Life on Other Planets

We have reached the point, it seems, when almost every day an astronomer from somewhere has found a new planet. Most of them appear to be gas giants along the lines of Jupiter and Saturn in our own solar system. Yet there are some which, even from as far away as they are to us, might be Earth like enough to sustain life as we know it. That is, sentient life, beings who are as self aware as ourselves.

That these are exciting discoveries cannot be disputed. But where we have an issue about them is in the interpretation over how finding other life in the galaxy would shake our core beliefs here on our own good Earth. It has been said that we would have to completely rethink our philosophies, and even our religion, should there be other life forms similar to ours somewhere else in the universe.

Why? Would not the same God have created them too? Why would they not be as subject to sin and failure, the whole universe being imperfect, as we are? Further, why should we presume that the challenges they face aren't any different from ours? Getting food and shelter, worrying about how the kids are growing up; why should alien daily life be so much different than ours?

The best guess is that they would still have personal, political, and social struggles akin to ours. Granted, they may be superior or inferior to us in myriad ways and forms, but there is simply no reason to think that the cultures of another world would be, at their core, significantly different from ours. The whole science fiction array which we have been exposed to over the years, the presumption that they would be either smarter and better than us, or have greater technology and be a conquering race with it, is most likely exactly that: presumption and fantasy for the sake of exciting books and movies. We have no real reason to believe that even their science would not be all that different from ours, even if a little ahead of or behind our discoveries. Would the laws of physics be different elsewhere in creation?

So while finding Earth-like planets is certainly exciting, it should not change our outlook on the relationship between God and Man. It only means that He has seen fit to share Himself more generally than some may have thought. There would still be the animal desires competing with the spiritual appetite of those people. There would still be the happiness along with the drudgery of daily life. If we do ever find sentient life beyond our world, they will almost certainly be like us, at least in temperament if not in appearance. That may not be particularly exciting, once the veneer of newness wears off. Many of our scientists don't seem to want anything less than the fantastic. That speaks only of their prejudices, and we can learn from that without even venturing to Alpha Centauri.

Need for Public Libraries is Waning

Library Larry loved his local library. So much so that when he learned that it had to cut its budget significantly for the next year he remarked, "I would gladly pay a few dollars more on my property taxes to keep that from happening."

"I wouldn't," replied Conservative Carl.

"But the community needs the library!" Larry protested.

"Why?" Carl asked. "You have books and the Internet at home. You can read and research from there. Why should I have to pay for a library you don't actually need simply because you have made the value judgment that it's necessary? I am not expected to pay for your other forms of entertainment. Why should I pay for your use of the library?"

Library Larry muttered that Carl was a fascist and stormed off.

This may or may not be an oversimplification. Yet libraries, like the print media, are fast becoming obsolete. But perhaps more importantly, why should Library Larry be seen as such a hero (he will be for some who read this) for being willing to force his neighbors to spend their money on what he likes? It's arrogance, pure and simple. Yet that attitude is the basis for an awful lot of public spending.

All democracy ultimately means is that fifty percent of the population plus one person can force everyone else to do what they want. That is not a rationale for good public policy or public spending. But it can and will create jealousies which, in the long run, will rent asunder the body politic.

Standardized Tests are No Big Deal

The American Federation of Teachers, a union, is meeting in Detroit this weekend to discuss the questions which a teachers' union might discuss. Whatever all that may entail, the most widely talked about issue seems to be that of standardized testing. The AFT isn't against it, but will be voting on a measure to encourage less emphasis on the process.

The main criticism of such tests are that they don't measure 'higher order thinking skills' whatever they are (we are skeptical that the phrase means anything useful, but that is an, ahem, subject for another day) and force teachers to 'teach to the test' rather than teach all subjects thoroughly, to the point of concentrating on the students of higher ability in order to ensure overall decent test scores for their particular school.

Perhaps; we are not really sure how much of that goes on. It didn't appear to be an issue in the schools where the Wayne County Conservative Examiner sent his progeny, and they and the bulk of their peers did well enough on the standardized tests they we given. Oh, why not say it right out: we don't see much evidence that that's the case at all, based on the four school systems and three private schools with which we have intimate knowledge. Still, we realize that standardized tests cause anxiety. But why should they?

Colleges and universities typically assess new students on a 45-45-10 scale (we received this information from a source which offers ACT test prep to high school students for pay, outside of regular school hours). That is, admissions are based roughly 45% on a student's academic record, 45% on their standardized test scores, and 10% on extracurriculars and community service and activity. It hardly strikes us as an overzealous emphasis on one test.

What it tells us is that college recruiting and admissions officers want three things: solid academic performance, community awareness, and a snapshot of the student's ability to work efficiently and well in a classroom environment under some pressure (which is essentially what a standardized test measures). None of these strike us as extraordinary expectations, including that last point. There isn't a thing wrong with it. If a student can't do well on a general knowledge test by 11th Grade, which is typically when the first standardized tests for college hopefuls are administered, then there are issues beyond such tests which are at play. Home life, personal expectations, and yes, even poor schools, are at issue more so than the ACT or SAT themselves.

In short, worries over standardized test scores are much ado about nothing. Student well prepared over several years will do well. Ones who aren't won't. And it is simply stupid to blame the test or the testing culture for that.

A Pro-Religious Freedom Democrat?

Well, well, well, what have we here? A Democrat running for Congress who is pro-life and feels quite strongly that the Obama administration has overstepped its bounds in calling on Catholic institutions to violate Catholic doctrine? It seems we have: Candidate Bob Costello, who is on the August 7th ballot as a Democrat, running for Congress in Michigan's 14th District.

This is refreshing news, especially as he has the endorsement of the Michigan Right to Life PAC, something generally awarded Republicans. Further, his home page openly proclaims that the most important issue this fall is that of religious freedom. It is described as the key issue; the First Amendment is quoted verbatim, followed by a laundry list of Catholic services which would be affected by the President's proposals to mandate those services provide things against Catholic doctrine. Indeed, says the candidate through his website, though the directives clearly target Catholics, all religious organizations should be concerned, If Catholic can be ordered about by Washington, then everyone else can be as well.

Bravo, Mr. Costello. It is good to hear that there are serious Catholics who are Democrats and willing to shout it out loud. Even the secondary issue which he touts, cutting federal spending across the board, is laudable. He even says that oil prices are being controlled by an illegal 'cartel' and that we should not be held hostage by foreign nations as such. To be sure, he targets big oil in his indictment as well. But, hey, nobody's perfect.

Really, the issue we find our most serious disagreement with him is in his calls for mandatory national service for those between 17 and 24. We cannot help but feel that any call for religious freedom is muted somewhat by a call to demand service as such: perhaps some of those youth would have religious reasons for not wishing to participate. It strikes us as a serious inconsistency.

Still, a pro-life, pro-religious freedom Democrat. We would vote for him in the primary without reservation if we were a Democrat. We might even vote for him in the general election depending upon who the GOP opponent might be. Either way, it stirs hope within us that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic Party can one day be saved.

Shallow Thought Cannot Defend UFC or MMA

We really hate to belabor a point. We really, truly do. We try to vary what we write about on these pages because we sincerely don't want to bore our readers or bore ourselves. Further, there's no point pigeonholing ourselves, as we would then be seen only as unable to let things go, or worse, as single subject ramblers. Our blinders are not on; we try very hard to keep them off. Yet today we feel we simply must revisit an issue which we have only just addressed.

Just the other day, July 19th, in fact, we spoke against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as morally wrong on the very simple grounds that it is wrong to inflict pain on someone, anyone, even a willing victim, solely to inflict pain on them. The intent of each is to cause your opponent terrible enough injuries that they cannot continue the fight. Such cannot be moral nor a sport, as supporters of UFC and MMA assert.

One reader took umbrage at the point. His response was rather too simple, and indeed ignored the point we were trying to make. He said in comment: You don't have to fight, you don't have to watch, and you don't have to spend any money that might makes its way into the pockets of those of us who do so ... problem solved.

Problem so not solved. Problem not solved at all, by any rational measuring stick. The inherent weakness of that argument, again after the fact that it ignores our main point entirely, is so obvious that we amazed that anyone could possibly take it seriously.

Let's substitute something else for MMA and UFC here: murder. Do you have to participate in, watch, or pay money for a murder to realize murder is wrong? Do you have to become an active thief or kidnapper to even begin to believe those acts are wrong? Of course not. Likewise, you do not have to go anywhere near a UFC or MMA event to determine whether they are right or wrong either.

It's pretty clear that the person who wrote that weak and wobbly defense of UFC and MMA participates in them. But that means little as well: if it's wrong to do it, he's wrong, and if it's okay, he's okay. We only ask one final question on the matter, at least for the moment.

Who of us has integrity of position on the matter?

Sensationalizing for No Good Reason

As if it isn't bad enough that the Federal Government has its hands in too many pies, now we have situations where one of the states has taken it upon itself to get involved in enlightening the citizenry through badgering people about what it thinks important. It should be no surprise that that State is California.

California requires this tag to be put on electrical certain electrical cords:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.

Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am we supposed to feel about getting a scare that we have increased our chances of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?

We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.

But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?

Conyers and the Lazy Voter

In the newly drawn 13th Congressional District of Michigan, Congressman John Conyers is involved in a true political race for the first time since he won a seat in the House way back in 1964. Still, he is expected to win the Democratic Primary for the seat on August 7th. Why? Name recognition.

If there is a lousy excuse to cast a vote for someone, anyone, this is it. Merely having been around for almost 50 years should not grant a guy title to an office. Yet it all too often does. And we wonder why we get such awful politicians.

The Congressman barely campaigns. He rarely participates in candidate forums; he plays it safe. Politically, it makes sense. The more off the cuff things you say the greater the chance of saying the wrong things, and debates and forums no matter how well practiced are rife with chances to say the wrong thing. Politically, it makes a kind of sense. Practically, it helps only insofar as there are lazy voters to prop up incumbents.

As such, Representative Conyers' above the fray approach works. For him. But does it work for his constituents? Not in any useful sense, no. Still, it keeps him a cushy job and, to be completely fair, how many of us would love the type of job security which the situation gives him?

What that attitude says about both Conyers and the voters of his district speaks volumes. Unfortunately, that attitude says words which neither will hear.