Since I’m going to see the Gosnell movie today, I thought I would read a few articles to remind me of the facts. The best article was by the film makers themselves, writing for the Daily Signal.
In progressive Pennsylvania, here was a doctor, Kermit Gosnell, an African-American, he’s in his early 70s now, who ran an abortion clinic for 30 years, where he routinely, and these are not my words, this is the grand jury’s words, where he routinely delivered babies alive and then cut their necks with scissors.
And he did this for 30 years. That’s why in the eyes of the grand jury and also ABC’s Terry Moran, he was described as America’s biggest serial killer, which is the phrase we use in the film.
There’s so many details that are worth dwelling on in a way. He trained his untrained staff to do this while he wasn’t there, and when I say untrained staff, these are people posing as nurses, who have a seventh-grade education and have a cocktail of alcoholism, mental health issues, and criminal difficulties. People who would not be … as the detective in the case, Jim Wood, said, “You wouldn’t let them mow your lawn, let alone give people anesthesia.”
This is who gave anesthesia and, in fact, the best anesthesiologist in the premises was a 15-year-old. I’ll just repeat that once more for anyone who didn’t hear it. A 15-year-old, one-five, a teenager, who actually took her job very seriously and created a cheat sheet for herself so that she could try to remember, so she’d look at somebody and go, “A bit of pink, a bit of red,” and she would do kind of a cocktail of the anesthesia drugs based on that.
There are cats walking around in this clinic. The doctor, when he did turn up, which was late in the evening, would eat breakfast cereal in the same room where people were having these procedures. Plus, he cut the legs, the feet and legs in some cases, off some of these babies and kept them in jars like trophies.
And two women dead.
Here’s the trailer (2 minutes):
What’s interesting about the story is how many people on the left covered for Gosnell, and how many more people on the left tried to censor the Gosnell movie. The Federalist had a good article about it. The (very left-wing) Pennsylvania government refused to do anything about Gosnell, the (very left-wing) Philadelphia authorities didn’t want to do anything about Gosnell, the mainstream news media, e.g. – CNN, the Washington Post, NPR, etc. refused to cover the trial, Kickstarter banned the campaign to fund the Gosnell movie, and now far-left Facebook is censoring ads for the movie. And finally, after the movie was made, theaters didn’t want to show it, because it was “too controversial”. Nobody wanted to cover the trial, and nobody wants you to see the movie.
The screenplay was written by famous Hollywood screenwriter Andrew Klavan, and has some well known actors in the cast. The trial dialogue is taken directly from the court transcripts. It’s opening in 750 theaters today. And it’s rated PG-13, because they aren’t showing any graphic images. The emphasis will be on the trial, the conflict will be between the police and those wanting to cover-up the crime, and the suspense will be over the jury’s verdict.
I see one movie in the theaters every few years. The last one was “13 Hours” in 2016. But I’m going to go see this one, because I wrote about 25 posts about the story, and I want to see what went on at the trial.
I hope everyone knows about James O’Keefe, and the excellent undercover videos that he makes for his Project Veritas operation. One of the most important Senate races in the country is the race to fill an open seat in Tennessee. Regular readers know that I am a huge admirer of Marsha Blackburn – a pro-life conservative. She is running against a far-left progressive named Phil Bredesen.
Project Veritas Action Fund has released a second undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes Tennessee staffers from Phil Bredesen’s U.S. Senate campaign revealing his willingness to court moderate voters through deceit. This was especially evidenced by Bredesen’s recent statement suggesting he would, if he was already in the Senate, vote to confirm now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
[…]Maria Amalla and Will Stewart, staffers in Bredesen’s campaign, both say on hidden camera that if he were in the Senate, Bredesen would not actually have voted to confirm then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They explained that the statement Bredesen issued in support of Kavanaugh was a political ploy to gain the support of moderate voters in Tennessee.
JOURNALIST: “Like he wouldn’t really vote yes [for Kavanaugh,] would he?”
AMALLA: “No, it’s a political move… He thinks that like we’re down like half a point right now. It’s like really close and we’re losing by a point or two. So he thinks that if like by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us.”
JOURNALIST: “I was so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote [for Kavanaugh.]”
STEWART: “He wouldn’t. But he’s saying he would… Which I don’t know if it makes it worse or better. No, it makes it better…”
When asked to clarify that Bredesen is only saying he’d vote for Kavanaugh to “get the Republican vote,” Amalla, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, affirmed, “Yes.” Amalla reiterated, “[Bredesen] thought that like by coming out in support [of Justice Kavanaugh] that it would get more republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts.”
The Tennessee Senate race is one of the most important races, but there are other close ones. If you live in one of these states, make sure you get registered and get out to vote. If you can put up a yard sign (I have three of them, one for each Republican candidate) then you should do that. I also got bumper stickers from the campaign office, and bought magnet stickers to stick them on, so that I can switch them back and forth between my cars.
Look, I believe that if we can get another 2-3 more conservative senators into the Senate, then we might see judges even more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh. My favorite candidate is Raymond Kethledge, but I’d like Amy Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We could get these two justices on the Supreme Court, but only if we take Senate elections seriously. Yard signs are good. Bumper stickers are good. Going door to door is good. Making calls to get out the vote is good. Do all you can if you’re in one of these critical states.
An amazing debate about the origin of life and the cosmic fine-tuning between a Christian and a materialist agnostic. John Lennox is AWESOME in this debate, and he only talks for a tiny part of the debate. He’s very gracious, and focused the discussion on the areas that we care about. Paul Davies is an EXCELLENT scientist and well aware of what Christians believe. This is a great debate, very easy to listen to. Justin, the moderator, does a great job controlling a fantastic discussion.
What does it take for life to get going in our universe? Is there intelligence in the stars or right under our nose? Renowned astrophysicist Paul Davies chats to Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox.
A popular science author, Davies is also the Chair of the SETI post detection task force. His latest book “The Eerie Silence” which marks SETI’s 50th anniversary examines the likelihood of the universe producing life elsewhere.
John Lennox is a Christian Mathematician and philosopher. He is the author of “God’s Undertaker: has science buried God?” and has debated Richard Dawkins on several occasions.
Davies’ work on the fine tuning of the universe for life has been sympathetic to theism. In this programme Lennox challenges Davies to look to design not just in cosmology but in the cell. They also chat about what the discovery of ET would mean for Christian theology.
Is there meaning in the universe?
We have no evidence for or against intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
The vastness of the universe makes me think there is life elsewhere
Humans are capable of observing and understanding the universe
It seems the universe has the ability to create observers to understand it
If one species has this ability, then we should expect others to do it
The fact that we can observe the universe and do science has cosmic significance
Our rare habitable planet and our ability to do science is suggestive of purpose
So science itself points to an extra-terrestrial intelligence: GOD
The complexity of life and consciousness itself points away from atheism
Monotheism gave birth to science
Human minds capable of doing science are not compatible with atheistic materialism
Why do you say that either we are the only life or there are many different kinds of life?
There are lots of factors that have to be met to have a site for simple life
These are related to the fine-tuning of cosmic constants, e.g. gravitational force
But there are also factors that have to be met for originating intelligent life
Things like convergence, self-organization, etc.
So the cosmic requirements and evolutionary requirements are different
Darwinian evolution doesn’t solve the problem of the origin of life
50 years ago, skepticism about alien life existing anywhere was excessive
Today, credulity about alien life exiting everywhere is excessive
The naturalist is searching for a process that creates life easily
Paul agrees that there is no theory for a naturalistic origin of life
This is fatal for the idea that life can emerge elsewhere in the universe
We have not discovered any law that produces life without an intelligence
Consider the method used by SETI used to detect an alien intelligence
Why can’t this method be applied to the origin of life on Earth?
Why can’t an intelligence created specified complexity (functional information)?
Why can’t an intelligence created epigenetics and protein folding?
Darwinian evolution can add new biological information after life begins
Darwinian evolution assumes a mutating replicating life form to act on
You can’t generate specified complexity by using physical laws
You can’t generate specified complexity by chance
At this point we are guessing as to how life might have formed
Why do we have to rule out an intelligent cause a priori
If you can recognize an intelligence in outer space, why not in living systems?
I don’t mind the word “intelligence”, it’s the word “signal”
I oppose the idea that God or aliens manipulated physical stuff to create life
It’s an “ugly explanation and very unappealing both theologically and scientifically”
I prefer the idea that the universe has processes to self-organize and create complexity
When it comes to supernatural meddling by God, “I don’t want that”
If I were God, I would create the universe so that I would not have to intervene
I think God would be more clever if he did not have to intervene
My preferences about what is “clever” determines what scientific conclusions are allowed
Humans already have experience with their non-material minds to move atoms (matter)
If God is a mind, then there is no reason why he cannot move atoms (matter)
My mind is physical, so are you saying that God is physical?
If God intervenes in the universe, then what is he doing now?
There is a distinction between acts of creation and providential upholding the universe
God is also speaking to people and drawing humans toward him
God is spirit, not material
How can a non-physical entity cause effects on the physical world?
What science reveals that there is information needed for the origin of life
Information requires an intelligence to create it, just as with human who write books
That’s not God of the gaps – it’s an inference based on what we know today
We may be able to explain the origin of life later, using matter, law and chance
What you’re saying is that God tinkers with the genome
If you say that God intervened once, then he intervenes all the time, everywhere!
I don’t want a God who tinkers in the genome
if God could intervene in the universe that would remove its intelligibility
Look at the cover of this book – when I read words, I infer an intelligence
There are bad gaps that the progress of science closes
There are good gaps that science opens, showing the need for intelligence
On the one hand, you say we have no theory of the origin of life
On the other hand, you know that an intelligent designer wasn’t involved
If we don’t know how life began, why do you rule God out a priori?
What scientists want to do is to explain the universe without involving God
naturalists want to use science to discover only materialist explanations
The purpose of SETI is to prove that there is other life in the universe
This would then show that there is a naturalistic way of making life
I agree that information in living systems is real hard to explain materialistically
I believe in the power of emergence
We might discover laws that prove that complexity can emerge without intelligence
The discovery of alien life would help to show that no intelligence is needed to make life
What sort of cosmic fine-tuning is needed at the Big Bang for life to occur?
It’s true that the universe appears extremely fine-tuned for life to exist
The typical answer from naturalists is that there is a multiverse
But the multiverse “falls far short” of providing a good answer to the fine-tuning
It’s irrational to appeal to massive numbers of unseen universes to explain fine-tuning
The design and purpose seen in the universe may be due to God or it may be emergent
The fine-tuning is real and the multiverse is a desperate attempt to evade the creator
Sir Martin Rees (an atheist) says he “prefers” the multiverse to a designer
Scientists are not supposed to prefer anything except what is true
Would the discovery of aliens hurt Christianity, because of the belief in the uniqueness of humans?
Christians believe that Jesus came to save HUMANS specifically, not animals or aliens
If we were to discover intelligent aliens, it would challenge traditional religions
What will God do with alien races? Multiple incarnations? Or just preach the gospel to them?
We don’t know if the aliens exist, first of all – it’s speculative
The Bible teaches that humans bear the image of God
We just don’t know whether alien species are also made in God’s image
I’m getting a little annoyed at how pro-abortion men are widely perceived to be superior to pro-life men. These days, men without any moral boundaries are “better”, because they don’t tell women what’s right or wrong. Well, here’s the truth: if a man is willing to put recreational sex above the obligation to care for innocent human beings, then he’s not a good man.
Here’s the video of the assault:
And here’s the story that goes with it, from Fox News.
Jordan Hunt has been identified as the culprit behind the attack after a video of him spin-kicking the woman went viral. He deleted his social media accounts after the backlash.
In the video, he is seen approaching a group of pro-life activists and engaging them in a discussion about abortion before suddenly kicking an activist and ripping a Campaign Life ribbon off her jacket and fleeing the scene.
[…]Marie-Claire Bissonnette, the 27-year-old woman involved in the incident, is the youth coordinator with Campaign Life Coalition and has since spoken out about the ordeal.
“He kicked me in the shoulder, my phone went flying,” Bissonnette told the Toronto Sun. “I start shouting for someone to call police and before he runs away, he goes up to me and I had a ribbon on my jacket indicating the leader, he tore it off my chest.”
She said that the kick left her with minor pain and those who saw the incident “were in shock.”
[…]“It’s not the first time I’ve experienced physical aggression from people who disagree with our message,” she told the newspaper. “I don’t think it’s acceptable to show any physical violence to anyone who disagrees with you. The perpetrator should know that.”
In the last week, I’ve been seeing a lot of tweets from pro-abortion men who are very angry that their right to have recreational sex “without consequences” might be impacted by the new Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Although they make a big deal about being “pro-woman”, they are really thinking about their own ability to have sex without having to take responsibility for their actions.
Let’s think through what a woman should be looking for in a man, by working backwards.
Getting old alone is difficult. So women should be thinking about how to keep a man committed to them after they lose start to lose their youth and beauty. The simplest way to not grow old alone is to invest early and often in a man who does what he promises to do even when it doesn’t feel good. Pro-abortion men are not the kind of men who make commitments that require them to sacrifice their own interests. After all, if a man thinks that it is OK to kill an unborn child in order to maximize his own pleasure, then he can’t be relied upon to put the woman’s interests above his own selfishness.
A good man never tells a woman to put selfishness above moral obligations, either. A good man always builds a woman up, and doesn’t think about what he can get from her first. Good men want to build women up so that it’s safe to commit to them, and to have children with them. Good men know that women need to be encouraged and cared for so that they are able to do the right things. And that means telling women the truth, and telling women “no” if the woman wants to do something morally wrong or reckless. Telling a woman yes when she wants to do something morally wrong isn’t loving her. It isn’t setting her up to be the kind of woman a man can commit to, and build a life with.
Although pro-abortion men seem to be better to feminists today, because they don’t tell women what’s right and wrong, they are actually worse, in the long run. Such men are no good for self-sacrificial love. Women should choose to avoid them, no matter how good they make women feel “in the moment”.
One of my friends has been having a debate with one of his former teachers about whether spending more money on government-run education improves tests scores. He tried posting some evidence, but she just dismissed that by claiming:
If we hadn’t spent more money, then the student test scores would have gone down instead of staying the same.
Most of the money that government spends on education goes to vouchers and private schools, not public schools
Economists at prestigious think tanks like that Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute cannot be trusted to accurately cite the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics because of the Koch Brothers
You can’t compare the test scores of American students with the test scores of Asian students who outperform them, (for less government spending), because math is different in Asia compared to America
Let’s look at some data and see if her arguments are correct.
Does more spending mean higher student performance?
Comparing educational achievement with per-pupil spending among states also calls into question the value of increasing expenditures. While high-spending Massachusetts had the nation’s highest proficiency scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, low-spending Idaho did very well, too. South Dakota ranks 42nd in per-pupil expenditures but eighth in math performance and ninth in reading. The District of Columbia, meanwhile, with the nation’s highest per-pupil expenditures ($15,511 in 2007), scores dead last in achievement.
The student test scores are dead last, but National Review notes that “according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C. was spending an average of $27,460 per pupil in 2014, the most recent year for which data are available.” They are spending the most per-pupil, but their test scores are dead last.
CBS News reported on another recent study confirming this:
Decades of increased taxpayer spending per student in U.S. public schools has not improved student or school outcomes from that education, and a new study finds that throwing money at the system is simply not tied to academic improvements.
The study from the CATO Institute shows that American student performance has remained poor, and has actually declined in mathematics and verbal skills, despite per-student spending tripling nationwide over the same 40-year period.
“The takeaway from this study is that what we’ve done over the past 40 years hasn’t worked,” Andrew Coulson, director of the Center For Educational Freedom at the CATO Institute, told Watchdog.org. “The average performance change nationwide has declined 3 percent in mathematical and verbal skills. Moreover, there’s been no relationship, effectively, between spending and academic outcomes.”
The study, “State Education Trends: Academic Performance and Spending over the Past 40 Years,” analyzed how billions of increased taxpayer dollars, combined with the number of school employees nearly doubling since 1970, to produce stagnant or declining academic results.
“The performance of 17-year-olds has been essentially stagnant across all subjects despite a near tripling of the inflation-adjusted cost of putting a child through the K-12 system,” writes Coulson.
Where did the numbers come from? The Koch Brothers? No:
Data from the U.S. Department of Education incorporating public school costs, number of employees, student enrollment and SAT scores was analyzed to explore the disparity between increased spending and decreasing or stagnant academic results.
Well, at least government-run monopoly schools outperform private private schools, right? No:
[…][P]rivate schools, where students excel over public school peers, …manage to operate at budgets about 34 percent lower than taxpayer-funded schools, US Finance Post reports.
Public schools spend, on average, $11,000 per student, per year.
Coulson noted an Arizona study he conducted which showed that the average per-pupil spending at private schools was only about 66 percent of the cost of public schools.
When it comes to math, U.S. high school students are falling further behind their international counterparts, according to results released Tuesday of an ongoing study that compares academic achievement in 73 countries. And the news is not much better in reading and science literacy, where U.S. high schoolers have not gained any ground and continue to trail students in a slew of developed countries around the globe.
In the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measuring math literacy in 2015, U.S. students ranked 40th in the world. The U.S. average math score of 470 represents the second decline in the past two assessments — down from 482 in 2012 and 488 in 2009. The U.S. score in 2015 was 23 points lower than the average of all of the nations taking part in the survey.
More money is being spent, but the scores are DECREASING.
Now, why is it that increased government spending in the public school monopoly doesn’t improve student performance? Well, one reason is that very little of the money makes it to the classroom.
Where does all the money go?
Let’s look at four places where the money spent on the government-run public school monopoly ends up.
First, a lot of it gets paid to administrations who implement politically correct programs designed to turn the impressionable young people into little secular socialists.
This figure shows we now spend nearly $1,100 per student on retirement benefits. The average public school student teacher ratio is 16 to 1. So we are spending about $17,000 per year per teacher in pension contributions.
[…]The National Council on Teacher Quality writes,
In 2014 teacher pension systems had a total of a half trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities—a debt load that climbed more than $100 billion in just the last two years. Across the states, an average of 70 cents of every dollar contributed to state teacher pension systems goes toward paying off the ever-increasing pension debt, not to future teacher benefits (p. iii).
While we are spending a huge amount to fund teacher pensions, most of that spending doesn’t go to attracting the best teachers. It’s paying off past debts.
We can’t hire good teachers, because all the education spending of today is paying for the gold-plated pensions of yesterday.
That was 2014. The numbers are even worse today. Teachers contribute very, very little to their pensions, but the benefits are enormous compared to what the private sector taxpayers get in Social Security. (Which is going to be bankrupt by 2034, as reported by the far-left PBS)
Third, a lot of it is spent on teacher training, because apparently teaching multiplication, Shakespeare or geography changes every year, so the teachers need tens of thousands of dollars in annual training.
A new study of 10,000 teachers found that professional development — the teacher workshops and training that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year — is largely a waste.
The study released Tuesday by TNTP, a nonprofit organization, found no evidence that any particular approach or amount of professional development consistently helps teachers improve in the classroom.
[…]The school districts that participated in the study spent an average of $18,000 per teacher annually on professional development. Based on that figure, TNTP estimates that the 50 largest school districts spend an estimated $8 billion on teacher development annually. That is far larger than previous estimates.
And teachers spend a good deal of time in training, the study found. The 10,000 teachers surveyed were in training an average of 19 school days a year, or almost 10 percent of a typical school year, according to TNTP.
Maybe if more of the money spent on education were spent directly on hiring teachers, then we would see an improvement. Unfortunately, a lot of the money meant for teachers goes to the teacher unions. How do they spend that money?
Finally, this is from OpenSecrets.org, concerning political contributions made in the most recent election cycle:
The two largest teacher unions came in at #9 and #11. Most of their donations go to Democrat Party. Democrats believe (against the evidence) that spending more money in the government-run public school monopoly will improve student performance on tests.
So, what’s the solution?
The solution is that we abolish the federal Department of Education, which has done nothing to improve the quality of education for students. We need to push the education of children back down to the state and local levels. We need to empower parents to choose the schools that work best for their children by giving parents vouchers. We need to increase tax-free education savings accounts to help parents with school expenses. We should also give free college tuition to homeschooled students who are admitted to STEM programs at any college or university. We can take the money from the pensions of the union administrators, after we abolish ever single public sector teacher union in the country, and seize all their assets and pensions. If that’s not enough money, then we can seize all the pensions of Department of Education employees – a just punishment for their failure to produce results while still taking taxpayer money.
Finally, we should allow people who already have private sector experience doing things like STEM to become teachers. Let’s face it: the departments that grant Education degrees have the lowest entrance requirements, and produce the least competent adults. People with years of private sector work experience teach better than people with Education degrees. Let’s open up teaching to people who have experience in the private sector doing software engineering, statistics, nursing, etc. and then we’ll have qualified teachers.