Since Neil has been so busy, here is a quick round up!
Drudge Reports: Blow to O, Mo says No!
In other words, Missouri has told BHO “No!” when it comes to Obamacare. this is really good news. They had a popular vote on this issue and 70 percent of the people said “no.” This really is in his face.
“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.
Walter Williams weighs in on racial profiling.
Is an individual’s race or sex useful for guessing about other unseen characteristics? Suppose gambling becomes legal for an Olympic event such as the 100-meter sprint. I wouldn’t place a bet on an Asian or white runner. Why? Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including black Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting. That’s not to say an Asian or white can never win but I know the correlations and I’m playing the odds. If women were permitted to be in the sprint event with men, I’d still put my money on a black male. Does that make me a sexist as well as a racist?
What about when a black hails a taxicab and the driver passes him up and picks up a white passenger down the street? Is that racism? Many people assume that it is but it might not be any different from a physician using race and sex as an estimator for some other characteristic. Ten years ago, a black D.C. commissioner warned cabbies, most of whom are black, against picking up dangerous-looking passengers. She described dangerous-looking as a “young black guy … with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes.” She also warned cabbies to stay away from low-income black neighborhoods. Cabbies themselves have developed other profiling criteria.
There is no sense of justice or decency that a law-abiding black person should suffer the indignity being passed up. At the same time, a taxicab driver has a right to earn a living without being robbed, assaulted and possibly murdered. One of the methods to avoid victimization is to refuse to pick up certain passengers in certain neighborhoods or passengers thought to be destined for certain neighborhoods. Again, a black person is justifiably angered when refused service but that anger should be directed toward the criminals who prey on cabbies.
Not every choice based on race represents racism and if you think so, you risk misidentifying and confusing human behavior. The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Texas A&M May Still Go to the SEC in 2013
I found this over at the 12th Man website. Here’s hoping.
I just received an e-mail from a very trusted source who told me that A&M will be joining the SEC in 2013. This would be tremendous news if true. A progressive move like this from the administration would really shock me. The move to the SEC would change the recruiting dynamic in the state. It would allow A&M to offer Texans an in-state option to compete in the best conference in the country. If texas does not follow (which I do not expect them to do), then it would also separate the two schools in different conferences for the first time in their histories. I hope this information proves to be correct, because road trips to Baton Rouge, Gainesville, Starkville, and Tuscaloosa beat the hell out of Lubbock and Stillwater.
Best Pelosi Rendition
I had to throw some humor in there.
Agnostics Take On Atheists
Finally, there is commentary over at the Aquila Report by Al Mohler on the New Agnostics, who are as fervent about “non knowing” as the new atheists are about “knowing for certain there isn’t” a God. It is almost humorous to see the agnostics distancing themselves from the New Atheists. Mohler writes:
Huxley defined agnosticism in terms of his principle that no one should claim objective knowledge “unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.” In Huxley’s view, this principle of thought rules out any form of theism. At the same time, it supposedly renders atheism unnecessary. In the view of Huxley, atheism actually conceded too much to theism, for it seemed to allow that some adequate evidence for or against the existence of God might be brought forward.Rosenbaum takes this argument a step forward. Atheists, he insists, actually “display a credulous and childlike faith, [and] worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence — the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence.”Thus, Rosenbaum wants “a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.” This is not a small project.“Let’s get one thing straight,” he insists: “Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.”At this point Rosenbaum’s argument gets really interesting. He accuses the New Atheists of intolerance and their own form of heresy-hunting, and ridicules them for their untenable faith that all the big questions can be answered with satisfaction by science. The New Atheists, he laments, “seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science fair triumphs.”
But don’t get too excited. The New Agnostics don’t like Theists either.