Sunday, August 21, 2016

Learning-Gap Redux...Again

CAVEAT ALERT:  The following will offend most, be approved by few, and castigated or not.   It concerns yet another “report” of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence (a think-tank of sorts) concerning the “education-gap” existing between black/Hispanic and white students. There's little if anything new in the report, which carries no weight since it has no connection to the Ky. Dept. of Education, making one wonder if it's worth the money contributed to maintain it.

Hardly a day passes without the media or non-profit bashing the education establishment(s) for not doing what often is impossible. Item: The report indicated that in order to achieve proper diversity among teachers the state would need to hire 6,882 black, Hispanic and teachers of other nationalities. The average teacher-salary in Kentucky, according to the Ky. Dept. of Education, is $52,618 ($58,385 in Lexington), meaning an additional outlay of some $400 million a year unless the white-teacher population is reduced by 6,882 teachers (5%) so political correctness can be achieved. The report didn't elaborate.

According to the Herald-Leader (19 August), Lexington minister C.B. Akins, chairman of the Achievement Gap Study Group of the Committee, said the gap could be closed by implementing strategies backed by empirical data and that no further study is necessary regarding the gap-matter. The report indicated that the state has failed to erase barriers due to race, income, language and learning differences, as if those things can be changed by pedagogy.

According to the Fayette System's count, black and Hispanic/Latino students make up 22.4% and 15.1%, respectively, of Lexington's student population, or better than a third. The Prichard report also indicated that minority students are disproportionately suspended or not considered as gifted as often as whites. It stated that those most likely to face barriers include those with low family incomes; are learning English; have learning-disabilities; or are black, Hispanic, Latino, American-Indian or native-Alaskan.

One can only imagine the inordinate attention demanded in the classroom for these students at the expense of attention given to those who are able to learn at grade-level, a teacher's nightmare. Akins knows the answer to the problem but he, like everyone else, dances around it by blaming the education establishment for not using empirical data, whatever that is. He didn't say. Since school-integration of the 1960s, the gap has steadily widened and is still widening, with no end in sight. Hardly more than half of African-American boys graduate high school in the U.S.

At risk of being tarred and feathered by the PC police, dare one wonder, especially in light of the total failure of forced busing remarked even by its originator, Dr. James Coleman, if the gap might start narrowing if at least a fourth of Lexington's school facilities be labeled at least “preferably minority” and staffed entirely by black and Hispanic teachers/administrators and state-of-the-art equipped? The quick answer is “no,” but the school-board, with great community input, should at least explore that possibility. There might be a great surprise, especially from blacks, since on-scene, real-time competition and consideration would be virtually ethnic-free.

In Fayette County, there are some 35,000 families of which some 28,000 are husband-wife structured. Led by a female with no husband are 5,000 families. Led by a male with no wife are 2,350 families. As Akins is bound to know, some 7,000 or so families are not likely to furnish normal support for the children involved, therein lying the problem, exacerbated further by the fact that “single mom” families are likely to be poor and welfare-dependent. The schools can serve children two meals a day but that does nothing for academics.

A far worse problem, as noted on the Prichard web-site, is that on the basis of the KY ACT benchmark testing only 37% of all Kentucky graduates (2014) are college-ready, this in the wake of the disastrous, pork-filled Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Unfit to Command

In order to prepare for the quadrennial circus in 2004, I read the thoroughly-researched book Unfit for Command by John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi.  It had to do with John Kerry, the democrat nominee running for president against George Bush, the incumbent.  There were plenty of stories about Kerry’s unfitness but I wanted the truth from the horse’s mouth.  O’Neill had served in Vietnam and took over Kerry’s “swift-boat,” with crew of six, after Kerry’s departure to the states.

In order to prepare for the 2008 circus, I read Obama’s sort of autobiography, Dreams from My Father, that he wrote in the 1990s, obviously considering himself important enough in his thirties to be worthy of self-aggrandizement. I seem to remember that the publisher meant for the book to be about race or racial relations but that didn’t happen.

In order to prepare for the current quadrennial circus, I’ve read exhaustively-researched Hillary’s America by the highly respected political author Dinesh D’Souza. In reading all of these books, I’ve gained important insights about the candidates. One of the most clear-cut attributes that Kerry and Hillary Clinton share is that of telling humongous lies almost as a way of life. By his actions, Obama shares this trait in spades, while his book indicated his feelings toward whites—that “typical white person” tag he awarded the grandmother who raised him.

Kerry’s lies before a Congressional committee in 1971 regarding U.S. troops in Vietnam are the stuff of legend. He served as a swift-boat commander in actual combat territory for three months and received three Purple Hearts without any hospitalization or even one day off-duty, with two certainly but probably all three resulting from Kerry’s own mistakes such as launching a grenade too close to the boat and giving himself a tiny piece of shrapnel easily removed, no stitches, just a band-aid. Band-aids were the bandages needed for all his “wounds.”

With three Purple Hearts, a GI could request shipment home, and Kerry did though the usual tour in Vietnam was one year. Kerry became a war-protester and famously (or infamously or, more likely, not at all) “threw his medals over the fence.” One of his most repeated (by himself) lies was that he spent Christmas in Cambodia, with President Nixon assuring Americans that no GI was in Cambodia. Kerry was nowhere near Cambodia…at least 50 miles away. Nixon wasn’t even president in December 1968.

Kerry traveled to France to “meet” with the North Vietnamese representatives and parley for an end to the war. At least that’s the story, as if a junior Naval Reserve officer could do such a thing. As a GI, he probably committed a crime but who cared? He was a harmless egoist, who even had movies made of himself running up and down a Vietnamese beach and looking tough. He consistently wrote false reports and probably wrote the necessary documentation for one of his medals.

D'Souza goes far beyond just Clinton (and Obama) and traces the Democrat Party back to its beginnings, claimed by D'Souza to have started with Andrew Jackson. He applies through its history (time-line and main characters/entities such as Alinski and Tammany Hall) the ways it comports with Clinton's take on everything, including her seemingly pathological lying and deviousness vis-a-vis ethnic minorities, the Indians in Jackson's days and African-Americans today.

The latter group should read the book to see how blacks are perennially manipulated by democrats…for nothing but blind and misplaced loyalty to the welfare state meticulously designed to keep blacks “in their place.” D’Souza correctly calls this the return to the plantation mentality, beginning in the 1930s. The comparison to 1830 is startling.

Breathtaking is D’Souza’s accounting of the sheer greed that drives Clinton and hubby Bubba. She may break the national “glass ceiling,” but if she does she will introduce through its cracks corruption that matches or outdoes any that’s gone before.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Saturday, August 06, 2016

Feminizing the U.S.

CAVEAT ALERT: The following may be considered by some (maybe most) as sexist, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, politically incorrect or just plain stupid, in light of which I couldn't care less.

Perhaps the nation has changed culturally and socially in the years post-1970 more than in any comparable period of time in its history.  Feminization of about everything has constituted the major element of change, seen most graphically during the Obama presidency.  

The democrat party’s nomination for the presidency of Hillary Clinton is the epitome of that change, which embodies both the feminization aspect and its consequent overwhelming influence, since Clinton, besides being a compulsive liar, has committed high crimes (perjuries, as acknowledged by FBI Director Comey) toward which the Justice Department, headed by—you guessed it—a woman, has turned a blind eye. Hillary has been lynched (freed by Loretta, that is), but not by Congress or any court.  

Hubby Bill was impeached over a lurid sexual matter for committing perjury—lying under oath—when he was president . Hillary Clinton has committed far more serious perjury in lying to Congress about the private unprotected email servers she used instead of the government’s server when she was state secretary, thus placing on the Internet secret government documents that have been hacked and are now being released by Wiki-Leaks honcho Julian Assange, no matter who the actual hackers were. Astute high-school students could have done it.

The ladies are accustomed to being given a pass now, no matter the subject, not least because men naturally defer to them, but the ladies outnumber men in law schools and are at least on parity in areas in fields such as medicine. They are gradually taking over the court systems as well as the legal profession.

 The ladies finish high school in numbers greater than men's and outnumber men now on college campuses. They've even discovered that they can scream “rape” now and, while not necessarily being successful in making it stick (in fact, rarely, especially on campuses), they can ruin a man's reputation since his name is, without charge/trial, spread by the media while the woman is given a pass and remains anonymous. A gal takes whatever revenge she can get when she acts a fool, gets drunk and hangs out in fraternity whorehouses, conscious or not.

TV has done its part in this cultural change. Women now beat up men physically on shows such as NCIS, something which, all things being equal, just doesn't happen. Women fill police and fire-fighting forces now, never mind that they lack the physical skills to either overpower criminals or carry heavy equipment up long ladders and carry heavy people down. Chirpy gals in cocktail frocks are taking over the TV news/talk programs, letting thigh and cleavage do what the often abrasive, high-pitched voices don't, i.e., hold attention.

Recently, two female army officers were assigned to Ranger training, the toughest in the army, and, as before with females and many men, they failed.  The men were out of luck.  The women, however, were given a second chance, which they failed, so they were given a third chance and subsequently were certified.   

The course is designed for two months and 40% of their class finished in that time.  One female took four months and the other had to keep trying.  The president had demanded that women be in the Rangers, never mind the problems presented.  The course hadn’t changed and by then neither had the women become stronger after extended time to “bulk up.”   

Congressman Steve Russell, a former Ranger, became aware that people at Fort Benning said the Army had lied and were complaining of special treatment for the women, and became concerned.  Only the most naïve believe that the women qualified...that nudge-and-wink thing.  

The course is utilized to develop leaders who can function in combat, necessitating command skills, the proper emotions, and the ability to function physically in instances in which great strength is required.  Women lack these skills, not because they’re somehow inferior but because they’re different.  No soldier (male) should have to enter combat while by instinct forced to protect a female officer, the protection of whom could cost him his life.  

Though one is deemed chauvinistic or worse to point this out, the truth is that mortal combat is a “man-thing.”  The president and the politically correct social engineers would have it that unisex is here to stay, but it has never existed and never will.  

For that matter, a president should always have had military experience, combat preferably but not required.  To call her/him commander-in-chief without it is sheer folly. A c-in-c who has never worn the uniform is an empty suit. Obama's ignorance of anything military is the prime example. Except for Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, all presidents since WWII have worn the uniform.

Women, who have proven they can be just as corrupt as men, have the right to excel in whatever field they choose except one—the military.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Monday, August 01, 2016

Black Soul

Christians Be Damned?

The enormity of the bad taste of the DNC regarding the manipulating of a Muslim man, Khizr Khan, to appear in the Democrat Convention to lecture Americans will grow each day as citizens continue to think about that in-your-face gesture.  The man’s son, a Muslim U.S. military officer, was killed over ten years ago in Iraq.

 The man has a right to grieve but so have many other fathers, nearly all of whom were/are not Muslim.  The objective was to somehow embarrass or harass presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has never held an office in the government and certainly had nothing to do with either the man’s deployment or his death. Khan waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution as if in Trump's face though it had nothing to do with the subject but, ironically, Clinton voted for the action in which the son was killed.  

The man claimed that Trump had never made such a sacrifice.  Neither had the Muslim father.  His son made the sacrifice and his father cheapened that sacrifice by taking credit for it and cheapened it even more by using that sacrifice in an attempted political hatchet job.  What could be sleazier or more self-serving?  

It has been no surprise that the media has awarded this man almost iconic status (even having him appear on TV, where he, a Muslim, called Trump, a Christian, a “black soul”) in using the hatchet job as a politically correct affront to Trump, apparently just because Trump has had no sons killed in Iraq, as was/is the case with millions of other fathers, whether Muslim or anything else.  

The Democrat National Committee probably thought this would play on the emotions of everyone in Philadelphia and via TV throughout the entire world.  It has done that and will until the folks see through the “big con,” and they will resent this outrage in the next hundred days until the November vote.  To have one’s intelligence, the democrat party, and every military non-Muslim (infidel) sacrificing soldier (nearly all of them) so insulted is to invite utter disgust.  

Then-DNC chairwoman Schultz, ironically a Jew condemned by Khan's holy book to death, must take responsibility for this outrage, though she has been fired for attempting to rig the DNC against Clinton's Primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. An apology to all Americans is in order since that same holy book demands that infidels (non-Muslims) must be made to pay the tax (be enslaved) or killed, except for Jews, whose only option is death.

This affair occurred account blatant stupidity or planned example of the new social paradigm—political correctness. Or, it was just to get another democrat-voting bloc as per the black and Latino blocs, while scourging Trump as a racist vis-a-vis Muslims. Trump has correctly called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until they have been properly vetted, while Clinton has called for the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Muslim Syrians, who presently cannot be vetted for obvious reasons. A look at Germany and France is instructive.

In 2009 at Fort Hood, Khan's fellow-Muslim and his son's fellow-soldier, U.S. Army Major Hasan, screamed Allah Akbar and slaughtered 13 innocent Americans, wounding more than thirty more. He, not Trump, represents a “black soul,” as did each airline-hijacker on 9/11, killing 3,000. In political-correctness equity, the DNC should have had the Christian father of a fallen Christian son onstage to wave a copy of the Koran in Hillary Clinton's face. She, not Trump, voted for the war, in which both sons died.

Clinton got UN “permission,” not Congress's, for Obama to attack defenseless MUSLIM Libya, where innocent Libyans died in the streets for over seven months in 2011. Would Khan agree that she, too, is a “black soul?” What cheap, small-minded democrat hypocrisy!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Quadrennial Circuses

In his speech on Wednesday evening (delivered too late for more than a handful of people to hear it in the East), President Obama said Hillary Clinton was more qualified for the presidency than any other president in the nation’s history.  That LIE was almost as huge as the LIE he and Clinton mouthed about the Benghazi Massacre in the Rose Garden the day after that atrocity and later—even worse—to the victims' survivors. Think Hillary in terms of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower and Reagan. Egad!  

The Democrat Convention was at times a comedy of errors, soap opera, and just screaming.  It opened on the note that the DNC chairwoman and the committee she chaired had rigged the game against Clinton’s main adversary, Senator Bernie Sanders.  Too embarrassing to be seen in public, she was denied her role of opening the convention and later forced to resign, though Hillary engaged her to be a “surrogate” during the campaign.  So much for integrity!  

This was not the first such reward.  Obama appointed Susan Rice to be National Security head honcho after she blatantly lied to the entire nation on five TV networks about that massacre.  No one knows yet where Obama was during that blood-bath when four Americans were butchered, but Hillary said in a hearing that she was at home alone.  She apparently wanted no 3:00 a.m. phone calls.  

The Baltimore mayor was finally chosen to open the convention.  She became famous after the Freddie Gray affair a while back when she said protestors should have their space for burning and looting activities.  Ironically, all charges (and convictions when she made the charges) by the prosecutor against the six police-persons were dropped during the convention.  

The actual activity was kicked off by a trio of rappers.  Rap is the latest form of “art” delivered to the world by the black community.  It’s called music—at least for entertainment awards—but it’s just a percussive beat with a lot of spoken words and no discernible melody.  It glorifies cop-assassinations, rapes of mothers (that mother-f*** thing) and being serviced by or beating the hos (the current term for whores), the activity that brings unfortunate children to life to be sustained by various government agencies, certainly not their fathers, who may or may not be known to their mothers anyway.  

Currently, the top rapper is Drake.  In his classic called “The Motto,” he raps about the fuckin' man, the bitch, the real nigga and shit. This is his phrase in Motto: “almost drowned in her pussy so I swam to her butt.” Another: “I tongue-kiss her other tongue.”  Think of that in terms of legendary black entertainers Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Johnny Mathis, Sammy Davis, Wynton Marsalis or Quincy Jones.  This set the tone for the proceedings. Coarse! The two people who led the pledge to the flag faced the audience, not the flag. Weird.

The conventions mean nothing, of course, since the only reason for their convening is to nominate a candidate already decided by the primaries, whose rules vary from state to state and always favor the super-delegates—head honchos, gofers and party hacks. Poor Bernie had lost before he even announced since Hillary had sewed up the super-delegates. To her great chagrin she was forced to actually campaign (remember that roped-off march) to get the requisite number. The debates on Saturday nights were designed so no one would watch and give Bernie some recognition.

The overriding consideration for her candidacy and the convention has been that she is a WOMAN, ipso facto, automatically qualified, never mind FBI Director Comey's scathing press conference/hearing in which he said unequivocally that she LIED, an appellation that has been applied relentlessly and accurately in other matters. She lied under oath to a Congressional committee but AG Lynch refuses, obviously, to indict her for perjury, the crime for which hubby Bill was impeached, though he attempted to define the word is in the process, becoming the Grammarian-in-Chief.

The convention was strictly themed “women and blacks only.” They seemed to run the show, designed, whether consciously or not, to exclude men (at least white men) as extraneous to governing (if not dangerous), though ISIS was not mentioned, perhaps not least because men come in handy when wars are to be fought or actual police/firemen are needed, not girls.

I listened to a few major speeches in both clambakes. Veep Biden approached hysteria in condemning Trump and felt the need to memorialize his son again, playing on the emotions of the crowd. Incredibly poor taste. Veep-candidate Kaine fell into speaking Spanish a la Jeb Bush and Rubio—strange at a time when most folks think English should be the only language. Cheap gimmick. Michele Obama predictably reminded everyone that slaves built the White House. Trump spoke too long in Cleveland.

Perhaps the cheapest shot at Trump at the DNC circus was delivered by a Muslim whose American GI Muslim son was killed in the Middle East, who (Trump), unlike him (the father), had never made such a sacrifice. The only sacrifice made was by the son, not the father, but in any case had nothing to do with Trump but with Hillary. Muslims do not need to lecture Americans about anything except perhaps Obama about his rape of Libya.

Hillary made her grand entrance wearing a solid white pants-suit with white blouse. Imagine a man doing that—the white-suit thing. Caveat: I didn't listen to her. It's hard to listen to anyone who appears to be a compulsive liar. Anyway, she's about as charismatic as a hibernating bear. Maybe she should try rap.

In the good old days pre-1972, conventions meant something. The candidate was actually chosen then. I can remember that as a child 75 years ago, fortified with a full box of raisins, I was glued to the radio (no TV, a precious blessing) all day and into the evening and about as excited at the various roll-calls as at a football game. There were numerous roll-calls without those silly little speeches until a candidate finally received a majority of votes. Today's convention—a costly ego-driven sham!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Minister Repents of Racism

This is the first sentence of an op-ed of 23 July in the Lexington Herald-Leader by Presbyterian minister Robert Cunningham: “I’ve spent most of my life ignorant of racism.” He claimed to be 35, also rolled his eyes at the notion of white privilege and that all forms of hatred were “doomed” when he became a Christian, presumably after age 18.  

This is the Merriam-Webster definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”  There’s no mention of hatred but further definitions of race include mistreatment of others so could involve hatred...or not.  

Cunningham wrote that he became convinced of personal racism and is repenting of it but was “slower to admit racial injustice as a social phenomenon.”  As an example, he noted that band-aids are the color of whites (not noticeable) but stand-out on blacks, thus causing them to look (feel?) different.  Actually, a check with Amazon indicates that band-aids come in “skin-tones” and can accommodate all people of color.  Look in pharmacies, as well.  What a stretch!  

He then juxtaposed Pearl Harbor/9-11 with Jim Crow/slavery, the former solemnized and the latter suppressed and patronized (by whites?) as in “It’s time to move on.”  Ask a white kid about Pearl Harbor and get a blank stare.  Ask a black kid about slavery and get an earful.  Perhaps Cunningham doesn’t realize that the most monumental statue on the Washington Mall is a sculpture three-stories tall of Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Cunningham, after a homily about Christ, ends with his intention to ask people of color how to help him use his new-found (white?) sense of personal privilege.  He's fallen into the Jackson/Sharpton trap for whites that consigns them to self-flagellation for the sins of their fathers, as if one can apologize for something for which he bears no responsibility.  

Some religious folks have a self-guilt problem.  In the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1995, a resolution asking for forgiveness of and exhibiting repentance for slavery was passed and presented to the three largest black Baptist denominations, whose leaders laughed it to scorn.  At least one accused the white Baptists of an attempt to proselytize.  Learning nothing from that, the SBC did the same thing last month, well-intentioned but stupid.  

In 1960, almost 75% of black families were headed by a father and mother.  The bulk of the civil-rights and entitlement legislation was passed in the mid-60s.  In the mid-90s, some 75% or so of black babies were born to “single mothers,” and had no documented fathers.  This is still the case, and slavery had nothing to do with it. Fornication does.  

The Jackson/Sharpton approach is that black children must be indoctrinated asap concerning their victim-hood, not because their fathers have abandoned them but because their ancestors were slaves.  The approach does not include the fact that the initial slave traders were blacks in Africa who kidnapped other blacks or physically overcame another tribe and enslaved it or sold its members to the white slave-traders for mere trinkets.  

Nor does the J/S doctrine include that slavery was introduced not by Americans but by British colonists in the seventeenth century long before there was a U.S. and that American citizens banished slavery in far less than a hundred years at the cost of 625,000 lives, mostly white American men.  Cunningham wrote that before his conversion, apparently, he thought the race-card was overplayed.  No!  That card was/is overplayed every day in the black community and by white politically correct morons, lest common sense prevail.  

My great-grandfather (wounded once and near death by disease once) and two great-uncles volunteered (couldn’t be drafted in Kentucky) and fought in the Union Army.  All three were born in England and had no slaves in Pulaski County, Greenwood area.  As a Baptist, I take no responsibility for slavery; rather, I’m part of the generation that tried in the 1960s to be of great help to blacks, but that well-intentioned legislation destroyed the black community, now a permanent underclass.  

The above is politically incorrect but so is Truth.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Columnist Skewers Ark-Evangelicals

Eblen Is No Ignorant Rube

One of the loudest critics (newspaper-wise anyway) of the Noah’s Ark project near Williamstown, Ky., has been Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Tom Eblen, who recently wrote that he had an attack of curiosity, never mind that such a thing (ark, not curiosity) ever actually existed, and made his way via I-75 (aka as Death Alley) to see the figment of imagination of whoever wrote Genesis.  

He described the ark (wooden but mythical, of course) and its dimensions, which were as close as possible to those described in Genesis.   It’s roughly the size of the baby-aircraft-carrier (USS Palau) on whose flight-deck I pushed Corsairs around in the late 40s (not 1840s, for Harvard graduates who get the usual revisionist history).  The carrier was 500 feet long, as is the ark, but the ark has more mass, I’m sure.  

Eblen made a point of the $40 ticket price (steep for viewing something that never existed) and the $10 parking fee which probably had no time-limit.  For a bit of perspective, I checked the best-seat ticket-price for the Taylor Swift concert in Austin, Texas, next October—$429 with fees of $17.70 (compared to parking?) and $1.47 for a total of $448.17.  

The ark-proponents insist that the earth and everything connected to it, including mankind’s earliest existence, is about 6,000 years old and made by God in six days.  Eblen wrote that the “scientists” (didn’t name any) claim the figure to be 4.5 billion years, making it terribly hard to explain away a differential of some 400,000,000,000 years.  Other scientists say it’s about a billion years older but who’s counting anyway, especially since not a living human can comprehend even 6,000 years, much less billions.  

Eblen is flustered because neither he nor the “scientists” can prove the ark-gang wrong.  There are virtually no written records except the scriptures that go back roughly to 4,000 B.C.  Some figures chiseled into rock have been found but no one knows when or what they mean.  Caveat: I don’t accept the 6,000 figure, mainly because scripture also says that to God a day is as a thousand years.  But I definitely accept the ark as a real boat in a real event, the flood. Anyhow, literally accepting the day-as-a-thousand-years figure, the time-line would call for 2,190,000 years instead of 6,000.  

According to livescience, dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago, assuming they (the scientists, not the dinos) actually had a clue, which means by my accounting that they were gone long before the time of the ark, according to the ark-gang accounting, thus destroying the doubters’ favorite arguments concerning how to even catch them (the dinos, not the doubters) without being eaten, much less herd them onto the ark and keep them fed and peaceful.  

Eblen claimed to be a “mainstream” (as opposed to “evangelical?”) Christian and so predictably led his essay into “evolution” (presumably of mankind), claiming that most “mainstream” Protestant denominations and the Catholics and Jews buy into that theory.  Exponential nonsense!  At least for me, a plain old Baptist.  

I definitely haven’t evolved from a one-cell slime through the ape ages to the Now, and I laugh heartily every time some arrogant anthropologist insists he’s found the “missing link,” only to discover the tail still affixed or the knuckles not dragging the ground consistent with arm length.  The evolutionists consider themselves the intellectual elite, and the evangelicals as poor, ignorant rubes.  Eblen is welcome to his orangutan ancestors but I’ll take mine any day...straight from Adam through the ages.  

I stand with the rubes and agree with them that man and woman were spontaneously created, no matter when.  I believe they were formed whole in an instant on the sixth day, no matter its time, length and place.  I doubt that dinosaurs (already extinct) ever saw the ark, but if they did, so what!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark