All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez celebrates thousands of Americans losing their jobs

AOC: cheap oil makes expensive green energy viable
AOC: cheap oil makes expensive green energy viable

I don’t think anyone doubts that the future of any political party lies in the young leaders. The Republicans have Dan Crenshaw. And the Democrats have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC grew up with a silver spoon in her mouth, and attended the prestigious Boston University. After graduating, she worked as a bartender / waitress. But she has opinions about running U.S. economic policy.

Daily Wire reports:

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) cheered the news that oil futures plunged below zero on Monday as demand due to the coronavirus pandemic continued to plummet.

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “You absolutely love to see it. This along with record low interest rates means it’s the right time for a worker-led, mass investment in green infrastructure to save our planet. *cough*

Ocasio-Cortez wrote her statement while promoting a tweet that stated: “Oil prices now at ‘negative values,’ meaning oil producers have to pay people to take it off their hands and store it because when demand plunges (like now), that is less expensive for them than building more storage and/or shutting wells down.”

So, I have two thoughts about this.

First thought is that the reason that energy companies don’t invest in green energy is because wind and solar power are far more expensive than conventional sources of power like coal, natural gas and nuclear. That is not even considering the inconsistency of wind and solar, or the murderous effects on wildlife, especially birds. If conventional sources of energy like crude oil are priced LOW, then that makes them an even better deal than green energy. The only way green energy would be viable is if the price of conventional sources were HIGH. This woman has a degree in “economics” from Boston University. I think you can see why she was working as a bartender / waitress for her entire career after graduating.

Second thought is that the Democrats need the economy to go into a recession so they can win in November. Trump’s policies led to amazing economic growth. We’re struggling right now because of the Wuhan virus, but the economy is set for a strong (STRONG!) recovery in the second half of the year. The only hope that the Democrats have is to destroy the economy. And that’s why their allies in the news media are trying to trumpet any bad news they can find in order to keep the economy shut down long enough that we really do go into a recession.

Now, you might think that AOC isn’t all bad, and that she is supporting efforts to provide relief to small businesses impacted by the government’s stay-at-home orders. But you’d be wrong.

Fox News explains:

Meanwhile, negotiators from the House, Senate and White House are close to finalizing an accord on the so-called “phase 3.5” response to the coronavirus pandemic and hope to have an agreement late Monday or Tuesday, Fox News is told.

The response will include $310 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which offers grants to small businesses struggling to make payroll, sources tell Fox News. The $350 billion fund depleted last Thursday.

A separate provision worth $60 billion (including $50 billion in loans and $10 billion in grants) would be allocated to economic disaster loans. Also included: $75 billion for hospitals and $25 billion for coronavirus testing. The total of the package would be north of $470 billion.

Ocasio-Cortez has said she’ll oppose the plan in its current form because it doesn’t do enough for illegal immigrants, among others. It’s wrong for Congress to pass an incomplete package and then “peace out” for several weeks, she remarked.

It doesn’t do enough for illegal immigrants, so she can’t support it. I hope you are learning something about Democrats, because this is where the party is going in the future.

Harvard law professor publishes essay suggesting “presumptive ban” on homeschooling

A Harvard University law professor decided to write an essay attacking homeschooling. She also suggested that homeschooling be banned by government. She has three concerns. First, that homeschool students underperform public school students,second that homeschooled students will be abused by their parents, and third that homeschool students will remain religious unless they are indoctrinated in government-run public schools.

Here’s an article about her essay in Daily Wire:

Prof. Elizabeth Bartholet is leading the charge against those who actively resist public schools and she believes that the generation currently being homeschooled is an eventual, if not active, breeding ground for racism, sexism, and isolationism.

“Many homeschool precisely because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to public education and to our democracy. Many promote racial segregation and female subservience. Many question science. Many are determined to keep their children from exposure to views that might enable autonomous choice about their future lives,” she claims.

In the essay for Harvard Magazine, Bartholet goes one step further, arguing not just that homeschooling is, itself, problematic, but that it should be snuffed out as a practice by the heavy hand of American government.

“Homeschooling, she says, not only violates children’s right to a ‘meaningful education’ and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society,” the article’s author reports.

“We have an essentially unregulated regime in the area of homeschooling,” Bartholet claims in the piece. Although every state has basic educational standards (that most homeschooling families not only meet but exceed), she believes that “if you look at the legal regime governing homeschooling, there are very few requirements that parents do anything.”

And her assumption, of course, is not that homeschoolers represent a wide swath of American families, but are, instead, largely uneducated themselves and looking to keep their children in the dark: “That means, effectively, that people can homeschool who’ve never gone to school themselves, who don’t read or write themselves.”

Worse still, Bartholet seems to argue, it’s possible these homeschoolers are…religious.

“[S]urveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture,” Harvard Magazine warns. “Bartholet notes that some of these parents are ‘extreme religious ideologues’ who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.”

No doubt Bartholet believes that all religious ideologies are somewhat suspect.

Public schools, which can be breeding grounds of inefficiency, and often struggle to educate children on an individual level, Bartholet says, are places of miracles. Children who attend public school “grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.”

For the first issue, about homeschoolers underperforming, the only valid test of this is standardized tests. How do homeschooled students perform on standardized tests compared to public school students?

The SAT 2014 test scores of college-bound homeschool students were higher than the national average of all college-bound seniors that same year. Some 13,549 homeschool seniors had the following mean scores: 567 in critical reading, 521 in mathematics, and 535 in writing (College Board, 2014a). The mean SAT scores for all college-bound seniors in 2014 were 497 in critical reading, 513 in mathematics, and 487 in writing (College Board, 2014b). The homeschool students’ SAT scores were 0.61 standard deviation higher in reading, 0.26 standard deviation higher in mathematics, and 0.42 standard deviation higher in writing than those of all college-bound seniors taking the SAT, and these are notably large differences.

[…]This point-in-time description of SAT scores simply shows that the test scores of homeschool students are higher than the national average for all students. No careful analysis has been done of these scores to determine whether certain background variables might statistically explain the differences in scores. These relatively high SAT scores of home-educated students are consistent with their high SAT scores in preceding research and with research findings on the overall success of college students who were home educated (Gloeckner & Jones, 2013; Murphy, 2012; Ray & Eagleson, 2008).

Her second concern is about child abuse. What would have been useful herewould be for her to cite a study comparing rates of child abuse in homeschools versus public schools. She didn’t do that. But Matt Walsh had something in this Daily Wire article:

A study commissioned by the Department of Education found that a full 10 percent of children in public school are victims of sexual misconduct by teachers and staff. And that’s to say nothing of the many thousands of children who have been sexually abused at school by other students. Comparing this to the rate of child abuse at home — and even comparing sexual abuse at school to sexual abuse and every other kind of abuse at home — it seems apparent that a child is more likely to suffer abuse at school than at home. So, yes, an abused child who is homeschooled will not be rescued from his situation by a vigilant teacher. That is a tragedy. But there are many more children who are not abused at home and then are abused at school, which means that schools more often play the role of abuser than protector.

On top of all of this, public school also offers bullying, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, social ostracization, and peer pressure.

Her third concern is accurate – homeschooled students do retain their Christian faith more than students who are indoctrinated by secular leftist unionized teachers in government-run public schools. But when you think about how public school teachers only get raises if they graduate enough students who want to vote for the Big Government political party, that’s not surprising. Parents see education as a way for their kids to learn useful skills in order to find high-paying work. The fact that most homeschooled children aren’t godless moral relativists isn’t a defect in homeschooling.

Stephen C. Meyer lectures on intelligent design and the origin of life

Christianity and the progress of science
Christianity and the progress of science

A MUST-SEE lecture based on Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell“.

I highly recommend watching the lecture, and looking at the slides. The quality of the video and the content is first class. There is some Q&A (9 minutes) at the end of the lecture.

Topics:

  • intelligent design is concerned with measuring the information-creating capabilities of natural forces like mutation and selection
  • Darwinists think that random mutations and natural selection can explain the origin and diversification of living systems
  • Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining small-scale adaptive changes within types of organisms
  • but there is skepticism, even among naturalists, that Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of animal designs
  • even if you concede that Darwinism can account for all of the basic animal body plans, there is still the problem of life’s origin
  • can Darwinian mechanisms explain the origin of the first life? Is there a good naturalistic hypothesis to explain it?
  • there are at least two places in the history of life where new information is needed: origin of life, and Cambrian explosion
  • overview of the structure of DNA and protein synthesis (he has helpful pictures and he uses the snap lock blocks, too)
  • the DNA molecule is composed of a sequence of bases that code for proteins, and the sequence is carefully selected to have biological function
  • meaningful sequences of things like computer code, English sentences, etc. require an adequate cause
  • it is very hard to arrive at a meaningful sequence of a non-trivial length by randomly picking symbols/letters
  • although any random sequence of letters is improbable, the vast majority of sequences are gibberish/non-compiling code
  • similarly, most random sequences of amino acids are lab-proven (Doug Axe’s work) to be non-functional gibberish
  • the research showing this was conducted at Cambridge University and published in the Journal of Molecular Biology
  • so, random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell
  • however, even natural selection coupled with random mutation cannot explain the first living cell
  • there must already be replication in order for mutation and selection to work, so they can’t explain the first replicator
  • but the origin of life is the origin of the first replicator – there is no replication prior to the first replicator
  • the information in the first replicator cannot be explained by law, such as by chemical bonding affinities
  • the amino acids are attached like magnetic letters on a refrigerator
  • the magnetic force sticks the letters ON the fridge, but they don’t determine the specific sequence of the letters
  • if laws did determine the sequence of letters, then the sequences would be repetitive
  • the three materialist explanations – chance alone, chance and law, law alone – are not adequate to explain the effect
  • the best explanation is that an intelligent cause is responsible for the biological explanation in the first replicator
  • we know that intelligent causes can produce functional sequences of information, e.g. – English, Java code
  • the structure and design of DNA matches up nicely with the design patterns used by software engineers (like WK!)

There are some very good tips in this lecture so that you will be able to explain intelligent design to others in simple ways, using everyday household items and children’s toys to symbolize the amino acids, proteins, sugar phosphate backbones, etc.

Proteins are constructed from a sequence of amino acids:

A sequence of amino acids forming a protein
A sequence of amino acids forming a protein

Proteins sticking onto the double helix structure of DNA:

Some proteins sticking onto the sugar phosphate backbone
Some proteins sticking onto the sugar phosphate backbone

I highly, highly recommend this lecture. You will be delighted and you will learn something.

Here is an article that gives a general overview of how intelligent design challenges. If you want to read something more detailed about the material that he is covering in the lecture above related to the origin of life, there is a pretty good article here.

There is a good breakdown of some of the slides with helpful flow charts here on Uncommon Descent.

Positive arguments for Christian theism