Krauthammer Just Plain Wrong

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Sept 15

A few on the Democratic Left and many more, seemingly, on the Republican Right are down on Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ben Carson for his opposition to a Muslim becoming President of the United States.

All of them begin their criticism of Carson by quoting Article 6, Paragraph 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the so-called No Religious Test Clause.  The usually sound Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, first pointed it out, and today the inestimable Charles Krauthammer weighed in against Carson on the same point.  This section appeared in the National Review Online:

“The latest example is Ben Carson, the mild-mannered, highly personable neurosurgeon and one of two highest-polling GOP candidates. He said on Sunday that a Muslim should not be president of the United States. His reason is that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution. On the contrary. Carson is incompatible with a Constitution that explicitly commands that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424586/ben-carson-muslim-remarks-republicans”

It takes a Canadian to explain the United States Constitution to an American.  What these Americans pass over is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, the Oath of Office of the President.  The closing passage reads, “…and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No Muslim can truthfully take that oath.  Carson wins his point.  It is Napolitano and Krauthammer who are at sea.

A Muslim believes in Sharia Law, and Sharia Law is law made by Allah.  The U.S. Constitution is man-made law.  Since Allah-made law must be made to prevail over man-made law, the Muslim is morally obliged to affirm Sharia Law where it conflicts with the Constitution.

To be completely fair to Carson, he said that a Muslim should not be president and that he could not support one.  This is not the same as saying that a Muslim could not be president.  As a private American, Carson is not obligated to apply the Constitution, or somebody’s interpretation of the Constitution, to his opinions.  I’ll bet there are many Americans who believe that provision for gay marriage and abortion are not found in the Constitution despite what the Supreme Court has ruled.  So to pillory Carson for not being fully in accord in his opinions with the Constitution is just plain wrong.

-30-

Carson Attacked for “Muslim” Remarks

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Sept 15

Dr. Ben Carson, candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, was attacked this week for remarks he made on the Sunday news show Meet the Press, in which he said that he could not support a Muslim for president of the United States.

He explained that a true Muslim has to adhere to Sharia law, which is incompatible with American values and with the Bill of Rights; and that in Islam there is no distinction between state and religion.  Thus a true Muslim would, with all the powers of the presidency available to him, be obligated by his faith to change the United States into a theocracy upholding Islamic values, not the Judeo-Christian and republican values expressed in the Constitution.

He later qualified his remarks by saying that it is the creation of a theocracy that he opposes, and that if a Christian were to try make the United States into a theocracy, he would oppose that person also.  This was the concern of conservative Baptists, among others, pertaining to the 1960 candidacy of John F. Kennedy, who was a Catholic.  The fear was that a Catholic president would be taking his policy advice from the Pope.  Kennedy publicly vowed before a conference of Protestant pastors that as an American and as a free man he would run his presidency as every one of his predecessors had.  This ended the opposition to Kennedy as a Catholic and he won the 1960 election over Vice President Richard Nixon, who was a Quaker.

Even the conservative media found on Fox News were clucking over Carson’s amateur mistake of falling for the obvious “gotcha” question of Meet the Press host Chuck Todd.  While the media did go so far as to say that this response demonstrated his unfitness for the office, the implication was that Carson had to up his media game for him to deserve to be president.  The conservative defense of Carson was that similar gotcha questions would not be put to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or to any Democratic nominee since the media act as the Praetorian Guard for Democrat politicians they like.

Carson has not been attacked as severely as Donald Trump was over the latter’s failure to correct a questioner concerning Barack Obama’s religion.  This sparing of Carson is due to Carson’s record of high moral integrity and terrific life story.  There is also a great chance that an attack could prove invidious, since Dr. Carson is the only Black American in the presidential race, has a quiet, polite manner, is dangerously intelligent and is quicker on his feet than practically anyone in the media.  In effect, Chuck Todd was lucky to have stopped where he did.

The limited, practically incestuous opinions of the media are quite in evidence in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.  The phenomenon of the Trump candidacy have stumped the pundits.  For the pundits and for many professional politicians, Trump is beyond the pale.  His success is inexplicable to them.  But Trump’s present success says more about the media’s pale than it does about Trump.  Trump is a real person who says what he thinks and who defends himself strongly.  Most importantly, he can’t be destroyed by a media campaign because of his great wealth and the fact that that wealth cannot be imperilled by a small group of vicious people.  What conservatives and Tea-Party types like about Trump is that he goes after the right people with hammer and tong relentlessly, and his is fearless; he makes no apologies.  The fact that he is entertaining also helps his cause.

In the case of Carson, the media have been afraid to attack his apparent weaknesses because (a) he did not appear to be a serious candidate; (b) his terrific life story; and (c) his gentle manner might redound against the first media-type to attack him.  They would all have to rush after him at once, for attacking individually they could be endangered themselves.  The seeming put-down of a Muslim as president presented the media with an opportunity to attack him all at once.

The media seem oblivious to the acquisition of knowledge of the American public since 9/11 concerning Islam.  The public is aware of ISIS, and the fact that it is installing the purest expression of Islam into a new Caliphate.  The outrages of Sharia law are generally known.  The evil practices in Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, and Libya are generally known.  Thus when Carson says that he would not support a person as president who believes in that, and that Islam with its Sharia law runs contrary to the Judeo-Christian values of the U.S. Constitution, he says something that seems sensible to a large segment of the Republican Party.  It is the media that appear maddeningly out of touch when they rave on about religious tests and prejudice when they attack Carson over his “Muslim” remarks and are scrupulously polite on matters Muslim.

Last night on The Kelly File host Megyn Kelly tried to trip up Carson and, due to time, was saved from having her head handed to her.  She took Carson through his explanation, and in the course of it he said that a true Muslim has to believe in Sharia law.  If a Muslim said that he would adopt American values and would place the Constitution above Islam, then he would become an infidel and heretic so far as Islam was concerned but in becoming so, Carson could support him as President.  Kelly then threw the name of a frequent guest on her show who says he is a liberal Muslim.  At that point, time saved Kelly.

Had Carson time to respond, he would have said that the very things that make her guest a liberal Muslim make him in the eyes of the authoritative Muslim world a heretic and an infidel.  If he were to say in the Muslim world the things he says from the safety of American soil about how Islam has to liberalize, he would be killed.  So, despite his protestations of being a Muslim, he can get away with qualifying himself as liberal because there is no authority in Islam to say what the religion is, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church which has a Pope and a written doctrine.  There is no Pope in Islam who can excommunicate a person.  In Islam, there is no excommunication; there is only death for apostasy.

Carson hit on something that this columnist has remarked upon for a while: that Islam and Sharia Law are incompatible with the Judeo-Christian values contained in the U.S. Bill of Rights and other Amendments, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  By now, one would think that the smart folks in the media would have come to realize this.  A large swath of the American public have come to realize this.

Because the public outside of Washington, D.C. see things and know things of which the media are unaware or are purblind to, the candidacies of Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson do not sink when they are attacked.  It is the candidacy of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker that sinks instead, in part because such candidates are so nice and solicitous that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.  The Republican base are as sick of the media as they are of the surrender monkeys on Capitol Hill.  They want someone who fights as hard as Barack Obama, who won’t back down or apologize, and who fearlessly speaks what’s on their minds.  For what is on their minds are also on the minds of a large number of Americans.

Right now, that limits the field to Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  Rubio and Cruz are looking in, but still have an air of political accommodation to them.  The rest of the Republican field are old-time politicians that the base are tired of.

-30-

Okay, I'm a Bigot

Vincent J. Curtis

17-Sept-15

As observed previously, the Hamilton Spectator, under the leadership of Paul Berton, is notoriously sympathetic to Muslims.  Apologetic, I would go so far as to say.  Their latest kick is the case of Zunera Ishaq, 29, a Pakistani woman who immigrated to Canada in 2008, and who insists on wearing a niqab while swearing the oath of citizenship to become a Canadian.  The government of Stephen Harper made it a rule that one has to take the oath with one's face exposed to the judge.  Ishaq went to Federal court to have this rule overturned, succeeded, and now the government has to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the rule re-instated.

The Spectator, in an editorial of 17 Sept 15, dismisses any link between the wearing of a niqab in Canada and Islamic fundamentalism, and insinuates that to hold such a view is, not just wrong, but a sign of bigotry.  "Muslim women have a right to cultural sensitivity as much as anyone else," is the irrelevant premise.  "Telling them they can't wear the niqab during their citizenship proceedings is intolerant and wrong,"  is the fallacious conclusion.  It is fallacious because it is an example of special pleading.  It is also an ad hominem attack on people who are on the other side of the disagreement.  "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" is how the Spectator answers those who disagree with them and Ishaq, and who uphold the position of the federal government.

My response is as follows:

Opposing the wearing of a niqab during the taking of an oath of citizenship makes me, in the eyes of the Spectator, intolerant and wrong.   This is the style of arguing the Spectator needs to employ in order to win their point: to its opponents it says “You are a bigot!”

I may be bigoted, but I am also analytical, and the argument by which the editorial reaches the conclusion that I am a bigot falls into the logical fallacy of special pleading.  Special pleading is old hat for the Spectator.

It is quite true that Zunera Ishaq has her peculiar cultural outlook that includes the wearing of a niqab.  But we in Canada have our cultural peculiarities as well.   A couple of those peculiarities are the signs we require that indicate sincerity in the swearing of an oath, and these include the raising of the right hand and showing of one’s face.

By all means, let Ishaq wear her niqab.  But by the same token, let Canadians practice their cultural peculiarities also.

As a citizen of Pakistan, Zunera Ishaq does not have a basic human right to become a Canadian citizen.  There are certain hoops she has to pass through, one of which is the taking of the citizenship oath in accordance with Canadian law.  Presumably, she came to Canada because life here is better than in Pakistan.  So why is she fighting Canadian practices so hard?  If she wants to be a Canadian, then accept Canada as it is, warts and all, at least until she becomes a citizen.  Then she can tell us why we are all wrong.

The Spectator touched on the wearing of a niqab as possibly indicative of sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism.  Believing this also is a sign of bigotry.  I would agree that the wearing of a niqab in Libya and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where Islamic fundamentalism flourishes, is normal.  Wearing a niqab in Canada is highly unusual, and the fights we have seen in France and in Quebec over it indicate that a strong strain of Islamic fundamentalism is at the root of the insistence in wearing it in western countries.

Islam is all about dominance, and forcing a host country to bend to Islam is what the game is about.  Thus, it is not unreasonable for a westerner to think that Islamic fundamentalism plays a role in the demand by Ishaq to wear a face veil associated with the worst and most oppressive aspects of Islam.

Yes, I am a bigot in the eyes of the Spectator.  But the Spectator can’t reason its way out of a paper bag.

-30-

Genesis 38:15

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Sept 15

From the CBC News website:

Zunera Ishaq, a 29-year-old woman with devout Muslim beliefs who came to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008, refused to take part in a citizenship ceremony because she would have to show her face.

On Tuesday, the Appeal Court dismissed the government's appeal of an earlier Federal Court ruling on Ishaq's case that declared the ban on face coverings at such ceremonies was unlawful.

The three-judge panel ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed quickly so that Ishaq could obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.

One of Ishaq's lawyers, Marlys Edwardh, said the Immigration Department would be contacted this week so she could attend a citizenship ceremony — accompanied by her lawyers "just in case."​

From the Hamilton Spectator:

At Tuesday's half-day hearing in Ottawa, a Justice Department lawyer told court that the government never meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for citizenship ceremonies — a position that left both the judge and Ishaq's lawyers scratching their heads.

The admission appeared to be a change from the Conservative government's past position on the issue. The controversial edict was a regulation that had no actual force in law, Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told a Federal Court of Appeal hearing.

                                         *                          *                             *

Canada has been admitting large numbers of Muslims as immigrants since the 1980s.  This group includes women who routinely wear some form of facial covering.  There is nothing in Islam itself that requires Muslim women to wear facial coverings, and it appears to be a tribal practice that carried over into a cultural artifact of Islam as practiced in some areas of the world.

Islamic Supremacists insist, however, that facial covering by women is mandated in Islam, and require them to wear them on pain of rape or beating.  Now, women can be as fundamentalist as men can, and the insistence of a woman on the wearing of facial covering in Canada is a sign of Islamic fundamentalism.  Adherence and insistence on Sharia law follows from Islamic fundamentalism.

My comments are as follows:

Incompetent legal representation by Canada’s Justice Department has led to the absurd situation that people can take an oath while their fingers are crossed.

It will be interesting to see if Mexicans and Americans will be allowed to wear traditional cowboy masks when they take an oath in Canada.

The wearing of a niqab in public is routinely accepted by Canadians, who are used to seeing the bizarre superstitions of non-European cultures on display.  However, the taking of an oath of citizenship is a serious matter, and the wearing of a face covering in Canadian culture is a sign of deceit.  The conclusion that a Canadian reaches about face coverings in the course of taking an oath is that the oath is not sincere.

Oh, the person sincerely wants the rewards that goes with taking the oath but rejects the obligations that go with it.

In the case of citizenship, that obligation includes sincere acceptance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms runs clean contrary to the principles of Sharia Law.  And what Law is being upheld by the wearing of a niqab: Sharia Law or Canadian law?  This sign of adherence to Sharia Law in the course of accepting Canadian law is a second cause of suspicion that an oath of citizenship is not sincere.

The niqab wearers would be astonished to find the Christian interpretation of face covering by women, which is found in Genesis 38:15.

A fine mess created by the government.

-30-

Genesis 38:15 reads: “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face.”

Rebellion Against Supreme Court Spreading

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Sept 15

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/other-state-officials-say-no-to-same-sex-marriage-1442161531

“Local officials in several other states also are refraining from granting licenses or performing ceremonies, drawing stepped-up scrutiny from gay-marriage supporters.

In North Carolina, all four magistrates in rural McDowell County have recused themselves from performing civil wedding ceremonies for any couples. The moves are allowed under a state law passed in June that allows certain public officials to avoid marriage duties if they have religious objections. So far, 32 magistrates across the state—about 5% of the total—have done so, according to the state Administrative Office of the Courts.”

“As a result of the void in McDowell County, magistrates from neighboring Rutherford County have been driving in to perform ceremonies three days a week, during reduced hours. Tonia Hampton, the McDowell County register of deeds, whose office issues marriage licenses, said the documents continue to be available during regular hours. “It’s business as usual for us,” she said.”

“In Alabama, about a half-dozen county probate judges, who oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, aren’t providing them to any couples, said Greg Norris, the Monroe County probate judge and president of the Alabama Probate Judges Association.

Among them is Nick Williams, the Washington County probate judge. He said he stopped issuing licenses immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that legalized same-sex marriage—a decision he said he considers “ill-advised” and “invalid,” because marriage is a state issue.

“By not issuing licenses to anyone, I’m not discriminating against anyone,” Judge Williams said.

Under Alabama law, probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, but aren’t obligated to, providing firmer legal ground for those who have objected. But Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, said the group is studying the issue to see “if there’s an avenue we can use to encourage” the holdouts to resume issuing licenses.”

The method of rebellion against the tyrannical imposition of "law" by the Supreme Court of the United States in respect of gay "marriage" is found in legal guerrilla warfare.  It will not be found by standing and fighting on one's religious rights under the First Amendment.  Religious objectors will simply get steamrollered or be brushed aside somehow, as happened to the unfortunate Kim Davis.  By refusing to get involved in marriage at all, or messing up the system in some other way, are the methods of legal guerrilla warfare.

By bringing the entire legal apparatus of marriage to a standstill, pressure is put on the Supreme Court to deal with the mess they created.

By not objecting on religious grounds but on something else, something based in law, the gay rights fanatics have less of a target to attack.   It is also important that everyone who objects to the tyrannical imposition of "law" by the Supreme Court to become engaged in undermining the process.  That makes it harder to target any particular person.

To recap: The role of the Supreme Court is to say what the law is or is not.  It cannot impose law; making law is the role of the legislature.  Thus when in the case of Roe v. Wade and now gay "marriage" it is said that these cases are the "law of the land" it is implicitly admitted that the Supreme Court legislated in the manner of a tyrant.  Laws of tyrants are sham laws, and are deserving of no respect.

-30-

Poor General Vance

Vincent J. Curtis                                                                                                              5 August 2015

Poor General Vance.  As the new Chief of Defense Staff, General Jonathan Vance could not devote his first speech to how he would make the Canadian Armed Forces into the newer and sharper bayonet that it needed to become to meet the threats of the future.  Instead, he had to deal with a steaming turd of a report that concerned sexual harassment in the CAF.  His first order as leader of Canada’s military was that the “harmful behaviour” has to stop.

In the pantomime of rhetorical tennis, General Vance successfully returned the serve, but this was hardly the move he would like to have made.

The purpose and first principle of the Canadian Armed Forces is to deliver combat power.  Practically everything the CAF does is ordered and organized around this aim.  Essential to the delivery of combat power are the discipline and morale of the troops performing the act.  The less disciplined and the lower the morale of the troops in combat, the greater the risk of defeat and of higher than necessary casualties.  Discipline is what aids in the creation of a durable morale.

Service on an overseas tour requires mental and physical toughness.  Often, the job on tour involves working twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for weeks at a time.  There is nothing to do on the off-hours except personal admin.  The training delivered to enable a member to endure such hardships increases mental and physical toughness.

The External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces was written by Marie Deschamps, the External Review Authority, and a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.  The ERA seems to have spent most of her career in the law profession and has next to no experience in the military.  The report was written from the perspective of a civilian immersed in the issues of the day, and in a tone-deaf way no attempt was made to relate the recommendations to the peculiar mission of the CAF.

Its deficiencies in reasoning are noteworthy.  The report famously claims that the CAF has an “underlying sexualized culture” that is hostile to women and LGBTQ members and conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment.  Unless I missed it, no LGBTQ members were interviewed, and the inference that the alleged sexualized culture is hostile to them as well as to women was made purely by the ERA.  This, combined with ‘conducive to…’ would be rhetorical devices used to make the hostility and danger appear bigger than they are.

But the larger claim, that of an underlying sexualized culture, upon review has little merit intellectually or on the basis of the evidence.  This is a case of fastening upon a particular tree in the forest.  The CAF is many things besides a fighting force, and the ERA could just as well have observed an “eating and talking culture,” on the grounds that members of the CAF spend far more time eating together and talking to each other than they do engaged in intercourse of a sexualized nature with each other, or engaged with the enemy for that matter.  But the ERA was to investigate sexual harassment, and with determination she found it.

The evidence of a sexualized culture advanced by the ERA was the prevalence of swear words and euphemisms by used NCOs in the presence of, and directed towards, the junior ranks.  (Apparently, the derisive use of the word ‘pussy’ was taken to be a sexualized word rather than a reference to something small, soft, cuddly, and weak.)  Such speech, if not accepted by the officer cadre, tolerated it.  The ERA noted that women of higher rank did not find a sexualized culture in the CAF, and as a rule did not help younger women of junior rank cope with the difficult new world opened to them in the CAF.

The repeated, successful performance of duty over a long period of time and in difficult and arduous circumstances is what gains a member the respect of other members of the CAF.  Respect is what these women of higher rank have earned.  Women of junior rank and of less experience are granted only a modicum of respect by their seniors.  They are acculturated to a world of political correctness, in which no means no, power relationships are illegitimate, and consent is not given under conditions of intoxication.  The ERA is of this world.  The Prime Minister and MND are of this world.  Consequently, the CDS must have a foot in this world.

The fact that some women in junior ranks may fold up in the face of a politically incorrect world raises the question of how they would fare on deployment.  And that is the point of CAF training and “culture”.

An entire brief could be put together drawing attention to the contradictions and poking holes in the reasoning employed by the ERA in reaching her recommendations, none of which bear upon the delivery of combat power.  Claiming to support morale, these tend to undermine discipline.

Poor General Vance is offered next to no guidance by the ERA in implementing its recommendations since the terms employed are so slippery or vague. (Eg. “Establish a strategy to effect cultural change to eliminate the sexualized environment….)

The CAF will survive this battle with the forces of political correctness.  But I am sure General Vance would rather be sharpening the bayonet rather than stickhandling with this report.

-30-

MMPR and the Canadian Constitution

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Sept 15

The Hamilton Spectator today published an article by Jonathon Swanson headlined, "The Best Hope for Electoral Reform."  It was an argument for Mixed Member Proportional Representation, a ramshackle idea that allegedly makes the outcome of elections more "democratic."  Dr. Swanson formerly taught political science and international relations in several universities, and lived in New Zealand when it switched electoral systems.  My response was immediate. 

Sirs;

I welcome Professor Swanson back to Canada after his extended stay in New Zealand.  Dr. Swanson was taken by New Zealand’s switch from plurality election to Mixed Member Proportional Representation, and advocates that Canada adopt the same system, even though Canada does not suffer from the same ills as New Zealand did when it changed.

During his absence, Canada adopted a new law called, ``The Constitution Act, 1867`` and has revised it several times since.  Perusal of that document will show why MMPR will not work and cannot work for Canada.  That cause has a name: Quebec.

Section 51(1)(1) of the Constitution Act begins, “ There shall be assigned to each of the provinces….”  It does not say to each of the parties.  Section 51(1)(2) provides that each province shall be represented by a minimum number of members.

In the 2004 federal election, the Bloc Quebecois returned 54 of 75 candidates to the House of Commons, 18 % of the House, after garnering 12.4 % of the popular vote over all of Canada.  MMPR would have failed to represent the popularity of the Bloc in Quebec, and a failure to recognize the feelings represented by the Bloc would have exacerbated the separatist problem that Canada faced at the time.

We also have in Canada a tradition of Independent members of the House of Commons, of which there were two in the House at the time of dissolution.  Under MMPR there could never be any.  Nor could there be any “crossing of the floor” of the House on a matter of principle, since the member is beholding to his party, not to a constituency.

Provinces and constituencies would cease to be represented by MMPR.  Instead, parties would have their interests represented.  Political parties would decide who would sit in the Commons and who would not.  The voters would not have that say; the party bosses would.

In small counties like New Zealand and Israel, which are culturally homogeneous, the fallacy of MMPR is not obvious.  But in physically large countries that are political unions overcoming great cultural and linguistic differences such as Canada, MMPR will not serve the regional the cultural needs nor account for the cultural sensitivities of that country.  Canada as we know it could not survive under MMPR because one region or another will feel neglected and separate.

Regards;

-30-

This item was published in the Hamilton Spectator on Wednesday, Sept 8th.

Conservative Morale Cowardice in the Case of Kim Davis

Kim Davis, Outlaw and Martyr

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Sept 15

Kim Davis is the County Clerk of Rowan County, Virginia, who was sent to jail for her refusal to issue marriage licences.  Davis is a Christian, and refuses place her name in sanction for an act that is an abomination in the eyes of God.  So as not to discriminate, she refuses to issue marriage licences of any kind.  If someone wanted a marriage license, they had get one in a neighboring county.

My criticism is of the conservative commentators who tut-tut about the rule of law and observe how it was wrong for Davis to thwart the law.  These people, on this issue at least, are moral cowards.  They take an act of judicial lawlessness as an act of the rule of law, out of cowardice.  They don’t want to face up to the real challenge to the rule of law before them.

In a classic example of left-wing straw cases, first used in the Birmingham bus desegregation matter involving Rosa Parks, semi-organized couples, both gay and heterosexual, attended at the Rowan County Clerk’s office and were filmed loudly demanded marriage licenses.  They were denied.  They then turned to the ACLU, and together went to court to demand that Kim Davis be “ordered” issue them marriage licenses.

The court so ordered, and when she refused to obey the court “order”, it sent her to jail for contempt of court, without bail.  On Tuesday, September 8^th she was released after the court intimidated her staff into issuing licenses against her consent, and lawful authority.  In Davis’s opinion, such licenses are void.

The moral cowardice of conservatives on this issue was palpable.  The “law” of which they speak is the law of tyrants.  And the law of a tyrant is a sham of a law deserving no respect whatsoever.  Conservatives’s love for order seems to have overcome their moral scruples about the merits at issue, and rather than erect the flag of rebellion, they caved.

How did America get to his pass where the exercise of Christian religion produces “illegal” activity in the form of passivity?  It came about because of persistent law-breaking by the other side, the side that wants nothing to do with the rule of law until it suits their agenda.

If homosexuals had obeyed the laws on sodomy, America would not have reached this pass.  But what happened was that law enforcement authorities lost their heart in enforcing the laws of sodomy.  Then came the wave of state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Lawless issuing of marriage licenses by County Clerks in violation of State constitutions caused a loss of heart by those who ought to have defended the law as it stood.

Then came the court cases against the state constitutions and the Defense of Marriage Act.  Lawless refusal by state and federal authorities, who were in the tank for gay marriage, presented no defense in court and no outside group was granted standing to fight the government’s fight.  Thus, by judicial fiat and connivance, gay marriage become “law.”

And this product of a sequence of lawlessness conservatives fecklessly defend under “rule of law.”

The word law belongs in quotes because judges do not make law.  Legislatures make law, and courts simply decide what the law is in particular cases.  Hence it is wrong to say that gay marriage is the law of the land in the United States when state constitutions and state law still declare otherwise.

When the courts struck down the state amendments declaring what marriage was, that in itself was not to legislate what marriage now was to be.  Courts can act in a nugatory manner, but since gay marriage was never legal and never recognized in law prior, there was no status quo ante to return to.  Okay, say it is discriminatory not to allow gays to marry, but until the legislature passes the law to govern the matter, the state authorities have only natural law and custom to understand what marriage is.  And those two hold that marriage is between one man and one women.  Hence, a court ruling striking down a law defining marriage did not in itself lay down a new, positive definition of marriage in law.  It might merely have stated what it ought to be, not what it actually was.

After the courts struck down state constitutional amendments declaring what marriage was, it simply opened the door for the state legislature to pass new legislation itself, since there was now no valid constitutional declaration on the subject.  But a court cannot order a legislature to act in a particular way, nor posit it’s will in substitution for a legislature’s act.

Conservatives ought to be in rebellion against the lawless actions of courts if they are true to their belief in the rule of law.  But they don’t, and so their mumbling about “rule of law” is just a cop-out.  Exercises of raw judicial power is not a rule of law.

A Tennessee court recently refused to grant a divorce to a heterosexual couple on the grounds that the Supreme Court had taken the issue out of the hands of the states and so confused what marriage actually was that he could not consent to dissolving something he no longer understood.  This is the route of rebellion.  Throw whole issue of marriage into the hands of the Supreme Court.

Since only the Supreme Court knows what a marriage is, let them issue licenses, and let them perform marriages, and let them deal with divorces.  Overwhelm the Court with the consequences of their lawlessness.

The Supreme Court created this mess, and now conservatives ought to force them deal with it.  In the meantime, they should stop mumbling about the rule of law when it comes to gay marriage.

-30-

What it takes to be a science.

Vincent J. Curtis

4 Sept 15

Concerning the bleak verdict on validity of psychology experimental results, an extract of my paper “A Basis for a Military Science” one of the two foundational papers of Military Science that I wrote, is presented below.  The original paper was published in the Canadian Army Journal Vol 13.3 (2010) pp 69-85.

“At its simplest, a theory is a proposition of causation, indeterminate in validity and significance.  S causes P.  Such a proposition can exist on paper or in the mind.  The proposition calls attention to the existence of a specific relationship between two things or events, S and P.  The conception of a theory may be expanded to include definitions of S and P, since it may be necessary to explain what S and P are.  In addition, since S and P are related in some way, the relationship presupposes a common subject matter in which S and P exist.

As a theory addresses more complex issues, it comes to include definitions, axioms, and postulates concerning a subject matter.  It may come to incorporate theorems, which are subordinate functional propositions deduced ultimately from the axioms and postulates.  It lays down characteristic problematic propositions, or problems, to be solved.  These problematic propositions are what give significance to data obtained by observation.  For example, Ohm’s Law of electrical resistance declares a relationship among voltage, amperage and resistance.  Mass and time are not variables of significance to Ohm’s Law, but voltage, amperage, and resistance are.  To report the mass of the equipment in an experiment testing Ohm’s law is to reveal that the experimenter does not understand the problem at issue.  The existence of a theory or a conceptual analysis is prerequisite to the reliability and accuracy of scientific observation. 

In scientific research, the data obtained must be significant with respect to the scientific proposition at issue.  By significant is meant relevant to the general proposition and able to aid in the determination of probability.  A second requirement is that the data be reliable and accurate; it must be objective.  What differentiates scientific from historical research is that scientific research is able to test the validity of the same proposition by different investigators at different times and places.  Scientific observations are made in terms of the concepts of the science, which is why a theory is prerequisite.  It is difficult to estimate the validity of non-quantitative information.  Its accuracy and reliability can be estimated, but only crudely, by reference to the intellectual competence and veracity of the reporter, or by reference to his documents and other material.[1]  Non-quantitative knowledge, descriptions, narratives, and characterizations have no etiological significance for they do not provide evidence relevant to formulae or co-variation.  Etiological propositions, on the other hand, need not be quantitative, for the interdependence of variables may not be a matter of degree but rather an all or none type of relation.

The construction of a theory is a rational process of the human mind which transforms the material it uses.  A science grows by development of its theory and improvements of technique for gaining evidence, but a science must exist before it can grow.  Scientific observations are made in terms of concepts of the science, not in terms of common sense knowledge.  But it is not enough merely to propose a theory.  The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Principle of the Unity of Truth require that a theory comport with other things that we know.  The phlogiston theory of heat and the aether theory of the transport of light waves through the vacuum of space both fell by the wayside because they failed to comport with knowledge we were surer of than of them.

What is valuable about science is that it provides knowledge of determinant validity and significance.  Validity means accuracy and reliability: the truth value of the data.  Significance means susceptibility to systematic interpretation.  There are no absolute standards for grading validity and significance.”

“A science begins with a theory or analysis of a subject matter.  A science is a body of knowledge organized in a special way: as a compendent set of propositions.  The terms of these propositions are the variables or the concepts of the science.  A variable of a science is a term which does not refer to particular individual things or definite aggregates of individuals.  Words which refer to classes and the names of universal characteristics are variable symbols.  In military theory, the terms platoon, battalion, division, and commander are such variables.

There are three essential characteristics of a scientific proposition: (1) generality, it goes beyond the evidence; (2) determinant validity, it rests upon definite evidence; and (3) formal character of the proposition as a relation of variables.  A fourth characteristic of a scientific proposition following the previous three is that it is a member of a set of compendent propositions.  Expressed in these propositions and in the relational and conceptual structure of them is the theory or analysis.[2]”

“A science can be classified into two types, the rational and the empirical.  The difference between them is the difference between deduction and induction.  A rational science is a certain kind of analytical exposition.  A rational science is founded upon a rational base, which consists of definitions, axioms, and postulates.  A proposition of a rational science is proved deductively through syllogisms which begin with the general propositions of the science.  A proved proposition of a rational science is true, not probable.  A science is said to be rational when its propositions are not only compendent but also systematically ordered.  Examples of rational sciences include the various geometries, mathematical physics, theology, politics, and ethics.  The general theories of tactics and strategy were here presented as rational sciences.

Empirical science is a body of knowledge derived by inference from observation.  Its propositions are not systematically ordered.  A proposition of an empirical science is established as probable (not true) by the accumulation of empirical evidence relevant to the proposition of the science, as Ohm’s law was.  The analysis employed in empirical science never goes beyond the construction of a set of variables, and the empirical knowledge of causation is nothing more than knowledge of the relations which obtain in a given set of variables.  Because the validity of a proposition of an empirical science rests upon the precision of its etiology, empirical science is either exact or it is not a science.  A pure empirical science is a straightforward etiology.  More than a scheme of classification, an empirical science is an organization of classes that are interdependent and related by cause and effect.  Empirical science has to be exact for deviations from the empirical law of the science are due either to inaccurate measurement or to a failure of the law.  If the measurement is accurate, the law does not hold.”

“A particular science can exist in any degree of organization and exhibit the characteristics of both types, and it is possible for there to be both a rational and an empirical science of the same subject matter.

Physics and chemistry provide clear examples of what a science is.  When Sir Isaac Newton sought to explain planetary motion, by an act of intuition he came up with the idea of gravity.  He posited the existence of gravity as a first principle, laid down his three laws of motion as axioms, and from that basis with the input of empirical data concerning the movement of the planets derived his law of universal gravitation, and then derived Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.  Newton’s laws of motion apply to any body in motion, not simply a particular set of planets orbiting a particular star.  The laws of motion can be confirmed empirically by observations, and in fact they provide more information than can ever be confirmed by experiment.  Finally, Newton’s laws of motion are expressible in the form of equations whose variables (force, mass, length, time) appear in more than one equation; that is, the laws are compendent.  Of his method of exposition Newton said, “I lay down the law and derive the phenomenon from it.”  Newton’s work is a classic example of the exegesis of a rational science which becomes empirical science when empirical data are applied to the variables of the equations.

Newton’s empirical physics happens to be quantitative, that is the results are expressed as numbers.  But science does not have to be quantitative.  Qualitative chemistry is a purely non-quantitative branch of the empirical science of chemistry.  Qualitative chemistry is concerned with the identification of the constituent elements, compounds, and functional groups in an unknown sample, and the immediate results of a test in qualitative chemistry are yes or no; and ultimately this and not-this.  The relationships between variables are step-functions rather than continuous functions.

The cooperation of theoretical analysis, observation, and inference is the essential trait of empirical scientific method.  The findings of scientific research are reported in terms of descriptive knowledge, e.g. a table of data correlating amperage and the length of wire.  The conclusions of research, however, are never descriptive knowledge but rather are the products of inference, e.g. the formulation of Ohm’s Law.  Conclusions are general propositions established to a certain degree of probability.

The rational sciences of Ethics, Philosophical Theology, International Politics, and military science are non-quantitative.  Hence, they do not appear to be as ‘scientific’ as Newtonian physics.  They rely upon in the input of descriptive knowledge of affairs, which can be of unknown validity, for the inferences of the science.  Nevertheless, the activities which are the subject matters of these sciences are interpreted and understood in terms of the concepts of their theories.  To suggest that these disciplines are ideologies or are expressions of mere opinion is to misunderstand the nature of knowledge, inference, and the meaning of validity and significance.

An ideology is a theory believed in to an unwarranted degree.  An ideology fails the test of: “…do the facts lend themselves to the interpretation of the theory put upon them, and do the inferences follow with logical necessity from its premises…is the theory consistent with facts and within itself?”  To an ideologue, the idea is more important than facts.  An ideology mimics the form of Newton’s method of exposition, but fails to deliver the substance.

A statistical survey which purports to show correlation between two phenomena is example of what science is not.  These studies are the staple of news stories about the medical, environmental, and psychological disciplines.  What these kinds of alleged studies are is a degraded form of raw empiricism masquerading as the science of statistics, and they appeal to a weakness of common sense: its tendency to infer a cause-effect relationship upon data inadequate for such an inference.  This weakness comes into play when evaluating the efficiency of a means for attaining an end, such as the efficiency of a strategic bombing campaign to gain Victory. 

The logical fallacy behind statistical surveys that seem to relate two phenomena is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Correlation is not causation.  Knowledge of the existence of characteristics of events and things does not constitute knowledge of their relationship, and to infer a cause-effect relationship on the basis of descriptive knowledge is a fallacy as surely as night follows day.  A science begins with a theory, and is developed by skilled observers who know what they are looking for.  I say observers in the plural because a characteristic of scientific work is that it can be reproduced.  A statistical survey which is not formulated to confirm a particular theory of a cause-effect relationship between an event and a thing, and which is not taken by set of skilled observers who know precisely what they are looking for, and which produces results that are not exactly the same as similar work done by others, fails the basic tests of scientific validity and significance.  Even if the data of the set collected is perfectly valid, without a theory the results are without significance.  At best, a study of this kind may suggest a more specific and in depth experiment which isolates the variables concerned simply in order to evaluate the significance of the results of the first study.

Common sense is not science.  Common sense is easily fooled by an apparent correlation between events and things, especially when the correlation seems strong.   Common sense answers questions regarding the adaptation of means to ends by interpreting what it observes in terms of its experience of the world.  Common sense knowledge is often adequate for practical purposes, but common sense is all too ready to impute the success of an endeavour to the means employed, particularly when success is only partial.  As practical problems become more complex, common sense finds it increasing difficult to answer questions concerning adaptation of means to ends.

The question of the efficiency of means was raised earlier.  Efficiency, a question concerning the adaptation of means to ends, concerns the relation of one event to another, but knowledge of the existence and characteristics of events and things does not constitute knowledge of their relationships.  If one were to ask how efficient means ‘B’ is in producing end ‘A’, it is not sufficient to reply with a description of means ‘B’ and to state how often end ‘A’ occurred after means ‘B’ was applied.  That descriptive knowledge is in itself insufficient to establish a causal relationship between B and A.  To establish that, knowledge of a scientific character, etiological knowledge, is required.

Just as science is the source of scientific knowledge, common sense is the source of common sense knowledge.  Common sense knowledge is not the common possession of all men, or that men who possess it possess it to the same degree.  All men are not able to significantly interpret descriptive knowledge, and the interpretation of all men are not of equal value.  An expert in the field may not be one who possesses scientific knowledge for there may be no science of that field and therefore no such knowledge.  However, the expert is one who possesses rather precise knowledge of his field gained by long study and observation, and he can interpret his knowledge wisely.[3]  This opinion of such an expert may possess more significance than common sense knowledge.

Where scientific knowledge relates cause and effect, common sense knowledge relates ends and means.  Means and ends are not synonymous with cause and effect.  Common sense generalizations and opinions are never organized into compendent sets of propositions.  They are members of indefinite aggregates of generalizations, or are isolated.  The Maxims of Napoleon are an aggregation of his common sense generalizations.

Descriptive knowledge is knowledge of particular events and things, or their existence and characteristics.  It is not of the relations of these things and events to one another as ends and means.  Descriptive knowledge consists of narratives, descriptions, or characterizations limited in reference to particular things or events or to definite aggregates of particular events or things.  In contrast, a proposition of scientific knowledge never has restricted reference to particular events or things, or definite aggregates of particular things or events.  A scientific proposition is always a general proposition.”

From the AP report:

“Among the experiments that stood up was one that found people are equally adept at recognizing pride in faces from different cultures.”

What, pray tell, are the covariant variables in an experiment attempting to correlate recognition with expressions in human faces?  Degree of recognition and facial expression?  How does one quantify those things?  What is this business of different cultures?

Psychology, sociology, criminology, and the other soft “sciences” have a long way to go before they are real sciences.

-30-

---

[1] J. Michael & M.J. Adler Crime, Law, and Social Science Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1933.

[2] Adapted from: J. Michael, M.J. Adler, loc cit.

[3] J. Michael & M.J. Adler, loc cit.

Study Delivers Bleak Verdict on Validity of Psychology Experimental Results

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Sept 15

In 1932, Jerome Michael and Mortimer J. Adler published a book entitled, Crime, Law, and Social Science.  The University of Chicago, for which they worked, had been offered $5 million to found a school of criminology, and the University commissioned their study into the status of criminology to determine whether that discipline was mature enough to warrant the University founding such a school.  The authors reported adversely, and the University turned down the offer.  That report was later released as the aforementioned book.

The authors concentrated primarily on criminology, but determined that their findings could be extended to the disciplines of sociology and psychology.  The authors found that these disciplines were not sciences at all, for they lacked foundational theories and analyses of their subject matters.  Consequently, the published empirical studies in these disciplines lacked validity and significance.

The authors in those disciplines, according to Michael and Adler, seemed to have no idea how to perform controlled statistical experiments, and besides having no idea what made a science a science, this handicapped their work even more.

Crime, Law, and Social Science was republished in 1971, and Adler makes a favorable reference to it in his 1976 autobiography, Philosopher at Large.

The book by Michael and Adler is an extremely heavy read.  It’s criticism of sociology, criminology, and psychology was to a limited extent accepted by those disciplines and better use of the methods of statistics are now in use; however, the fatal flaw of lacking a foundational theory or analysis still bedevils those disciplines and better statistical methodology has not relieved them of their problems with validity and significance.

A report by the British newspaper The Guardian of 27 Aug 15 covers an article in Science magazine which ran an analysis of 100 studies published in top ranking journals in 2008.  It found that 75 % of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed to be replicated.  Some extracts of that story are as follows:

“The study, which saw 270 scientists repeat experiments on five continents, was launched by psychologists in the U.S. in response to rising concerns over the reliability of psychology research.  ‘There is no doubt I would have loved for the effects to be more reproducible,’ said Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology who led the study at the University of Virginia.”

“In the investigation, a whopping 75 % of the social psychology experiments were not replicated, meaning that the originally reported findings vanished when other scientists repeated the experiments.  Half of the cognitive psychology studies failed the same test.”

“Even when scientists could replicate original findings, the sizes of the effects they found were on average half as big a reported first time around.  That could be due to scientists leaving out data that undermined their hypotheses, and by journals accepting only the strongest claims for publication.”

“Sadly, the picture it paints – a 64 % failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field – is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” said John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University.

“If I want to get promoted or get a grant, I need to be writing lots of papers.  But writing lots of papers and doing lots of small experiments isn’t the way to get one really robust right answer.  What it takes to be a successful academic is not necessarily that well aligned with what it takes to be a good scientist,” said Marcus Munafo, a co-author of the comparative study and professor of psychology at Bristol University.

All the authors quoted in the story went on to put the best possible gloss on the failure.  “That’s science for you, and we’ve got to do better,” being the general sentiment.  The criticism by Munafo is a little darker since it hints at corruption being at the root of failure.

However, neither optimism nor dark hints at funding driving bad research can or will change the grim outlook for the soft sciences.  These sciences are called soft because they are not yet sciences, and they won’t be until they are founded upon theories and analyses as physics and chemistry are.  (For example, Newton’s three laws of motion are the theoretical basis for kinetics; and every empirical test of those laws bears out the truth of those laws until quantum effects are encountered.) 

These disciplines can never (going beyond Michael and Adler) become sciences as physics and chemistry are because they deal with man and not matter.  They call themselves sciences because they seek the prestige of actual sciences, even though they have failed to deliver on the substance.  So far, they offer promises of delivery.  Soon.

It has been since 1932 that they were put on notice to deliver, and they manifestly haven’t.

Man is a far more complex subject to study than matter because matter behaves reproducibly and man does not.  It is easy for physics and chemistry to adopt a philosophy of materialism, putting the power of the form into the matter.  But man’s form is not his matter but his rational soul (to employ terms from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) and materialism simply cannot be applied usefully upon a rational object, any more than determinism can be.  Thus the alleged “scientists” in sociology and psychology bark up the wrong tree when they try to apply a philosophy of materialism and determinism to their disciplines.

This is partly the basis for the failures of validity and significance in those disciplines.  The problem of validity arises when measurements are not reproducible.  Two untrained observers are bad enough in creating invalid observations; but when two trained observers fail to observe the same thing, then there is a serious problem with the data being sought.

Even if valid data is obtained, the next problem is the significance of the observation in the context of the overall theory.  “So what?” is a question that needs to be answered in a non-trivial way.

When you try to apply the philosophy of materialism and determinism to a subject that is not bound by them, it is only a matter of time before studies and observations founded in materialism and determinism begin to go awry.  And so it was found.

Until “scientists” in the fields sociology and psychology come up with a foundational theory or analysis their studies will always be worthless because they lack significance, and the variables they analyze will lack validity since have no comprehensive theoretical basis.

-30-

Koran pre-dates Mohammed?

Vincent J. Curtis

2 Sept 15

The Associated Press reported on 22 July 2015 that the Koran, Islam's Holiest book, may pre-date Mohammed, Islam's prophet.  An extract from the report runs as follows:

"The Times of London reported that radiocarbon dating carried out by experts at the University of Oxford says the fragments were produced between the years 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. Muhammad is generally believed to have lived between 570 A.D. and 632 A.D. The man known to Muslims as The Prophet is thought to have founded Islam sometime after 610 A.D., with the first Muslim community established at Medina, in present-day Saudi Arabia, in 622 A.D.

"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," Keith Small of Oxford's Bodleian Library told the Times. 

The two sheets of Islam's holy book were discovered in a library at the University of Birmingham in England, where they had been mistakenly bound in a Koran dating to the seventh century. They were part of a collection of 3,000 Middle Eastern texts gathered in Iraq in the 1920s."

"The first known formal text of the Koran was not assembled until 653 A.D. on the orders of Uthman, the third caliph, or leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad's death. Before that, however, fragments of the work had circulated through oral tradition, though parts of the work had also been written down on stones, leaves, parchment and bones. The fragments of the Birmingham Koran were written on either sheepskin or goatskin.

Small cautioned that the carbon dating was only done on the parchment in the fragments, and not the actual ink, but added "If the dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — predates Mohammed, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s."

The significance of such a discovery, if true, is shattering to the entire belief system of Islam.  The belief system of Islam depends upon the Koran being revealed to Mohammed directly.

-30-