He Wants His Snakes Back

The pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name Church in Middlesboro Kentucky would like his snakes back.

The pastor was transporting the snakes, three rattlers and two copperheads, through Tennessee after purchasing them in Alabama (They sell snakes in Alabama? WTF?) for $800. Apparently our good pastor was stopped on Interstate 40 by the Tennessee Highway patrol for having windows with too dark a tint (Your car windows can have too dark a tint in Tennessee? WTF?) and the snakes were confiscated.

It seems that it’s illegal in Tennessee to possess any type of poisonous snake without a permit and typically only zoos and educational facilities can get one of those. Tennessee also has regulations about transporting poisonous snakes. Gee, good thinking. These are the first rational things I’ve ever heard about Tennessee.

In Kentucky, on the other hand, you can have poisonous snakes as long as they’re native species (You can keep poisonous snakes in Kentucky? WTF?), which of course the rattlers and copperheads are, and you have less than five of each species. You also need a special permit to bring snakes into Kentucky (GOOD thinking!).

Why would this guy want snakes you ask? It’s biblical. This church believes in a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

There’s no polite way to say this so I’m just going to say it. Our pastor is a nut.

First of all, most objective scholars are convinced that Mark didn’t write Mark 16:9-20 but that it was added much later. Objective scholars are those that don't pursue biblical scholarship with the sole purpose of defending conservative Christian interpretations. In other words people that actual care about the truth.

There are actually four different endings to Mark.

The oldest and best manuscripts end after Mark 16:8, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”

One manuscript continues after Mark 16:8 with “Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen,” but doesn’t have verses 9-20. Other manuscripts have this additional text and then continue on with verses 9-20.

The modern ending to Mark eliminates the “Then they quickly reported...” verse, which is an obvious interpolation that even contradicts the previous sentence, but continues on with verses 9-20.

There are a lot of arguments about what is the real ending to Mark including one that says the verses that originally followed Mark 16:8 are lost. I have no dog in that race but, in order of probability, I think it's most likely the original Mark (1) ended at Mark 16:8, (2) continued on with Mark 9-20 or (3) continued on but the original verses are lost.

Even if you’re of the mind that Mark 16:9-20 is a legitimate part of the Gospel of Mark, it doesn’t say POISONOUS snakes you twit!

How can anyone take Christianity seriously?

The Jesus Portrait

A Middle school in Jackson Ohio has had a huge devotional picture of Jesus near the entrance of the school for over 60 years.

Recently someone complained and the ACLU and FFRF threatened a law suit if the picture wasn’t removed. Liberty Counsel convinced the school board to choose to go to court saying the picture belonged to a student club and was therefore student free speech.

It was the wrong choice. Clearly Liberty Counsel is grinding its own axe and giving the school board bad advice. Can you spell “conflict of interest?”

The school originally admitted that it had been presented the portrait as a gift from the student group and then it back peddled and said no, it belongs to the student group. Right there you know, that they know, it's unconstitutional and they're trying to hide behind student free speech.

But even student free speech doesn’t allow you to hang a huge portrait of Jesus in the school hallway!

Student free speech is not unconditional. A public school cannot display religious icons, period, end of discussion. The SCOTUS has repeatedly made that point. If the students want to wear t-shirts with a picture of Jesus, that's cool as long as other students can wear pictures of Thor, Odin, Vishnu, Zeus or any of the thousands of other gods men have worshipped through the centuries. That’s student free speech.

The board is going to get sued, they're going to spend a lot of money, and they're going to lose.

Gays in the Boy Scouts

I’ve been following this “discussion.” I have to put “discussion” in quotes because while everyone is talking and expressing opinions, they’re clearly not discussing. They’re just talking to the ether as it were.

It’s a little hard to pin down the actual objections but they seem to fall into two basic categories. The first is an objection to homosexuality itself. The key is how can an organization that claims to be “morally straight” accept immoral and sinful behavior?

I think the point here is that not everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral and sinful behavior. Granted, many of the groups that sponsor scout units do take that view. But the national board wouldn’t be forcing them to accept gays. For those units nothing would change except possibly for one little thing.

Rather than the national organization being the target for activists, individual units could be targeted. Have you ever heard the phrase “divide and conquer?” I don’t know how realistic a concern this is, the economics don’t seem to make sense, but I guess you never know. Now the Girl Scouts, who accept both gays and atheists, don’t seem to have any problems. But things always seem to be more serious when the boys are involved.

Besides, that gets us to the second objection. The concern that allowing gay leaders into the scouts would increase the chances for sexual abuse. There is no disagreement about the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual abusers are male.

I’ve heard a number of right wing types ask would you let your teenage daughter share a tent in the woods with an adult male leader? Obviously the answer is no. Even the army doesn’t put males and females together in the same tent. But neither do the scouts have adults and scouts sharing a tent or at least they didn’t when I was a scout back in the stone age.

Impropriety is impropriety and I suspect it would be avoided in any case.

Opponents of gay inclusion seem to talk out of multiple sides of their mouths on this question on different days. On Monday they’ll claim that homosexuality is tantamount to pedophilia but on Tuesday they’ll back peddle and claim they meant that homosexual pedophiles would be drawn to the opportunity.

So which is it folks?

That homosexuality and pedophilia are synonymous, or even highly correlated, is demonstrably false. My understanding of pedophilia is that it is independent of sexual orientation, almost an orientation in itself, but one that is inherently harmful because the child, by definition, cannot give informed consent.

Pedophilia can overlap with heterosexuality or homosexuality which is why most pedophiles are also heterosexual. Jerry Sandusky, constantly being named by the right wing as an example of the horrors that will occur, was actually heterosexual even though he victimized male children. It’s the youth of the victim that attracts the pedophile and not the sex. The last I looked the probability of anyone being a pedophile was the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

That means that the scouts have the problem now just like Penn State had the problem. Allowing gay leaders isn’t going to change anything.

But what about openly gay scouts?

There are gay scouts today that stay in the closet for various reasons. I doubt “because the scouts would kick me out” is high on that list of reasons. That means there are probably gay scouts now so again, nothing really changes.

The bottom line is I see no rational reason for not lifting the global ban. As long as individual units can decide for themselves nothing really changes other than the acknowledgement of reality. Ok, granted, acknowledgement of reality isn’t high on a conservative’s list of “talents.”

No rational reason, but what about emotional reasons?

Given the amount of noise this issue has raised, it’s quite possible that lifting the ban will result in a devastating backlash with large numbers of parents pulling their kids from the program and leaders quitting.

Could it cripple the scout organization? It’s possible.

So now comes, to my mind, the big question, is this change important enough to risk the survival of the scouting organization?

Personally I think that risk is modest and this is a change that ultimately will make the organization stronger. Fifty years from now scouts, and everyone else, will be flabbergasted that there was even a debate.

Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

In an announcement that shocked just about everyone, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he will resign the papacy as of February 28, 2013.

Benedict said that he no longer has the strength to meet the duties and obligations of the office.

I'm not what you would call a fan of Pope Benedict, to be quite honest I'm what I call excessively neutral, but I give the man credit for having the courage to do what he thinks is best.

Here's hoping he has a long and peaceful retirement.

No BSA Decision

The Boy Scouts executive board has decided that "due to the complexities of the issue," it's going to kick the decision on lifting the Gay ban down the road to May.

It's hard to interpret this decision not to make a decision but I'm guessing some members have gotten cold feet and more lobbying is required.

The ban will eventually be lifted. If not in May then somewhere down the road. Moving the decision to the individual units makes too much sense not to do it.

A Nuclear Iran

It’s becoming clearer that Israel is not going to let Iran develop an atomic bomb.

The Israelis are keeping a close eye on the amount of enriched uranium the Iranians have managed to accumulate. If and when that quantity approaches the amount needed to construct an atomic bomb, an attack by the Israeli air force, or an ultimatum to the west, is almost guaranteed.

The primary danger here is the US either supporting the Israeli strike or, worse, doing it ourselves because we have a higher probability of success striking from the Persian Gulf.

A unilateral Israeli strike would be bad. A US strike, or US participation in a strike, would be a goddamned disaster.

We don’t need another war. The Obama administration needs to make it clear to Netanyahu the Dense that if the Israelis start a war, they’re on their own.

Super Bowl XLVII

Ok, so I blew it again. I never learn. I picked against the Ravens in all four games on my way to a 6-5 record through the play-offs.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for the networks to call and offer me an analysts job huh?

First and goal on the 6 and the Niners couldn't push it in. Ah well, final score Ravens 34, 49ers 31.

Errors in the Bible?

Apologetics is the art of defending the faith against criticism. Every religion has their apologists but Christian Apologists tend to take center stage in Western culture.

Make no mistake about it, they’re quite clever and their job is a lot easier than you might think; it’s easier because their objective is not so much to convince the skeptic as to reassure the faithful.

An Apologist doesn’t have to worry about probability or even reasonableness. Any explanation, no matter how much of a stretch, as long as it’s possible, is good enough. Even multiple contradictory explanations are often put forth.

There are no errors or contradictions or embarrassing statements they don’t have an explanation for. Some of those explanations are utterly mind boggling but seem to satisfy most of the congregation.

Consider this statement.

Leviticus 11:6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

Rabbits are not ruminants and therefore most certainly do not chew the cud. Obvious error right? Not according to your neighborhood apologist.

Rabbits do rechew partially digested droppings, called cecotropes, to extract additional nutrients. To the casual observer this could appear to be chewing the cud so this is a favorite explanation as to why this is not an error. It’s not a very good explanation since anyone that observes rabbits would note the difference.

Of course you see the problem here. This explains why the Hebrews might have been under a misimpression, but it doesn’t explain why an all-knowing god would. The explanation is usually something to the effect that God was speaking to the Hebrews based upon their understanding of things.

This sort of says that God figured the Hebrews were too stupid to comprehend the reality of the situation so he left them with their simplified, but mistaken, impression. Nice guy.

Now an all-knowing God should have been able to figure out the confusion this was going to cause down the road. It would have been trivial to clarify the situation by saying something like “The rabbit, which appears to chew the cud but is really chewing its own droppings, is also unclean for you.”

I think the Hebrews could have handled that bit of information.

Similar explanations are provided for calling a bat a bird and saying insects have four legs when they have six.

Bats are explained by claiming that the Hebrews probably thought the bat, because it had wings, was a bird and God was speaking to them based upon their understanding even though it was wrong. As for insects, the claim is since the focus was upon leaping insects, such as grasshoppers, the Hebrews didn’t consider the two hind “jumping” appendages as legs.

The same objection applies to these explanations. It tells us why the Hebrews might have been wrong but doesn’t really explain why God didn’t correct their misimpressions and head off trouble down the road.

If the author was an ancient Hebrew, these apologetics explain why he got it wrong but it’s still wrong. They don’t explain why God didn’t correct the situation if for no other reason than to avoid the current objections which, if he’s really all-knowing, he would have known were coming.

Unless of course he just doesn’t care.

Your choice. Either the bible authors were fallible humans or an infallible God who didn’t care enough about his creation to make it right.

Boy Scouts Rethinking Gay Exclusion

The rumor is that the Boy Scouts of America are having second (third? fourth?) thoughts about the blanket exclusion of gay scouts and leaders. The rumor is they’re thinking about allowing each scout unit to make up its own mind.

The Girl Scouts don’t seem to have a problem with allowing Gays to be members, or allowing Atheists to replace “God” in the Girl Scout Promise with whatever word they’re comfortable with, so why can’t the Boy Scouts grow up.

Even if they change the rule on Gays, the blanket exclusion of Atheists would continue.

BSA membership has declined by approximately 20% since 1999 from 3.4 million to 2.7 million. I doubt that decline has much to do with the exclusion of Gays and Atheists. More likely its due to a perceived “lack of coolness” but given the ongoing lousy publicity, I’d expect the decline to continue.

This is a step in the right direction but it still condones discrimination. Given the number of church based scout units, I don’t see this "decision" changing much. According to Wikipedia the largest single group of scout units, 37,800, are sponsored by the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church is third with 8,500. It’s pretty safe to assume that these units aren’t going to change their policy.

So this is pretty much a “have your cake and eat it too” attempt that the scouts hope will restore the funding lost by their current blanket exclusion. Here’s hoping Merck, Intel, UPS, and the other corporate sponsors that have pulled their support, hold out for something with a little more substance.

Credit Card Fees

Starting yesterday, merchants have the option of passing the credit card fees they pay to people like Visa and Mastercharge, on to the customer except in the 10 states which prohibit the practice.

The fee ranges from 1.5% to 3% with the larger stores, like Wal-Mart, able to negotiate the lower fees while small merchants are usually stuck paying more.

Merchants don't have to add the charge. It's purely optional like some gas stations charging different prices for cash and credit.

The fact that a fee is going to be charged is supposed to be clearly posted near the checkout and also on the receipt. These fees do not apply to debit cards and obviously not to cash.

I use charge cards for convenience and to collect the cash back points. If stores start charging me extra, I'll simply stop using them. I'll also stop shopping where the charges are being assassed if I have an option.  If I go to a gas station that charges different prices for cash and credit, I pay in cash. If I have to shop at a store that charges to use a charge card, I'll either use cash or my debit card.

Expect to see this being phased in gradually to let you get used to it. The bigger stores, that compete on price, will be the last to institute the charge but I'm betting within 10 years every store will be hitting you with the extra fee and most people will simply pay it.

Why do people vote Republican?

In particular, why do working class and rural people vote for the pro-business Republican Party when their interests seem better served by the Democratic Party agenda?

Jonathan Haidt is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality, and he has a hypothesis.

According to Haidt in an article I read on Edge.org, his research has led him to two conclusions. “First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare.”

Haidt believes that many people are more likely to try and come up with reasons to justify their gut feelings than allow reasons to adjust what they “know” to be true. From this conclusion Haidt concludes that the first rule of moral psychology is “feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete.”

I’m not going to argue with Haidt’s point but I do think a lot depends upon the individual, his education and his training.

His second conclusion is that “the moral domain varies across cultures” and his second rule of moral psychology is that “morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.”

Based upon these conclusions Haidt defines five “Foundations of Morality.” These are "1) harm/care, 2) fairness/reciprocity (including issues of rights), 3) ingroup/loyalty, 4) authority/respect, and 5) purity/sanctity.”

Haidt’s hypothesis states that while liberals and Democrats tend to focus on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, conservatives and Republicans tend to consider all foundations about equally.

The article then pointed me to a little test to measure my “reliance on and endorsement of” the five moral foundations. Here was the result.

So some things that conservatives think are important are something of a “meh “ to liberals. I'm the green so I'm even a bit more extreme than most liberals.

In some cases I can hold an opinion without feeling it’s necessary to project that opinion onto everyone else. I find mayonnaise disgusting but I’m not trying to outlaw mayonnaise or restrict its use. I don’t like the idea of abortion but I don’t think that gives me the right to restrict anyone else’s access to an abortion. From my viewpoint this is not a concept that conservatives understand.

They tend to be self righteous assholes that think their morality should be everyone’s morality. I tend to go with the Wiccan Creed, “An it harm none, then do as you will” which is of course a focus on "harm."

I’m shaky on abortion because I don’t entirely buy into the premise that it harms none.

Anyway, I certainly agree with Haidt, and my test results, that I’m heavily focused on harm and fairness. I consider myself loyal up to a point. My loyalty ends where my ethics get violated.

As a child of the sixties respect for authority isn’t really in my vocabulary. You have to earn my respect . Simply having a fancy title or powerful position doesn’t automatically get you more than a nominal amount and I tend to take pronouncement from authorities with more skepticism than I take pronouncements from just plain folks.

As for purity, I’m a little on the squeamish side when it comes to certain things but, again, I don’t feel any compulsion to project that onto anyone else. Just because I find it yucky doesn’t mean I think society will come crumbling down if someone else does it, whatever it may be. Now what do you suppose I could be alluding to here?

Where I will attempt to project my opinion onto everyone else or society as a whole is when harm or fairness is involved. That being the case, I guess I sort of think Haidt is onto something.

Poll on Roe v. Wade

In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey 54% polled said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases (31%-all, 23%-most) while 35% said it should be illegal with exceptions and only 9% that it should be illegal in all cases.

As for Roe v. Wade, 70% said it should not be overturned compared to only 24% who said it should be overturned.

According to analysts this survey marks the latest in a trend of abortion becoming more accepted by groups who traditionally opposed it such as women without degrees, Blacks and Latinos.

In the meantime conservative leaning or Republican controlled states continue to erect barriers between women and an abortion.

As I’ve said before I’m shaky on the concept of abortion but I understand that I have no right to decide for someone else. That being the case I support abortion being legal in all cases but believe we should work towards eliminating the need for abortion through sex education and birth control as much as feasible.

No one has the right to decide such a life significant event for someone else.

On to the Super Bowl

If I'd always taken the Ravens instead of always going against them, I'd look like a genius. Of course that would have been terribly misleading.

So I was 1-1 yesterday. The 49ers didn't disappoint but Tom Brady looked like he was lost in Framingham. That puts me 6-4 going into the big one.

So what do I think? I can guarantee you if I pick the Ravens they'll lose so I have to go with the Niners. I picked them to win this year after they lost to the Giants last year and that was with Alex Smith at QB. I like this kid Kaepernick a lot more so how could I not go with them? David Akers salvages his season with a late game winner and the 49ers are champs for the 6th time 20-17.

Gun Law Recommendations

Well, Obama has put his gun law recommendations on the table. They include three legislative initiatives.

Universal Background Checks
The objective here is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Certainly this makes sense and even the NRA, home of some of the craziest people on earth, agree with this one. The weak point is "legitimate guns" can be stolen. The shooter at Sandy Hook stole the guns from his mother.

Ban on Assault Weapons
No one needs an assault weapon for hunting, skeet shooting or target shooting. A shotgun is more effective for home protection. So why the hell would anyone need an assault weapon? The simple answer is they don't. The complicated answer is no matter how you spin it, an assault weapon ban is an infringement on the right to bear arms. I think it's crazy but I don't see this garnering anywhere near the support required.

Ban on Large Capacity Magazines
Again, no one NEEDS a high capacity magazine for normal weapons related activities. But, again, this is technically an infringement on the right to bear arms, so, again, I don't see it passing unless there is some sort of unexpected outpouring of public support.

I don't see the public support thing working. The American public has too short of an attention span. I'm expecting this whole effort to pretty much go no where  except, maybe, for the universal background checks.

Still, like the man said, you have to try. We owe it to the Sandy Hook children to at least try but I'm not terribly confident the effort will succeed and that's a goddamned disgrace.

The NFL Championships

Jeez, I was within 31 seconds times 2 of being 4-0 in the Divisional Play-offs. Instead I end up a lackluster 2-2. How do you give up a 70 yard touchdown with 31 seconds left and the other guys have no timeouts? At least I'm not a Broncos fan because that one hurts.

Almost as bad was Seattle. You come all the way back from 20-0 and take the lead only to cough up a last second field goal.

Dear Pete Carrol, I want you to spend all winter thinking about two things. First, the chip shot field goal you didn't go for AND didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 3rd and 1 AND didn't give it to Marshawn Lynch on 4th and 1. Pete, when you have a Marshawn Lynch you give him the freaking ball when you desperately need a yard. If you weren't making the calls, you should have been. Second, that laughable clock management at the end of the 1st half. What the hell was that?

As for John Fox...John, you have Peyton Manning at QB and the best short passing game in the league. You THROW the freaking ball on 3rd and 7 instead of running into a nine man box. You get the first down and the Ravens are in a world of hurt. And if you weren't making that play call, you should have been.

Bah, enough with the sour grapes. So I'm 5-3 going into the Championship games.

49ers at Falcons
Like I said, Colin Kaepernick is a real wild card. He was great against the Packers. Can he pull a repeat performance against the Falcons? I should probably go with the Falcons but screw it, I'm going with Colin and the 49ers.

Ravens at Patriots
I'm 0-2 with the Ravens this year and I really don't care for the Patriots but I'm going to go with Tom Brady at home to disappoint the Ravens for the second year in a row.

Should Redskins Change their Name?

The mayor of Washington DC, Vincent Gray, says that if the Skins move back within the DC limits, they should consider changing the team's nickname.

According to Gray, Redskins is an offensive term for Native Americans.

I’m not a Native American so I don’t know. I’ve read that polls among Native Americans show that the majority don’t find it offensive but I don’t know how true that is. I know St. John’s University changed their name from Redmen to Red Storm a few years ago even though the Redmen name referred to their uniform color.

As a Giants fan I’ve hated the Redskins for over 50 years. The only team I hate more is the Eagles. Any year we beat the Eagles 42-7, at home, is a good year. Who cares about the Super Bowl? Beating the Eagles is what’s important! I refuse to see the movie “Silver Linings Playbook” because it’s about an Eagles fan. Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro have been dropped from my “favorite actors” list for playing Eagles fans. I’ve burned my copy of “The Hangover” because Bradley Cooper is in it.

But I digress.

I can’t imagine an NFL without the Redskins any more than I can imagine it without the Giants, Eagles, Steelers, Bears or Packers. It just wouldn’t be the same.

So, from a selfish viewpoint, I say let the Redskins name be.

National Cathedral to Start Performing Same Sex Marriages

The 106-year old Washington National Cathedral, where Ronald Reagan had his funeral, has announced that it will start performing same sex marriages.

Reverend Gary Hall, the cathedral's dean, said performing same-sex marriages is an opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community.

Given the cathedral’s heavy schedule, it will probably be six months to a year before the first ceremony is performed.

Given the howls of indignation from the Religious Right over the first gay marriage at West Point’s Cadet Chapel last month this one should be lots of fun.

Piers Morgan, Alex Jones and Gun Control

Anyone, after watching Alex Jones, that isn't concerned that man has guns isn't paying attention. He's a certifiable lunatic. New World Order? Give me a break. Maybe he should watch out for the Illuminati while he's at it?

No government can institute a tyranny without support of the armed forces. Do you really think the US armed forces would support a dictatorship or a suspension of the rule of law?

If you do think so, then WHY year in and year out does the US Military rank as the most trusted organization among American citizens?

It takes a mind boggling degree of compartmentalization to place trust in the organization you also think you need a gun to protect yourself against.

I also checked Jones' statistics. Yes the UK has a MUCH higher violent crime rate than the US (about 2,000 vs 460 crimes per 100,000 population) but, and this is a very big but, violent crime rates are dominated by assault and the definition of assault is radically different in different jurisdictions and so are the reporting requirements.

The FBI constantly warns against using violent crime statistics alone to compare jurisdictions.

Arguably, a more consistent statistic is Murder Rate which includes involuntary manslaughter as the definition is virtually identical everywhere. The US Murder Rate is 4.8. The UK Murder Rate is 1.2. So with all our guns, we still have four times the number of homicides.

The Murder Rate in Germany (no guns) is 0.8 and in Japan (no guns) 0.4. The simple conclusion is if there are no guns, it's harder to kill someone. I'm NOT saying these numbers are conclusive, but they cannot simply be ignored.

We need to seriously discuss guns in this country but Alex Jones and Wayne LaPierre probably shouldn't be part of the conversation.

As for the 2nd Amendment, if you want to get all Strict Interpretation of the Constitution about it, the only gun anyone has the right to bear is a smooth bore musket or a primitive 18th century rifle.

Oliver Stone’s “The Bomb”

The third installment in Stone’s “Untold History of the United States” focuses on the decision to drop the atomic bomb first on Hiroshima and then on Nagasaki.

Stone makes, or a least strongly implies, a number of points.

1. The Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb if the safety of the emperor was assured
2. Truman was more interested in a show of force for the Soviet Union
3. The Japanese were more concerned about the Soviet invasion than the atomic bomb
4. The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were originally modest and have grown over time

Let’s take Stone’s points one by one.

The Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb if the safety of the emperor was assured
More accurately, the Japanese indicated that they were willing to do so. As to whether they would actually have followed through, and what exact terms they were looking for, is debatable.

Even if total surrender other than the sole condition of the safety of the emperor was on the table, it would have taken someone with significantly greater political stature than Harry Truman to accept the offer.

This was the enemy that attacked Pearl Harbor, the enemy that perpetrated the horrors of Bataan and Corregidor, the enemy that American soldiers had been fighting for four years bloody inch by bloody inch across jungle islands that no one had ever heard of. Franklyn Delano Roosevelt had declared that only Unconditional Surrender was acceptable; Unconditional Surrender has been wrested from the Germans and the American public damn well expected Unconditional Surrender from the Japanese.

Roosevelt had the stature to settle for less, but not Truman. I don’t see any way that this was politically possible given the limitations of the man in the White House.

Truman was more interested in a show of force for the Soviet Union
I agree that this was a secondary factor. As Stone points out Truman was terribly naïve scientifically and appears to have actually thought that the US could maintain a monopoly on the atomic bomb. Learning that the Americans had the bomb, and were willing to use it, certainly concerned Stalin. It concerned him so much that he accelerated Soviet efforts toward developing the bomb themselves.

The use of the bomb probably ended any hope for an agreement to ban the weapons or at least made it obvious that it wasn’t going to happen. I doubt it could have happened anyway. Of course Wallace, if he had become president, might have been stupid enough to trust Stalin but not anyone else.

So, like I said, this was a secondary motive but I doubt it was anything close to the primary reason. Truman probably considered it “icing on the cake.” The real issue was ending the war with Japan.

The Japanese were more concerned about the Soviet invasion than the Atomic Bomb
This was one I hadn’t heard before and I hadn’t realized how extensive the fighting had been in Manchuria nor how many casualties had been suffered. I was under the impression that the fighting had been token as best.

Ok, so I learned something but I still don’t buy Stone’s premise.

Again this was undoubtedly a factor, but was it the primary driving factor toward Japan finally accepting Unconditional Surrender?

I have to believe the answer is no and here’s why. Ultimately it was the emperor himself that made the decision and ordered surrender. The Japanese high command might have been willing to fight to the last drop of blood of the last soldier and maybe even the last civilian but the emperor wasn’t.

For the emperor to have intervened and to have actually addressed the Japanese people over the radio was staggeringly unprecedented. Like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extraordinary actions usually require extraordinary reasons.

The Soviet invasion wasn’t extraordinary. The Japanese weren’t stupid. They probably realized from D-Day on that the participation of the Russians was just a matter of time. A long anticipated event wouldn’t have caused the emperor to act.

The Atomic Bomb would have been not only unanticipated but inconceivable to the Japanese prior to Hiroshima. The second bomb demonstrated that it wasn’t a one and done thing. This WAS extraordinary enough to get the emperor to act. Stone is wrong. It was the bomb that forced the issue.

The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were originally modest and have grown over time
The implication being that the casualty estimates in 1945 weren’t large enough to be the driving factor in the decision to drop the bomb.

Stone backs up this claim by quoting the ever growing numbers expressed by Truman over the years and quotes General George Marshall as estimating 31,000 casualties.

While Stone is right about Truman’s ever growing numbers, he’s being very dishonest with Marshall’s quote. Marshall did indeed, by using the Battle of Luzon as a model, estimate 31,000 casualties but within the first 30 days with a total of 70,000 overall. Fleet Admiral William Leahy thought Okinawa was a better model (and I have to agree with him on that one) and estimated 268,000 casualties.

These estimates were only for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushsu, did not include naval casulaties and did not take into account Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu and the capture of Tokyo. They also were fairly early and didn’t take into account the ever increasing discovery of Japanese reserve forces by Allied Intelligence including some 8,000 suicide aircraft.

Let’s look at some other estimates, courtesy of Richard B. Frank in Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House, 1999.

A study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 American casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Imagine what the Japanese total, military and civilian, would have been.

A study by Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan; an assumption not included in any of the military estimates but certainly part of the Japanese Ketsugo defense plan.

Herbert Hoover estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 deaths and may have discussed these numbers with Truman during their meetings in 1945.

D.M Giangreco and Kathryn Moore at History News Network, writing about Purple Heart production, indicate that approximately 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in preparation for the invasion of Japan. They were expected to last until 1947.

There are still 120,000 of those medals available. Young soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are being awarded medals originally made for their grandfathers.

Stone's claim is total nonsense. Clearly there were concerns in 1945 that the number of casualties during the invasion of Japan was going to be horrendous.

Even simple actions by simple men have multiple and complex motives. Often we can't say ourselves with any certainty what the primary reason for an action was. Life is just too complicated to break it down into simple one on one cause and effect relationships.   One can always look at history and find "other considerations" or "other factors." Things that have not been highlighted or even mentioned in the summary of events that history becomes. There is always a simplification process. That doesn't mean what becomes known as "history" is wrong, just incomplete. It always has been, and it always will be.   At least for this episode Stone strikes me as confusing mountains and molehills.

Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States

I switched my cable contract to an updated package which cost less and gave me more channels. As part of the change I got access to Showtime which has an associated video streaming service called Showtime Anytime very similar to HBO Go.

Anyway, I was exploring the Showtime stuff and was intrigued to find a Showtime series directed and narrated by Oliver Stone called “Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States.”

Now my warning radar went up immediately. I mean, we’re talking about Oliver Stone here of the movie “JFK” infamy. I saw JFK and it was total nonsense. Still, I couldn’t resist.

The show is comprised of Stone narrating over vintage newsreel footage and is intriguing to say the least. It begins with World War II and, so far, appears to extend through the Reagan era with a promise I believe of two more shows to come.

Stone’s main premise is “what you know to be true ain’t necessarily so.” It also has a secondary premise of “there’s a lot of stuff you don’t know that maybe you should.”

I would never argue with either premise and especially not with the second one. The problem with the first one is often it’s a matter of opinion rather than one of fact. The same events can be interpreted different ways by different people. I might also point out that the same two premises apply to people doing documentaries on Showtime.

The first premise is also subject to the level of education of the individual. I’ve watched two episodes so far and there was nothing in Episode 1 that I didn’t know. Stone’s big revelation was that it was the Soviet Union that defeated Hitler and not the Western Allies. Anyone with a decent knowledge of World War II understands that.

The second episode was a bit trickier and focused upon the relationships between Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill and the internal politics of the Democratic Party approaching the 1944 convention.

It’s hard to believe today but in 1944 the most Right Wing elements in the country were Democratic Party stalwarts from the so-called solid south. The political landscape consisted of Democrats to the Left, Republicans in the Center and more Democrats to the Right as opposed to today’s landscape of Democrats to the Left and Republicans to the Right with a growing gap between them.

Stone’s basic premise is that Truman was a political hack of limited imagination and intelligence that didn’t follow through on the agreements between Roosevelt and Stalin. Stone paints Roosevelt and Stalin as seeing eye to eye on the emerging future while Churchill held onto obsolete visions of colonial empire. He implies that Wallace, quite possibly the closest thing to a Socialist the country has ever had in high public office, would have followed through.

Stone then implies that history would have been drastically different if the reactionary and big business elements of the Democratic Party hadn’t managed to get Henry Wallace replaced on the ticket by Truman and Wallace, rather than Truman, had become president.

Yeah, I agree things would have been different but I’m not sure they would have been better.

Wallace strikes me as a terribly naïve and trusting sort and I suspect Stalin would have wrapped him around his little finger. Things would probably have gone along to Papa Stalin’s satisfaction until Wallace realized that he’d been had as he did shortly after the invasion of South Korea.

That day did come and, like all naïve and trusting types, Wallace appears to have had a penchant for turning viciously upon those he felt betrayed by. It’s not at all clear to me that Wallace would have been a better choice regardless of any shortcomings that Truman may have had. When Wallace did realize he’d been had all he could do was write about it in his book “Where I was Wrong.” As president he would have had other options.

Wallace was a left wing nutcase. I don’t think he would have been good for the country in 1945 or anytime shortly thereafter. Hell, I don’t think he’d be good for the country now.

The next episode is entitled “The Bomb” and Stone has hinted at “other reasons” beyond the fear of massive casualties resulting from an invasion of Japan for dropping the A-Bomb.

Yeah, I don’t doubt there were; the question is what were their relative importance? If they didn’t exist, would the A-Bomb still have been dropped?

The Divisional Round

Hey, I got three out of four right in the Wild Card round. I thought I was going to pull another both right on Saturday and both wrong on Sunday when the Skins started out ahead 14-0. Guess I should have stayed conventional and taken the Ravens.

So now on to the Divisional Round.

Ravens at Broncos
I’m taking Peyton Manning and the Broncos.

Packers at San Francisco
Blah, this is a tough one. If Alex Smith was still at QB for SF I wouldn’t be hesitant, I'd take Green Bay. Kaepernick is a lot more of an unknown quantity. Still, I really like that San Francisco defense. But can I go against Aaron Rogers? Yes I can, San Francisco it is.

Seahawks at Falcons
Oh this is a interesting one. Logic says I should take the Falcons. Screw logic. I like the Seahawks.

Texans at Patriots
I’m taking Tom Brady and the Patriots.

Elsewhere Chip Kelly of the University of Oregon has decided to stay there and, at least for now, pass up an NFL opportunity disappointing both the Browns and the Eagles. Good move Chip. You do not need the grief. Besides, why the hell would you want to live in Cleveland or Philadelphia? Hold out for New York and either the Giants or the Jets.

Tom Coughlin has to retire sometime and how long can Rex Ryan continue to screw the pooch?

The Crazies

When NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre declared that the solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary school is to put armed guards in all the schools the New York Daily News declared him the “Craziest Man on Earth.”

That might be a bit strong. Granted, LaPierre is bat-shit crazy but the Craziest Man on Earth? Hell, he’s got some tough competition for even the craziest man in America. Here are some quotes from some of LaPierre’s competition courtesy of Right Wing Watch.

Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
In case you’ve missed it representatives, both Democrat and Republican, from New York and New Jersey are furious over the House not voting on a Sandy relief bill. This moron has said that he’s not convinced a relief bill is necessary because “FEMA can’t spend the money quick enough.”

This despite FEMA reporting that the flood insurance program is about to run out of money. Huelskamp appears dumbfounded that people want the aid.

Pastor Kevin Swanson on Generations Radio
On Barack Obama, “…Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx.”

One has to wonder if Swanson has ever read Marx.

On the Egyptian election, “The Egyptians placed a Muslim into the presidency, which does not bode well for freedom in America” and “It’s a sad, sad day in Egypt.”

Am I missing something here? Somehow democracy in Egypt is a bad thing simply because you don’t like the choices that the people of Egypt are making? That’s the thing about democracy. YOU don’t get to choose the government that other people select. As for it being a Muslim that was elected, WTF were you expecting?

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation
“If you want to pin blame on Sandy Hook, blame the Teachers Unions that have championed schools being gun free zones.”

Let me put this in perspective. I work for a military contractor. We have more than our share of ex-military types and many of us have been embedded with military units during training exercises in the past few years. I’ve had the dubious pleasure of ducking tanks at Ft. Hood and watching artillery explosions from a helicopter airfield at White Sands Missile Range.

We’re a gun free zone. You CANNOT bring a firearm into the building. So why the hell would anyone think it’s a good idea to bring one into a school?

Gordon Klingenschmitt of the Pray In Jesus Name Project
“Federal bureaucrats will enforce Obamacare to exterminate the elderly, systematically.”

Huh? Have any of these people actually READ the Health Care Law? I might point out that the same people that criticize Health Care want to scuttle Medicare but it’s the Health Care Law that’s threatening seniors.

The Health Care Law tries to make health care insurance accessible to people that wouldn’t normally be able to afford it. It also regulates what is an acceptable plan for participation in the health care exchanges to be established to help people find plans they can afford.

Does it tax or raise the cost of coverage for those that can afford health care? Yes it does. But so does my health care plan at work. Everyone gets the same coverage but the premiums are based upon your salary. For those making up to $75k, the cost of family coverage is $102 every two week pay period. For those making $200k and above, it’s $297 every two week pay period.

Pamela Geller of Freedom Defense Initiative
“How long do Jews have in Obama’s America? How long before we can’t walk down the street with a kippah or a Star of David? This is already reality for Belgium Jews, Swedish Jews and French Jews. Large portions of Norway are already Judenrein.”

What planet do you suppose Geller lives on? Large portions of Norway are “Judenrein?” WTF is she smoking? I suppose the 70% of Jews that voted for Obama are just plain stupid?

Bradlee Dean at World Net Daily
Dean suggests that the Newtown and other killing sprees are actually a government plot to drum up support for the UN Small Arms Treaty.

“The Sandy Hook shooting occurred just days after Sen. Rand Paul sent out an alert that the U.N. was set to pass the final version of the Small Arms Treaty, supported by Obama.”

It also happened “just days” after millions of other events. Simple proximity in time does not imply a relationship other than pure coincidence.

“Part of the treaty bans the trade, sale and ownership of all semi-automatic weapons … like the one Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children and 6 adults.”

Maybe that’s because these type of weapons are freaking dangerous to have around? Even legal weapons too often fall into the wrong hands as at Sandy Hook. Why can’t gun nuts get this simple fact into their skulls. The simple availability of weapons is a proven danger.

“As we reflect upon massacres such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, Tuscon, Ariz., and Columbine, we cannot help but see the similarities: conflicting news reports on what happened, who did the killing and the number of shooters. Eyewitnesses in all of these massacres said there were more shooters than the media maintain, indicating the shootings were coordinated and planned.”

Right, because eye witnesses are never wrong and during chaotic situations there are never conflicting or wrong reports about what happened. You are one really dumb asshole aren’t you?

I could go on and on but why bother, you get the picture. I’d like to say that we can laugh this sort of nonsense off but the problem is a lot of people accept this sort of crap at face value. The under 80 IQ Republican base eats this sort of stuff up because they’re scared of the world to begin with and this sort of paranoia feeds that fear.

Demagogues and petty tyrants maintain influence by keeping the population in a state of fear. The surest way to peace and freedom is to spit in their eye when they start mouthing this sort of nonsense.

Who Ivy League Staff Supported

96% of the donations from Ivy League faculty and staff went to Barack Obama. The conservative website www.campusreform.org provides the breakdown.

Brown University: Obama donors: 129 giving $67,728 Romney donors: 1 giving $500

Columbia University: Obama donors: 652 giving $361,754 Romney donors: 21 giving $34,250

Cornell University: Obama donors: 282 giving $141,731 Romney donors: 11 giving $8,610

Dartmouth College: Obama donors: 90 giving $51,018 Romney donors: 6 giving $2,850

Harvard University: Obama donors: 555 giving $373,556 Romney donors: 30 giving $34,500

Princeton University: Obama donors: 277 giving $155,008 Romney donors: 4 giving $1,901

University of Pennsylvania: Obama donors: 376 giving $209,839 Romney donors: 26 giving $22,900

Yale University: Obama donors: 399 giving $186,834 Romney donors: 13 giving $8,655

That adds up to 2,560 donations (96%) and $1,547,568 (93%) going to Obama as opposed to 112 donations $114,166 for Romney.

So what’s the Right Wing take on this? That’s it’s evidence of Liberal “bias” in academia. The idea that it might be because smart people tend to make smart decisions never enters their heads.

Only in Kansas

You know the old saying about no good deed goes unpunished?

A mechanic in Kansas saw an ad for a sperm donor which offered $50 for viable sperm. The ad had been placed by a lesbian couple looking to have a child.

Being a good guy, and after consulting with his wife, he donated the sperm for free. The designated mom became pregnant and the happy couple had a bouncing baby something or other (I don’t know the sex of the baby but it doesn’t matter).

Unfortunately the couple split a few years later but they still shared support for the child. Then the non-biological parent fell ill and could no longer afford to provide support.

The biological mother then applied to the state of Kansas for financial aid. Now Kansas doesn’t recognize same sex marriage and has a perfectly reasonable law on the books which requires it to attempt to recoup child support money from anyone who may be obligated to provide it.

So the state of Kansas decided to go after the sperm donor despite a contract he had signed with the biological mother relinquishing all parental rights in exchange for protection from claims of child support.

Of course that was protection from the mother and not from the state of Kansas.

The guy’s lawyer has filed for a dismissal of the case but even if that happens, and it’s not at all clear that it will, he’s already got thousands in legal fees.

This is one of those “you’ve got to be kidding me” deals. Why do I suspect that if it had been a heterosexual couple receiving the sperm donation no one in Kansas would even consider doing such a thing?

The NFL Playoffs

Ok, it’s time for Alencon to make himself look like a complete idiot and proceed to “predict” the NFL playoff games. My pet goat Frankie, picking winners randomly by stomping on cards with his hooves, usually does better but I can’t resist.

Bengals at Texans
I’m seriously tempted to go with the Bengals after the Texans ended up dropping to 3rd seed but I’m going to resist that and go with the Texans.

Vikings at Packers
Another tricky one but I’m figuring Aaron Rodgers pulls this one out. I like the Packers.

Colts at Ravens
I’ve become a believer in Luck. Andrew Luck that is, so I’m going to go with the Colts.

Seahawks at Redskins
The Skins have had an amazing run but it stops next Sunday. I’m going with the Seahawks.

A Fiscal Cliff Solution...Maybe

The Senate passed a Fiscal Cliff avoidance bill by an overwhelming 89-8 vote but Republicans in the House, led by Eric Cantor, appear ready to balk.

They're talking about amending the measure and sending it back to the Senate which could result in an extension of the stalemate. The other thing I'm a little confused about is how what appears to be a revenue bill can originate in the Senate in the face of Section 7 of the Constitution which states "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Anyway, Eric Cantor and constitutional violations aside, what exactly is the supposed solution?

It extends the Bush era tax cuts for individuals up to $400,000 and couples up to $450,000. For those over the limit the tax rate will go to 39.6% up from 35%. The bill also extends the cap on itemized deductions from the Clinton era. This is less than Obama wanted but a lot more than the Republicans originally said they would allow. If it passes Grover Norquist can go suck a lemon.

Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples will go up from 15% to 20%.

It permanently indexes the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation thus eliminatong the need for yearly bandaids.

It extends for five years expansions of the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, and an up to $2,500 tax credit for college tuition. It also extends for one year accelerated "bonus" depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.

It extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.

It blocks a 27% cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. This cut was the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.

It allows a 2% cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent but doesn't address the issue of raising the salary cap which I think is necessary to insure the solvency of Social Security. That would have been a progressive adjustment this is a regressive one that hits low income wage earners harder than high earners.

It Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week.

Overall it's not a solution. It's a bandaid because it doesn't fully resolve the spending side of the issue. It just kicks the spending problem down the road again.

Still, it's better than nothing (I think) and should calm the jitters in the stock market until the spending ceiling debate starts. That should be another fiasco.

Where'd I put that parachute?

It is the evening of December 28th and still there is no agreement on averting the fiscal cliff. Obama is asking for a temporary fix.

In other words delay things and kick the can down the road.

The problem is wht's to prevent that from being the solution the next time as well?

Looks like we're going over the cliff and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Newtown Connecticut

I waited a couple of days to let my anger subside. It didn't work.

When I woke up Friday morning it was a much better world than it is now. It was a much better world before a mentally ill 20 year old killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook elementary.

He also killed his mother, before going to the school, and himself as first responders arrived. He used the guns owned by his mother a so-called gun enthusisast.

The principal, running to the sound of the guns, died attempting to restrain the gunman. The school nurse and four teachers, trying to protect 6 and 7 year old children, died as well. Tell me again how teachers are overpaid and I'll kick in your teeth.

All I could think of Friday were the unwrapped Christmas gifts hidden and waiting in the houses of the 20 dead children.

Mike Huckabee says these things happen because "we've systematically removed God from our schools."

Mike Huckabee is an asshole. What god would you have us install Mike? Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? Marduk? The Lord? The Lady? Mithras? How about her ladyship the Invisible Pink Unicorn? At least then we can all agree that she doesn't exist.

Bryan Fischer says "god" didn't prevent Sandy Hook because he's a gentleman and doesn't go where he's not wanted. Fischer is a bigger asshole than Huckabee.

Being told I wasn't wanted wouldn't stop me from protecting children if it was in my power to do so. But then again, I'm far more honorable than Fischer's notion of god.

Enough is enough. The time has come for us to pretend that the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias and clamp down on gun ownership.

Enough is enough. This isn't the 18th Century. We don't need guns to supplement the family food supply and the idea that they protect us against tyranny is a total bullshit right wing fantasy.

Enough is enough. Time for the gun nuts to find another way to compensate for having small dicks (or for their husbands having small dicks as the case may be).

Enough is enough. Your so-called rights end where the safety of my family, and everyone else's family, begins.

Climate Change Survey

Apparently there is an organization called the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). They claim to be a “nonprofit, nonpartisan research and education organization dedicated to work at the intersection of religion, values, and public life” who’s ”mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.”

Ok, they seem to have some interesting stuff on their web site. The thing that sent me there in the first place was a story about a climate change survey.

Based upon the PRRI survey 63% of Americans agree that the weather has gotten more extreme. A minority, 29%, say it hasn’t and 6% say it’s gotten less extreme. This distribution reminds me of the old joke about being in the loop, being out of the loop and not even knowing there is a loop.

Most objective evidence implies the weather has gotten more extreme or at least has been more extreme over the past few years.

Democrats (76%) and Independents (59%) agree that the weather is getting more extreme. Republicans are, as usual, having some difficulty recognizing reality; only 46% say the weather is getting more extreme compared to 45% that say it isn’t.

A healthy majority of 63% say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of climate change. About a third, 36%, say it’s evidence of biblical end times. Democrats (70%) and Independents (65%) agree that climate change is to blame but only 43% of Republicans agree.

Among Evangelical Christians, also sometimes known as the society of village idiots, 65% say recent severe weather is a sign of biblical end times.

More than 8 in 10 Democrats (86%) and three-quarters of Independents (75%) accept that temperatures have risen over the past few years. Only 54% of Republicans seem to have figured that out.

Here’s a scary one. Nearly 6-in-10 Americans (58%) say that God is in control of everything that happens in the world, while 38% disagree. Here’s an even scarier one, 57% of Americans, including 89% of Evangelical Christians, say that recent political choices made by Americans are moving the country away from God.

Now let’s talk about the end of the world. Among Evangelical Christians, 29% say the world will end in their lifetime. Among those with only a High School diploma 22% agree. Among those with a College degree only 5% agree.

So again we have evidence that education is the cure for Evangelical Christianity.

The Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8.

Any time this court takes up any question I get nervous and this is no exception.

I’m especially nervous over the Proposition 8 case because I find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS will overturn the California Supreme Court decision.

Any speculation is probably a waste of time but I can’t resist making a fool of myself.

I suspect that the court will lean toward making Gay Marriage a state by state issue based upon the 10th Amendment. That would mean striking down DOMA but leaving the individual state laws and prohibitions in place.

The SCOTUS is not anywhere near ready to declare bans on Gay Marriage unconstitutional and, like I said, I don’t think it’s going to dictate to the Supreme Court of California how to interpret the Constitution of the State of California.

That means DOMA goes away but Proposition 8 stands and Gay Marriage again becomes illegal in California. But that would only be temporary. California could pull a Maine, put it back on the ballot, and get Gay Marriage approved.

Why you ask? Because it’s four years later and the Zeitgeist has moved. Black and Latino voters are more open to Gay Marriage. Put it on the ballot at the right time and it will pass.

I might point out that such a decision in the Proposition 8 case would be wrong. The court would be abdicating its obligation to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” James Madison would be terribly disappointed but, unfortunately, even the best political solutions don’t work in all cases.

The Fiscal Cliff Edges Closer

Well, we’re sort of getting down to the wire here. The Republicans seem to be signaling that they’re ready to accept some tax increases if they can get some entitlement cuts as well.

The question is, what would those cuts be?

What Republicans want is a raise in the age of eligibility for Medicare and a change to the way the cost of living adjustment (COLA) is calculated for Social Security.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with raising the age for Medicare and I suspect that will be a part of the final agreement. There has to be some sort of grandfathering clause though that keeps it at 65 for people close to that age (say 55 and older) in order to provide enough planning time.

It would be a little tough to tell someone very close to Medicare age that he’s out of luck.

I am opposed to the change in the COLA calculations.

There are a lot of senior citizens for whom Social Security is the primary source of income. These people worked their entire lives and EARNED that pension. I really dislike the term “entitlement.” Inflation can eat away at that pension and that’s simply not right.

Find another way to save the money. I know, stop giving Boeing, which hasn’t stayed within budget on a DOD contract in forever, less contracts! Less them build airplanes. THAT they know how to do. For everything else, forget it.

Why do the Republicans always want to take from the most vulnerable segments of the population while protecting people who really don’t need any protection?

Are we going to go over the cliff? It seems more likely now than it did a while back but I still doubt it.

My concern is there isn’t time left to iron out a comprehensive agreement and what we’re going to get is a band aid which kicks most of the can down the road. That means another six months or a year of uncertainty that will keep the economic recovery sluggish.

As for the industry I work in it means stagnation. That’s why I’m getting out. It’s time to hang up my guns and find a more reputable way to spend my time.

Nurses Top Most Trusted List

Gallup just published its list of honesty ratings by profession.

The list includes 22 groups ranging from Senators to Car Salesman. Nurses topped the list with 85% saying they had Very High/High honesty or ethical standards, 12% saying they had average standards and only 3% saying they had Very Low/Low standards.

Next were Pharmacists at 75%/21%/3%, then Medical Doctors at 70%/26%/4%, then Engineers (WHAHOO!) at 70%/25%/3% and Dentists rounding out the top five at 62%/33%/4%.

At the bottom of the list were Car Salespeople (are you really surprised?) at 8%/43%/49%, followed by Members of Congress (again, are you really surprised?) at 10%/34%/54%, then Advertising Practitioners at 11%/56%/36%, then Stockbrokers at 11%/48%/39% and HMO Managers finishing off the bottom five at 12%/52%/27%.

Senators came in just above HMO Managers at 14%/39%/45%. College Teachers (they don’t include other teachers) were 7th at 53%/34%/10% just above Clergy at 52%/33%/9%.

I find it interesting that my profession is considered more ethical than Clergy, not surprising, but interesting.

William and Kate Expecting?

Well, we now know what they've been doing don't we (*wink, wink*)? My wife's reaction was "they're entitled."

The word from across the pond is that Duchess Kate is pregnant and experiencing a severe and dangerous form of morning sickness. So severe that she had to be hospitalized. I read somewhere that this may indicate twins. Wouldn't that be wild.

Hopefully the morning sickness ends soon and we can start the baby pool. Surprisingly I find myself interested in the prospect of a royal birth. In this day and age it's a purely benign thing that it's best to simply sit back and enjoy.

I hope it's a boy or even two. I think twins would be really fun. Edward and Edmund anyone?

Well It’s Christmas Time Again

It seems to start earlier and earlier doesn’t it?

I’m trying desperately to cut down on the shopping this year. I don’t mind spending the money, I just don’t like the shopping. I expect to be marginally successful.

The decorations are up around town. To be honest Westwood looks nice and River Vale looks a tad seedy. I think it might be time for a little upgrade or at least an attempt at making things a little more consistent.

I see the Religious Right is again jumping up and down about their imaginary War on Christmas. The fact is nobody really cares except those idiots. Even Chick-Fil-A says Happy Holidays.

They offered a “voluntary separation package” where I work and I think I’m going to take it. Feel free to warn the world that I’m about to have a lot more time on my hands.

Death Penalty Update

Maryland and New Hampshire both seem poised to repeal the Death Penalty.

New Hampshire has never executed anyone under its current Death Penalty statute and Maryland hasn’t had an execution or death sentence since 2005. If both states repeal the Death Penalty it will bring the number of states without a Death Penalty up to 19. In the Northeast 7 out of 8 states would be without a Death Penalty leaving only Pennsylvania blocking the Northeast Region from becoming Death Penalty free.

In the United Nations 110 countries voted in favor of a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions as a step toward the abolition of the Death Penalty. Supporting nations included all of the European Union nations, Australia, Brazil and South Africa. There were 39 countries opposed to the resolution including the United States, Japan, China, Iran, India, North Korea, Syria and Zimbabwe. Thirty-six countries abstained.

Allow me to suggest that the US and Japan might want to look around at the company they’re keeping on this issue.

There have been 40 executions to date compared to 43 in 2011 and 46 in 2012. Fifteen of those executions have been in Texas, six were in Mississippi and Oklahoma and Arizona had five each.

There have been 1,317 executions in the US since executions resumed in 1976. 1,077 of those executions have been in the South, 155 have been in the Midwest, 81 have been in the West and 4, all so-called volunteers, have been in the Northeast. Texas alone has had 491 executions.

Cory Booker and Food Stamps

Cory Booker is the mayor of Newark and has challenged one of those right wing types that think people on public assistance are living a life of luxury to exist for one week on food stamps and he’ll do the same.

I suspect the challenged will disappear into the ether but Cory will have made his point.

Booker may well be the reason why Chris Christie will forgo running for re-election as governor of New Jersey to focus on the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Why you ask? Because Christie may have a better chance of getting the Republican nomination than he has of beating Booker.

Unless there are some really nasty skeletons in Booker’s closet that we don’t know about, the 43 year-old will be governor in 2013 or 2017 and a major player in the Democratic Party for president probably in 2024. He might make an interesting vice presidential candidate in 2016.

Of course I’m assuming Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 2016. I have no idea what the Republicans are going to do in 2016.

I figure the short list at the moment consists of Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindel, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

Rubio would be attractive because of his Hispanic background and because he’s from Florida. The problem is his experience is questionable. Then again, so was Barack Obama’s. If Rubio was smart he’d consider bolting the Republican Party and become a Democrat.

Perry is governor of a large safely Red state and has solid conservative credentials. He just can’t seem to avoid sticking both feet in his mouth at every opportunity.

Christie is Christie and can appeal to a broad base. I’d never count him out but he can be abrasive and that could grow old in a long campaign.

I think Jindel runs into trouble fast because (1) the economy in Louisiana sucks and (2) his school voucher program is going to come under all sorts of fire that will turn off independents.

As for Santorum, the Republican elite is simply not that stupid.

Of course four years is a long time so who knows what may happen on both sides of the aisle.

Israel and Hamas

Things seem to be falling apart in the Gaza strip with Hamas firing rockets and Israel countering with air and naval strikes. The Israeli’s are calling up reserves in case a ground assault becomes necessary.

In the meantime the Egyptian Prime Minister has visited Gaza and is making noises supporting Hamas. He really has no other choice so it’s hard to gauge how far Egypt is willing to go.

This is the sort of situation that can easily spin out of control into all out war.

I hate to be selfish, but we really didn’t need this distraction with the Fiscal Cliff looming dead ahead.

As I’ve said in the past I really don’t have a horse in this race. Israel’s cozying up to the lunatic fringe in the US leaves me cold. The friend of my enemy is in a precarious position as far as my affections are concerned.

On the other hand I have no particular reason to admire Hamas; a group that straps bombs on teenagers and sends them on suicide missions with false promises of paradise.

It would be nice if the UN could figure out a way to calm things down. I would prefer Obama focus on fiscal issues at the moment.

$1.6 Trillion in New Taxes?

The games have begun. Countering the Republican’s ridiculous opening position that any solution to the Fiscal Cliff must include a tax rate reduction, the President has taken an equally ridiculous opening position that proposes $1.6 trillion in new corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy over the next decade.

That’s simply not going to happen and he knows it. Or, at least, I hope he knows it.

This is an opening gambit. Boehner and the Republicans have previously offered about $800 billion in new taxes and a restructuring of the tax code. Obama clearly wants more but then he’s going to have to pony up some additional cuts.

Hopefully he already has those in his back pocket.

This is going to be a game of chicken. Two machos staring at each other about two inches apart each waiting for the other to blink.

Obama is in the stronger position but Democrats are traditionally wimps in fiscal confrontations so I’m betting the Republicans will do a lot better than then they should.

Keep the numbers $1 trillion in tax restructuring and $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade in the back of your head. That’s where I’m betting we end up.

Either that or we’re going right over the cliff. I can make you a good deal on a parachute? Especially designed for the Fiscal Cliff. Personally packed by Ross Perot. No ripcord.

We is gonna secede!

Good, cool, no problem. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Don’t bother to write because we just don’t care about you.

And they call themselves Patriots.

You could try and hold your breath until you turn blue that might help.

The maturity of the Republican Party base is breathtaking isn’t it?

The Fiscal Cliff

Ok, the election is over and now we can focus on the so-called Fiscal Cliff.

The cliff is a series of things that are scheduled to happen on January 1, 2013 including expiration of tax cuts and automatic spending reductions. Tax cuts that will expire include all of the Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax deductions and the tax cuts made as part of the stimulus package in 2009.

The CBO estimates the total impact at about $670 billion dollars. Most financial analysts do not believe that the still fragile economy could absorb that sort of shock. They expect stock prices to plummet, unemployment to jump back up to near 10% and the economy to nose dive into a recession, or worse, in the first half of 2013.

The Republicans have already taken the position that any agreement to head off the Fiscal Cliff must include a reduction in tax rates especially for the wealthiest citizens.

Now, I’m not sure going off the cliff is a real good idea, but I know when someone wants to play chicken. If I were Obama I’d look Boehner right in the eye and say “if that’s your position, I’ll see you at the bottom of the cliff.”

I’d also make it crystal clear to the American public that it’s the Republican intransience that's sending us off that cliff even if the message doesn’t stick and it probably won’t. I’d then sit back and enjoy the ride because it’s going to be a wild one.

At least when all is said and done we’ll know where we are and can start putting things back together. Or, maybe not. Perhaps this is the event that leads to the apocalypse and the end of civilization as we know it. A downward economic death spiral from which there is no recovery until billions have perished and we’re reduced to an agrarian society.

If that’s what the Republicans want to risk, so be it. I’m just so tired of their bullshit.

They Really Expected to Win

McCain knew he was going to lose. In the final days of his campaign he spent more time trying to undo the damage his choice of Sarah Palin and allowing the rhetoric to skew sharply to the right had done to American unity. He did this because John McCain is a man of integrity.

But, apparently from what I’m reading, Romney and his folks really thought they were going to win and win big. This wasn’t just a “keep a happy face on” sort of strategy they really thought they were going to have a big night.

Some of the Right Wing wackos, including Glenn Beck and Tony Perkins, were apparently expecting a big night as well and organized specials to commemorate the victory.

How could this happen when every objective analysis indicated a close race but an Obama edge. The final Intrade odds were 70-30 and the European market had it like 90-10. Nate Silver also ended up with a final 90% probability that Obama would win.

Bad information? Bad analysis of the available information?

I suspect it’s not that easy.

Psychological study after psychological study indicates that Conservatives, and especially Authoritarian Followers, cannot differentiate between belief versus knowledge and opinion versus fact.

That being the case I can understand the confusion of the faithful. But I had always pegged Romney as a Social Dominator who didn’t give a crap about the cause. He was just willing to do whatever it took to access the power of the presidency. Since Authoritarian Followers are relatively easy to control, Social Dominators tend to gravitate to that group and in this country the vast majority of Authoritarian Followers are Right Wing Conservatives.

I’d like to gloat about all of this, and I will be enjoying the gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness over the next couple of months, but I know politics is a fickle mistress and sometime in the not too distant future the Left might be the ones asking “how did this happen?”

In the long run Liberalism always wins. There may be setbacks from time to time but ultimately people realize that if you restrict the rights of someone else your own rights are in jeopardy. The argument comes in figuring out what those “rights” are. If you think about it, that’s what we’re fighting about.

The “rights” currently being fought over include gay marriage, abortion access, gun ownership, religious expression, including prayer in the schools, teaching Creationism, crosses on public land and God in the motto and pledge, and the right not to be forced to do something such as buy health insurance.

I find it interesting that sometimes the Left is trying to broaden rights and sometimes it’s trying to restrict them and the Right is doing the exact same thing. It all depends on the “right” being fought over.

There are subtleties in all these battles and skirmishes can occur in the strangest places as I’m sure Chick-Fil-A and Home Depot can tell you.

We can’t even “agree to disagree.” We have to come to some sort of compromise. You know, come up with a solution that pisses everyone off and sets the stage for the next round of fighting.

In the meantime Florida is still up for grabs but Obama is still leading by about 47,000 votes and Washington appears poised to approve gay marriage which would make it a 4-0 sweep. The Democrats have also picked up two more Senate seats giving them 53 plus the two Independents that caucus with the Democrats for a total of 55 seats. Not a filibuster proof majority but a solid majority. The House is still the problem but Boehner is making all the right noises. Maybe he’s thinking about making a 2016 run?

Election 2012

Overall it was a bad day for the forces of darkness.

I’m happy that my pessimism about the presidential election was unfounded and it took Obama only an extra 45 minutes to clinch 2012 over 2008. Ohio provided the votes that put him over the top.

At last count the Electoral College total was Obama 303 and Romney 206 with Florida’s 29 votes still up in the air. The popular vote stood at Obama 59.6 million and Romney 57 million so the Right Wing numb nuts can’t claim minority president status. It’s not exactly an overwhelming mandate but it will have to do for now.

The House stays with the Republicans 231-191 with 3 seats still undecided. Unfortunately Michelle Bachmann managed to win a close race. Oh well, you can’t have everything. I’m also stuck with Scott Garrett for another two years but I can live with that.

The Senate will stay with the Democrats 51-45 with two independents and two seats still undecided. Democrats Menendez won in New Jersey 58-40 over Kyrillos, Murphy easily beat McMahon in Connecticut 55-43, Warren beat Brown in Massachusetts 54-46 and Gillibrand utterly destroyed Long in New York 72-27.

No longer can gay marriage opponents say gay marriage has never won a popular vote. It won in Maine 53-47 and in Maryland 52-48. In Minnesota they rejected an amendment to ban same sex marriage 51-48. In Washington the votes are still being tallied but approval of gay marriage leads 52-48 with 51% of the votes counted.

That’s at least 3 out of 4 and a very possible clear 4-0 sweep. The gay marriage dialogue now changes forever. Hopefully this will open the flood gates.

There were other disappointments though. California defeated a proposal to ban the death penalty by a vote of 53-47. Three states, Alabama, Montana and Wyoming, voted to limit the Health Care Law either by making it illegal to force people to buy insurance or preventing the setting up of insurance exchanges. Florida rejected a similar amendment. It should be interesting to see how this plays out as the Health Care Law rolls out.

Speaking of Florida rejecting amendments, the legislature in Florida loaded up the ballot with 11 lengthy and confusing amendments some of which were near and dear to a conservative’s heart including one which would eliminate the Blaine Amendment which makes it illegal to fund religious schools.

The voters in Florida rejected all but three and I agree with those three which provided property tax relief to veterans, poor senior citizens and the spouses of soldiers killed in the line of duty.

Amendments rejected included the previously mentioned attempt to allow funding of religious schools, an amendment which would have given the legislature more power over state courts, a ban on abortion funding and a state revenue cap.

Where's the Gas?

I couldn't find any gas station open yesterday evening and I blew some looking for an open station. That leaves me facing Wednesday morning to get gas or I can't go to work.

I checked eight stations last night and every one of them was closed with "No Gas" signs. I would have been happy to wait in line. I couldn't find a line to wait in.

The Gas Crunch

Getting gasoline is still a bit of a problem.

Two many stations simply have no gas. Until stations get supplied things are going to be a bit iffy.

It's unclear whether the odd and even rationing is actually helping. It may simply just have shifted who is in line when.

I'm odd so my days are today, Wednesday and Friday this week. I can't wait until Friday and Wednesday might be cutting it close so, even though I really don't need gas, I'll have to see if I can rustle some up today after the gym.

There's the problem. The time between refills is compressing. Normally I would wait until at least Thursday and possibly even Friday morning before stopping for gas. Instead I'm looking on Monday.

Thoughts on the Eve of Election 2012

I had some optimism four years ago. I don’t have any of that today.

From what I can see the Republicans will hold the House, the Democrats should hold the Senate and, even if they don’t, neither party can achieve a filibuster proof majority.

As for the presidential race, Obama appears to have come back a bit and should be considered the favorite but a Romney victory wouldn’t shock me. It’s going to be close. It’s not even clear it will be resolved Tuesday. It may well extend into Wednesday and perhaps beyond.

The problem is no matter who wins, I don’t see any resolution to the current gridlock in Washington. Perhaps Obama being in his last term might loosen things up and, then again, it may not.

The country is polarized and in many cases for the wrong reasons and often based upon inaccurate information. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

On the gay marriage front there are four major contests. In Maine they’re trying to restore gay marriage and in Maryland and Washington they’re trying to defend it. It Minnesota they’re trying to get an amendment to the state constitution declaring marriage as between one man and one woman approved.

The polls on all of these questions are all over the map possibly because different pollsters ask the question different ways. I am cautiously optimistic that gay marriage will win in two of Maine, Maryland and Washington. It doesn’t look good in Minnesota so a 2-2 split could be the result.

Losses in all four places would be an unmitigated disaster. Victory in all four places would change the conversation permanently. Four wins is highly unlikely but I can dream.

In New Jersey Bob Menendez, a Democrat, should win re-election to the senate. In my home district Scott Garrett, a Republican, should win re-election easily.

Of course none of this helps me find any gasoline.

Sandy

Holy crap did we get clobbered!

This is an absolute mess. I went to work Monday figuring I'd have to take Tuesday off. Well, I got that right. What I hadn't figured on is no power at the labs Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as well. We're still awaiting word about Monday.

I've home from work for four and a half days since they closed the place down Monday afternoon.

Power was out for three days by me. My daughter still has it out by her and a tree fell on her house. Let's not even talk about the gasoline fiasco.

Still, these are relatively minor annoyances, expensive, but still minor. There are over a hundred people dead and not that far from me the Hackensack River ended up in people's living rooms, boats crashed onto porches and at least two houses ended up in the middle of route 35.

Ever see a roller coaster in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? That's where the one in Seaside Heights ended up.

I will give Christie credit. He did seem on top of the situation but it took Cuomo in New York to start leaning on the power companies and taking measures in the gas nonsense. Christie at least had the good sense to follow suit.

The election is Tuesday and if the storm damage keeps anyone from the polls, you can be sure it won't be Republicans.

Obama appears to have gained some ground back so I'm not as pessimistic as I was a while back. I think it's going to be a cat fight. I'll be surprised if the thing is resolved Tuesday night. I'm thinking easily into Wednesday and maybe beyond.

RGIII

I got to see Robert Griffin III live, for the first time yesterday, at MetLife staduim. All I can say is this guy is going to cause everyone in the NFC East a lot of misery over the coming years.

They chased him left, They chased him right. They chased him in the middle, up, over, down and sideways and the guy still made plays. Fourth and ten, late in the game where he should have been nail by Jason Pierre-Paul and he manages a 19 yard completion.

The guy is unbelievable and Mike Shanahan's decision to mold the offense to match what RGIII is used to rather than try and fit him into a pro offense is sheer genius. So far at least the NFL hasn't been able to solve this puzzle.

Of course, it's early yet.

Next week the Skins go to Pittsburgh and then get Carolina before heading into a bye week. But the big games are right after that. They'll play the Eagles at home and then head to Dallas for Thanksgiving. A short digression here. What a rotten thing to do to a rookie quarterback! Sending him to Dallas on Thanksgiving Day!

RGIII makes the Redskins relevent again in the NFC East hunt. Now it's a four team scramble and any one of them could end up on top. The Redskins actually have a bit of an edge because they're playing a last place schedule.

The question is how long can he avoid getting hurt?

His brand of free, unrestrained football is exciting and can drive defenses crazy, but it's only a matter of time before the hits he's taking begin to take a toll. He slows down an step or two and everything changes.

Still, that could be years away or it could happen next week. Or, it may never happen. We shall see what we shall see.

Bible Banners Ok at Football Games

A Texas judge (where else?) has temporarily approved cheerleaders at an East Texas high school displaying bible themed banners at school football games.

Now I’m going to make a very simple statement. I think Christianity is silly and I would prefer not to be subject to its doctrines or its trappings. However, others have the right of free speech and, as private individuals, have the right to express their beliefs.

If they want to put bible banners or quotations on their cars or front lawns, that’s their right and I have to respect that right.

If the cheerleaders were students in the stands, I would agree with the judge’s ruling. But, as students engaging in a school sponsored function (cheerleading) at a school sponsored event (a football game) they are violating the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion and violating the rights of any non-Christians, and perhaps even some Christians, also attending the event.

A non-Christian attending the high should not have to choose between going to the game and having his rights trampled.

When are Christians going to understand this simple fact?

My Healthcare Plan

They’re changing my healthcare plan at work. Like all changes there are some plusses and some minuses but overall I don’t have a problem with the new options.

That’s not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about are how the premiums are allocated.

There are three basic options in ascending order of cost, employee only, employee plus spouse (or domestic partner) and employee plus family.

There are no variations based upon age or number of children and the coverage is exactly the same for everyone. Therefore the young are most likely subsidizing the costs of the old and smaller families are subsidizing the cost for larger families. Yet, I don’t hear anyone complaining.

There’s another premium wrinkle. The coverage is precisely the same for everyone but the premiums you pay are dependent upon your salary. There are six salary brackets. For an employee plus spouse, the lowest bracket premium is $156 a month. The premium for the highest bracket is $428 a month.

This means that the higher paid individuals are subsidizing the health care insurance for the lower paid individuals. Yet, again, I don’t hear anyone complaining.

99 Years!?

Elizabeth Escalona, a 23 year old mother of five (five at 23!?), who pleaded guilty to felony injury of a child for savagely beating her 2 year old daughter and gluing her hands to the wall, was sentenced to 99 years by Texas judge Larry Mitchell.

Mitchell said that Escalona deserved to be punished.

Yes, she deserves to be punished. This lady has serious issues, needs to be tossed in jail, receive therapy and be kept far away from her kids for the immediate future. But 99 years!? I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous.

So now she’ll appeal and we’ll waste more time and money.

I get a kick out of these right wings types that are willing to pay thousands to satisfy their sense of indignation but won’t spend a few cents to alleviate the poverty that often leads to this sort of thing.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, this lady needs to take responsibility for what she did and be punished severely but, in the meantime, I’d get her some psychiatric help too. It’ll be cheaper in the long run.

The Birthday Slipped By

I didn't even acknowledge my birthday this year. Probably because I'm too depressed. I hit 64 on October 5, 2012.

To be honest with you I'm amazed I made it this far. I figured I'd get killed on Route 3 by now.

I'm in pretty good shape. At 6'1" and hovering between 188 and 192 pounds my weight is ok. My blood pressure is in the 120/70 range and my cholesterol is minimal with the HDL having a favorable ratio over the LDL. Even my PSA looks good at 0.9.

That's the problem with people in their 60s. They give you their medical numbers. Before 60 they ignore them and after 70 the numbers are usually so lousy they want to forget them.

Work sucks more than usual as we're in the middle of a drastic slow down and going through "reductions in force" about every three months. I'm hanging around sort of hoping my number will come up so I can retire.

Assuming a don't get a pink slip sooner, I'm thinking of hanging up my guns on May 1, 2013. If, for some bizarre reason I decide not to, I'm definitely calling it quits on November 1, 2013.

So look out world, me having all that free time on my hands might get interesting.

Maybe I'll run for King. I wouldn't want to be president, too many limitations, but King, that might work.

There’s a Heaven says Doctor

Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon that was in a coma for seven days, claims to have had a glimpse of the afterlife.

According to Alexander,“While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity … my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe.”

Alexander further claims “There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well.”

Well doc, just because there is no “scientific explanation” doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation. There used to be no “scientific explanation” for lightening either so everyone figured Zeus was angry.

Here’s the logical problem. If “God” was willing to allow Dr. Alexander a glimpse of heaven, why not allow everyone a glimpse?

Hell, I’m sure all of the networks would gladly broadcast a “Short Tour of Heaven” provided by the divine. Why is Dr. Alexander so special?

The traditional argument for why “God” doesn’t simply put a big billboard up is that it would interfere with free will. Because you aren’t given definitive proof you must have faith and you have free will to accept or reject that faith.

This is of course a theist rationalization. Was Dr. Alexander’s free will no longer important?

Either the good doctor, an admitted Christian, is lying through his teeth or there is a way he could dream while in the coma or during the process of awakening.

I’m sorry doc, but I’m not buying it.

I am now convinced that Obama will lose the election

The lousy debate performance; the continuous stream of lies and nonsense being thrown about and the still stumbling economy I believe spell doom for the president.

I can only hope that it his failure doesn’t drag down the senate Democrats and the Gay Marriage referendums with him.

The debate should have been where Obama put Romney out of the race. Instead it was the greatest disaster since Nixon basically gave the election to Kennedy in 1960.

So now what?

I honestly don’t know. Based upon his retreat to the center after his debate victory, maybe Romney won’t be too bad of a Chief Executive. I guess time will tell.

This conclusion is a big deal because it means I will cease contributing to the Obama campaign. I'll still vote, but it will be half-heartedly.

David Siegel says I’ll fire you if Obama wins

Well, he didn’t quite say that. What the CEO of Westgate Resorts did say was if Obama wins and raises taxes he may have to lay off workers or even shut down the company.

In his e-mail Siegel made the case of how he’s devoted his whole life to the business and now people who didn’t work nearly as hard think they’re entitled to the same things he has.

No David, that is complete nonsense.

How many summer homes and yachts do you need? You’ve had that stinking 3% now for twelve years. You didn’t have it before and giving it to you sent the government budget into debt so the time has come to take it back.

Oh yeah, and the unbridled greed of you and others has skewed the percentage of income subject to Social Security taxes downward from 91% to 87% and is threatening the solvency of Social Security. You have two choices. Redistribute the income back to the working and middle classes to restore the 91% or accept a raise in the Social Security cap to get it back up to 91%.

Your choice you greedy arrogant pig.

In the meantime I won’t be staying at any Westgate Resort until you sell your interest in it which you would do long before you shut the business down.

Welch and the Unemployment Numbers

Jack Welch finds the September Unemployment Rate of 7.8% “implausible.”

I happen to agree with him.

All statistics, and the Unemployment Rate is a statistic, have a margin of error. Usually they’re pretty close but sometimes they can be off by quite a bit and I suspect that this is one of those times.

If Welch had simply said that, no big deal. The problem is he went further and implied that the numbers had been manipulated for political purposes.

Unless he has some evidence other than “funny it should happen just before the election” then that’s just irresponsible nonsense.

The Presidential Debate

So much for my hope that Obama would run rings around Romney.

If Barack doesn't want to win the election, which is how he acted last night, he can just drop out now and save us all a lot of time and energy.

The president was right about just about everything and Romney was wrong about just about everything but debates are not about WHAT is said, they're about HOW it's said.

Romney won this one hands down.