The Right Lane update 2.24.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Half of First Babies Now Born to Unwed Moms

For the first time in U.S. history, the median age of American women when they have their first child is lower than the median age of marriage, an eye-opening new report discloses.

The median age for marriage is 26.5 years for American women, while the median age for a first birth is 25.7 years, according to the “Knot Yet” report released by a team of academics and social activists.

The report also reveals that nearly half — 48 percent — of first births are by unwed mothers. At age 25, 44 percent of women have had a baby, while only 38 percent have married.

By the time they turn 30, “about two-thirds of American women have had a baby, typically out of wedlock,” states the report compiled by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, and the RELATE Institute.

Among women with less than a high-school education, 83 percent give birth to their first child without being married, up from 33 percent in 1970.

The “troubling” trend is that delayed marriage does not necessarily mean delayed motherhood, the report observes.

Delayed marriage does offer several benefits. Women have more time to launch a successful career before marrying, and divorce rates are lower for later marriages.

But the report points to negative repercussions as well: “Most researchers agree that on average, whether because of instability or absent fathers or both, children of unmarried mothers have poorer outcomes than children growing up with their married parents.”

They are much more likely to experience family instability, school failure, and emotional problems, and they are three times more likely to see their parents break up, compared to children born to married parents.

But “culturally, young adults have increasingly come to see marriage as a ‘capstone’ rather than a ‘cornerstone’ — that is, something they do after they have all their ducks in a row, rather than a foundation for launching into adulthood and parenthood,” the report surmises.

“Moreover, one of the primary reasons for getting married — starting a family — is increasingly viewed as a relic of the past. The institution of marriage, and even the presence of two parents, are seen as nice but not necessary for raising children.”

~~~~~~

68% Believe Legal Immigration Is Good for America

The United States is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Not surprisingly, voters continue to respect both traditions and strongly agree that legal immigration is good for America. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Likely U.S. Voters think immigration when done within the law is good for America, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Only 19% disagree and feel legal immigration is bad for the country. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. Note: Legal, not illegal or amnesty.

~~~~~~

Senate Democrats Vote to Provide Obamacare to Illegal's

The Senate’s bipartisan immigration working group split along party lines during a contentious budget vote to prevent illegal immigrants who receive legal status from receiving federal health benefits.

The Senate early Saturday morning defeated the amendment to the budget resolution which would have put the Senate on record as opposing access to health care under Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act for undocumented immigrants who get a green card. The amendment, which failed 43 to 56, was offered by Senate Budget ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. All Democrats — including gang members Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado — opposed the amendment. They were joined by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. All other Republicans — including immigration negotiators Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — supported the amendment.

~~~~~~

Intellectual failures and dishonesty on racial issues by Walter E. Williams

After reading Dr. Thomas Sowell’s latest book, “Intellectuals and Race,” one cannot emerge with much respect for the reasoning powers of intellectuals, particularly academics, on matters of race.  There’s so much faulty logic and downright dishonesty.  Many intellectuals attribute the behavior patterns of blacks to “a legacy of slavery” or contemporary racial discrimination. But when one observes similar behavior patterns among Britain’s lower-class whites, which can’t be attributed to “a legacy of slavery” or discrimination, it calls into question the explanations for black behavior.  It’s lamented that blacks are “the last hired” and, during an economic downturn, “the first fired,” because blacks are terminated before whites. That’s seen as evidence of discrimination by white employers, but white employees are terminated before Asian-American employees. Is that employer discrimination against whites? Intellectuals accept statistical data as showing discrimination when it reinforces existing preconceptions and reject or ignore it when it doesn’t. It’s the same story in the housing market.

Newspapers, television commentators, civil rights leaders, academics and politicians see racial discrimination as the cause for black mortgage loan applicants being rejected more frequently than white applicants. In 2000, black applicants were turned down for prime mortgage loans twice as often as whites; however, white applicants were turned down nearly twice as often as Asian-Americans. The racial discrimination explanation requires that we believe that white bankers racially discriminate not only against blacks but against whites, as well. It also requires that we believe that black-owned banks are in cahoots with white-owned banks, because they, too, turn down black mortgage applicants more often than white applicants. The true explanation is not rocket science. Lenders prefer to lend to people who will pay them back. Average credit scores are higher among whites than blacks and higher among Asian-Americans than whites.

During the early 20th century, there were mass migrations of blacks from the South. Both the black-owned Chicago Defender and the Urban League offered published advice to their less tutored brethren, such as: “Don’t use vile language in public places.” “Don’t throw garbage in the backyard or alley or keep dirty front yards.” “Do not carry on loud conversations in street cars and public places.” Jews, Germans and Irish made similar appeals to acculturate their ill-mannered cousins. These efforts produced positive results over the years. That has changed with today’s multiculturalism vision.  Efforts to get minority groups to acculturate to the linguistic, dress and other norms of the larger society are seen negatively by multiculturalists as a form of cultural imperialism. Intellectuals and academics call for celebrating diversity.  Sowell concludes that our nation is painting itself into a corner when it comes to thinking about racial problems. Whole cities, of which Detroit is a classic example, have been devastated physically, socially and economically by racial problems – which cannot be discussed honestly by elected officials, people in the media or academics, who do not want to become pariahs or, even worse, lose their jobs.  This moral paralysis is paid in blood – mostly the blood of black people preyed upon by criminals, though in recent years, there have been violent mob attacks on white people in shopping malls, on beaches, on public transportation vehicles and in other public places.  These attacks often go unreported, are minimized or are reported without detail, even though the attackers shouted their hatred for white people. The use of sufficient force to stop these attacks would be called “excessive” in the media and by politicians or “community leaders.”  
My own conclusion is that black people waged a successful civil rights struggle against gross discrimination. It’s white and black liberals, intellectuals, and race hustlers who have created our greatest hurdle.

~~~~~~

Senate Votes Overwhelmingly to Scrap ObamaCare Device Tax

In January, a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, a key provision of ObamaCare, took effect. The measure is expected to raise around $30 billion to help pay for Obama’s health program. Opposition to the tax has been growing, however. Late Friday, the Senate voted 79-20 to repeal the tax. The vote to repeal the tax attracted 34 Democrats, almost two-thirds of the caucus. Like all amendments to the budget, the measure is non-binding. Still, it signals strong bi-partisan support to roll back the ObamaCare provision. Sen. Orrin Hatch, who introduced the amendment, has also introduced a stand-alone bill to repeal the tax. MN Dem Sen. Amy Klobuchar and eight other Democrats joined Hatch’s amendment as co-sponsors. “We cannot have taxes that put as at a competitive disadvantage” against the rest of the world,” Klobuchar said. If only she and her fellow Democrats applied that principle to a host of other issues.

~~~~~~

Seriously? Does Obama Really Not Get It?  by Michael Oberndorf

The latest waste of taxpayer money, following close on the heels of the way over-hyped sequester, has been Obama’s so-called Charm Tour. It just hasn’t gotten through his thick skull and massive, personality disorder-driven ego that the American people are not buying his lies like they used to. They’re starting to connect the man to his mindless Marxism, their economic and social pain to his policies. They are finally, though probably way too late, realizing that the Fraud-in-the-White House is just that.

B. Hussein, however, insulated from the nastiness of reality as he is by the Ministry of Propaganda, tried to take the tour overseas. The result, as with all his incredibly inept and incompetent attempts at diplomacy, statesmanship, and foreign policy, has been another embarrassing failure. This one, though, has been worse than most. In spite of his pandering to Muslims, especially those with radical, fundamentalist views, it’s coming out very publicly that they hate him even more than they did George Bush. He’s been trying to play both sides against the middle, straddling the fence, and it apparently has PO’d a whole lot of Muslims all over the globe. The demonstrations by “Palestinians” against him were far worse than the Israeli ones, and the Israelis left no doubt of their dislike for him and his duplicity. The “peaceful Palestinians” who B. Hussein, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party of Latter Day Marxism constantly kiss up to, showed their respect for Obozo and his pandering by violating the phony ceasefire, and showering Israel with rockets while the Messiah was in the country, only a few miles away.  Iran, too, that bastion of Islamic love and tolerance, has stepped up its saber-rattling, and it appears that it’s just a matter of time – and not much of that – before a major, hot, bullets, bombs, missiles, and maybe nukes confrontation occurs. Four years of dithering by Obama and the State of Disarray Department under Hillary – and now, thanks to the craven Republicans in the Senate, the criminal/traitor John Kerry – have fueled the delusions of Iran’s leaders that they are all-powerful, unstoppable, and the rightful rulers of the coming global Caliphate. Obama’s brilliant, ever-so-well-crafted answer to the threat of the start of World War III is, “Oh, well, if someone wants to actually take action to stop them, wink, wink, nod, nod, we won’t interfere.” Amazing what an education at Columbia and Harvard will do for you. Meanwhile, in the Far Out Far East, North Korea, led by the second runner-up in a Pillsbury Dough Boy look-alike contest, has called off the ceasefire that ended the Korean War, sixty years ago. Kim Jong Un, a second generation wacko, feels threatened by our Nobel Peace Prize “winning” Commander-in-Chief, and has mobilized his army and is threatening to launch nukes at us. This motivated our Department of Surrender to make plans to move missile defenses that were originally intended to protect NATO allies Poland and Czechoslovakia from attacks from Iran, to Alaska, to add to our protection against attacks from Asia. Asia, for those educated in government schools, is also where China is.

~~~~~~

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? Written by: Paul Taylor

It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it? No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.

Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it? No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years.

Well, it’s a fact that the fossils in the geologic column are dated by carbon-dating. Isn’t it? No, it isn’t. Carbon-dating does not date anything older than about 100,000 years, as this is more than ten times the half-life of carbon-14. Other radiometric dating methods are not used on fossil layers, because these are sedimentary rocks. We challenge the assumptions used to calculate radiometric ages, but, in any case, the radiometric methods are carried out on igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks. Although one might suppose that sedimentary rocks could be approximately dated by their proximity to igneous rocks, in practice this does not always work, because there are occasions when “older” rocks are assumed to be above “lower” rocks. In fact, the dates of the sedimentary rocks are assigned according to the so-called “index fossils” within them. There will be more on this later. In fact, the millions of years were assigned to the geologic column before the advent of radiometric dating. Assumed timescales were suggested for the supposed evolution of certain creatures in the fossil record, and the dating assigned accordingly. Well, it’s a fact that the fossils are arranged in evolutionary order. Isn’t it? You don’t find fossil rabbits in Jurassic rock. No it isn’t. Of course, I am unaware of any fossil rabbit being found in Jurassic rock. That much is true. Though, if such a find were made, of a fossil out of place in the geologic column, it would not cause my worldview a problem, even though we have a legitimate explanation as to why such finds are not made. If the fossils are arranged in evolutionary order, then they cannot be offered as evidence for evolution, as this would be circular reasoning. Let me explain the logic behind this. The following set of statements would be logical. If evolution and millions of years were true, then one would expect to find a progression of gradually more complex organisms as one goes up the geologic column. However, it is illogical to reverse this and say that the existence of such a progression proves evolution. The reason why the latter is illogical is because there could be a completely legitimate alternative explanation, which would also lead to this supposed gradual progression. The logical fallacy that the evolutionists use here is known as “affirmation of the consequent.” Let’s give the alternative explanation in two parts.

The first part is to say that there are good creationist explanations as to why certain fossils are found together in the geologic column. For example, it is clear that dinosaur fossils are usually found in the same layers as gymnosperm plant fossils, and not angiosperms (flowering plants). But this does not have to be because of a timescale difference. It could simply be an environmental factor. Perhaps dinosaurs tended to live in gymnosperm forests, while mammals tended to live in angiosperm areas. This creationist model for the geologic column is more satisfying than the evolutionary model of millions of years. This is because the creationist model gives us a general rule, but easily permits out-of-place fossils, and, of course, such out-of-place fossils exist, such as mammals in the dinosaur layers, which evolutionists have to assume are “proto-mammals” on their way to evolution. In that case, rabbits simply did not live in the gymnosperm forests, and the existence of a rabbit fossil in the dinosaur layers becomes very unlikely, though not impossible. There is an old “joke” which asks, “Why do polar bears not eat penguins,” with the obvious answer being that they don’t live in the same part of the world. If this were true in a pre-Flood world, we would not expect to find fossil polar bears with fossil penguins.

But does the geologic column really start with simple marine invertebrates, and gradually progress to more complex fossils? In a way! We suggest that fossilization occurred mostly during the Flood, which would have been initiated by massive seismic activities, probably leading to early tsunamis and then initial retreat of waters, before final flooding of the continents. So, it is likely that large amounts of marine invertebrates would be washed onto the continents by the initial tsunamis, and then covered by later sedimentation. Thus, we would expect the lower levels of the geologic column to contain only marine invertebrates, with few, if any, of the so-called “higher” animals. Once again, the creationist model is superior, as it can more easily accommodate exceptions to the general rule, while easily explaining the general principles.

The pictures of creatures used in traditional geologic column diagrams are indicative of index fossils. Such fossils are thought to have first appeared in their particular strata, and to be indicative of the age of that stratum. One would expect such fossils to appear in layers higher than that, for which they are indices. This complicates the dating process. Dr. Gary Parker, for example, reports on the finding of a fossilized clam, which supposedly indexes strata which are millions of years old, yet it contains soft tissue, which cannot have survived for so long. A great deal of creationist literature is available on the subject of the geologic column, and this article merely scratches the surface. Some less qualified creationists may have given the impression, unfortunately, that no patterns, that are used to compile the geologic column, exist in reality. This is not the case. However, we have seen that there are legitimate creationist explanations of such phenomenon, such as environmental considerations, or considerations in the Flood model of which organisms would be likely to be covered first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~