just, and how some people don't deserve to make more money than others, ask yourself this. Who decides what is fair and just? And why is the opinon of those who think they should decide more important than freedom?

The Tim McVeigh False Analogy

There is a popular meme going around the left in the wake of the Ft. Hood shootings. I even heard it deployed on an NPR discussion as I was driving earlier. It goes something like this: When Tim McVeigh carried out his act of domestic terrorism we didn't start focusing suspicion on white Christian males, therefore it's unfair or even bigoted to train our suspicion on Muslims when a Muslim carries out a terrorist act. This is a false analogy on multiple levels. 

First, Tim McVeigh's primary motivation, from what we know, had little to do with Christianity, and a lot to do with him being an anti-government radical. We do in fact focus plenty of suspicion on people who appear to be extremist anti-government radicals. Why? Because they fit the profile of people who could be a domestic terror threat.

Second, it is indisputable that there is a significant minority of Islam that is radical and supports terrorism. There have been numerous acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. There are even a significant number of Islamic clerics who support such actions and interpret the Koran accordingly. There are other religions, including Christianity, that contain violent extremists. But at the moment, the amount of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam, and justified by religious leaders, exceeds that of any other religion. 

It is unforunately often difficult to tell who is and is not an Islamic extremist. While it is wrong to smear all Muslims for the actions of an extremist minority, or the actions of a deranged individual who may have just misused his religion to self-justify his actions, in my opinion there is nothing bigoted or extreme about viewing Islam as a possible risk factor. That is why the FBI conducts surveillance of mosques in this country.

If there were Christian terror organizations comparable to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associates, or Christian theocracies like Iran, where ministers ruled, a significant minority of Christian clergy who advocated & justified terrorism, Christian schools that regularly produced terrorists, and numerous terrorist acts perpetrated by white Christian males, white Christian males would indeed fall under suspicion.

The vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. are good citizens like any other. Outrage at Major Hasan's crimes shouldn't obscure the fact that there are millions of Muslim citizens who are not murdering people, and thousands who serve honorably in the military. Some have sacrificed their lives in the service of this country. It is sad that being a Muslim in the U.S. can cause suspicion, or be seen as a risk factor for terrorism. And I don't blame Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism for being upset or angry at being seen as suspects. But that doesn't mean that everyone who views Islam as a risk factor for terrorism is some sort of bigot. Unfortunately reality indicates that it is a risk factor, and a risk factor not at all comparable to the risk factor of being a white Christian male.

Rift Between Atheists?

NPR's Morning Edition had a story today called, "A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists." You can listen to the piece or read it at the link. Essentially, it argues that there is a division between atheists who want to openly attack and ridicule religion, and those who favor treating the religious with more respect, and focusing primarily on thoughtful critiques of religion. In my opinion, calling this a "bitter rift" is a major overstatement, which also gives the false impression that atheism forms some sort of cohesive movement.

Atheism isn't a movement or an organization. It isn't a religion to be divided by a schism or rift. The only thing all atheists agree on is that they don't believe in gods. Opinions on how atheists should approach criticizing religion varies wildly, and depends on each circumstance in question. For example, I often find atheist attacks on religion pointless and counterproductive. In my opinion, expressing open hostility and contempt for religion, when it isn't necessary, simply makes believers hate atheists, and gives credence to those that think atheists are close-minded, anti-religious bigots. But it all depends on the circumstance and the venue. Sometimes an aggressive religious message or claim deserves an equally harsh atheist response.

Being an "in-your-face" atheist while talking to a believer will likely get you nowhere. But in more impersonal formats, such as online, or in publications, I think ridicule of religion and religious beliefs have a place. If I'm talking with a believer (assuming he is behaving in a decent fashion), I'm going to listen to his arguments and attempt to counter them in a respectful manner, pointing out why I feel that they lack any evidence supporting them. I don't have to respect his beliefs in order to be tactful and respectful of him as a person. But if I'm writing about his religion, rather than addressing him personally, I will be much less constrained.

TARP

I was driving yesterday and today and I'm currently on a break. As usual when I do hours of driving on end, I listen to NPR. Today I listened to a show carried by the local Philadelphia affiliate, Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane. The first hour should be required listening for anyone who wonders why so many of us are inherently skeptical of big government solutions to crisis situations. It featured investigative journalists Donald Bartlett and James Steele, who published an expose in Vanity Fair of the TARP program, better known as the bank bailout. I couldn't find a transcript, but you can listen to the podcast here. 

Lack of Diversity at NPR

As I've mentioned before, I have a part-time courier job that requires me to drive long hours a few times a month. Today is one of those days, and I'm between routes at the moment.  When I drive I often listen to NPR, which has extensive news coverage and interesting programming. Although politically it slants liberal, it can still be very informative and worth listening to, even if I may disagree with a particular line of analysis. Being left-of-center, NPR is always talking about diversity, and the last program I listened to earlier was about diversity in journalism and how that has been affected by the economy. But ideological diversity on its programs is sometimes lacking -- often for no good reason.

Today I listened to a two-hour show called Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane. The first hour was an in-depth look at North Korea and the issues surrounding it, exactly the kind of topic I find interesting. There were two guests, a former Clinton administration diplomat turned academic, and a representative of Human Rights Watch. Both were highly knowledgeable about North Korea, and the discussion wasn't overtly political. So what was the problem? The Clinton guy was asked why relations are so bad between the U.S. and North Korea. Naturally he calmly explained that things were going pretty well under the Clinton administration until Bush fouled everything up. The HRW woman didn't get into the past, but they both agreed that more "engagement" and outreach to North Korea was the way to go. Anyone listening who was unaware of foreign policy debates might think that these views were some sort of general consensus. It's a type of bias by omission, and reflects a lack of ideological diversity. 

How hard would it have been to get a former Bush administration official on to give a contrasting perspective and a little bit of balance? I'm sure there are some Republican diplomats-turned academics that could have been tapped. It wouldn't be necessary to have a big name like John Bolton, just any differing voice would have been nice.

A Right-wing Plug for NPR

National Public Radio isn't too popular on the right.  It has a more or less center-left slant on politics, and rarely features any strong conservative voices.  But I would still highly recommend it to anyone.  There are few programs where you can get information on such a wide variety of topics. And even when issues are debated between different guests, each side is allowed to make its points, there's no shouting down of opposing views, and everything is conducted in a civil tone.

I do some part-time work filling in for a courier a few times a month, and today is one of those days.  It involves about five hours of driving during the morning and afternoon, and about another six at night.  Although I like music, I don't want to listen to it for eleven hours. It's nice to have NPR.  And since the topics and hosts vary wildly, it's not like you are listening to the same show for hours on end.  This morning they had a detailed examination of the Israeli-Gaza situation, with interviews talking to people on each side.  There was also an extensive interview with former ambassador Peter Galbraith about Iraq.  Even though I disagree with some of his perspectives and conclusions, it was well-worth hearing for anyone interested in U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East.  Those were just a couple of the highlights.