Thursday, December 17, 2020

How to Petition the Federal Government

How to Petition the Federal Government


1)    Go to USA.gov

2)   Click on government agencies and elected officials.

3)   Contact elected officials.

4)   Under Federal Elected Officials, choose the President.

5)   Fill out his online form and write your comment. Keep your comment very brief so that, if necessary, you can send the comment via Twitter. (If you do not have a Twitter account, just go to Twitter.com and sign up—it is free and very easy!) Keep your comments very short, and do not include more than one issue for each message. Always remain polite and nonconfrontational. If you are writing about a bill under consideration, try always to refer to the bill by name and number. If you do not know the number of the bill under question, go to Agencies on USA.gov and choose Library of Congress (LOC). Enter the bill name in the search field, and you will receive the bill number and information about the bill.

6)   Highlight your message to the President and copy it with the control/C command to copy.

7)   Go to U.S. senators on the USA.gov site and go to “choose a senator.” Scroll to your 2 senators and click on “contact.” Then, fill out each senators’ online form. When you get to the comment field, use Control/V to paste your comment. You may have to modify your comment to fit the Senate message.

8)   After you have written to your 2 senators, choose “leadership” and send the same message to each leader in both parties. Do not avoid sending messages to senators with whom you disagree on the issue you are discussing. After all, those are the votes you want to change, anyway. (By using this technique, you can contact any other senator you wish to contact.)

9)   After you have contacted the Senate, go beck to USA.gov and select “U.S. representatives.” You will arrive at “Directory of Representatives:” Click on “By last name,” and enter the last name on the table below. When you find your representative, fill out his/her online contact form and do exactly the same thing you did for the senators. The House of Representatives web site will not allow you to contact leadership or any other representative. They seem to have made that difficult and not available for people other than the representative’s own constituency.

 

Nancy and I are presently petitioning government to support a bill that will be introduced in the House on 6 January by Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama to override the Supreme Court on the election issue. He will ask the legislative branch of the federal government to force objective evaluation of the presidential votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for three reasons:

1.   Voters cannot be accurately identified in those states.

2.  Voters must be legal residents or green card holders in order to vote.

3.  Legal votes must be submitted within the legal time periods to be counted.

This procedure of legislative override of Supreme Court decisions is legal and has been used several times in recent years.

 mmm

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Covid Death Rates from the CDC


I would like to draw your attention to the latest report of Covid death rates reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If you could look carefully at the graphs included in the link below, you will see that the death rate for Covid-like illness (CLI) is very near the incidence reported for Influenza-like illness (ILI).

 

This indicates to me that the risk of dying from Covid-19 is about the same as contracting influenza. This makes me wonder if all the hype over Covid-19 is worth it all! After all, most of us Americans don’t worry so much about dying from the flu!

  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

 

(This data was brought to my attention by my son, Ben.)

 

Sunday, October 18, 2020

A Letter to an Atheist

A Letter to an Atheist

I have a very good friend who claims to be an atheist. He lives a life entirely in compliance with Christian morals and ethics, which makes me doubt the sincerity of his atheistic beliefs—but…that is beside the point. What I am hoping to do with this blog post is to show him that his belief in atheism is an impossibility—it can’t be true.

 When I confronted him with the belief that God created the universe, he denied it saying that the whole universe, all the planets, stars, rocks, and trees, etc. have been here forever—they are, in his mind eternal. To him, it seems that God is not at all necessary. At one time, I pointed out to him that many scientists believe that the universe is about 15 billion years old and that the sun is believed to last for another 3-5 billion years. All the stars are in the process of burning out, just as is the sun. He replied that he does believe the scientists.  I asked him “If you believe that, and the scientists are right, how can you believe that the universe is eternal? After all, anything that has a beginning and an end cannot be eternal?” (I don’t think my argument convinced him of his error.) So…I am writing this blog in the hope of convincing him that the universe is not eternal; and that God created it.

 There is one scientific fact that my friend believes; and I, too, believe to be true—that is the truth of the three postulates of thermodynamics:

1)   The first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot either be created nor destroyed.

2) The Second law of thermodynamics is that entropy is always increasing. (Entropy is the manifestation of constant deterioration and randomness in the system.)

3) A system's entropy approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-459.67ยบ Fahrenheit).

 The energy in the universe is all there is or ever will be. This is the characteristic of a closed system like our universe.

 It can be shown that matter is merely a storage form of energy; and the two are simply two expressions of energy. Energy can be turned into matter, as exemplified by sunlight that is converted into wood, thus showing that energy is temporarily stored in wood. And…that energy can be released in the form of heat and light when the wood is burned. Many other examples of this process can be seen in our universe. We might see this more clearly when we realize that heat will only pass to objects which are cooler. It will never pass spontaneously to an object which is has a higher temperature. Systems are thermodynamically irreversible. The entropy in a system will not work in the opposite direction spontaneously without input from a source outside the closed system.

 The second law of thermodynamics is that entropy is always increasing. Entropy is the same as randomness and disorganization in a closed system, like our universe. This is just another way of saying that all physical systems are running down to lower and lower levels of energy—thus, they are being downgraded into useless heat, which is subsequently diffused into outer space, never to be regained into a useful source. Entropy always moves downwardly; it never moves to higher energy level systems.

 But…one might ask, if that is true, how does one account for the fact that we, ourselves are extremely organized beings. Where did we come from, if energy only moves in one way, e.g., into systems of lower levels of organization. Where on earth did such highly organized systems as the biological systems we see every day come from?

 The answer to that question is that some Outside Force caused energy to move up the scale of existence instead of downward. The only way for highly organized beings or systems to occur is for an Outside Force to act upon energy to make it develop into complicated forms of matter, such as the human body in all its complexity. That Force has to be something or somebody that exists outside of the closed system of our universe and who is able to cause energy to become progressively more organized. Nevertheless, our bodies will eventually follow the inexorable course of deterioration destined for all other forms of matter, i.e., into useless entropy—heat that will disappear into outer space. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be denied for long.

 All that being said, we must finally admit that we are all in the process of increasing entropy. Our world is in the process of becoming useless heat dissipated into outer space. (Please do not get me wrong here. I am only speaking of our physical bodies, ourselves in a material sense. All this has nothing to do with the destiny of our eternal souls—God will take care of that!)

 Remember, I am in the process of proving that the world we live in is not eternal. The whole thing is faithfully following the laws of thermodynamics. And as entropy only increases and does not decrease unless it is acted upon by an outside process or Person, then it will ultimately result in a universe which will be in complete equilibrium and where there is no more matter or localized energy, which we might identify as our universe. At that point the temperature of our universe will be right about absolute zero. Heat will have no other place to go—equilibrium of the thermodynamic system will have been reached. Needless to say, this system modification will take a very long time. But…it will occur eventually. (Unless, of course, God intervenes, again! We have no indication that He will!)

 Now, let’s get back to our original question about the eternality of the universe. It should be obvious from the above text that if the universe were eternal, then there should have been plenty of time for all the material and localized energy in the whole universe to turn into useless entropy. If that were the case, according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, there would be absolutely no material left in the whole universe, and the ambient temperature would approximate absolute zero. That has certainly not happened, yet; and, thus, we find ourselves in the middle of the process of all material and localized energy turning into entropy. It is, thus, concluded that when the final drop of energy deteriorates in the universe, then that will be the end of the universe, itself. And…as I have said, before, any system with a definite end cannot be eternal. Likewise, the deterioration of a given amount of energy in a definite end presupposes that the energy had to have a beginning. Thus, the universe must have begun at some definite time.

 Now, a parenthetical note from myself: I most certainly do not subscribe to the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I hold the biblical principle to be true that God created the universe, and He did it at a definite time. He very probably did it much later than the scientists say the universe was born. But…that is a different subject for a different time. Again, my purpose in writing this blog is only to show that the universe cannot by any stretch of the imagination be eternal. It had a beginning and it will have an end.

 None of the above is rocket science. King Solomon said essentially the same thing 3000 years ago: “I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere Him.” Ecclesiastes 3:4

 (Several ideas in this blog post came from The Battle for the Beginning by John F. MacArthur.)

Monday, September 14, 2020

Suicide of the Liberals

For this blog post, I am indebted to Professor Gary Saul Morson of the Department of Arts and Humanities at Northwestern University for his essay of the same name, which appeared in First Things of October 2020. Many of the ideas expressed in the blog come from that essay.

Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russia was wracked by unprecedented social chaos, terror, and violent street protests. The protests were instigated by opposition to the authoritarian regime of Czar Nicholas II.  Between 1905 and 1907, 4500 government officials and private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts which included terrorist robberies, acts of extortion, and murder. Chaos abounded and finally resulted in the 1917 Revolution, which was the culmination of public opposition to Russia’s involvement in World War I.

The rioters were self-identified “intellectuals” from the upper working class. These so-called “intellectuals” were not the kind of people we, in America, usually call intellectuals. Our ideas of intellectual persons are those who understand history and who are educated in fields of literature, culture, and science. This classical definition of intellectuality requires that an intellectual person must practice weighing the pros and cons of various viewpoints and be able to assess each viewpoint by considering its advantages and drawbacks objectively. Truly intellectual thinking examines experimental data whenever possible to know what is right and true.

The Russian revolutionary and rioter was certainly not the kind of intellectual described in the above paragraph. He was, rather one of very limited education who was fully convinced that his own ideas and the ideas of all really worthwhile associates were the same. Those rioters agreed upon the premise that violence was the only way of proper behavior for the true citizen. His mind was absolutely closed like the proverbial “steel bear trap.” No alternative ideas were to be considered! Anyone who disagreed with these “intellectuals” was considered anathema.

Far from regretting the maiming and death of innocent bystanders, terrorists in Russia boasted of killing as many people as possible, either because the victims were likely members of the hated bourgeoisie or because any murder helped bring down the old order. The need to inflict pain was transformed from an abnormal irrational compulsion experienced by unbalanced personalities into a formally verbalized obligation for all committed revolutionaries.

Revolutions like that in Russia do not succeed without the support of wealthy, liberal, educated society, which provides the money and the sympathetic control of public opinion changers, e.g., the communication media. Political officials in Russia, provided that necessary support. The Constitutional Democrat Party in the Russian Duma did not engage in terrorism, themselves, but they aided the terrorists in any way they could. They contributed their money and their social influence. Not just lawyers, teachers, doctors, and engineers, but even industrialists and bank directors raised money for the terrorists. Doing so signaled advanced opinion and good manners.

In Russia prior to 1917, social pressure was applied to anyone who was courageous enough to even hint that the terrorist/”intellectual” mantra might be wrong. Compliance with the politically correct viewpoint was the only acceptable way to think. Dissidents were shunned, ignored, and pushed out of expressing their thoughts in print.  Alexandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his book November 1916 that people were made to fear if they expressed anything even slightly out of the popular thought pattern; and they almost always retreated into the practice of repeating current pieties to keep from being socially punished. He noted that soldiers who had been courageous under fire cowered under progressive opinion. Solzhenitsyn wrote that compliance pressure was like a contagious disease—there was no resisting it if you came too close.  

Radicalism was king during that period in Russia. When Pyotr Stolypin, a member of the Duma, offered to enact the entire radical, “intellectual,” program into law, the dissidents refused to cooperate. Evidently their professed beliefs were less important than their emotional identification with radicalism, and violence of whatever sort.

When the Bolsheviks gained control of the country in 1923, they turned on their erstwhile supporters in the Duma as well as their wealthy supporters in business and industry. Those people were considered to be timid bourgeoisie and deserved to be eliminated. The suicide of the liberals was beginning. All questions were considered to be political. Anyone who dared to challenge public opinion was accused of being “reactionary.”

 It is my opinion that today, in the United States, we are facing an analogous situation marked by street violence, arson, business destruction, even killing. Protesters claim they want to eliminate the police. Our thoughts are even monitored for politically correct tendencies. If we try to swim upstream in this awful thought management system, we are not called “reactionary,” as dissidents were called in Russia. In America we are called “racists.” It is a terrible thing, but in this country Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with progressive politicians, teachers, the media, and the courts seem to be molding the “acceptable” thought patterns. Chaos, here we come!

I think the time is long overdue when the BLM protests over such killings as that perpetrated on George Floyd in Minneapolis should be stopped. Although that killing was   something that deserved public attention, the protests in Portland, Oregon have now been going on for over 100 nights, and more protests seem to pop up daily! It seems to me that the cause of the protests has long ago devolved into something other than simple racism. I believe these street protests are naked statements calling for downfall of our government and our democratic system. In that vein, it seems to me that the protests in pre-1917 Russia are analogous to the protests in America, today. 

We have had too much poor thinking in our country in places that need clear thinking. Our government must be concerned for all people’s welfare, not just opposing the other side and accruing power. Newspapers should report news accurately and veritably, not simply opinions printed on the front page. Our universities must aim toward actually educating our younger citizens, instead of passing on bad information or no information from a variety of thoughts and over charging for it. If we don’t oppose this kind of action now, we will have lost the greatest governmental design and best way of living history has ever known. Our courts must follow the Constitution and not popular opinion. Most important we must trust and believe in the true Christian God to guide us.

 











Monday, August 17, 2020

Civil Unrest—The Portland Protests


In the city of Portland, Oregon nightly violence, vandalism, and looting have been going on for 79 nights. The violence has spread to other cities around the United States; and protests have even been staged in cities of Europe. All this mayhem was supposedly started as a protest against racism and was sparked by the police killing of George Floyd on May 25th. However, rioters have included people who are protesting a variety of issues, e.g., immigration rights, homelessness, racism, police accountability, and free speech. The protests have not had any visible leadership—disorganization has prevailed.

 The violence is being supported by the Black Lives Matter organization and the Antifa movement. The NAACP and various news sources have been vocal in supporting the movement. Wikipedia reports that as of 5 July 2020, 29 people have been killed—25 were from gunshot wounds. Many lesser injuries have been incurred.

City administrators have had varying attitudes toward the violence; and Republicans have been vocal in accusing Democrat mayors and city governments of refusing to quell the violence. President Trump has repeatedly protested the violence, and he recently sent federal law keepers into Portland to protect federal buildings from destruction and fire. His efforts were strongly opposed by Portland’s Democrat mayor, and Democrats around the country have protested federal interference. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has commented on the violence by saying, “There is no reason for the President to send federal troops into a city where people are demanding change peacefully and respectfully.” Well…I would say that I doubt these protests are “peaceful and respectful.”

It seems to me that the time is long past when legitimate protesting has been the character of the activity. Anarchy seems to be the guiding principle of these protests; and only destruction of property and destruction of peaceful local government seems to be the general goal.

One movement in the protests has been a widespread demand to defund the police departments in order to prevent further police violence against people of color. This movement has caused city governments to pull police patrols off the streets in some very violent neighborhoods; and that regulation has predictably caused an uptick in crime. A Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics among the nation’s 50 largest cities found that reported homicides were up 24% so far this year, to 3,612. Shootings and gun violence also rose, even though many other violent crimes such as robbery fell. The homicide rate is up because violent criminals have been emboldened by the sidelining of police and the emptying out of jails and prisons due to the protests and because jurisdictions have been trying to limit the spread of covid-19 infection in crowded prisons according to analysts and law-enforcement officials in several cities. 

Though many of America’s biggest cities noting this increase in homicide are run by Democrats, the rise in killings is a bipartisan problem. Homicides are rising at a double-digit rate in most of the big cities run by Republicans, also, including Miami, San Diego, Omaha, Tulsa, Okla., and Jacksonville, Fla. Two major cities run by Independents, San Antonio and Las Vegas are also seeing increasing rates of homicide. Much of the increase in homicide is being seen in parts of these cities that are not involved in rioting. In Portland, for instance, the police department did not see any homicides around protests in July, a department spokeswoman said. Through June, its latest crime maps show, all of its homicides happened east and south of the city center.

I think the time has passed when simple and non-intrusive means should be used to control the violence. Removal of federal soldiers from Portland does not seem to have helped the situation. Despite pleas from local city officials for the removal of those troops, city resources do not seem able to control the damage.  It seems to me that police protection should be increased—not decreased. There is a time when force is needed to make America’s cities safe and livable. Police departments around the country are noting a decrease in applicants for police service. That is understandable. After all, who wants to work in a police department that is not supported by city governments which do not support police activity in controlling crime and violence?      

 

   

 

Friday, July 17, 2020

Natural Law—What Is It?


  I have often wondered what “natural law” is. I observe that the idea of natural law, however, was not a mystery to the founders of our nation. As a reminder of that, please refer to the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
  When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)
Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society, government, or court judges. Natural Law is the unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government.
To solve an ethical dilemma using natural law, the basic belief that everyone is naturally entitled to live their own lives must be considered and respected. For example, acts of violence, like murder, work against people's natural inclination to live a good and innocent life.
 Under the natural law theory, only laws that are just are to be followed, while unjust laws may be ignored. Natural law theorists believe that it is a basic principle of human nature to want to live a good life, and, therefore, human laws should reflect that desire. (I do not have to wonder how legitimate Natural Law theorists would view the practice of abortion!)
Natural law theory posits that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.

Our purpose, according to natural law theorists, is to live a good, happy life. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose -- that is, actions that would prevent a fellow human from living a good, happy life -- are considered 'unnatural', or 'immoral'. Laws have a purpose too: to provide justice.

The term 'natural law' is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature. Everything in nature, according to natural law theory, has a purpose, including humans. Our purpose, according to natural law theorists, is to live a good, happy life.

Natural law maintains that rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society, government, or court judges.

In summary of the above remarks, one would think that natural law is an instinctive appeal to common sense and human conscience. As far as it goes, I must admit that that is probably correct. However…

It is my belief that for the Christian, there is far more to the “natural” comprehension of law than the human conscience. After all, there are many people who conceive of right and wrong in ways inimical to biblical principles. We see in our society, today, people who believe that abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, divorce, rioting, looting, pillaging, theft, and adverse governmental interventions, among other nefarious things, are perfectly within the purview of good conscience.

I thank God, however, that He has set before us a manual that points us infallibly to better things above and in our world, today. The Bible points out that we, in this life, are traveling through a temporary situation, and we can look forward to better things in the future. Let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, for better guidance than “natural law,” a good and happy life, only.


Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Who Was George Floyd; and What Was His Significance?



  George Floyd was a black American man killed during an arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after allegedly using counterfeit money to buy cigarettes. Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck for nearly eight minutes as he lay handcuffed on the ground. After his death, protests against police violence toward black people quickly spread across the United States and internationally. Destruction of property in cities across America, looting, and gang theft are all left in the wake of the Floyd killing.
  Floyd played football and basketball throughout high school and college. He held several jobs, and he was also a hip-hop artist and a mentor in his religious community. Between 1997 and 2005, he was sentenced to prison eight times (drug possession, theft, and trespassing); in 2009, he accepted a plea bargain for a 2007 armed robbery, serving four years in prison. The conviction of 2009 condemned him to five years in prison, but he was paroled after serving four years in the lock-up.  In 2014, he moved to the Minneapolis area, finding work as a truck driver and a bouncer in a bar. In 2020, he lost his security job during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  After Floyd's release from prison, he became involved with Resurrection Houston, a Christian church and ministry, where he mentored young men. He helped his mother recuperate after a stroke. He delivered meals and assisted on other projects with Angel By Nature Foundation, a charity founded by rapper “The tha Truth.” Later he became involved with a ministry that brought men from the Third Ward to Minnesota in a church-work program with drug rehabilitation and job placement services.
  It is obvious from the above account that Floyd was a complicated person, being involved in charitable activities at times and chronic, habitual, crime, violence and armed robbery at other times. His behavior has caused courts to commit him to prison several times because he has been dangerous to the American citizenry. Several family members and friends remember him as a “gentle giant,” always ready to help people in difficulty whenever he could. He died a death he did not deserve for his last crime, e.g., allegedly passing counterfeit money to buy cigarettes. Since his death, more than $25 million has been raised by GoFundMe for the support of his wife and family and to pay for his funeral. Nevertheless, I could find no evidence on the internet that he had been living with the children he fathered or the woman to whom he had supposedly been married. There seems to be no evidence that he was paying child support money.
 Whatever his legacy may include, it seems inappropriate that his memory should be emblazoned in glory and honor for an exemplary life. I find no such honor having been paid for the memory of any police officer killed in the line of duty for attempting to maintain law and order on the streets.
 Whatever George Floyd’s legacy may be, it seems to me that he was an icon of inspiration to those who were looking for some excuse for violence and mayhem in society. I do not think that his memory deserves to be used to justify widespread violence and destruction.  

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Crime and Violence in America


How to access my blog posts: manringen.blogspot.com

Our nation is beset by a wave of violence, murder, rape, destruction of stores, businesses, and even homes. Looting is rampant in our inner cities where store windows and doors are broken down allowing thugs and thieves to enter without resistance. How can this be happening?!!
Much of the mayhem is being aggravated by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization which aids and abets such destructiveness. Liberals among us ascribe all this chaos to racism, poverty, lack of opportunity for black citizens, poor education, and limitation of health and medical care for the poor (and mostly black) residents of inner-city neighborhoods. But…we need to examine those presuppositions to see if they really are the root causes.

In the first half of the 20th Century, the Black poverty rate was significantly higher than it is today. Black incarceration and crime rates were significantly lower than they would become in later decades. The Black homicide rate fell by 18% in the 1940’s and another 20% in the 1950’s. While this was going on, the Black poverty rate also declined by 40% over the same period. Black incomes grew faster than the incomes of Whites. Safer neighborhoods facilitated upward economic mobility.

In the second half of the 20th Century, those trends reversed. In the 1960’s violent crime rates doubled and continued to increase sharply until the early 1990’s when better policing and increasing incarceration brought crime down. Between 1990 and 2016 the homicide rate rose 40% among black men.

In 2013, the Black Lives Matter organization was established and today, 40 chapters of the organization exist worldwide. This organization was established after the killing of Travon Martin. Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, a man of mixed race, as he was attempting to defend a gated community in Sanford, Florida. Martin was a 17-year-old Black, who was unarmed and visiting his relatives in the neighborhood. When an altercation occurred between the two, Zimmerman was injured; but he fired his gun and killed Martin. Later, Zimmerman was acquitted of wrongdoing because he was considered to have been acting in self-defense.

The Black Lives Matter organization has been active in disrupting the American society lately with its open advocacy of dangerous and violent protest activities. Mark Levin, a conservative radio host has said that anyone “embracing or promoting BLM should be made aware of exactly what it stands for.  Violence. Anarchy, Marxism.  And it has a convicted terrorist on the board of its fundraising group.”
Hawk Newsome, the president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter, threatened to "burn down this system" if "the country doesn't give us what we want" in an interview on 24 June 2020 with FOX News host Martha MacCallum. In my opinion, this kind of statement amounts to treason against the stability of our nation. The group is also a strong voice in favor of homosexual, trans-sexual lifestyles. (If anyone reading this blog post does not believe these accusations against BLM, I would recommend you look at their website and click on “What We Believe.”) But…you may ask, “Where did this disruptive rhetoric and behavior come from?”

The Black Lives Matter movement would have everyone believe that all Black persons hate the police and want the Federal Government to disappear, because it does not give them the perks it wants. Jason Riley, a Black columnist for the Wall Street Journal has said that groups like BLM are “out of stem with most Blacks, let alone most of the country.” (WSJ op-ed 6-25-20) In 2015, after Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri, a majority of Blacks said police treated them fairly. Thirty-eight percent of Blacks at that time said they wanted a greater police presence in their local communities. Eighteen percent of Whites wanted that. Last year a Gallop survey asked Blacks and Hispanics in low income neighborhoods about policing and found that they are not averse to law enforcement. Fifty-nine percent of both races said they would like more police to spend time in their neighborhoods than they currently did. Fifty percent of Whites responded that way.

Police shootings have fallen precipitously since the 1970’s. Now 95% of black homicides do not come from law enforcement officers. Jason Riley states that police action against blacks does not come from racial bias it comes from criminal behavior.

In the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, two great leaders of the Black community were influential in promoting constructive behavior in society: They were both former slaves, Booker T. Washington, and Frederick Douglass. These men advocated peaceful opposition to discriminatory behavior against Blacks. Washington was especially noted for his lifting up of Blacks into higher levels of education and entrepreneurship. Douglas advocated Black participation in the established politics of his day. Both of these men and their followers sought peaceful participation in America through assimilation into the U.S. population. (It may be noted that other ethnic groups have found fulfillment of these desires through peaceful means and assimilation, e.g., Jews, Irish, and Asians.)

Martin Luther King, Jr (1929-1968) was known for his advocacy of peaceful protests in Albany, GA and Birmingham, AL and for his famous “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. As the years passed, Dr. King became more oppositional and he became known for his opposition to capitalism, poverty, and the Viet Nam War. In those latter years of his life, he was under investigation by the FBI for his supposed communist ties. Before he was finally assassinated in 1968, he was planning a national occupation of Washington, D.C. by the poor and Black population.

Another prominent actor in the saga of Black oppositional activity was W.E.B Dubois (1868-1963). DuBois was an outspoken advocate for Black people the world over. He was a Socialist, and he eventually founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His many writings have encouraged integration of educational, political, and corporate entities for the advancement of Blacks. DuBois argued that the Black man deserved equal rights with the White man under the Fourteenth Amendment, and he should fight for them. On the other hand, the writings of Booker T. Washington have emphasized the development of economic and cultural improvements in order to gain the same goal.

In more modern times, Black people have most strongly advocated more violent forms of protest, modeled after the leadership of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Still, voices of moderate Black leaders like Shelby Steele, a professor of sociology at UC Berkeley and W. Julius Wilson at Chicago have spoken out in favor of more peaceful and constructive changes.

William Julius Wilson (born 1935) disputed the liberal stance that the “black underclass” owed its existence to entrenched racial discrimination; he also disagreed with the conservative view that African American poverty was due to cultural deficiencies and welfare dependency. Instead, Wilson implicated sweeping changes in the global economy that pulled low-skilled manufacturing jobs out of the inner city, the flight from the inner city of its most successful residents, and the lingering effects of past discrimination. He believed the problems of the underclass could be alleviated only by “race neutral” programs such as universal health care and government-financed jobs. Wilson observed the structural reasons for the plight of Blacks in America’s large cities. These structural reasons include the limited availability of economic and social opportunities and the extremely high crime rates among young black men from ghetto neighborhoods. In addition to those problems, Blacks face cultural problems, such as the tendencies for black men to be nonparticipators in black families. Wilson never advocated violence as a source of relief for the problems in urban America. 

In spite of Wilson’s admonitions, governmental programs, most notably the measures taken by the LBJ administration have failed miserably to raise the Black poverty rate or to do anything good to the deteriorating Black families in our midst. At this time 75% of Black babies are born out of wedlock; and this speaks volumes about why Black people today do not know how to deal constructively with social problems. The American Black simply has not had a father figure to teach him how to behave.

Other Black observers of the urban scene today who have strongly advocated against violence on the streets have been Shelby Steele, a sociologist from the University of California, Berkeley and Jason Riley, an editorialist for the Wall Street Journal. Charles Murray has also spoken of his agreement in this matter; Murray thinks the difficulty being caused by chaos in the cities hearkens back to broken cultural factors in the Black population.  Broken homes, sexual promiscuity, irresponsibility in social dealing, will do nothing except damage our society. It is my own opinion that the neglect of children (born and unborn) is also an important factor in delivering violent and unproductive citizens to our society. 

The essence of what I am saying can be gleaned in more complete form by reading the book by Jason Riley, “Please Stop Helping Us.” Riley makes the cogent argument that administrative/governmental programs do little for the problem of urban poverty. The only thing that holds any real hope of changing things for the better in American cities is improvement in the economic/business fields. Americans of all races need to get back to work, quit relying on government aid, and build trusting and faithful families with fathers who take an active interest in socializing their children.

Now, for a personal note from my own experience in trying to dope out the problem of urban violence. Several commentators have noted that one reason the police have difficulty controlling violence in the cities is that Blacks and others in low income neighborhoods is that the residents are reluctant to “snitch” on their neighbors for fear of retribution from the criminals. Several years ago, when Nancy and I were attending an inner-city church in Detroit, there was a poor Black man in that church who was unemployed and continually asking for prayer that he might find a job. When he failed to find a job, Nancy and I went out and found employment for him. We went to his apartment building to give him the good news, but the neighbors mistook me for a police agent and would not help us find his apartment. That kind of noncooperation never helps law enforcement.

So where does this polemic on violence in America lead us. I believe that the basic problem was elucidated by Mollie Hemingway on FOX news when she pointed out that the underlying problem in the violence and spirit of rebellion in American is the deteriorating family, especially the black family where 75% of Black babies are born out of wedlock. The problem of deteriorating families is not limited to Black families; Whites are culpable, too. Fathers are not the only people absent from the family scene. Many working mothers need to stay home and raise the next generation.  Personally, I think that there is another, even more pertinent cause of the difficulty, i.e., the general lack of faith in Christ by our population as a whole. This problem is not limited to the Black population; it is shared by Americans of all races and ethnic groups. We need to get back to true Christian orientation if we are ever going to solve our cultural and behavioral problems.

each another’s burdens bear,
to your church a pattern give,
showing how believers live.

Ed and Nancy Manring



Monday, June 22, 2020

History of the Universe




Mankind has long wondered about the age of the Universe—when did it begin and when will it end? Atheists think they have the answer—it has always been here; and it did not require a Creator to explain its presence. However, scientists testify that the Universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. They believe that the sun is about 4.5 billion years old; and that it is now in the process of burning up all its hydrogen. It will eventually begin to burn its helium and become a red giant, then a white dwarf star, then a black dwarf; and then, finally burn out—a process that will take about 5 billion more years. All the rest of the stars will eventually burn out, too.

So…from the scientific viewpoint, the Universe had a beginning and will have an end. Things that have a beginning and an end are not eternal. The Universe had a cause! The Universe came from someplace.

Let’s look at what we know for certain about our Universe. There are two immutable facts about the Universe—the two laws of thermodynamics:
1.   First Law of Thermodynamics—Energy cannot be either  created or destroyed.
2.  Second Law of Thermodynamics—All energy systems are running down, i.e., they are gravitating to lower energy levels.
In a closed system, energy can be changed into matter, but only with the input of more energy. For instance, under the influence of the sun’s rays, the energy in our closed system, i.e., the earth, can be changed into wood. Therefore, matter is just another form of energy where it is temporarily stored. When wood burns,that energy will be released; it will turn into useless heat, which will eventually radiate out into empty space. But…it will never disappear completely. Thus, we can see both the 1st and the 2nd laws of thermodynamics in action.

The Earth is also a closed system. We can see that the universe depends on two principles: Conservation (of energy) and disintegration (i.e., it runs down to lower forms of energy). The only way for complexity in the Universe to increase is if an outside source of energy impinges upon it. Complexity will not increase spontaneously unless it disobeys the 2nd law. But…in our experience we see opposite forces working,  e.g., innovation  (new ideas, the opposite of conservation) and integration (the opposite of disintegration). These opposite forces could only be manifested if someone or something injects outside energy. Guess who that might be!

Other manifestations of God’s intervention in our Universe are morality and art. These qualities have absolutely no survival qualities about them. They cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Many scientific ideas have been put forward to explain the origin and operation of the universe. Those ideas are mulitplied upon one another in a bewildering blur of changing theoretical alternatives. It is beyond the reach of any inquiring mind to grasp all the various permutations and variations of scientific ideas in order to understand the universe in that scientific context. Bench experimenters, psychologists, philosophers, biologists, chemists, physicists—all have had their say in explaining the universe. None have been able to put it all together in  a comprehensive and believable way.

I have found that many thinkers who look for an answer to the origin of the universe cleave closely to the simplest explanation possible; and I think they come closer to the ultimate answer than these sophisticated scientists. I believe the right approach is likely the simplest approach. I think the answer is that God is the uncaused causer who puts outside energy into closed systems!

The explanation given above is attractive to me because it preserves the two laws of thermodynamics while, at the same time, it allows God to be identified as the outside injector of energy into physical, closed systems.

God did it!!

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Who Kills Black Men


The National Review published an opinion article on 5 December 2019 entitled, “The Need to Discuss Black on Black Crime.” Of course, that article preceded all the violent chaos that erupted in America (and, even in foreign nations) in early March 2020 stimulated by the killing of George Floyd. However, the article raised the question, again, about the incidence of Black on Black violence and the question of what is causing it and what should be done about it. Since then, multiple articles have appeared documenting the violence and chaos on the streets of our country. One of them prompted a reader to publish the following letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Letter to the Editor of WSJ by Dave Fortin 6-4-2020

As bad as we all feel about what happen to Mr. Floyd, and I think it was atrocious, there are other very recent atrocities that seem to never get anyone's attention. There were 16 people shot in Philly this past Sunday & Monday - 7 died. In Baltimore, 13 murders since last Thursday. In Chicago, an unbelievable 92 people shot and 27 dead, just last weekend.  The Country has been rampaged over the murder of Mr. Floyd but, as far as I know, not one protest was started, or store looted over the killers who murdered these 47 people. Why is that? Were their lives less valuable than Mr. Floyd's or is the nation's outrage reserved only for the acts of bad cops?

I responded to Mr. Fortin’s letter

This is a good point. I am under the impression that most murders of Black people are committed by other Blacks. The number of White on Black murders are much less. There is something wrong with a culture that seems to promote violence and murder. However, in thinking about this issue, it might be a good idea to think about the number of White on White murders. I wonder if these murders are really a racist issue at all.

No matter how often we are admonished to avoid ascribing bad social effects to racial/ethnic causes, it is impossible to deny that Black on Black murders are simply a fact of life in America, today. That kind of social effect is obvious from hard data on murder statistics. As will be noted below, the improved state of social conditions bought about in America for Blacks during the mid and late 20th Century, have not altered the statistical facts that the predominant causers of Black murders are Black perpetrators.

In 2017, homicide-victimization rates for Black men were 3.9 times the national average and 52 percent of all known homicide victims were Black. The perpetrators of these crimes were overwhelmingly African Americans. In 2018, where the homicide victim was Black, the suspected killer was also Black 88 percent of the time. And this is not an exceptional situation. From 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of Black victims were killed by other African Americans. High rates of Black-on-Black killing have been the norm for well over a century.

Violent crime is commonly intraracial, i.e., Whites kill Whites, Hispanics kill Hispanics. After the 1960’s, America’s crime rate increased markedly, but that trend had begun to abate by the early 1990’s. Black violent crime was a major factor in the post-1960s crime tsunami, but it persisted even after the crime wave began to ebb in the 1990s. From 2000 to 2015, the mean African American homicide-victimization rate, adjusted for age, was 20.1 per 100,000. That is more than three times the Hispanic rate of 6.4 (despite disadvantages comparable to those of Blacks) and over seven times the average White rate, 2.7. Moreover, as already noted, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of the killers of Black murder victims were other African Americans. In short, this is about exceptionally high as well as overwhelmingly intraracial Black violent crime. White-on-White homicide is also intraracial, but, the rates do not approach the Black rate of Black on Black murders

African Americans are worried about and strongly disapprove of violence in their communities. But there is also a deep strain of mistrust of police in poor Black neighborhoods, and this, along with fear of reprisals by Black criminals, leads to a refusal to cooperate with the authorities. Such noncooperation only worsens the Black-crime problem by providing impunity for the most violent. I have experienced this, myself: When Nancy and I were working in inner-city Detroit, I was often mistaken for an agent of the police force; and I was thusly distrusted and treated with a lack of cooperation.

The “stop snitching ethos,” perpetuates itself by preventing criminals who victimize communities from being brought to justice. But if rates of Black violent-crime are excessive (which they are), if these high rates have persisted over a long term (which they have), and if the stop-snitching ethos aggravates the problem (which it does), then it can be rightly concluded that urban violence is deplored by the Black community, but at the same time it is enabled by a culture of noncooperation.

In the 1920’s, many Blacks migrated to the north and set up Black ghettos in various cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and others. Blacks came to these cities to make a better living for themselves; and many of them were able to do just that. But…as some of them became more affluent, they moved out of the inner-cities and into the suburbs, leaving the unemployed and the violent in the ghettos.

Black-on-Black violent crime was excessive in the late 19th century even in the South and, despite ups and downs, persistent crime patterns have continued, even up to the present day. Rates of Black violent crime continued to grow during the great migration north and the “ghettos” that developed in the 1920s.

Despite the lynchings and other mistreatment by Whites in the late 19th century, Black homicide was overwhelmingly carried out by other African Americans. In Savannah, Ga., for example, from 1896 to 1903, researchers found 91 homicides in which the race of both the offender and the victim were known. Sixty-eight of the victims (75 percent of all those killed) were Black, and 61 African Americans, or 90 percent of the alleged perpetrators, were arrested for these murders.

In the 20th century, the number of Black victims escalated while the killers remained overwhelmingly African American. In Memphis from 1920 to 1925, where African Americans were 38 percent of the population, Black-on-Black killings were two-thirds of all murders in the city (in which race was known).

An examination of coroner’s files uncovered 500 homicide victims in Birmingham, Ala., between 1937 and 1944. The city’s population was roughly 40 percent Black, but 85 percent of both the killers (418) and the killed (427) were African American.

In the contemporary period, from 1976 to 2014, it is estimated that 198,288 African Americans died nationwide at the hands of Black killers. That is 5,218 deaths per year on average, roughly 19 times the annual number of deaths of African Americans in confrontations with police.

It has been posited by many progressive thinkers that the high crime/murder rates noted in the Black population has been caused by White oppression.  In thinking this way, one would expect higher levels of Black crime when the racial oppression was at its maximum, and lower levels when it was less so. But that has not been the case. Black homicide rates were about the same as White homicide rates during slavery. They frequently were higher in the North than in the more oppressive South throughout the 20th century. And they hit new peaks in the late 1960s, a time when Whites supported the most sweeping civil-rights legislation in American history.

Secondly, if White abuse were responsible for Black violence, if White people were the problem of downtrodden Blacks, why weren’t Whites targeted more often? Why were other African Americans overwhelmingly the victims? Why was Black-on-Black violence elevated even after lynching and Jim Crow were no longer powerful disincentives to Black-on-White crime?

Third, how do we explain levels of Black violence out of all proportion to African American disadvantage? Other groups suffer comparable adversities — Hispanics, for example — but have much lower rates of violence. Though the poverty rate for Hispanics is 92 percent of the rate for Blacks, African Americans have three times the homicide rate. Indeed, many of the low-income Black immigrants to the United States, such as the Haitians who flooded into southern Florida in the 1980s, had lower violent-crime rates than did the African American residents. This despite the fact that they too were Black and impoverished and had suffered a legacy of the most brutal slavery.

So, what explanation can we have for the high incidence of Black on Black murders? A compelling case can be made that African Americans, having spent centuries in the South, adopted the southern White penchant for violent responses to perceived insults and affronts, what Thomas Sowell once called the “Black redneck” phenomenon. On this view, Black criminal violence was the product of the southern-male honor culture that, among Black men of lower socioeconomic status, manifested as a violent response to petty insults, sexual rivalries, etc. Since African Americans interacted socially with other persons of color much more than with Whites, the victims of such honor-culture assaults were overwhelmingly Black. This violence continued when African Americans migrated to the North. Indeed, it escalated in the northern cities, where there was greater freedom and less oppression.

It is my opinion that American Blacks, living next door to affluent White citizens feel an overwhelming sense of inferiority, and that causes frustration and desperation that results finally in violence and chaotic behavior. I can think of no other reason why Black rioters could find any reason for destruction and looting of stores in Phoenix for a killing in Minneapolis.

Racism probably does play somewhat of a role here in explaining the cause for Black homicide rates. We can envision discrimination (for reasons of racism or some other reason) has kept large numbers of Blacks from rising to the middle class, and the middle class, Black or White, eschews violence. Had Blacks been permitted to advance socioeconomically, their story would have been more like the Irish and Italian immigrant narrative, with a rise from violence and poverty to affluence and law-abidingness.

The most extreme progressive thinking views the entire criminal-justice system as irredeemably racist and calls for its abolition. This is the theme song of anarchy and its disciples! Such extremism hurts, not helps, poor communities of color. Of course, this brings us right back to the realities of Black-on-Black crime and the dire need for effective law enforcement in African American communities.

The proposals, i.e., increased police patrols in Black neighborhoods, programs to defray the opposition to police protection, better schools for Black people, affirmative action, meaningful threats of punishment for crime, locking up known violent offenders, etc., may or may not work, but they probably are worth a try. After all, meaningful progress on fundamental socioeconomic conditions will take generations to achieve. People living with the reality of urban violence need relief right now.
  
For decades now, criminologists, especially those espousing or at least harboring leftist views, have insisted that harmful social conditions are the primary cause of violent crime in general and Black violent crime in particular. This has not gotten them very far as an explanation for the enormously high rates of Black-on-Black violence. Despite declines since the mid-1990s, relatively high rates have persisted even in the face of overall Black socioeconomic progress. The policy proposals in the preceding paragraph can succeed in reducing these rates where others have not, but the underlying cause of the problem is still elusive, and scholars, politicians, and citizens must continue to search for a good explanation.

At the end of this blog, I offer my own opinion for the cause of the problem. I believe that the general lack of a consensual opinion in favor of faith in Jesus Christ is the underlying problem. This lack of Christian faith is not unique to the Black culture (If anything, Blacks more likely trend toward biblical faith than Whites.) Our whole society misses the desired mark of social peace and rest caused by lack of a meaningful faith in Jesus.

Yes, lack of Christ is the underlying cause of the difficulty, but the agency that deals out the chaos and violence is the deterioration of the American family. Today, 75% of Black babies are born into families where there is no identifiable father. Good, God-fearing fathers are meant to socialize their children; and good fathers can do that in concert with good mothers. Both are needed.

Much of this blog post was excerpted from the National Review article of December 2019 referred to above.