I am from the negroidal race. I speak two languages from the negroidal continent.

I am a negroidal person.

A story recently erupted regarding some words spoken by the talk-show host Mr. William Bennett. Here is what he said.

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down ... that would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky,".


Mr. Bennett’s logic is fairly clear. If you wipe out every black baby through abortion, you would, in a few years, see a significant drop in crime.

This drop in crime could be seen to the result of one of two reasons.

The first would be that crime would drop because of the reduction of numbers of young people and it is well understood that young people commit the most crimes. It is therefore easy to understand that when there are fewer young people around, there are going to be fewer crimes.

The second would be that crime would drop because of the reduction of numbers of black people and it is well understood that black people commit the most crimes. It is therefore easy to understand that when there are fewer black people around, there are going to be fewer crimes.

There is actually a third cause that could be seen to result in fewer crimes and that would be the two factors together. If all black babies were aborted, there would be a multiplication effect because there would be fewer young people and there would be fewer black people. It would not be surprising to find that in such a position, there would hardly be any crime at all.

How wonderful. Abortion is the answer to our crime problem and all this time we thought that good police services would do the trick.

At present there is a uproar over Mr. Bennett’s statement. People are attacking him for including an argument in his stated opinion suggesting that there were benefits to be had from aborting blacks thus implying that black people commit an inordinate number of crimes.

The simple truth of the matter is this. In the United States, black people do commit an inordinate number of crimes. I wish this was not case but it is. There are many reasons for this sad fact but the most prominent cause is the idiotic social programs championed by the very ding-bats who are accusing Mr. Bennet.

If Mr. Bennett’s argument was intentionally phrased in a way that would imply that blacks do indeed commit more crimes, his implication would not be unjust or slanderous. It would hurt some feelings and cause lots of people to be discouraged and disenchanted but the implication would be mechanically true. This is just the way things are.


However, judging from the context, it is obvious that Mr. Bennett did not intend to imply that black people commit more crimes than other races.

What Mr. Bennett did was to use a device of logic that our increasingly politically correct world has made necessary.

Here is an example of how this device of logic must be used:


A white Jesse Jackson: This company is too white. There are no minorities in this company. This company would do better if some black people were added to the company staff. Diversity is a real benefit.


Bleeding Brain (me): Listen .... do you know how insane your argument sounds? Suppose that a company was staffed only by black people. Would you dare say, "This company is too black?" Would you dare announce that the company would be better off if some white people were added to the black staff because diversity is a real benefit?"


A white Jesse Jackson:Uuhhh...Uuhh...Uhhh..


Bleeding Brain:Don't hurt yourself.


In the case above (a real case by the way), I swung my opponent's statement around so as to leverage his politically correct sensibilities into detecting the absurdity of his argument.

The argument method listed above is made necessary because people nowadays blindly argue in favour of politically correct positions and it is important to play their arguments back to them using parallel terms to show them how fallacious their statements actually are.

In saying what I did, I made myself vulnerable to the same idiotic argument that is now being used against Mr. Bennett. You see, the 'White Jesse Jackson" could have jumped at the chance to proclaim that I was a racist because I had implied that black people were incompetent because I was suggesting that an addition of white people to a black company's staff would improve the company.

Luckily for me, I was immune to this charge because I am a negroidal person and not likely to be one to hate myself (in fact I have been accused of loving myself too much) and I am also very aware of how the argument can be miscontrued by idiots and also by people who merely want to pretend to misunderstand the argument so that they can make political hay. I simply do not let people get away with that falsely derived claim.

As for poor white Mr. Bennett, he was attempting to do precisely the same thing I was. He was trying to refute some idiot scientist’s proclamation that abortion has been a wonderful blessing to the people of America.

Mr. Bennett swung the dumb argument around and inserted a specific race to highlight how insane the idea of celebrating the 'benefits' of abortion actually is. He used the black race in his example because he knew that the people he was speaking to were sensitive to the notion of harming a minority group (also, if he had used the white race as an example, he would have been accused of being a racist because he would be implying that abortion is wrong because it reduces the number of white people).

He also knew that no one on the panel would be caught dead saying that black people should be aborted to reduce crime even though these same people were willing to entertain the Nazi -like idea of aborting a non-specified race to reduce crime.

He was making the argument very well but in doing so, he left himself vulnerable to the charge of racism because his opponents were able to claim that he implied that black people commit lots of crimes.

Mr. Bennett is not a racist but in trying to make moral arguments in a morally insane and politically correct realm, he found himself framed as one.

In fact the White House released a statement declaring that Mr. Bennett's comments were "not appropriate".

Grrrr.

It is condescending to me and many other people who originated on the African continent to suggest that it is inappropriate to make arguments that are too subtle to be understood correctly by black people.

Thanks for the help but the next time a subtle argument is made in a way that could be misconstrued to mean something negative about me, please trust that I am smart enough to understand the debater's intended meaning.

CREATION MYTH?

Before I was 6 years old, my Sunday school teacher said that God made the whole wide world.

I believed that basic idea unstintingly until I was about 13 years old when I went to boarding school. While there, I learned that the universe was in fact not created by God but had always been there from time everlasting.

I wasn't upset by the discovery. I was ready to drop any childhood belief the same way I dropped the fantasy of Santa Clause upon learning 'the truth' from a friend. I casually dropped my belief that God was the author of the universe and lived quite happily for a few years.

I was about 19 years old when I became curious about the origins of the universe again. I wanted to know, as do many young men that age, what the whole point of living actually was.

I knew that my carcass existed on a stony rotating orb that sped around a medium-sized star but I could not discern why this was so.

I desperately needed to get to the bottom of the mystery and so began my examination of astronomy, physics and philosophy.

If you look, as I did, into any dentist's office magazine rack and you will find one important piece of the puzzle: The universe started with a big bang.

Many people say that the big bang is merely a fanciful theory but I feel quite certain that the big bang was a real event that resulted in the space-time universe that we currently inhabit.

The alternative to the big bang theory is a perpetual universe but even a child who has experience with camping will confirm the inviolable law of our universe that states that hot things eventually cool down no matter how much fuel was available to begin with.

The universe is littered with burning objects suggesting that the stuff in our universe has only been around for a finite period of time. If it had been around for an infinite amount of time, logic informs us that the entire universe would have been burned to a cold dark crisp like the inedible black kernels in your popcorn popper.

If you look into the night sky, you will instead see a rapidly expanding and energetic universe with plenty of fuel in the gas tank. To me, this means that the universe is relatively fresh or at the very least, not an eternity old.

The big bang idea is becoming more and more accepted as discoveries about the nature of the universe are made. The background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory is now well established. The expansion of the universe is very well established. The pre-atomic conditions of the universe are fairly well understood as is the progression of cooling that led to it's current state.

The question now arises: If there was a big bang 14.5 billion years ago, what caused it?

I am willing to try to understand possible causes for the big bang. I shall list two examples of fairly good ideas that I have seen forwarded by some thinkers.

The first is the idea that the universe expands to a certain size and then collapses back to a single point only to go through the big bang again. This idea suggest that the universe bangs and busts repeatedly for an eternity and as such, we humans just happen to exist in this particular incarnation of the universe and we may very well be excluded from the next.

This is not altogether a bad idea but I can't help but feel that this cycle could not continue indefinitely unless there was an external source of energy. Each time a universe explodes into existence, it has to lose some energy and therefore each successive big bang would be weaker than the previous one. If this had been going on for an eternity, the yo-yo effect would simply have to have run out of energy by now. All that we would expect to see in such a model would be a large cold mass of dark sludge hanging at the convergence of space-time like a large lint-ball in the belly-button of reality.

Recent studies seem to suggest that this model is not likely to be true anyway because the universe seems to be expanding very rapidly and because of the low quantity of mass detected in our universe, it will not likely ever turn around and head for a big crunch. This of course is subject to more examination.


Another good idea trying to explain the cause of the big bang (a better one in my view) is that there are other dimensions floating around outside our space-time universe like large cargo ships floating loose in a harbor. These dimensional entities occasionally collide and at the apex of their meeting, a quantity of energy enough to power a universal explosion is released. We (the observers) see the effects of this collision as the big bang.

I like this idea a lot but even with all the possibilities it offers, it is based on a rough guess at what might possibly exist outside our time-space universe. The idea lends our world's properties to entities that exist outside of space-time. It is a stretch to suggest that two cars colliding on earth is a model on which to base the collision of two non-space-time entities. To hold to the idea that dimensions can actually collide with each other is to suggest that non-space-time dimensions feel 'solid' to each other or at least do not glide through each other like a pair of ghostly sumo wrestlers. The truth or falsity of this idea is extremely hard to know.

The two best ideas trying to explain what caused the big bang are pointedly unsatisfying. One of them tries to pretend that the laws of physics do not apply within our own universe and the other pretends that our laws of physics apply outside our space-time universe.

After dead-ending in the world of cosmology, I went back to my childhood belief after having been separated from it by my helpful teachers in school.

The original belief was that God created the universe and that he had a journal entry that proved it. The Old Testament does indeed make a claim of authorship by God and so I am sure that it would seem fair to even our most rigidly scientific friends that we take a look at the claim itself in the same way that we would examine the patent papers held by a person who claimed that we infringed on his perpetual motion machine.

The Old Testament is not shy about who it thinks created the universe. It says that God created the universe and that a human witnessed the events. That human (ostensibly Moses), made some notes and handed them to the rest of us so that we would know who the universe belonged to.

Some people might say that there are many other claimants of the universe and therefore God's claim of authorship can be doubted.

Well, let us look at the other claimants shall we?

Allah: Allah was first heard from in the 7th century. The God of the Old Testament documented his authorship of the universe at least 3000 years before Allah. Allah might have know that it would be necessary to wake up early to get to the registrar's office to stake a claim. He was too late.

West African deities: The universe was created through the power of human hair...............NO.

Egyptian Deities: The earth is actually the god called Geb who laid in the ocean forming a landmass and then sprouted plants...........NO.

Babylonian Deities: The goddess Tiamat gave birth to some serpents to bring war to her two sons who were unhappy..............NO.

Japanese Deities: A female god and a male god met on a shoreline and created the first Island. They then built a house on that island........NO

Norse Deities: A cow licked a block of salt and as it licked, a man, trapped in the salt was freed and went on to bear a series of children.........NO.

Hindu Deities: Thousand-headed Purusha, thousand-eyed, thousand-footed he, having pervaded the earth on all sides, still extends ten fingers beyond it.....NO

In looking at other creation stories from around the world, it is clear that they are not in the same league as the Old Testament account.

In most instances, creation stories seem to begin in a world that was already made. That is kind of like claiming to be the inventor of the automobile you just bought off the dealer's lot.

The Old Testament is alone in it’s methodic sequencing of creation events with each event representing a scientifically identifiable stage of creation.

Look at the first stage as an example. God said, "Let there be light and there was light".

To me, this stage represents the big bang. Within the first milli-second of time, the universe was about the size of a softball and made of a quark-gluon soup that was a fantastical 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) degrees.

At this heat, you can feel assured that there was light in the way the Old Testament describes it. Lots of light and nothing but.

If the Old Testament creation story is merely a myth, it is a very good one with the writer from 3500 years ago having insight into sub-particle physics* and cosmology.

(*Insight into Sub-partical physics because a thinker reducing the physical universe down to it's basic components would not nessesarily know that in the condensation of sub-particles into particles very often leads to the shedding of photons and other radiation. For all the writer of the Old Testament story knew, the sub-particle world could just have easily been a dark moist world of rhubarb extract.)

I am going to study this idea some more and report on my findings.

For now, I rest on my childhood idea:

God created the universe for the sole purpose of creating an earth and that was done with the purpose of storing humans and that was done with the sole purpose of having humans around to hang out with and toss a baseball in the backyard.