Let’s Talk Evolution

What? Again?

Yes, again. The trigger this time was a Yahoo article about the “Science Guy” knocking those that reject the Theory of Evolution. Actually, it wasn’t the article as much as the comments.

Every time I read comments or posts related to the Theory of Evolution, there are three things that I can invariably count upon finding. The first is the incredible level of ignorance about science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular. Second, is at least one statement to the effect that evolution has been disproven or is not science and third, absolute certainty that their misinformed ideas are in fact correct.

Let’s start with ignorance about science and the Theory of Evolution.

The first thing to address is the word “Theory.” In general usage a “Theory” is a hunch or a guess but the word has a completely different meaning in science. The National Academy of Science (NAS) defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” The National Center for Science Education (NCES) defines it as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

I just like to say it’s the study of some broad area of the natural world. Think of it as a big filing cabinet containing observations, facts, ideas, hypotheses, laws and experimental results. Yes Virginia, laws are a part of theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the study of the observed fact of evolution. Evolution simply means “descent with modification.” Evolution occurs with every instance of biological reproduction. No offspring is the exact copy of its parents and no two siblings, except for identical twins, are exactly the same. This has been observed so many times, while the reverse has never been observed, that it is literally irrational not to accept it as true. To reject that evolution occurs would be on a par with rejecting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Why does it occur? It occurs because biological reproduction is not an exact process. Like most things in biology it’s complicated, messy and prone to error. Evolution is the result of errors creeping into the biological process of reproduction. These errors result in the mutation of DNA.

Most of these “errors” have absolutely no affect because DNA has enormous amounts of redundancy built into it. Other errors are catastrophic in nature and usually result in a spontaneous abortion, also known as a miscarriage. Errors that aren’t rendered moot by redundancy nor catastrophic can be either harmful or beneficial for the organism in its environment. The idea that no mutation can be beneficial is just flat out wrong. Note that mutations that are beneficial in one environment may be harmful in a different environment.

If the mutation is harmful, then the probability is that it will not be passed on to future generations simply because a harmful mutation tends to limit the ability of the affected individual to reproduce. A beneficial mutation tends to increase the probability that an individual will reproduce. From then on the mathematics of probability take over. Darwin called this process “Natural Selection.”

Multiply this by billions upon billions upon billions of reproductions and you get, in a word, evolution. It’s really not a very difficult concept.

Now let’s talk about the idea that evolution has been disproven or is not science.

If nonsense was a play, this would be one of the longest running plays in history. Ever since Darwin’s ideas began to be accepted by the scientific community the claim that evolution has been demonstrated as false began to appear. If evolution has been “disproven” or is not science, no one has mentioned that to any of the national scientific academies, any of the reputable universities or any of the professional engineering organizations in the world all of which support the Theory of Evolution.

What’s really weird is the people that claim evolution has been disproven are often the same people that argue it’s not science because it’s not falsifiable. This is a case of understanding neither the scientific method nor what falsifiable means.

That leaves us with the interesting fact that these folks are so certain that their mistaken ideas are correct. It is one thing to say you’re not convinced that the Theory of Evolution is correct” and a totally different thing to claim, with absolute certainty, that it is wrong or that it’s not valid science. This is another example of the conservative mind’s apparent inability to differentiate fact from fantasy.

In Kentucky (where else?) recently some Republican law makers realized that when they turned over state testing standards to ACT that meant that students would be expected to be able to answer questions about biological evolution. I found the quote from Kentucky State Senator Ben Waide to be a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Here’s the quote.

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up. My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

This inane Republican babble (is there any other kind?) is a trifecta. Waide doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is; he doesn’t understand the scientific method and has probably never considered why the most intelligent and most highly educated community in the world, the scientific community, pretty much accepts the Theory of Evolution to a man. Even Michael Behe, darling of the Intelligent Design crowd, accepts evolution. He simply believes that at certain key points an intelligent agent was required to help things along.

Vincent Cassone, the chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department, said that the Republican’s issues with the Theory of Evolution were incomprehensible. "The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."

I am absolutely certain that Conservatives, Christians and Republicans are wrong about science and the Theory of Evolution. They’re also wrong about Global Warming, abortion access and homosexuality. Their ideas about economic theory are, at best, doubtful.

So, given this abysmal track record, why would anyone with at least half a brain and in their right mind trust them to try and fix unemployment, the economy and the federal budget deficit?

Loch Ness Monster?

I don't know what the hell that thing is.

Not that long ago I made the following statement "Actually, Nessie appears to be a figment of the imagination. There is no viable evidence that Nessie even exists."

Could this be that evidence?

George Edwards, professional Scottish "Nessie Hunter" thinks it is. George spends almost every day on Loch Ness and believes that Nessie, or perhaps more correctly, Nessies, exist in the Loch. George believes they're Manatee like creatures and not the Plesiosaur like creature that popular imagination have turned them into. George believes that the "three hump" sightings are really several Nessies.

The problem here is similar to the problem with Big Foot and the Yeti. If these creature exist, then why hasn't someone at some time found any physical remains of a dead creature?

That's an interesting picture though, I'll give George that, but you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical until someone comes up with some physical evidence.

Romney picks Paul Ryan

Ok, so I was wrong again.

I have to admit that I'm surprised. I don't understand the rationale behind this pick. Then again, I'm not a political expert.

I hope the Democrats are sharpening their knives for this guy and are going to pound away at the Medicare and Social Security issues. These things are not handouts. People have been paying into them their entire working lives but Ryan doesn't see why those people should now get what they've been paying for.

If people are dumb enough to elect Paul Ryan vice-president and the man that would choose him president, then there is no hope for this country.

Romney’s VP Choice

This is an interesting question that could well determine the election.

Does Gentleman Mitt go safe or reckless with his choice? The rumor mill has it that the choice is down to three, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, Rob Portman, the Senator from Ohio and Paul Ryan the congressman from Wisconsin.

I’m betting it will be Rob Portman.

Tim Pawlenty would be a safe choice and would allow Romney to play the “former successful governors vs. Washington” tune but Pawlenty generated no enthusiasm for his own run and the chances of Romney converting Minnesota to Red are pretty slim.

Converting Wisconsin is perhaps a bit more possible but Ryan carries with him all sorts of negative budget baggage. Even the dumb Democrats would crucify him for his past positions on Social Security and Medicare. Besides, he strikes me as a bit of a cold fish that I don’t think voters would take to if you put him on the tube.

Portman has all sorts of pluses. He’s got more personality than Pawlenty and Ryan put together and tends to exude confidence. Ohio is also a much better bet for Romney and Republicans never win without Ohio. Granted, being a Washington insider could be a disadvantage but I think it’s outweighed by the advantages.

Personally I was hoping Romney would do something stupid like pick Newt Gingrich but he’s not that dumb.

Intrade has Portman at 32% followed by Pawlenty at 21%. Ryan is at 14%. The only other person with any significant Intrade support is Marco Rubio at 12%.

Like I said, I’m betting on Portman. If there is any doubt remaining that the Republicans think gays should be ostracized and that women should be second class citizens whose uterus’ should be controlled by male politicians, the selection of Portman should end it pretty darn quick.

So is this a good choice or a bad choice? I thinks it's a very good choice that will immediately close the gap in Ohio, make the Republican base happy and not alienate Independents. Portman will probably make mincemeat of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate but that didn't help the Republicans last time around.

Would Pawlenty be a disaster? No, but I don't think he's as good a choice as Portman and Ryan is just too much of an unknown in terms of how the country would react to him. I could be wrong but I think the selection of Ryan would be a high risk, high reward choice and the election is too close for Romney to look for a "game changer" like McCain was forced to do.

The Olympics

All too often the disgraceful moments mar the glorious ones.

I was in London in 1972 during the Munich Olympics which had the dual disgraces of the attack on Israeli athletics and the travesty of the basketball final. The current games added to the first disgrace by ignoring the 40th anniversary rather than memorializing it. Then there’s the absurd home town decision that stole a gold medal from Roy Jones and the idiocy that baseball and softball have been excluded while synchronized swimming and rhythm gymnastics are Olympic “sports.”

Do you think any of this could be politically motivated?

In the London Olympics we’ve had charges of a “fix” in boxing; a totally disgraceful performance by a referee, that I saw personally on TV, where a Japanese fighter lost despite knocking his opponent down SIX TIMES in the final round because the referee never credited a knockdown (at least this travesty was later rectified and the decision reversed), bad mitten teams trying to lose on purpose, the idiotic malfunction in fencing that cost a competitor a medal and the U.S. Men’s and Women’s basketball teams running up ridiculous scores against overmatched opponents. WTF ever happened to sportsmanship?

Every four years the real competition seems to be how to get the doping and performance enhancing drugs being taken past the so-called “testing.” Do you REALLY think that a 16 year-old Chinese woman can swim the final 50 meters of the individual medley faster than the MAN that won the men’s IM without a little help? She passed the “test” my ass.

If you train for years in order to compete in the Olympics, then the people supposedly managing and judging the competitions should at least be freaking competent, catching cheaters should be more effective and the coaches, as supposedly mature individuals, should help the players keep things in perspective.

Then of course there is the International Olympic Committee which every four years displays a bad case of misplaced arrogance and authoritarianism.

I’m even going to talk about the idiots on NBC “hosting” the events. At least there I can turn off the sound.

I wish there was some way we could reduce the spectacle down to what’s important, the athletes going head to head with each other for the pure love of the sport. Sometimes I watch the Olympics and pretend that’s the way it is.

Is it Hopeless?

I need to stop reading comments posted on the Internet. Whenever I read them I get depressed because a number of problems become immediately obvious.

The biggest issue is either people just flat out don’t understand what they read or they’re not bothering to read before they post their comment. I am utterly amazed by the number of people that just totally misinterpret what is actually written.

The second issue is the number of people that think they know what they’re talking about but don’t. The number of misinformed people is scary.

The third issue is the certainty of so many of the statements. There is never any hint of any doubt or any openness to consider an alternative view. I never knew there were so many experts out there on so many issues. Experts that have neither training nor experience in the subject. They know better than the climatologists on the climate, better than the scientists on science and better than the economists on the economy.

Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion and they are free to find what anyone says unconvincing for any number of reasons. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking people who state, with absolute confidence, “facts” that are just flat out wrong.

Phrases like “I think,” “I believe,” and “I’m pretty sure” appear to be going the way of the Dodo bird. Everything today appears to be stated with absolute certainty. The funny thing is the more wrong they are, the more certain they are.

Now you know it’s coming, so let me state it right know. This is far more a problem with Conservatives than Liberals. Liberals have strong opinions, but they’re usually using accurate facts to arrive at those opinions. It’s been my experience that Conservatives often can’t tell the difference between fact and fantasy and now appear to have even stopped caring that there is a difference.

You go back 20 years and I can remember debating Christian Apologists. They looked at things differently that was for sure. While you were focusing on “probability,” they were happy with “possibility.” A biblical contradiction was “resolved” if they had a possible explanation. It didn’t matter how improbable it was as long as accepting it wasn’t irrational. As delusional as they may have been in their beliefs, they were invariable on solid ground when it came to facts.

Creationists were a little different. They had a habit of accepting as true anything that attacked evolution without ever bothering to check its validity. This is what led to PRATTs, Points Refuted a Thousand Times. Once a misconception got into the Creationist community it was almost impossible to eliminate it. Some Creationist proponents used this dishonestly by pitching to people things they knew were wrong, but suspected their audience didn’t know were wrong, and would be naively accepted at face value. But, the dishonest types aside, even Creationists would accept facts as facts if you presented enough evidence.

This new breed of political conservative, the Tea Party types, just don’t seem to care about what’s true and what isn’t. They’re going to believe what they want to believe regardless of whether it’s true or not. Providing them with evidence is a waste of time. They are capable of deluding themselves into thinking what they want to be true is in fact true. Reality is irrelevant if it contradicts what they want to be the case.

Homosexuality is a choice, Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, Obama raised their taxes, there is no scientific consensus on global warming, scientists are abandoning the Theory of Evolution, the Affordable Health Care Law institutes Death Panels and Fox News doesn’t lie are examples of what conservatives KNOW to be true that are just flat out not true. Not only do they “know” these things are true, no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, they’re apparently always going to “know” they’re true.

This is more than delusional, this is irrational. How do you come to a compromise with someone who is irrational?

It may very well be hopeless.

You’re looking for more examples? Let’s try Bryan Fischer’s pronouncement that it was Conservatives that led the march to black civil rights and Liberals that stood in the way and just about ANYTHING that David Barton says.

Vietnam Considers Gay Marriage

The Republic of Vietnam is considering the legalization of Gay Marriage. If it is legalized, Vietnam would become the first country in Asia to recognize same sex unions.

The name Vietnam conjures up, to someone of my generation, scenes of destruction, of pouring rain and mud, of dead and dying young Americans, of napalm and of battles in the streets of New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

It brings to mind the scenes of a country tearing itself apart because its people couldn't agree upon how best to remain true to its principles.

Is was Vietnam where it first became apparent that we weren't the "good guys" by default but that we had to earn that label every day, with every action and with every decision.

In our arrogance we imagined we would bring democracy, freedom and equality to the rest of the world whether they wanted it or not. Vietnam is hardly a bastion of liberty, but, should it grant gays equal rights in terms of marriage, our old enemy will move to the hilltop while we remain mired in the muck of bigotry and intolerance.

That would be an absolutely humiliating situation.

Gun Control

Mitt Romney says that new gun laws won’t stop law breakers.

That’s the standard argument isn’t it? The idea that if you control guns only criminals will have guns and life will be more dangerous.

I debate that conclusion based upon two points. The first is simply that controlling guns makes it harder for anyone to get a gun including would be criminals. The big problem with criminals getting guns is they get them through the so-called secondary market from unlicensed sellers. Even simple regulations that limit handgun sales to one gun per month have been shown to dramatically reduce illegal gun trafficking by reducing the supply of guns for the secondary market.

Can we guarantee that no criminal has a gun? Of course not; just like we can’t guarantee that no one has drugs. But you can at least make it a hell of a lot harder to obtain one and you eliminate the ease of stealing a gun if there aren’t many around and they’re securely protected.

Securely protected, that’s another point of contention. The counter argument is a gun that’s locked up, unloaded or secured with a trigger lock isn’t of any use. This is really just a variation on the “only criminals will have guns argument” because a secured weapon is almost like having no weapon.

So let’s address the main point. That having guns acts as protection or as a deterrent against criminals. This is the cowboy fantasy. The hero in the white hat is going to whip out his shootin’ iron and run off the desperados with heroic deeds.

This is a fantasy that has almost no chance of actually occurring. You have a better chance of accidentally injuring yourself or a family member than fighting off a bad guy. Does an occasional store owner pull out a pistol and scare off a would be hold-up man? Sure, but most likely because the hold-up man was scared already. This is also an action that law enforcement recommends against. You’re more likely to get yourself killed than accomplish anything positive. Are the few dollars in the cash register really worth it?

As for the Right Wing morons that think their weapons are somehow preventing a dictatorship arising in this country, they seriously need to get their brains checked. Dictatorships occur only with support of the Army so two points. First, do you seriously think the U.S. Army would EVER support the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution? Second, should that ever happen, do you have any idea how much chance a motley crew of weekend gun enthusiasts would have against a modern military unit?

Eagle Scouts Returning their Medals

Apparently some Eagle Scouts are returing their medals to the Boy Scouts of America and resigning from the organization in protest over the decision to continue to exclude gay scouts and leaders.

Given the effort and difficulty associated with gaining the medal in the first place, this is no small sacrifice and I salute their stand. I'd return my 2nd Class badge if I knew what the hell happened to it.

Ride, Sally Ride

Sally Ride, the first female U.S. astronaut passed away on Monday at the tender age of 61.

The obituary from Sally Ride Science, an educational venture that Ride founded, referred to Tam O'Shaughnessy as "her partner of 27 years."

In other words, at her death Sally announced to the world that the first female American astronaut, was gay.

I can’t wait to hear how the Right Wing spins this one. I suppose the Texas Education Board will wipe her name out of the history books and any number of Right Wing pundits will explain how the statement doesn’t really mean that Ride was gay despite the acknowledgement by her family to the fact.

So the LGBT cause gets a advocate it never knew it had and the Religious Right can stick it up their butts.

Outsourcing American Jobs

Did you know that the U.S. tax code rewards companies for outsourcing American jobs overseas? Well it does. It does it by allowing the cost of moving the jobs overseas to be deducted as a business expense.

If you think this sounds idiotic then you agree with senate Democrats and four senate Republicans, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and Dean Heller of Nevada, that the senate should vote on bill S. 3364, sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., which would end that tax break while continuing to allow a deduction for jobs returned to this country or moved within the United States.

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have filibustered that bill and an attempt at closure, which requires 60 votes, failed 56-42 with every single Republican senator, other than the four noted above, voting against cloture.

The hypocrisy of the Republican Party, crying about Obama not doing enough about jobs while the stinking 3% reduction in the marginal tax rate, which they claim is going to trickle down jobs any day now, continues to do nothing but provide the 1% with money to invest overseas, and supporting a tax break through filibuster for moving jobs out the country is simply staggering.

But what is more staggering is the total obliviousness of the American electorate as to WTF is going on. If you’re making less than $250,000 a year, then you’re are being screwed by the Republicans on a daily basis and are really going to get taken to the cleaners if we’re idiotic enough to elect Mitt Romney.

I continue to be amazed at the stupidity of the Republican base which gets all up in a lather about the nickels and dimes from their paychecks being spent on welfare or food stamps but ignores the fact that Republican policies are preventing $10s and $20s from ever getting into their paychecks.

Where I come from we call that nickel wise and dollar foolish.

NCAA Sanctions on Penn State

The NCAA really threw the book at Penn State today and in a very appropriate manner.

The school will vacate all football victories from 1998 to 2011; it will pay a fine of $60 million; it will have its maximum number of scholarships reduced from 85 to 65 and it will be banned from post season play for four years. The Big Ten has announced that Penn State will not share in any post season revenue which should cost the school about another $13 million. All current and incoming players are entitled to transfer with no penalty.

The vacating of wins reduces Coach Joe Paterno’s win count from 409 to 298 which now puts him well behind former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden who will take the top spot in the NCAA record book with 377 major-college (FBS) wins.

It’s sad to see someone looked up to as a hero for so many years dragged through the mud, but he has no one to blame but himself.

Yesterday Penn State tore down Paterno's statue.

Aurora Colorado

I make no secret of the fact that I am opposed to the Death Penalty. But my opposition is practical rather than philosophical. I just believe that the chance of making an error outweighs any satisfaction from putting out the lights of someone who richly deserves it.

However, for Mr. James Eagan Holmes, the lunatic that walked into a Colorado movie theater and killed 12 people who never did anything to him, I’m willing to make an exception.

There is no doubt here. There is no chance of error so I would have absolutely no problem sticking a lethal needle into Holmes’ vein. Too bad it won’t hurt as much as it should.

I read there was some doubt as to whether the prosecutor would ask for the Death Penalty. How the hell could you not ask for it? If it’s not appropriate for this crime, then it’s not appropriate for any crime and we should abolish it nationally.

Boy Scouts to Keep Gay Ban

The Boy Scouts of America have decided to keep their ban on gay scouts and leaders in place.

I have to seriously question the conclusion announced by the scout committee that "The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth" when no corroboration is provided other than the assertion.

How does one "serve more youth" by rejecting a segment of that youth? I assume they're afraid that more parents would pull their children out if gays were allowed than there would be gay scouts joining? Do they really think that this is the way to teach tolerance and respect for all people?

To my mind this is a cowardly decision that runs directly counter to the whole concept of scouting. Isn't "To help other people at all times" still part of the oath? Do they think this is helping gays or are they changing the oath to say "To help other people (except gays) at all times?"

The Freeh Report

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has released the report on his investigation of the Penn State-Jerry Sandusky scandal and what it says is not good.

Last November, based upon what I knew then, I said “…I don’t see that Joe Paterno should be criticized for not doing more than he did…Paterno can’t be blamed for not realizing the A.D. didn’t follow through as he was required to do.”

I now see clearly that was a very naïve position to take and, after thinking about it, should have realized then that it was naïve.

According to Freeh, school officials, including Paterno, were aware that they had a predatory pedophile in the program as early as 1998 and yet “…in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University — Messrs Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse.”

This is not acceptable behavior. This happens when men lose track of their priorities and forget what is important. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

The NCAA has the authority to enforce what is known as the “Death Penalty” on a school’s sports program. The “Death Penalty” suspends a program for some period of time. It has only been applied five times and primarily for repeated recruiting infractions. Those are nothing compared to this. This is the most disgraceful episode in the history of sports.

The Penn State football program should be suspended for at least a year if not more and Paterno’s name should be expunged from all honors and memorials. His statues should be taken down and his records nullified. As much as possible, the man’s name should be erased from the sport he has disgraced.

Yes I understand that other people who are completely innocent will suffer as well but that’s something that, unfortunately, can’t be avoided. Whatever suffering they’ll have to endure will be nothing compared to what Sandusky’s victims had to endure, many of which could have been protected from harm if the Penn State officials had done the decent thing as soon as they became aware of the problem.

Now you’ll excuse me but I really need to go take a shower. I feel dirty from just writing about this.

The Republican Brain

How’s that for an idiotic title of a book?

The book, written by Chris Mooney, is really a summary of psychological studies looking at how Conservatives and Liberals tend to look at things. Most of the studies aren’t surprising but simply confirm things that most people realize from simple observation.

Basically Liberals tend to be open to new experiences, tend to waffle while they try and consider all sides of a question and aren’t terribly threatened by the unknown. Conservatives tend to be more comfortable with tradition, are more decisive and have a need for final closure. Conservatives also apparently have a stronger sense of loyalty to the group while Liberals are far more fractious.

Gee, ya think?

None of this is terribly new nor is it rocket science. However Mooney does get into an area that I did find disturbing.

There’s the old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to their own facts. Well there is significant evidence that Political Conservatives don’t appear to have a problem with creating their “own facts” when reality doesn’t suit them.

That’s bad. How do you reason or compromise with someone that exists in an imaginary reality?

Now, there were always wing nuts, on both the Left and Right, that would make stuff up or come up with things that had no basis in reality but I always considered them to be at the extremes. What Moody was saying was that this “making up your own facts” has actually become part of the Conservative mainstream. After thinking about it, and reviewing his data, I have to admit that he may be right and that’s really scary.

Now, let’s be a little careful here because “Conservative” covers a lot of ground and not all Conservatives are living in la-la land but there are clearly far too many to be healthy for the country. According to Mooney, those most likely to generate their own version of reality are those with an authoritarian bent. Unfortunately that includes a lot of Conservatives including just about every Evangelical Christian.

Worse yet is they’re organized. I remember reading that the Conservative Christian solution to the majority of biblical scholars coming to conclusions they didn’t like was simply to “train” more “biblical scholars” at conservative seminaries. At the moment they’re apparently cranking them out in such numbers that the idea of a “majority opinion” has just about lost all meaning in biblical scholarship.

According to Mooney the same thing is happening in economics, politics and law. If you don’t like what the experts say, then create your own experts seems to be the strategy and, unfortunately, it works when the public at large just doesn’t have the knowledge to differentiate between reality and total crap and journalism hobbles itself with a misplaced concept of “balance.”

This is where loyalty, in most cases a virtue, becomes a vice. If some of these experts realize that the conservative dogma is wrong and say so, they become immediate pariahs and outcasts. Toeing the party line is more important than the truth.

Mooney points out that while the Left also has its share of delusional types, such as the anti-vaccine crowd, these aren’t ideas championed by the educated elite on the Left because they don’t match up with the facts. As a matter of fact, criticism from the elite on the Left is stronger than criticism from the Right.

So it’s simple right? These are intelligent people. All you have to do is show them the facts and reason with them. That’s where it gets spooky. Anyone who has had exchanges on forums or in person has realized that it just doesn’t seem to work. As a matter of fact, the more you show them they’re wrong, the stronger they seem to cling to their delusions.

Mooney presents evidence that this is indeed the case. The psychology is such that the need to believe what they want to believe is stronger than logic, stronger than facts and, in the final analysis, stronger than truth.

So now what?

Mooney mumbles out some sort of compromise approach which is basically let Liberals, who are better at determining reality, determine what the facts are and let Conservatives, because they are more decisive, decide how to act on those facts. But his idea is fatally flawed because it starts with Conservatives accepting reality as determined by Liberals. This runs counter to his whole premise. I might also point out that it will be a cold day in hell before Liberals would trust Conservatives to make any decisions without adult supervision.

Mooney’s hypothesis is that this psychology is at the root of the current polarization of politics in the U.S. I suspect that his hypothesis is correct but his solution isn’t anything other than wishful thinking.

I have to be honest, I don’t see a solution here. The Republican Party is teetering on the edge of becoming totally divorced from anything like fact based analysis. It’s not there yet. People like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are still firmly moored to reality even if occasionally they need to make concessions to the lunatic fringe.

What happens if Romney looses the election?

We may not be approaching a “perfect storm” of economic disaster like that NYU professor claims, but I suspect things are going to remain rocky for quite a while yet. What happens in 2016? The Democrats don’t seem to have an emerging standard bearer and my fear is that another loss would drive the Republicans further to the Right, the Fiscal Conservative business wing of the Party might lose control and someone like a Bachmann or a Santorum might actually manage to get the nomination and win.

Romney and his ilk are smart enough to know that the policies being touted by the Republican Right Wing would lead to chaos and disaster. Someone like a Rick Santorum may not.

Good Things Still Happen

There is always the danger of becoming morbidly cynical, deteriorating into utter despair and writing off the human race. Luckily, every time that appears to be the only avenue left, something happens to make you realize there’s still hope.

Eric LeGrand, the Rutgers football player that was paralyzed in 2010 in a game against Army at the Meadowlands has been hired by Subway to appear in commercials with Giants star Justin Tuck.

LeGrand, clearly, is not letting a little thing like not being able to walk slow him down. He’s spitting in the eye of misfortune and living his life. LeGrand would like to break into the sports media world and has vowed to walk again.

I’m betting he manages both of those things.

The Texas Republican Party Platform

The Platform of the Texas Republican Party. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Some highlights (with the occasional commentary):

Protection from Extreme Environmentalists – We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

Sure, them there kind hearted, environmentally concerned big business types are looking out for our welfare.

Free Speech for the Clergy - We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.

If you want to be political, then you shouldn't be tax exempt. The same rules need to apply to everyone. The clergy doesn't warrent any special treatment.

Government Regulation of Religious Institutions - The state should have no power over licensing or training of clergy. The State should withdraw all imposed regulations.

They have regulations about that in Texas? I never heard of any in New Jersey.

Empowering Local Entities Concerning Religious Meetings - We support the right of local entities to determine their own policies regarding religious clubs and meetings on all properties owned by the same without interference.

Another attempt to get around the first amendment.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior.

I'm the boss so my ethics are going to be your ethics or else. What happened to all that freedom of religion concern? I guess you're only concerned when your beliefs are affected.

Remedies to Activist Judiciary - We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

Imagine what they would say if we didn’t have a right wing SCOTUS!? Do you suppose these guys have ever heard of the "seperation of powers?" Isn't it amazing that they only support the Constitution when they can twist it enough to make it look like it supports their position.

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

One has to wonder why? They don't say. It couldn't have anything to do with black folks being able to vote could it?

Campaign Finance Reform - We urge immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act.

Have to make sure that only the rich can obtain political office.

Enforcing the Platform - Every Republican is responsible for implementing this platform. Party candidates should indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket and such information should be available on the Party website.

You VILL support der Party position or you VILL regret it! Seig Heil!

Filibuster – We support return to the traditional Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

Just like in them good old segregation days. The "traditional Filibuster" probably did more to delay civil rights in this country than any other single entity.

Religious Symbols - We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

But what about the "seperation of church and state" you say? We're getting to that in a bit so be patient.

Pledge of Allegiance - We support adoption of the Pledge Protection Act. We also urge that the National Motto “In God We Trust” and National Anthem be protected from legislative and judicial attack.

WTF does that even mean? How do you protect things from legislative and judicial attack? Appoint a dictator?

Flag Desecration - Any form of desecration of the American Flag is an act of disregard for our nation and its people and penalties should be established for such.

Except that the SCOTUS has already declared this as an act of free speech in Texas v. Johnson 1989, and that would trump any law. You would need either a constitutional amendment or the overturning of the existing SCOTUS decision.

Symbols of American Heritage - We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way.

In any way? Does that include making sure every color is exactly the right shade and every detail exactly the right size?

Confederate Widows Plaque - We call for restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund contribution that were illegally removed from the Texas Supreme Court building.

*Sigh*

Marriage and Divorce - We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no-fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

A desperate attempt to improve the lousy divorce rate in Texas? Actually, to be fair, the divorce rate in Texas in 2009 was 3.3 per 1,000 population which was actually a shade under the national average of 3.4. The rate in an equivalent Northeast state such as New York is 2.6 but people tend to get married later in the Northeast which reduces the divorce rate.

Family Values ― We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.

I see they didn’t bother to DEFINE those values though so you can just fill in whatever you want. An old propaganda trick. Since you fill in the blanks, you’re almost guaranteed to agree with the statement.

Supporting Motherhood ― We strongly support women who choose to devote their lives to their families and raising their children. We recognize their sacrifice and deplore the liberal assault on the family.

What about Apple Pie? Of course the fact that the “liberal” states have much lower divorce rates, crime rates and teenage pregnancy rates is irrelevant.

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

Well, at least they didn't define being gay as a choice. That's progress of a sort I suppose.

Right To Life - All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

Regardless of the situation? No real surprise here. The problem of course is they continue to overlook that the solution to abortion is the elimination of unwanted pregnancies which means making comprehensive sex education and contraception universally available.

Morning After Pill - We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

See what I nmean? At least they didn't go after the "Morning Before Pills."

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I'm not going down this road here. I may dedicate a different post to this one.

Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

As applied by parents. If I were a teacher, I wouldn't even THINK about hitting a child. If a teacher ever hit one of my kids I would have keel hauled them.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Another dishonest attempt to get religious ideas into the science classroom.

(I’m NOT making the next one up. It’s REALLY in there.)

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Isn’t that sort of the whole idea of education, challenging fixed beliefs?I mean, why would we want children that can actually THINK?

Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage. 

See previous comments about teenage pregnancy rates and eliminating abortions. At last count Texas ranked 47th with a teenage pregancy rate of 88 per 1,000. Only Arizona (89), Nevada (90) and New Mexico (93) were worse. The National Average was 70. This is in the face of repeated statistics that demonstrate that "abstinence only" education doesn't work and what's required is a comprehensive sex education approach. It's perfectly ok to emphesize abstinence because, in the final analysis, it is still the only foolproof contraceptive method but that shouldn't be all there is.

Parental School Choice – We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options which fund the student, not schools or districts, to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private, or parochial education for all children.

Another dishonest approach toward funding religious schools with tax dollars.

Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents.

Well, at least they didn’t call for the return of organized school prayer (not yet anyway).

Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.

I told you we'd get to the "seperation of church and state." At least they're honest about it. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would probably like a word with these people.

We support the principles regarding the public economy as stated in the Republican Party Platform of 1932…

1932!? They blew right by Ronald Reagan and went all the way back to Herbert Hoover! In other words, on the economic front, the Republicans haven't learned anything in the last 80 years!

Workers’ Compensation – We urge the Legislature to resist making Workers’ Compensation mandatory for all Texas employers.

So what if people get hurt on the job? Worker's Compensation is actually a good deal for both sides since it protects the employer from getting their asses sued for negligence.

Minimum Wage – We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed.

How about we get rid of them there Communist child labor laws while we're at it but, whatever you do, don't you touch them government guarantees for long term corporate investments. That there is necessary for our Capitalist way of life.

United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.

Oh great, can you imagine the U.N. without adult supervision?

International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

Can you spell I-S-O-L-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M? I see the yearning for 1932 extends beyond economics.

There were a lot more that I simply don't agree with but wouldn't consider over the top. There were also a surprising number that I agreed with which is sort of interesting. If we could start with the things we agree on, we could at least make some progress while we're working on the things we disagree on.

I find it utterly appalling that a major political party in the 21st century can take these positions. The Zeitgeist never stands still. If it's not progressing, then it's regressing to the oppressions of the past. This is why we can never be complacent. The forces of darkness never rest and have to be fought whenever and wherever they're encountered. The sad part about it is, these people probably consider themselves patriots.

Afghan Woman’s Execution

A video obtained by Reuter’s allegedly shows a woman being executed for adultery at close range via shots from an automatic rifle. The execution was carried out in front of a crowd of approximately 150 men who cheer the event praising the “mujahideen,” a name the Taliban use for themselves. This reportedly happened in Shinwari, about an hour outside of Kabul.

Needless to say the Afghani government condemns the atrocity in the strongest terms. Lucky for them such a priceless piece of propaganda materialized during a major donor’s summit in Tokyo where $16 billion in development aid was pledged over the next four years.

The Taliban has denied any involvement.

This story bothers me. It’s just a bit too pat. If you wanted the perfect argument for the need for financial support it’s hard to come up with a better one than this. I smell a rat.

I mean think about it. It’s about the grossest violation of women’s rights you could come up with and we all know that’s a real issue in conservative Islamic countries. How scary is it that most people accept this video at face value and, to be honest, I wouldn’t be overly shocked if it turned out to be true.

Then we have the “cheering crowd” that, luckily, pinned the vile deed on the Taliban. This is sort of like the broken watch that identifies the time of the murder. And, luck of luck, there just happened to be someone with a video camera that was allowed to capture the whole thing for posterity. How many video cameras do you figure there are in Afghanistan?

Look, if you allow something to be videotaped then it’s usually because you think what you’re doing is right. Yet the Taliban have denied they’re responsible. Did they have a change of heart? They don’t strike me as the sort of folks that allow themselves to be swayed by popular opinion.

Maybe I’m just getting too cynical in my old age but I don’t like the feel of this one. I haven't seen the video. Perhaps if I did I wouldn't have any doubts, but I can't shake the "government hoax" feeling on this one. Then again, it wouldn't be very easy to keep 150 conspirators quiet either so perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.

Money, the Key to Politics

Apparently, the new golden rule is he who has the gold gets elected. To say the Obama camp is concerned about Mitt Romney’s ability to attract donation dollars would be a severe understatement.

My latest e-mail from Robby Mook takes the grim approach. “I won't mince words: If Mitt and his SuperPAC backers can bury us under a wave of corporate special interest cash right now, we will lose in November.”

Now I know exactly what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “who the hell is Robby Mook?” Yeah, that was sort of my reaction.

Robby Mook is the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and I suppose he is tasked with attempting to win back the House of Representatives. I figure he has two chances, slim and none.

But that’s not the point. The point is Will Rodgers bit of wisdom. “I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”

I’m no expert, but I sort of have this impression that the problem with the Democrats is their fund raising is so chaotic. This are the e-mail requests I’ve gotten in just the last couple of days.

Robby Mook 7/8/12 – This is the grim message from the House Democrats.

Joe Biden 7/7/12 – Obama/Biden of course crying about Romney’s $100 million

Stephanie Cutter 7/7/12 – The Truth Team? I don’t even know who the hell the Truth Team is but apparently they support Obama.

Bob Menendez 7/6/12 – New Jersey Senate.

Convention Host Committee 7/6/12 – Buy convention stuff.

Jim Messina 7/6/12 – Obama/Biden also crying about the $100 million.

Diane Doukas – 7/6/12 – This is a good one. An invitation to a Westchester Brunch with Michelle Obama with tickets at $1,500, $5,000 and $25,000.

Joe Biden 7/5/12 – Obama/Biden, win a chance to come “hang out” whatever that means.

Kirsten Gillibrand 7/4/12 – New York Senate. This actually isn’t a request for money. It’s simply a Happy July 4th message. The problem of course is it got buried with all the donation requests so I figured it was one of them. I’m still a bit confused as to why I’m on her mailing list.

Nancy Pelosi 7/3/12 – Crowing about a fundraising record after the SCOTUS upheld the health care law. This is sort of out of sync with the rest of the panicky e-mails. Probably went out before Romney’s numbers came in but it makes you wonder how much of a fund raising issue there really is.

Jim Messina – 7/3/12 – A coupon code for the Obama store that I didn’t take advantage of.

Alan Grayson 7/3/12 – He’s running for congress in Florida. Why the hell he is sending me stuff is even a bigger mystery than why Gillibrand is sending me stuff.

Julianna Smoot 7/1/12 – An Obama shirt offer but it’s a really ugly shirt and, besides, I’d have to be gay to even think about wearing it. It’s seriously aimed at the under 30 female set.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz 7/1/12 – This one is from the Democratic National Committee. That reminds me, I don’t even know if I’ve paid my DNC dues for this year?

And this is just the e-mail. It doesn’t count the snail mail solicitations nor the phone call I got from the Democratic governors committee. That was a good one. I originally said “NO” since there is no governor’s race in New Jersey but they wheedled me out of $50 anyway.

I get so many of these things that the tendency is to just freeze and respond to none of them. I suspect the Democrats would do better to organize their fund raising rather than having such a free for all. I should talk, I don’t keep track myself. Ok, from now on I’m logging all donations.

And the Health Care War Continues

The immediate reaction of the Republicans to the upholding of the Affordable Health Care Act by the Supreme Court was a vow to repeal it.

Romney makes vague references to replacing it but doesn’t say with what but most Republicans simply talk about repeal.

The “victory” in the Supreme Court may well turn out to be pyrrhic in nature. The “victory” in the Supreme Court could well cost the Democrats the Senate. Almost two-thirds of Americans, including a large number of people that would significantly benefit from the act, oppose the law.

Why?

It has been my experience, communicating with people on the Internet, that most simply do not understand what the law does. The right wing propaganda machine has been very effective in painting the law to be something it’s not.

It’s actually a pretty good law.

- It allows children to stay on their parents health care until age 26
- It allows people with pre-existing conditions to get health care
- It subsidizes the cost of health care for those that can’t afford it
- It establishes “insurance exchanges” where people can shop for insurance

When the Republicans tell you it will increase federal spending, they neglect to tell you that spending is offset by new revenue through excise taxes upon the so-called Cadillac health plans that many corporate executives have access to and by expanding the number of people supporting the health care system through the individual mandate.

The CBO estimated that repealing the plan would have added $119 billion to the federal budget deficit through 2019 while keeping the law is expected to slightly reduce the deficit. You don’t hear the Republicans telling you that do you? What I don’t understand is why the Democrats aren’t telling you that.

Could it be better? Absolutely it could be better and some of the criticism is certainly justified. But rather than get into that, I’d like to go back to a basic question.

Do we, as a nation, believe that universal health care is a good thing?

How can anyone answer no to that question? If you do answer no, then there’s nothing else to talk about and we can agree to disagree.

If you answer yes, then all that’s left is to figure out a way to accomplish universal health care without breaking the bank.

The Democrats actually used a Republican model for the health care law. It was based upon a coverage plan endorsed by Richard Nixon in the 1970s and touted by Republicans in the 1990s.

But that’s all sort of irrelevant if you don’t believe universal health care is a good thing.

Look, I get the point of not wanting to fund someone else’s health care with the dollars you worked for. You’d much rather spend them on a spiffy new iPAD. So would I, but I also understand a thing called “for the common good.”

Law firms have Pro Bono programs; doctors and nurses donate time to clinics; millions volunteer their time for charity work and everyone else, hopefully, contributes what they can when they can. So most of us understand the concept of “for the common good.”

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the difference between voluntarily supporting the “common good” and having government force you to support the “common good.” A lot of people just don’t like being told what to do with what they rightfully consider their own money.

I can understand that position.

However, I also know that the story being pitched to you by the right wing demagogues is more than a tad inaccurate.

The picture of the hard working middle class supporting shiftless lazy welfare recipients is, well, to put it bluntly, total horseshit. Are there people abusing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the Welfare Department in New York City and she would tell the story of the mother bringing in her daughter, who had just turned 18, to open her own welfare account. And they arrived in a taxi cab no less.

This story, and there are many others, will get anyone all bent out of shape and abuses like this need to be addressed. But the overwhelming majority of people receiving assistance aren’t cheating.

Most are working their asses off, sometimes even at multiple jobs, but just can’t make ends meet in a society where the real annual wage for 80% of the population has been essentially stagnant for the past 30 years.

While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.

Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?

In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income for the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.

In other words, everyone did pretty well. No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.

It is this vast divergence in wealth distribution, this concentration of wealth into the hands of a few that is causing economic hardships for a lot of people. A lot of hard working people. Now don’t give me any crap about Capitalism vs. Socialism, there wasn’t a more Capitalist place in the world than the United States in the 1950s through the 1970s yet the increased wealth was distributed across all income classes pretty much evenly at least by percentage.

Here’s something to think about. In 1958, the maximum federal income tax rate, for married filing jointly, was 91% for income over $400,000. That would be the equivalent of $3.2 million in 2012 dollars. The maximum tax rate in 2012 is 35% for income over $388,000.

The simple fact is that the low marginal tax rate makes unbridled greed worth the effort.

So where are you? If your household income is less than $20,000, you’re in the bottom quintile. If it’s less than $38,043 you’re in the 2nd quintile. If it’s less than $61,735 you’re in the 3rd quintile and if it’s less than $100,065 you’re in the 2nd quintile. So you need to have a household income of over $100,000 to be benefiting from the income disparity. To be in the top 5%, who are really doing well, your household income would have to exceed $180,810.

Now for the fun part. I think that most people would agree that the South is the most conservative region, followed by the Midwest, then the West and the Northeast would be the most liberal region.

So obviously the South must have the highest income and the Northeast the lowest right? The South would be protecting it’s hard earned dollars from those lazy shiftless Northeast liberals right?

The mean income in the South is $63,311 and the median income is $45,492. The mean income in the Midwest is $64,056 and the median income is $48,445. The mean income in the West is $72,367 and the median income is $53,142. The mean income in the Northeast is $74,569 and the median income is $53,383.

Democracy ceases to be a viable system when the electorate is incapable of understanding what is in its own best interest.

Obama is the Man if Aliens Invade

An overwhelming 65% of Americans polled said that President Obama would be better able to handle an alien invasion than Mitt Romney.

Ok, so it’s an intellectually ridiculous question, but one has to consider the underlying emotional psychology.

This means that Americans have more confidence in Obama in the event of an unknown crisis. In other words, when the phone rings at 3 AM in the White House, they want Obama to be answering the phone and not Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?

This also means that, at an emotional level, Americans feel that they would rather trust Obama with their well being than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?

Finally, it means that when the chips are down, Americans feel they can rely more on Obama to take decisive action than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?

Think about it.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition! The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the Individual Mandate of the Health Care Law as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in the 5-4 decision.

I suppose Roberts lost the coin toss and had to be the sacrificial lamb. Either that or he was the only conservative justice with enough courage to do what was right.

The Health Care Law is the right thing to do for the country. It doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. The Individual Mandate is economically necessary to insure adequate funding. It’s the old “Free Rider” problem. But even I have to admit that congressional authority on that point is very, very iffy.

Hats off to Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad he couldn’t have gotten something closer to a unanimous decision.

Exxon CEO says Fears are Overblown

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson went on record yesterday as saying that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet but, not to worry, we’ll adapt.

Well, so much for all those right wings demagogues and Fox News telling us that Global Warming was a hoax. To my mind Tillerson’s statement essentially acknowledges that the right wing was, at best, wrong (so what else is new) and, at worst, lying through their teeth which wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

However let’s move on to the “we’ll adapt” part.

Tillerson addressed three different issues, climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution and energy dependence. According to Tillerson, Exxon has got us covered. Tillerson blamed concerns on a “math” and “science” illiterate public, a “lazy media” and advocacy groups that “manufacture fear.”

Some opinions from the CEO with commentary.

We’ll adapt to climate change. It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.

Yeah, but that could be a hell of an expensive solution. Better might be to take steps to try and PREVENT significant climate change rather than having to adapt after the fact. He is right that’s it’s an engineering problem and will require an engineering solution. The big question is should we be pro-active or re-active? In general, pro-active solutions are less expensive and avoid a lot of pain.

Climate change models can’t accurately predict the impact of climate change and we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur.

A lot depends here upon what you mean by “predict.” Can it provide a precise measure? Probably not, but it can give you a good idea of the directions things are heading. I suspect that we ignore climate models at our peril.

Also, “we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur” sounds terribly re-active and could lead to lots of pain along the way.

While drilling for oil and gas will always contain risks, those risks are worth taking.

I suppose that depends upon the risks. Tillerson claims the risks are small, not life threatening nor long lasting. This sounds to me kind of subjective but I’m willing to put the data on the table and have the experts from both sides discuss it. I suspect that if you're in the path of the risk, you might have a different opinion about whether it's "worth taking."

Advocacy groups have alarmed a public that doesn’t understand drilling practices, math, science or engineering.

I have to agree with this statement. The question however is whether that alarm is justified? Again, let’s get all the data on the table and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence rather than political opinion.

“Lazy” journalists produce stories that scare the public without investigating the claims of advocacy groups.

I agree again. Journalists in this country have abdicated their responsibility to educate the public. It is journalism’s responsibility to investigate claims rather than simply report them. On the other hand, when journalists DO investigate and report that climate change is real and something to be concerned about, all we hear from the right and previous Exxon CEOs is charges of “Liberal Bias.” Now apparently Mr. Tillerson is admitting the media had a “Liberal Bias” because truth and reality had a “Liberal Bias.”

There is a distinction between energy security and energy dependence.

True, but the question is whether “energy dependence” is a major factor in “energy security.” I sort of find it hard to believe that it’s not.

Since oil is globally priced so a disruption in the Middle East, even if the U.S. only used North American oil, would increase gas prices and hurt the U.S. economy.

So, as long as the Middle East supply is secure, “drill, baby drill” is a load of horseshit? I have to admit that this surprises me more than a little. I have to believe that not depending upon foreign oil would provide a much more stable energy environment which in turn would help stabilize the economy. Are you seriously saying it doesn’t matter?

I think what Tillerson had to say is very important and could have far reaching consequences. The next to the last thing we want to do is over react to the situation and end up with a damaged economy as the result. However that’s better than not reacting to a potential civilization threatening issue until it’s too late and ending up on the list of nature’s extinct creatures.

Rainbow Oreo

Kraft food made its position known by posting a Rainbow Oreo on its Facebook page with the caption "Proudly Support Love!"


A Kraft spokesman was quoted as saying “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values.”

The posting predictably brought out the wingnuts in addition to over 170,000 "likes." ABC news quoted one disgruntled poster as commenting (errors left in place) “Disgusted with oreos. Being gay is an abmonitation in GOd’s eyes i wont be buying them anymore.”

That's six grammatical and spelling errors in about a line of text. That gives you a pretty good idea of the intellectual capacity of the poster. He probably can't afford Oreos anyway.

I say good for Kraft. I'd go buy a package or two of Oreos if they weren't so damn fattening.

Nessie and Evolution

In case you didn’t know it, the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution.

At least that appears to be the argument from the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) “science” textbook that is being used at the Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake Louisiana. A school that will be receiving government tax dollars under the voucher program established by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.

Carl Sagan used to say that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, people are not entitled to their own facts. This no longer seems to be the case among conservatives in general and fundamentalist Christians in particular.

Here’s what the ACE text has to say about Nessie, with commentary.

“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.”

Really? What scientists? Please cite any article in any peer reviewed science journal that makes such a claim.

“Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”

Actually, Nessie appears to be a figment of the imagination. There is no viable evidence that Nessie even exists.

“Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles.”

Probably because that’s where the genetic, morphological and fossil evidence appears to point. Notice the implication that this idea is an unsubstantiated “theory” rather than a conclusion based upon evidence. Notice also the misuse of the term “theory” implying a guess or unfounded speculation.

“This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis.”

Real scientists apparently disagree with you. Allow me to introduce you to Tiktaalik, a creature halfway between a primitive fish and a tetrapod. The mixture led one of Tiktaalik’s discoverers to label it a “fishapod.”

“No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

See “Tiktaalik” reference above. The simple fact is that hundreds of transitional fossils exist especially above the species level. To say that no transitional fossils have ever been discovered is a flat out lie. Yes I said lie because this claim has been debunked so many times I find it impossible to accept that none of the editors of the text were aware of that.

Here are some other “highlights” from the ACE science text.

- Science Proves Homosexuality is a Learned Behavior
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution
- Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed
- Evolution Has Been Disproved
- A Japanese Whaling Boat Found a Dinosaur
- Solar Fusion is a Myth

What the f**k is wrong with these people?

The competitors of ACE are A Beka and Bob Jones University press textbooks. They also tout Youth Earth Creationism and reject evolution. Here are some other doozies reportedly in A Beka and Bob Jones texts.

- Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.

- “the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross… In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”

- “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”

- It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”

- “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”

- the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.

- “Unions have always been plagued by socialists and anarchists who use laborers to destroy the free-enterprise system that hardworking Americans have created.”

- Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential win was due to an imaginary economic crisis created by the media.

- “The greatest struggle of all time, the Battle of Armageddon, will occur in the Middle East when Christ returns to set up his kingdom on earth.”

They can't even get what the Bible says right. Revelations 16:16 - Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. Armageddon is a transliteration of the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Har Meghid·dohn" which means the Mountain of Meggido. It's where the anti-Christ's army is assembled and not where the battle is fought.

These are also typically the texts used by Christian home schoolers. Hundreds of thousands of children are essentially being taught utter rubbish and we’re going to have deal with them as voters down the road. If we don’t do something about this, this country is going to be screwed.

Little Leaguer Sued

A woman in Manchester County N.J. is suing a 13 year old for $150,000 over an incident at a Little League game two years ago. According to the story the woman was sitting at a picnic table when an errant throw from the nearby bullpen hit her in the face.

The key allegation was that the youngster was “engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” I believe this claims that the youngster, a catcher warming up a pitcher, engaged in activity beyond simply throwing the ball back to the pitcher. How they’re going to demonstrate that should be interesting. The husband is also suing for the loss of his wife’s services (*ahem*).

I find the comments on these kind of stories more illuminating than the story. We have a unanimous verdict here that this is a frivolous lawsuit and that the woman and her husband should be run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered.

I hate to be the voice of reason (as it seems I'm always in the tiny minority) but while this sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit, and it may well be, it may not be as well. First of all, everyone appears to be assuming that the couple were spectators at the game but there is nothing in the story to justify that assumption. It could be they were simply sitting at a picnic table near the field and not paying attention to the game. If that's the case, then getting hit by an errant throw is bit more understandable. The hubby’s count appears to be a standard ploy when the wife is hurt. When my daughter was sued a few years ago due to a minor fender bender in which a woman claimed her neck was injured they threw in this count as well.

As for the delay, it could be that they weren’t looking to sue anyone until the medical bills started piling up. I don’t know what their insurance situation is and neither do any of the people leaving comments.

They’re also all overlooking the “intentional” claim. Even the dad says “if his son was horsing around” he would feel differently. Kids “horsing around” at Little League is not unheard of.

So, while this sounds like the kind of case that should get tossed, I think I will reserve judgment because I don’t know all the facts. If it turns out, as ludicrous as it may sound, that there is justification for the lawsuit, I’m betting it will be covered by their homeowners insurance and get settled out of court. Which of course means all the rest of us will take a little hit on our homeowners insurance (*sigh*).

The key point here is that so many people are coming to a hard conclusion without knowing all the facts. I seem to encounter this more and more. Maybe it was always this way, but it seems to me that’s not so. The big problem of course is that once people arrive at a conclusion, it can be very difficult to budge them away from that conclusion regardless of how unwarranted that conclusion was in the first place.

Bloomberg’s Large Soda Ban

Mayor Bloomberg of New York is trying to ban large sodas in an attempt to rein in the obesity epidemic being experienced by the city and the rest of the country.

Reading the New York Times article about the initiative is utterly surreal.

The poorest city borough, the Bronx, has a whopping 70% of its residents listed as obese or overweight and it was from the Bronx that the Times got its quotes.

The argument is whether community programs and education should be the weapons against obesity rather than attempting to legislate what people can and cannot access to eat and drink. Simple logic says that, based upon the quotes, voluntary stuff isn’t going to work.

I realize that it’s unfashionable to make fun of people who demonstrate their stupidity, but there comes a time when it almost becomes necessary.

Let’s start with the lady that claims to never have heard of previous anti-obesity efforts. She’s 5’2” and weighs 200 lbs. That’s a BMI of 36.6 which is obese class II.

Then there’s the guy, at 5’9” and 210 lbs. for a BMI of 31.0, and his wife, who’s also obese, who claim that nothing has worked. He swears that they have sworn off fried foods, attended health fairs, used coupons for a farmers markets and walked in a park for exercise in the past year but he didn’t lose any weight and she gained 20 lbs.

After that we get the lady that says she’s “trying to lose 40 pounds,” but said a ban would no more help her stick to her diet than the calorie counts posted on menus, another anti-obesity measure that city leaders hoped would lead consumers to make healthier decisions. She still orders her Big Macs.

Here’s a suggestion for you, stop ordering Big Macs. As a matter of fact, skip Mickey D’s altogether for a while.

But my favorite was the woman that said “If I eat cheeseburgers and fries, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough.”

How about, don’t eat cheeseburgers and fries?

Look, I’m not a health nut, and I do realize it can be hard to stay in shape, but it’s hard to pay income tax as well. These people are clearly incapable of getting their weight under control without help and that has a negative impact on all of us. Obesity causes preventable illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure that tax an already overburdened health care system.

You can’t legislate their menu or activities but you can make unhealthy options less available and healthy ones more available. I agree with Bloomberg’s initiative.

By the way, if you’re wondering, I’m 6’1” and I weigh 190 lbs. for a BMI of 25.1, so I’m on the border of normal vs. overweight.

Concerns about November

If Obama is trying to throw the election, he’s doing a pretty good job of it.

He’s starting to really get me pissed off. No matter how dysfunctional congress may appear to be, ruling about things like immigration law through executive fiat doesn’t strike me as justified.

I happen to support the DREAM act. I believe that people brought here as children and are Americans in all aspects of the name except technically, should be given a fast track to citizenship if they meet certain criteria. Now we can fight over the criteria.

I don’t have a problem with the criteria in the presidential order which requires that the individual have been brought here before they were 16, is under the age of 30, has lived in the U.S. for at least 5 consecutive years, has graduated high school or served in the military and has a “minimal” criminal record where “minimal” is defined as no felony convictions, no “significant” misdemeanors and no multiple misdemeanors. Although one has to wonder what the definition “significant misdemeanor” might be.

I just don’t think it’s up to the president to create new law by executive decree and that is essentially what this is. The last time I checked the constitution there was no “dictator” provision. The job of the president is to enforce the law and not create it.

If the Republicans didn’t have their heads so far up their asses… Bah, and that’s why Obama knows he can get away with it. The Democratic Left Wing base, of which I am an upstanding member, is sort of trapped. What’s our alternative?

People that call themselves moderates aren’t as limited. We could easily end up with President Romney. Now if Mitt wasn’t mortgaged up to this eyebrows to the radical right that might not be such a bad thing. Unfortunately he is and that concerns me. On the other hand, if this is the way King Barack operates when he has a election coming up, what’s he going to be like after winning a second term?

Hebrew National not Kosher?

I admit I’m a cynic. But even cynics like me have certain things they accept as true with limited or no evidence, and certain people they have faith in.

I always had faith in Hebrew National. I BELIEVED that they believed they answered to a “higher authority” despite my lack of belief in that authority. So imagine my dismay when I read that consumers have sued ConAgra foods claiming that hot dogs and other products sold under its Hebrew National brand were in fact not kosher.

Oh the shame of it all!

Ok, I rarely eat hot dogs because my youngest daughter won’t touch them after reading a story about some of the less than appetizing stuff that gets into them. Me, I’m not that picky since I know just about all foods have that kind of stuff in them. Still, on the rare occasions that we indulge, we always get Hebrew National because we always figured the quality was a step or two above other brands.

I feel betrayed. Another of my childhood truths appears to be on the verge of collapsing.

According to the lawsuit, a supplier for ConAgra, AER Services Inc., didn’t adhere to the stringent standards required to label meat kosher, ignored employee complaints and even threatened retaliation against those employees.

Sounds like another example of the workforce wanting to do the right thing while management focuses on the short term benefit of skimping. I say short term because if AER loses their contract with ConAgra they’ll probably be hurting big time.

AER apparently is not a party to the lawsuit which sets up an easy out for ConAgra; they can simply promise to dump AER if the charges appear to be true.

Of course AER says that the allegations against them are utterly false.

We shall see what we shall see here. It wouldn’t be the first time a disgruntled employee made up stuff about their employer either. Still, certain people and companies are supposed to stay up on their pedestal and the Hebrew National brand is one of those. When they fall off a cry of dismay is appropriate.

Pacquiao and Bradley

Leave it up to boxing to generate controversy.

I used to be a boxing fan, but I sort of lost interest about 10 years ago. I can’t remember the last time I actually watched a live fight on TV and I’ve never been to a boxing match. Still, I’m pretty familiar with the basics and with the somewhat sordid history of the game.

Timothy Bradley was not supposed to beat Manny Pacquiao. The fight was supposed to be a minor stopover on the way to a Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight. That may still happen but now that big payday has at least been delayed until Pacquiao settles some unfinished business with Bradley.

Pacquiao was supposed to make short work of Bradley but Bradley just didn’t co-operate, or, perhaps more accurately, the judges didn’t co-operate and Bradley won a split decision. Two judges scored the fight 115-113 for Bradley and the other scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao. Most of the press and the HBO commentators seem to have had the fight for Pacquiao by margins as high as 119-109.

So was Manny robbed? I doubt it. Even the judge that scored in favor of Pacquiao had it very close and boxing is a very subjective thing. If judges do their job right, they score round by round without considering the overall result.

Unfortunately, at least one of the judges, Cynthia Ross, has been here before and has a list of controversial decisions. The fact that she is apparently, based upon her Facebook page, bisexual, just confuses the issue given Manny’s recent comments on Gay Marriage.

The other judge that scored for Bradley, Duane Ford, is 74 years old but appears to have pretty much a spotless record and, based upon recent comments, appears comfortable with his decision.

I didn’t see the fight so I can’t comment on the scoring. Besides, I never claimed to be capable of judging a boxing match. If HBO puts it on On-Demand, I might watch it to see what all the hulabaloo is about but I’ve already been a bit tainted.

The bottom line is, given the subjectivity of the scoring, going to the judges is always a bit of a risk and it’s just about a crap shoot in a close fight.

So my personal opinion is it was just one of those things and all this screaming about investigations is a waste of time. Even if the WBO reviews the fight, watching on video tape is not the same thing as being there surrounded by the smells and sounds. We notice thousands of little things in person that don’t transfer to the video tape.

Let the decision stand and move on to the rematch. Maybe that will give enough time to set up the fight with Mayweather.

As I understand it, the big issue with Pacquiao vs. Mayweather is Manny wants a 50-50 split and Mayweather is insisting he should get the Lion’s share of the gate. I can solve that one, sign a contract that ties the split to who wins the fight.

Now for the General Election

Now that Romney is, pretty much, the official nominee, we can get on with the general election.

Things have tightened considerable, as expected, and Romney actually out raised Obama in May. I suspect things will stay at pretty much a dead heat until close to the election. Hopefully Obama will make mincemeat out of Romney in the debates, but you never know.

Like many people I’m disappointed in Obama. I had so many high hopes and most of them ended up crushed on the floor of congress. I had to learn all over again that while the Republicans are competent but dishonest, the Democrats are honest but incompetent.

Like Will Rodgers used to say, I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.

So would I vote for Romney? Not a snow ball’s chance in hell.

If he was a Democrat I might think about it but I can’t vote for the representative of a party that has people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann in places of influence and that has again nominated Roy Moore for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

To say that the Republican Party, or at least certain wings of the Republican Party, are stepping all over traditional American principles would be an understatement. And they call themselves Patriots.

Let’s talk about Roy Moore for a second. This is the yo-yo that, while Chief Justice, erected a stone monument with the Ten Commandments on it at the Alabama Supreme Court. When a federal judge ordered it removed since it violated the U.S. Constitution, Moore refused and was subsequently removed from office.

After two abortive attempts at governor, Moore has again won the Republican nomination for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Republican Party says “The Alabama Republican Party stands firmly behind Judge Roy Moore to serve as the next Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”

In the meantime “Judge” Moore and his Foundation for Moral Law are defending an Alabama Town that wants to use a Bible verse on its welcoming signs.

Moore says he doesn’t regret what he did because the federal judge had no right to tell him to remove the monument and the federal judge had “violated not only our Constitution but the case law of the United States Supreme Court which says our religious freedom comes from God.”

How the f--k did this bozo get through law school? Please cite WHERE in the Constitution or SCOTUS case law that it says our “religious freedom comes from God.”

The Anniston Star editorial board has argued that a candidate for the position of Chief Justice should not “promote his own particular brand of religion and tie it to questionable constitutional interpretations.”

I agree with that, but apparently the morons that live in Alabama don’t have a problem with Moore’s “brand of religion” or “questionable constitutional interpretations.”

How can you vote for a party that nominates such a man for such a position of responsibility?

The CNN/ORC Poll on Gay Marriage

A new poll commissioned by CNN and conducted by ORC International provides additional evidence that American opinion on Gay Marriage has swung to the “In Favor” position.

In a poll of 1,009 adults, 756 via landline and 253 via cell phone, CNN/ORC found 54% in favor of recognizing gay marriages as valid and 42% opposed. This is a swing of 10 points since 2008 when 44% were in favor and 53% opposed.

More interesting is the breakdown by age group. Those in the 18-34 age group were in favor by 73%-24% and those in the 35-49 age group were in favor 55%-43%. Those in the 50-64 age group were slightly opposed 50%-46% and those 65 or over were strongly opposed 62%-34%. It’s unfortunate that older Americans are more likely to vote.

Education appears to matter as well. Those with a college degree were in favor by 60%-37%. Those with no college were opposed 50%-47%.

As for political affiliation, no surprise there, Democrats were in favor 70%-28%, Independents were in favor 60%-37% and Republicans were opposed 72%-23%. And they wonder why Democrats and Republicans can’t work together.

As for region of the country, the West was most in favor 65%-32%, followed by the Northeast 63%-32%, then the Midwest 50%-47%. Only the South was opposed (duh, ya think?) 52%-44%.

Urban and suburban dwellers were in favor by an almost identical 58%-39% and 57%-39% respectively. Rural dwellers were opposed by 56%-40%.

Another question I found interesting was whether someone thought sexual orientation can be changed. Even groups opposed seem to be coming around to the realization that sexual orientation is fixed and that’s the first step to acceptance.

So how come Gay Marriage can’t win at the polls?

Part of that is probably that the people most likely to vote are also those mostly likely to be opposed. Most votes have also taken place in more conservative states.

Maine may be the first state to approve Gay Marriage by popular vote this fall. It’s going to be close despite recent polls showing 58%-40% in favor because the anti-gay marriage crowd hasn’t started its dirty tricks campaign yet. Oregon and Maryland may also have votes trying to repeal the Gay Marriage laws passed by the legislatures. These are not traditionally conservative states so we shall see.

I believe (hope?) that’s once the people of a single state stand up and say “AYE,” the floodgates will open because it will be hard for other Americans not to follow. When that happens one of the last bastions of overt discrimination will topple and that will deal a severe blow to religion.

That blow won’t be fatal of course but hopefully it will further weaken an already teetering Catholic Church and drive folks, especially young folks, away from fundamentalist sects.

Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution by Linda Hirshman

Ms. Hirshman’s book apparently declares 2011 the year of victory for the gay rights movement. The book further appears to declare that the reason for the victory was the LGBT adoption of the moral high ground. In other words, homosexuality should not simply be tolerated, but homosexuality is normal and good.

Personally I think Ms. Hirshman is declaring victory a bit too soon. It’s sort of like George Bush’s declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq.

While a don’t doubt that victory is inevitable, I wouldn’t say it’s been achieved quite yet. Hirshman’s book does raise an interesting question for those of us that support the movement though. Do we actually accept homosexuality as normal or are we just tolerating it?

To my surprise I realized that I’m not sure. As a pure heterosexual attraction to your own sex puzzles me and, I have to admit, there is a definite “yuck factor” associated with homosexual acts. I suppose homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexual acts.

So does that mean I merely tolerate rather than accept? I honestly don’t know.