Florida Federal Judge says Health Reform Law Unconstitutional

A Federal Judge in Florida has, apparently with some reluctance, has declared the Health Care Reform bill unconstitutional.

To quote Federal Judge Roger Vinson:

"... I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

In other words you can't force someone to buy Health Insurance.

This is an interesting twist. States force individuals to buy auto insurance if they wish to drive. Of course not having auto insurance doesn't keep people from driving. Guess who ends up paying if they have an accident and injure someone? The other insured drivers do. That's you and me. A part of our insurance payments establish a fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers.

Now unless uninsured people who get sick are denied medical attention, us, the insured folks, will end up paying for that as well.

I'm not seriously proposing we deny uninsured people medical care so I guess that's the way it will have to be. I'm not about to instruct a Federal Judge on the law either. Undoubtedly the Obama Administration will appeal. I find it hard to believe they will prevail now that two judges have declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.

There comes a time in every game when the right move is to drop back 15 and punt. That time may have come for the current Health Care Reform legislation.

Egyptian Protests Still Going

Clearly Egyptian President Mubarak has become a man under siege. Some sources have reported that he is on the verge of giving up and resigning as President.Certainly nothing he has tried appears to have mollified the protesters. This could be big trouble.

Egypt is arguably the most religious country in the world. Open and free elections there could quite well turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fundamentalist Islamic group.

Democracy is not for everyone. As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to think that it’s not for anyone. I’m leaning toward an oligarchy of sorts where the right to vote is a privilege that needs to be earned rather than a right to which any idiot that happens to be born within the borders is entitled. And no, I’m not proposing a Star Troopers kind of requirement; I was thinking more along the lines of verifying basic knowledge on civics, history and how the government works.

But I digress.

Back to Egypt. Clearly Mubarak’s regime is teetering on the edge. Earlier I said that I didn’t think he was going anywhere and he is certainly fighting tooth and nail, but for every hole in plugs, two more appear to open. I still don’t think the end is a foregone conclusion but he better come up with something soon.

In the meantime I see that the under 80 IQ trailer park set, also known as the Republican Base, is blaming Obama for this. Blaming? Isn't Democracy a good thing? Oh well, never expect consistency from either a moron or a conservative. Oh, wait a minute, moron and conservative are redundant aren't they?

Arizona Law on Birth Rights

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This amendment was passed in order to guarantee that freed slaves and their offspring would be American Citizens. It’s unlikely that at the time anyone considered the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants.

Historically the phrase as been interpreted to simply mean that, other than under a few exceptions, if you are born within the territory of the United States, then you are an American citizen. Republicans in Arizona are preparing to challenge that interpretation.

Several bills have been introduced in the state legislature to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. Today, they would automatically be granted citizenship based upon the simple fact of being born here. Under the Arizona bills they would not.

How can they do this? Isn’t this in violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore the U.S. Constitution? Well, perhaps. What the Arizona legislators are really doing is setting up a challenge to the traditional interpretation in the Supreme Court and they are basing that challenge on the phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What exactly does that phrase mean? Well, suppose a visiting pregnant monarch gave birth prematurely? It might be a little awkward to say that the monarch’s child, and perhaps heir to a foreign throne, is a citizen of the United States.

The issue of course is that the visiting monarch is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States and neither are diplomats. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” in 1898 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

Unfortunately, if one goes back to the actual debates related to the 14th Amendment in 1866 one can make the case that the phrase is actually synonymous with the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” This was precisely the phrase used in the Civil Rights act Of 1866 passed by the same Congress as the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights act declared a citizen to be “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

So, if that’s what they meant, why isn’t that what they said?

Possibly because there was an intent to change the citizenship definition by expanding it. What about the children of legal immigrants? Many countries maintain the principle that children born to their citizens are likewise citizens and subject to their jurisdiction. Would they be excluded from American citizenship if their parents had immigrated here and not yet taken out American citizenship?

What about an American with a foreign bride (which happens with some regularity given our military adventures abroad)? Any child born to such a union could be claimed by the brides home nation. Would the child then be “subject to a foreign power” and not entitled to natural born citizenship?

The Supreme Court decision made it simple. Other than the three exceptions noted, if you’re born here, you’re an American citizen, and a natural born citizen at that, eligible one day to sit in the Oval Office as President.

Now I’m sure Conservatives will claim that this is an egregious case of Judicial Activism and the court creating law rather than interpreting it. Perhaps, but if the law isn’t allowed to grow with the times, it ceases to provide justice; if it ceases to provide justice, then it is bad law and unworthy of being considered what the Constitution says.

To my mind the Arizona legislators are wrong and, hopefully, the current Supreme Court will agree with the court of 1898 and see it that way as well.

Of Tunisia and Egypt

Tunisia’s dictator has been toppled thanks to the Army’s refusal to put down protesters and now similar demonstrations have broken out in Egypt.

On the surface this is reminiscent of the domino effect in the Eastern European countries in the 1980s but I wouldn’t get too excited. I doubt Mubarak is going anywhere and the jury is still out on whether Tunisia can manage to become the first Arab democracy.

The whole concept of democracy sort of runs counter to the Islamic culture of unquestioned divine authority. Still, stranger things have happened. We shall see what we shall see.

The Super Bowl

Oh boy, 2-0 for the Championship games and 8-2 overall for the play-offs. If I didn’t know better, I’d start to think I actually know what I’m talking about.

The reality of the situation is given the “parity” that the NFL has come pretty close to achieving, every game is probably not much better than a 55-45 breakdown and in the play-offs it probably drops pretty close to a 50-50 proposition.

Still, it feels good to finally get the better of my pet goat Frankie in predicting the NFL. He’s been sulking out back ever since Roethlisberger completed that 4th quarter pass which clinched it for the Steelers.

One word about Jay Cutler, personally I would never question a player's assessment as to whether he’s too injured to play. If Jay says he couldn’t play, I believe him, and that should be the end of the discussion. I’d like to get some of the blog wusses that are complaining about him out on the field for about 15 minutes. That would be more than enough time to shut them up. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man's livlihood here and there are many more games yet to be played.

So now, ta-da, on to the Super Bowl.

The Packers are the early favorite, not because Las Vegas believes they’re the better team, but simply because of the betting patterns up until now.

To my mind Aaron Rodgers looked like a much cooled off Quarterback against the Bears defense. Roethlisberger on the other hand did what needed to be done when it needed to be done.

As for the running game, two words, Rashard Mendenhall. He gives the Steelers the balance that I think is going to desert the Packers. Yes, their running game has been better than expected during the play-offs, but I think the Steelers will shut it down.

There’s no question that Rodgers and his talented receiver corps are capable of carrying the game without much of a running attack against most teams, but I don’t think they can do it against the Steelers.

Remember the old saying, "Experience and treachery will win out over youth and talent when all the chips are on the line." Well, all the chips are on the line. The Steelers will manage just enough offense to win. Let's call it 24-20 in favor of big Ben and the Steelers.

The NFL Championship Games

I was riding high there for a while last weekend. There I was going into the Jets-Patriots game 3-0 for the Divisional Play-offs and 6-1 overall basking in the confident glow that Tom Brady and company were going to put away the Jets as I had predicted.

Ooops! Well, I guess 6-2 isn’t that bad.

Hey, I’ve got one more right than I had through the Super Bowl last year and there are still three games to go. Unfortunately I’m quite capable of getting all three of them wrong. So, let’s get to the Championship Games shall we?

AFC Championship Game
Jets at Steelers
Hmmm, what to do here? The Jets beat the Steelers during the regular season and just managed to beat Payton Manning and Tom Brady on consecutive weekends. They seem to have the Golden glow this season. Things just seem to go right for them. On the other side, the Steelers seem a bit worn around the edges. I should go with the Golden Boy Jets, but I’m not. I’m staying on the dark side. Ben and the Steelers send the Jets home.

NFC Championship Game
Packers at Bears
I’ve never seen a quarterback as hot as Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have built up an incredible head of steam and I think they’re going to flatten the Bears. When in doubt, go with the best quarterback and I’ll take Rodgers over Cutler any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m going with the Packers.

The Divisional Play-offs

Hey, hey, hey, I got 3 out of 4. Of course the one I got wrong was the one I had the most confidence in. Go figure. Anyway, my pet goat Frankie is sulking because I finally out predicted him, but he's vowed revenge this week.

Ok, enough stalling. Let's get to it shall we?

AFC Divisional Play-offs
Ravens at Steelers
I haven't got the faintest idea! This is a tough one but I think I'm going to go with the Steelers at home.

Jets at Patriots
I'll take the Patriots. Brady and company are on a roll and I think the Jets left too much on the field in Indianapolis.

NFC Divisional Play-offs
Green Bay at Atlanta
Another tough one. To be honest with you I'm not all that familier with Atlanta. I don't think I've seen them play all year. Still, they are the #1 seed and they did beat Green Bay in the regular season, but I'm not all that impressed with their schedule. I'm going to stick with Green Bay.

Seattle at Chicago
I'll take Chicago. I don't believe that Seattle can win two play-off games.

The Shootings in Arizona

The attack in Arizona that left nine people, including a 9 year old child, dead and Representative Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded was a tragedy of the first order.

To be honest with you, the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner, sounds to me like a total nut case. I don’t think he had a political motive. I’m not even sure he was targeting Giffords. The choice may well have been totally random because it was a good target for someone who was looking for a target.

But here’s the big but, the very fact that a lot of people immediately looked to the increasingly heated rhetoric of our current political climate as the possible cause indicates that the American public is uncomfortable with that rhetoric.

And it damn well should be. If it didn’t cause this violence, it’s only a matter of time before some under 80 IQ trailer part moron with a gun decides it’s time to vote with a bullet rather than a ballot.

You will excuse me but the rhetoric is not evenly violent. If Right Wing assholes like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh don’t have a monopoly on it, it’s pretty damn close.

I’d like to think that somehow this tragedy will change things but I’m not all that optimistic. Palin is already trying to paint herself as the victim by throwing around the term “blood-libel” and her conservative booby supporters are cheering her on.

Reasonable men can honestly disagree on things. It’s been my experience that compromise solutions tend to work out best. In most cases neither extreme is the right way to go. The problem with the current political climate is that too many issues seem to immediately get classified as non-negotiable and if you can’t compromise, what’s left but to fight? We’re not spending enough time identifying the common ground from which we can move forward and both the Left and the Right are guilty of that.

The NFL Play-offs

I know that the world is waiting with baited breath to learn whether or not I intend to make a fool of myself again by predicting the NFL Play-off results. My pet goat Frankie has already made his picks by choosing the winners randomly with his hoofs.

Frankie almost always does better than I do.

Last year I only managed a dismal 5-6 record through the Super Bowl and, if I want to avoid another humiliation, I should keep my mouth shut this year.

But what’s the fun in that? There isn’t any, so here we go again.

NFC Wild Card Games
Saints at Seahawks – Absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Saints win this one.

Packers at Eagles – I’m going with the Packers. They are red hot and Philly is showing some wear and tear.

AFC Wild Card Games
Jets at Colts – Again I’m going to take the Wild Card team and go with the Jets.

Ravens at Chiefs – It’s a clean sweep for the visitors in my opinion. I’m going with the Ravens over the Chiefs.

I find it hard to believe I’m going with all away teams on the first weekend but I just don’t think the Seahawks even deserve to be in the tournament and the AFC South has been weak as well. As for the Chiefs, I’m not a believer. The hardest game for me to pick was the Packers and Eagles. I was sorely tempted to choose the Eagles at home, but the Packers seem to be the hottest team in the league at the moment.

Ah well, we shall see how poorly I do this year.

The Pope Takes the Middle Ground

Pope Benedict XVI has decreed that "The universe is not the result of chance” and that God’s mind is behind the great scientific theories.

I say this is the middle ground because to the Right of the Pope are the Fundamentalist Christians that believe Genesis is a science text and that the universe was literally created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. To the Left are the Atheists that claim that the hypothesis of God is no longer required and that all of existence is the result of natural processes.

So my question is whether or not this pronouncement is within the sphere of “Faith and Morals?” Because if it is, then according to Catholic doctrine, it is an infallible pronouncement that MUST be accepted by all Catholics. If they don’t accept the pronouncement, then they run the risk of committing the sin of disobedience.

This is a major difference between religion and the secular world. In the secular world there is no authority figure so powerful that all of his pronouncements must be accepted without question or criticism.

Are there people that one would be predisposed towards accepting what they say due to their recognized expertise? Of course there are, but none of them is immune to criticism or disagreement. No one has absolute authority.

In the religious world however God, the Prophets and some of the clergy, DO have absolute authority. If the Pope declares eating bagels dyed with green food coloring as an sinful act, then for all Catholics it becomes a sinful act. There are no if, ands or buts allowed.

For Protestant Christians this is a tad trickier since there is no central authority. Sola Scriptura rules. The problem with that idea is that while everyone may agree upon what the scripture SAYS, very often there is disagreement on what it MEANS.

This gets really dicey when one realizes that the arguments are taking place based upon texts that have been modified over time and may, or may not, accurately represent the originals in all cases.

As for me, like the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace, when it comes to the question of God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

The Vikings and the Metrodome

I’ve stayed away from the NFL this year because of the limited time I have for playing with my blog, but this one I can’t pass up.

The Minnesota Vikings came into this season with high expectations and a 63,000 seat stadium to play in. They’ve been lobbying for a new stadium since, by NFL standards, 63,000, is pretty small.

Now, approaching the 14th game of the season, the Vikings are a dismal 5-8, out of the play-off picture, without Brett Favre their starting quarterback and desperately trying to get the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium ready for a game against the Bears Monday night. Last week’s Sunday game against the Giants got delayed to Monday night as well and moved to Detroit thanks to a blizzard and the collapse of the roof of the Metrodome. The 21-3 loss to the Giants just added insult to injury.

This has all the earmarks of a total fiasco. Let’s start with the 63,000 ticket holders from last week that probably didn’t drive down to Detroit. The rumor was they gave out tickets for free and only 47,000 or so people took them up on it. I mean, why would people in Detroit flock to a Vikings-Giants game?

Now the problem is that TCF Bank stadium only holds 50,000 people. If they don’t figure out a way to provide extra seating, 13,000 folks are going to have a problem. Even if they manage that, imagine trying to figure out how to distribute the tickets. Then there is the little problem of the 17 inches of snow covering the winterized college stadium and the fact that college stadiums don’t sell beer so there are no kegs at the refreshment stands. Yeah, THAT’S going to go over big. And that’s not to mention the expected 0 degree temperatures for the game Monday night.

I mean, you have to laugh at this one. I was at the Giants-Cowboys game when the lights went out and that was a bit of a trip. I was trying to imagine 82,000, half of them drunk, trying to negotiate leaving the stadium in the pitch dark. Luckily it didn’t come to that.

Yeah, things can even go wrong for the NFL.

Noah’s Ark in Kentucky?

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG) appears to have worked out a deal with the state of Kentucky to build a full scale model of the mythical Noah’s Ark as the main attraction in a Bible themed park in Northern Kentucky. The state’s aid in this will be in the form of incentives rather than direct funding so it’s sort of on the border of legality. AiG also built the Creation Museum, also in Northern Kentucky. As a matter of fact the two will be within easy driving distance of each other.

Needless to say this is a really dumb idea. You want to know why the U.S. lags behind other countries in education? Well here’s one of the reasons. We let morons like Ken Ham build cathedrals to mythology that disregard real science and then waltz young children through them to have their brains thoroughly washed.

The Creation Museum attracts about 250,000 visitors a year and AiG is hoping the new Noah’s Ark park will attract some 1.6 million visitors a year. The governor of Kentucky is hoping the project will bring much needed jobs into the area.

Hey, it’s a free country. If you want to build monuments to stupidity that’s your right. I just don’t think the state should chip in with tax payer dollars especially when we’re talking about a religious themed project.

Perhaps Kentucky is looking to gain ground on Kansas and Oklahoma in the race for dumbest state?

We're just average! We're just average!

The 2009 OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) just came out and we’re definitely doing something wrong. The U.S. has dropped to 14th in reading (out of 34), 17th in science and a dismal 25th in mathematics. I suggest we all start studying Chinese as China is starting to converge on Finland and Korea who have been the consistent leaders in education.

This is important because it is driving our ability to compete in the world market. We’re wallowing in complacency and thereby loosing the “first-mover” advantage we’ve enjoyed since the end of World War II. It’s not that we’ve gotten worse, it’s that we haven’t improved as much as everyone else.

Some quotes from the full report.

“…the United States did not measure the performance of states individually on PISA. However, it is possible to compare the performance of public schools among groups of states. Such a comparison suggests that in reading, public schools in the northeast of the United States would perform at 510 PISA score points – 17 score points above the OECD average (comparable with the performance of the Netherlands) but still well below the high-performing education systems examined in this volume – followed by the midwest with 500 score points (comparable with the performance of Poland), the west with 486 score points (comparable with the performance of Italy) and the south with 483 score points (comparable with the performance of Greece).”

There’s the South, at the bottom of the list again. Yet these right wing morons are always ready to tell everyone else how they should live and act. Explain to me again why we didn’t just let them secede?

“…a comparison of countries’ actual spending per student, from the age of 6 up to 15, on average, puts the United States at an even greater advantage, since only Luxembourg spends more than the United States on school education per student.”

Great, we spend more but we accomplish less. Does this sound familiar? This is the same problem that we have with health care.

“With respect to spending on instruction, the United States spends a far lower proportion than the average OECD country on the salaries of high-school teachers.”

“At the same time, high school teachers in the United States teach far more hours…”

Please note the two quotes above Governor Christie. It’s always a good idea to check the facts before arriving at a “solution” to a problem. Teachers are not the problem. If anything we should consider paying them more and working them less not the other way around.

Here's the bottom line, as much as the right wing nutcases would like to believe it is, this country isn't perfect. We have some fundamental problems which need to be addressed because these problems are leading to endemic weaknesses that are slowly but surely eroding our economic prosperity.

We need tax reform; we need educational reform; we need to address the runaway income and wealth disparity that has developed in this country; we need to get the budget deficit under control and we need health care reform. The recent Health Care Reform bill was a step in the right direction but it falls way short of where we need to be. We need more doctors, more hospitals and even broader health insurance coverage. We do not need to repeal the Health Care Reform bill, we need to build upon it.

What we don't need are more tax incentives for the multi-millionaires club or to squander time and resources preventing gay marriage.

Parents Insulted by Book

A couple in New Hampshire have taken their son out of the local high school because he was assigned to read a book which referred to Jesus as a “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.”

The book was assigned in the student’s personal finance class and is “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenrich. The book is an account of Ehrenrich’s attempt to survive while working minimum wage jobs in Florida, Minnesota and Maine.

The couple protested to the principal and the school board but both took the position that despite some “questionable” positions, the book had value in describing the difficulties of making ends meet with a limited income.

The quote isn’t meant as an insult to Jesus. It’s part of the following description related to a Christian Church service.

"It would be nice if someone would read this sad-eyed crowd the Sermon on the Mount, accompanied by a rousing commentary on income inequality and the need for a hike in the minimum wage. But Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say. Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that he can never get a word out of his mouth."

This is a criticism of Christianity implying that it has abandoned the actual teachings of Jesus. The fact is that Jesus was a man that modern Christians in the U.S. probably wouldn’t dream of inviting over for Sunday dinner.

There are two questions here. The first is the appropriateness of the couple’s reaction and the second is how accurate is the description?

As to their reaction over their son encountering sentiments they may not agree with, or may even find offensive, they need to get over it. These opinions exists and will be expressed. Their son is old enough to accept that simple fact. No one is forcing him to accept that Ehrenrich’s opinions or descriptions are the unvarnished truth. He is free to disagree and he is free to express that disagreement. Banning the book isn’t the answer.

What about the accuracy of the description? Merriam-Webster defines vagrant as “one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support.”

Well, Jesus did wander from place to place but one could argue, even if one doesn’t buy the Son of God bit, that it wasn’t idle. As an itinerant preacher he certainly had a purpose. As for a means of support, one can infer that he lived on the donations of his followers in the same way that modern priests and pastors live on those donations. Therefore I have to conclude that calling him a vagrant is inaccurate.

As for “wine-guzzling,” I have to assume this is derived from the last supper. Wine would have been pretty standard with meals in Palestine at that time and I see no evidence Jesus “ guzzled” it nor even that he ever drank it. I have to conclude that this is inaccurate as well.

That brings us to “precocious socialist.” Certainly some of Jesus’ opinions appear to lean toward the socialist, but I think this is a bit of a stretch. The fact of the matter is that one can find Jesus quotes which, if interpreted properly, could be claimed to support almost any political position from the far right to the far left.

In order to address the question “was Jesus a socialist,” one has to agree upon what a “socialist” is. Technically, socialism decrees that the government should control the means of production, the means of generating wealth, and distribute that wealth in an even handed manner. Socialism doesn’t say everyone should share equally in the wealth, the manager can get more than the mail room clerk, but that the disparity should be kept within reason and everyone should get some minimum share.

Capitalism on the hand, is a wide open free for all with no guarantees for anybody.

People, read that right wing conservatives, also use “socialism” to describe any government decreed action which moves wealth from the richer segment of the population to the poorer. By this definition welfare, Medicare, minimum wage laws, housing subsidies, food stamps and even Social Security are “socialist.”

Certainly Jesus didn’t believe in the government controlling all means of production. He probably would have been flabbergasted at the idea. Nor do I think he believed in the government redistribution of wealth. This was sort of what the Romans were doing by taxing the provinces in order to feed and entertain the plebe underclass in Rome.

What he did believe in was individual charity and not amassing a fortune to the detriment of everyone else so he certainly wasn’t a rock ribbed Republican Capitalist. At the time he could only appeal to individual conscience. All of the Jesus quotes I have ever seen which people claim illustrate his socialist leaning are appeals for individuals to do the right thing.

The question is if someone had suggested the concept of the government FORCING the rich to contribute to the welfare of the poor would he have embraced that idea?

It’s difficult to say. If the government forces you to do what’s right than what would be the criteria for dividing the sheep and the goats? Certainly Jesus was concerned with the welfare of the poor, but the only way he knew of addressing that concern was to appeal to individual generosity.

So I’d have to say that labeling him a “precocious socialist” is probably inaccurate too. That makes Ehrenrich 0 for 3 in my opinion.

Arsenic Based Life?

Maybe, and maybe not.

On December 2, 2010, NASA released a scientific paper claiming that a strain of bacteria named GFAJ-1 had been developed that substituted arsenic in its DNA for phosphorus.

This would be a very big deal. Every life form we knew about previously was dependent upon phosphorus to build its DNA. If life could exist substituting arsenic, and perhaps other elements, then we would have to greatly expand our concepts on what it takes for life to develop and the probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe would take a huge leap toward the likely end of the spectrum.

Then scientists around the country started to review and criticize the paper.

The consensus of opinion at the moment seems to be that the researchers that published the paper in the journal Science hadn’t made their case. And that was one of the milder ways of putting it. Some of the reactions were considerably more scathing than that, calling the experiments flawed or even downright sloppy.

This is how science works.

You do the research, you publish the results and then you wait for the reviews. The negative reactions here do not mean the results of the paper are wrong. They don’t even mean the experiments were flawed or sloppy. This is all a matter of opinion. The authors are sticking by their guns and have offered to make samples of GFAJ-1 available to other researchers.

Critics say that a few straightforward tests can determine if the bacteria have arsenic based DNA or not. If that’s true, one has to wonder why the research team didn’t use those tests.

At any rate, the matter will be resolved by additional testing and research. NASA isn’t planning to petition local school boards to include “Arsenic Based Life” as a biology topic. I don’t hear any calls to “teach the controversy” because that is not how science works.

This is what makes sense. This is the process used to separate good science from bad science. This is the process that Creationists try to sidestep when they try to get so-called Creation Science or Intelligent Design into high schools classrooms while claiming it’s “what’s fair.”

No, it’s not “what’s fair.” It’s asking for a privilege not extended to anyone else. It’s asking to be declared valid science without having to do the research, publish the results and address the criticism of peer reviewers that are knowledgeable experts in the subject matter.

Why do they avoid following the established process? Because what they call science is total crap without a leg to stand on that’s why. It’s wishful thinking without a shred of evidence to support it.

If Christianity can champion total nonsense like Creationism and support it with lies and dishonesty, then I have to conclude that all of Christianity is nonsense supported by lies and dishonesty.

Like the American Atheists billboard says, “You KNOW it’s a Myth.”

The Tax Cut Compromise

You have got to be kidding me!

Whatever happened to the idea of fiscal responsibility? Obama gave in to the Republicans big time in order to get the unemployment extensions that every economist in the country said were going to get the best return on investment. In the meantime, all of the continuing tax cuts for the wealthy demanded by the Republicans are going to provide the worst return on investment.

The Democrats try to do what’s best for the country; the Republicans are only interested in what’s best for Republicans.

I don’t buy the Republican bullshit that the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest citizens is going to negatively impact small businesses because I happen to understand how economics and the tax structure work. It’s the old if the facts aren’t on your side, make up some phony ones and pitch them loud and often to the morons that make up the American electorate.

Even more ridiculous is the reduction in the Social Security payroll tax applied to everyone for 2011. That’s going to cost something like $120 billion in federal revenue.

Here’s the bottom line. We’re not going to be able to dig ourselves out of the current financial hole we’re in by any conceivable economic growth scheme. It’s not going to happen. In other words you can’t get there through tax cuts. The Laffer Curve and Supply Side Economics are total nonsense. What’s required are tax increases and spending cuts with an ultimate objective of reducing the wealth and income disparity that has developed in this country.

That’s reality, and the sooner we recognize it the sooner we can start to get the economy back on a stable footing. If you insist on calling this Socialism, be my guest. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s what’s needed for the economy to really recover.

Proposition 8 in the 9th Circuit

The 9th Circuit Court is in the process of considering the Constitutionality of Proposition 8 which eliminated gay marriage rights in California after the California Supreme Court had granted them.

There are actually two parts to the argument. The first is whether Proposition 8 advocates even have the legal right to appeal the lower court decision which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional since both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to.

There are a fairly wide range of possible decisions here.

The court could declare that the Proposition 8 advocates don’t have standing and the lower court ruling would therefore stand. I don’t expect this to happen.

The court could simply decide that it is constitutional for the electorate to take away a right granted to a segment of the population by the courts by amending the state constitution via a simple majority vote. I don’t really expect this to happen either.

The court could decide that any and all restrictions on gay marriage in states within its jurisdiction are unconstitutional. This would potentially legalize gay marriage in nine states pending possible Supreme Court review. This would be a bombshell that would almost certainly be overturned by the current conservative Supreme Court so I don’t expect this to happen either.

What I expect is a very narrow ruling to the effect that you cannot so easily deny a right from a very specific segment of the population once it has been granted by the court. This would restore gay marriage, at least temporarily, in California but not affect the other states in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction. This would also have some chance of not being overturned since I guarantee you that this case is headed to the Supreme Court no matter what the decision in the 9th Circuit.

Even if the ruling gets by the Supreme Court, you can be sure that gay marriage opponents will be looking for other ways to end its legality in California.

I think gays should have the right to marry if they want to regardless of how bizarre that might sound to some people. I don’t understand why this isn’t a big “don’t care” to everyone except religious wackos and we can safely ignore them.

Here’s hoping the 9th Circuit does the right thing.

Latinos, DREAM and Obama

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, an innovation close to the hearts of Latino leaders, appears to be on its last legs.

DREAM establishes a set of criteria for illegal aliens brought to this country as minors by their parents to obtain first temporary and then permanent residency. The criteria include no criminal record, at least a high school diploma, not ever being under an order of deportation, being brought here before the age of 16 and being here at least 5 years.

Permanent legal status would be granted after eithercompleting two years of college (one hopes it has to be an accredited college in order to avoid “colleges” springing up in the rear of bodegas) or at least two years of military service with an honorable discharge. Needless to say, the defense department supports this bill.

I don’t have a big problem with the bill either other than I didn’t see anything about being proficient in English. It gives young men and women, brought here by their parents, a way to obtain legal status in possibly the only country they’ve ever known as home.
Of course it’s more than a little controversial.

The Latino leadership is miffed at President O because he hasn’t pushed passage of either comprehensive immigration reform or even this plan B substitute. Actually they’re more than miffed, they feel betrayed.

As a result people like Representative Luis Guitierrez from Chicago are threatening to ditch the legislative route and take to the streets in an attempt to duplicate the success of the Black Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I think that could be a major mistake if they don’t think this one through carefully.

There is a difference between the Black Civil Rights movement and immigration reform. Actually, there are several differences.

The single most important one is the difference between American Citizens simply asking for what they are entitled to under the law and people here illegally, even if through no fault of their own, who have no right to what they are asking for. Or at least no legal right to what they are asking for.

A second difference is that there is no emerging young, leftist baby boomer generation ready to take up the cause and provide an initial wave of white majority support.

A third difference is that the Civil Rights demonstrations in the south triggered violent, racist responses. You couldn’t watch blacks being blasted with fire hoses for simply asking for what they were entitled to as American Citizens without going WTF? It’s unlikely that Hispanic demonstrations will get that kind of response. Far more likely they will just end up being an annoyance, an inconvenience or ignored.

Finally, and a bit racist, is I never had to “hit one if you’re not black” like I have to “hit one to continue in English.” I grind my teeth every time I have to do that or have to wait through a repeat of the message in Spanish and I’m a lot more tolerant than most people.

If Guitierrez is going to try and drum up support, I say go for it, but if his efforts end up annoying the rest of us, this could really backfire.

Excuse me while I laugh at myself. What I just wrote sounds like the old “whatever you do, don’t push ‘em or you’ll get those extremists re-elected” advice from the old civil rights days. Unfortunately, given the realities of the situation, it might actually be sound advice.

I’m not saying be patient or be quiet. I’m saying direct your activities toward building sympathy and support then the political process becomes your ally. That’s what the black leadership did in the 1960s but I’m not sure that’s what the Latino leadership is thinking in 2010.

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks has released approximately 250,000 diplomatic cables from the past 3 years. The cables are fascinating reading but one has to wonder what, other than proving you can do it, is the point?

The release has initiated a criminal investigation by the Justice Department into exactly how the whistle blowing website managed to obtain the documents.

So what do I think about all this? It’s hard to see what the benefit is to anyone. It’s not preventing someone from being falsely prosecuted, it’s not releasing anyone unjustly imprisoned and it’s not exposing unjust wars nor nefarious plots. If anything, it’s jeopardizing a number of peace initiatives.

Did you really think that all diplomatic negotiations were open to public scrutiny? You can be sure that the most critical, and the most potentially productive, are being done under a shroud of secrecy.

So what has WikiLeaks accomplished? Absolutely nothing of value. I’m all for freedom of the press but the press has to be responsible as well. If they did anything illegal to obtain this stuff, I say throw the book at them.

Barbara Bush says "Stay in Alaska"

It's hard to believe that I haven't posted anything on my poor neglected blog in almost three weeks. This one snapped me out of my lethargy.

It seems that Dame Barbara isn't impressed with the erstwhile darling of the Tea Party Sarah Palin. Apparently, in a CNN interview, she expressed the opinion that Palin should stay in Alaska.

Too bad she didn't convince little Georgie to stay in Texas.