High Court Rejects Arizona Voter Law

An Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Proponents of the law claimed it reduced voter fraud. Opponents said it was a transparent attempt to discourage voting by legal immigrants and the court, by a rather shocking 7-2 margin, agreed.

Federal law requires you to swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that you are an American citizen and, apparently, the states cannot go significantly beyond that.

The Arizona law would have required naturalized citizens to have registered in person with their actual naturalization document since federal law prohibits copying it.

I'm not too worried about this one because "voter fraud" is a Conservative boogey man. There is absolutely no evidence that any significant fraud actually exists.

Arizona, and other states, still have the option of asking the federal government to add state specific instructions and if refused, can sue the federal government to take action.

Glenn Beck's Big News

Can you hear the pillars of power collapsing? Can you hear the crowds screaming in the streets?

Beck has unleashed his scoop!

You'll excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by it all.

Apparently the big news that was going to rock the nation and bring down the entire power structure is a "revolt" by 70 house Republicans against Immigration Reform.

The group, led by Representatives Louie Gohmert (Texas), Steve King (Iowa) and Michelle Bachmann (Minnesota), arguably the three most bat-shit crazy Republicans in the House (and that is saying a lot) are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill.

According to the three stooges leading the revolt, the group is invoking the Hastert Rule, a political procedure wherein the House Speaker does not bring a bill to the floor for a vote unless a majority of the majority party supports it.

This is another way stalemate and lack of progress are enforced in Washington. The "rule." a political courtesy, prevents a bill from passing supported by the minority party and enough of the majority to get sufficient votes to pass.

The rule is not blindly followed but Democrats tend to make more exceptions than Republicans.

John Boehner, the current Republican speaker has ignored the rule four times this term when he felt that the good of the country took precedence over the bat-shit crazy ideas of the majority of his Republican colleagues.

On January 1, 2013 Boehner allowed a vote on the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012" (also known as the "fiscal cliff bill") with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor. The bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).

On January 15, 2013, the Speaker allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy to take place without the support of a majority of Republicans. The bill passed with 241 votes, but only 49 of the Yea votes were from Republicans while 192 Democrats voted for the bill.

On February 28, 2013 Boehner brought the extension of the Violence Against Women Act to the floor for a vote. The bill received the Yea vote of only 87 Republicans while 199 Democrats voted for it.

Finally, on April 9, 2013, the "rule" was ignored a fourth time, on a bill about federal acquisition of historic sites. The bill was passed with more than two thirds of the House vote but without a majority of the Republican representatives.

Like I said, I don't really have a horse in the immigration reform race but I find so-called courtesy rules like the Hastert Rule distasteful.  They prevent things from getting done.

Immigration Reform

I don't really have a horse in this race so the issue is not very high up on my list of priorities.

I vaguely think I would like to see a path to citizenship for those folks that have been here a reasonable amount of time, say five to ten years, are gainfully employed and have no criminal record beyond simple traffic violations in the time they've been here.

I also think knowing English should be a pre-requisite as well as paying some sort of fine and renouncing any and all ties to their home countries. In other words, no dual citizenships.

I'd also like to see some way to limit the amount of money these people can send back to their home country to support whomever. I'm not sure how you do that, or if it's even legal, but I have a feeling there should be some rules about it.

Since the recession the illegal immigration issue appears to have subsided but that doesn't mean it couldn't become a problem again in the future. Along with immigration reform we need to shore up security along the border to insure we don't end up right back here again in thirty years.

Glenn Beck Ready to Rock the Nation

According to Beck, within the next 24 hours he will reveal a scandal that will rock this nation to its core and bring down the entire power structure.

Of course Glenn provides no hint of what this might be about nor even anything resembling a coherent definition of what he means by the entire power structure.

Sounds like fun. Can't wait to hear what he's got. Do you suppose I should withdraw all my funds, sell all my stocks and bonds and hide the proceeds in my mattress?

Watch this page for future developments.

A Special Election for NJ Senator

Ok, so Chris Christie isn't going to appoint someone to replace Frank Lautenberg or at least not for the full remaining term. He will be appointing someone until a special election.

Christie decided that special election will be held in October (October?) with a primary in August which is both sneaky and underhanded while at the same time being fair.

How can that be you ask? Well, on the positive side, we get an elected senator rather than an appointee. On the negative side it's going to cost a bundle of money to have two elections and a special primary in August.

Christie could have simply added the senate election to the November slate except for the fact that would probably bring out Democratic voters that have pretty much conceded the governor's race.

Do you see what I mean about Republicans? Even when they do something "right," it's wrong.

SCOTUS Says Ok to Take DNA

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld police taking DNA swabs after an arrest. The court called it the 21st Century version of fingerprints.

Antonin Scalia joined  justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in dissent.

The court did not consider a swab of the cheek a search.

Scalia, in his dissent, said “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes. Then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane.”

When you consider the logic, it is similar to fingerprinting but you can hide your fingerprints. You can't hide your DNA.

What's next, you'll have to supply DNA in order to get a driver's license?

Somehow this gives me a cold shiver down my spine.

Frank Lautenberg Passes Away

Frank Lautenberg, the senior senator from my home state of New Jersey, passed away earlier today. At 89 he was the oldest serving member of the senate and the longest serving senator in New Jersey history.

Frank was a good man. I met him about five years ago on an Amtrak station in Newark. He and his aid were taking the train back to Washington and I was headed for an NSA meeting in Maryland.

He'll be missed.

Unfortunately Chris Christie gets to appoint his interim replacement. It should be interesting to see who Christie picks. Whoever it is will become the Republican front runner for running against Mayor Cory Booker in 2015.

Christie has a huge lead in the election for governor this year so this can only hurt him if he makes a bad choice.

Schlafly on Gay Marriage

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum may well be one of the most conservative people on the planet. So, naturally, she's opposed to Gay Marriage. But, incredibly, she seems to have no comprehension of the issue.

In a recent interview Schlafly, when asked to comment on a recent Gallup poll that showed 54% of the population in favor of Gay Marriage, Schlafly responded with the following, complete with commentary.

"The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage?"

Actually, no they don't. Typically they ask whether someone is in favor of allowing gays to marry. The Gallup question is actually balanced and asks "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

"Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage."

WRONG! Not only do states have laws against same-sex marriage, 25 states forbid it in their state constitutions.

“Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that.”

Yes, Schlafly is a blithering idiot that would like nothing better than to tell the rest of us how we should live, how we should act and what we should think. Here's a woman that doesn't even understand the legal framework of the issue yet howls at the moon about it on a regular basis.

If you think about this though, you realize that if you're ignorant enough to think the issue is no one wants to perform the Gay Marriage ceremony, because only ordained Christian Ministers can marry people, you begin to understand why someone would look upon Gay Marriage as an assault upon Freedom of Religion.

Of course that's not the case. Gay Marriages are legal in only 12 states. Eight additional states provide for Civil Unions of varying degrees of equality with marriage. Of course different is inherently unequal so none of these, not even New Jersey which by court order must provide equality, are equal to marriage.

Even if Gay Marriage were to become legal in the entire country, I guarantee you religion would be granted the option of refusing to perform Gay Marriages based upon religious convictions.

And they wonder why we laugh at them.

Bachmann Calls it Quits

Michelle Bachmann has decided not to run for re-election in 2014.

Why isn't exactly clear. She says it has nothing to do with a fear she'll lose or the ongoing investigation into some of her aborted 2012 presidential bid finances.

Maybe she's just tired of being called bat-shit crazy.

It's probably too much to hope that we'll never hear from her again.

Bachmann broke all sorts of records for making flat out inaccurate claims. She then usually stuck to her guns despite a mountain or two of evidence that she was just plan WRONG.

She garnered a garage full of Four Pinocchio awards from the Washington Post and another garage full of "liar, liar, pants on fire" awards from Politifact.

Of course Bachmann just claimed this demonstrated the bias of the liberal media. No, Michelle, it's because REALITY tends to have a liberal bias.

I do think it's unfair to call Bachmann a liar. I don't think she was lying as much as she was simply incapable of differentiating reality from fantasy from her position in the Conservative Bubble of Delusion. I've decided to capitalize the CBD because it's becoming more and more a staple of American political dialogue.

Good-bye Michelle. Try not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Boy Scouts End Ban on Gay Scouts

By a vote of 757-475 the BSA voted to lift it's ban on gay scouts. The bans on gay leaders and atheists remain in place. Neither of those questions were on the table.

So it's a step in the right direction but it doesn't go far enough. This is sort of a consolation prize that the scouts hope will end the controversy and restore support.

Good luck with that.

Personally I think it's a half  measure which doesn't yet resolve the issue. Now the ball is in the court of the corporate sponsors to decide if they will restore their financial support.

We shall see what we shall see.

I can't wait to hear the reaction from the religious right. It should be extremely entertaining.

Boy Scouts Poised to Vote on Gay Members

I believe the vote is scheduled to occur tomorrow.

This is always an entertaining discussion. For what it's worth I'll give you my thoughts on some of what I've heard about this question.

The BSA are a private organization and can make whatever rules it wants.
Yes, this is a true statement.  The boy scouts are a private organization and can make whatever rules they want. That is their right according to the supreme court. However, other private organizations have the right not to agree with those rules and to pull funding and support. This one of the issues facing the scouts today. Many large corporate supporters have pulled funding in protest over the discrimination of gays.

I might point out that 100 years ago the BSA was struggling over whether blacks should be allowed to join. Some troops let them join, but wouldn't let them wear scout uniforms. That seems utterly ridiculous today doesn't it? I suspect that this argument over gays will seem ridiculous 100 years from now as well.

Homosexuality is immoral.
Really? Says who? And please don't tell me "God." For all those claiming to know what God says or what God wants, the Girl Scouts allow gays and atheists and the Lord God of Hosts (if he, she or it exists) hasn't incinerated them nor those of us that buy their cookies. I take this as a sign that either God approves of the girl scout policy, doesn't care or doesn't exist, your choice.

I still say the whole proposal is a sham because there are really three choices but only two things you can vote on. If you believe that allowing gay scouts under 18 but dismissing gay scouts after 18 and prohibiting gay leaders isn't good enough, what do you do?

If you vote "Yes," then you accept a half-measure. If you vote "No," then the scout council can accurately but misleadingly say you were opposed to changing the rule against allowing gays.

Benghazi

Speaking of scandals, the Republicans have been banging away at this Benghazi thing for months. I've ignored it because, as far as I can see there's nothing there.

Now we find out that Republicans were so desperate to get a scandal out of this that THEY modified e-mails and leaked them to the press to make it look like the administration did something wrong.

And the democrats are such pussies they'll get away with it.

The fact of the matter is we all expect Republicans and conservatives to lie and say dumb shit so when it happens, they get excused because we all know they can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy.

The IRS Scandal II

Ok, a little more information is starting to come out and I'm a tad confused.

The issue at hand appears to be the review of applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. But it's not only a tax exemption, it's the right to not have to reveal the people who donate to the organization.

There are two types of groups covered under 501(c)(4). The first are "Social Welfare" groups and the second are "Local associations of employees." In this particular case it's the "Social Welfare" groups that appear to be the issue.

These are groups that, according to the IRS code, are "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

Such groups may engage in political activities as long as (a) that is not the groups primary activity and (b) the groups activities does not "include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public of­fice."

Well that's clear as mud. But it gets better. The code goes on to say "if an or­ganization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it may still obtain exemption even if it participates legally in some political activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office."

In other words, they can't participate directly in a candidates campaign but they may still engage in political activity on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates they feel promote or don't promote whatever "Social Welfare" they're involved with?

You have got to be shitting me?

So why wouldn't the IRS take a really close look at groups whose names implied political partisanship?

I guess the big question here is what was the criteria for extra scrutiny and was that criteria biased?

The IRS Scandal

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted conservative groups or groups that were criticizing the government for special scrutiny on their tax exemption applications.

You have got to be kidding me.

Hey, I think some conservative groups are bat-shit crazy and a danger to our democracy but some left wing groups are as well.

You can be sure the GOP will bang this drum long and loud and, you know what, they should. We need to be certain something like this never happens again.

It's Official

Minnesota will become the 12th state to legalize gay marriage. The Minnesota senate passed the bill 37-30 and the governor says he will sign it Tuesday. Gay marriages should begin by August 1st.

So May was a big month with three states legalizing gay marriage. New Jersey is still bogged down due to Chris Christie's veto. That's a shame. The arithmetic doesn't look good for an override.

I don't agree with Christie. He wants the measure to be on the ballot. I don't think someone's rights should be up for a vote.

Moving Toward Twelve

The Minnesota assembly today passed a bill to legalize Gay Marriage. The senate leader believes he has to votes to pass it and the governor has said he will sign it.

In a little side show, supporters of the bill accepted a Republican amendment to change "marriage" to "civil marriage."

I find this suspicious. Federal laws say "marriage." They don't say "civil marriage." I suspect the Republicans are trying to create a different category of "marriage" here. I think they're kidding themselves. All marriages are civil marriages. They may also be blessed or sanctified by a religion, but they're all civil marriages.

9/11/13 - A Day of Prayer and Fasting

Joseph Farah over at World Net Daily (WND) is calling for a day of prayer and fasting to save America.

In the article articulating the supposed need you can find an excellent example of dishonesty meant to stir up the fears of people who have low intelligence and little education. Allow me to provide an example or two, or three, maybe four.

Example 1
"America is facing challenges today that, in many ways, rival anything seen since the start of World War II."

America is always facing such challenges. In the fifties we had polio, the cold war and Joseph McCarthy. In the sixties we had the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam war. In the seventies we had Watergate and runaway inflation. In the eighties we had the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war. In the nineties we had the Gulf War and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In the 2000s we had 9-11 and the Great Recession.

Example 2
"There’s a concerted effort to redefine marriage as any union between people, regardless of sex, possibly regardless even of the number of participants in that union and possibly even regardless of the status of blood relationship between them."

The first statement is actually sort of true (a rarity at WND) even if expressed in a strange way. The statements following each "possibly" however are total horseshit. No one is proposing to legalize polygamy, group marriage or incest.

Example 3
"America continues to abort unborn babies by the millions and has now moved further in the direction of euthanasia on both ends of the life spectrum – possibly even making it a matter of national, state-controlled health-care mandates."

There were 1.2 million abortions in 2011 so saying "by the millions" is a bit misleading but overall the statement is accurate. The claim that we've "moved further in the direction of euthanasia" is at best debatable and at worst total crap. Again, the statement after the "possibly" is total horseshit. This is the old "death panels" nonsense all over again.

Example 4
"Government seems determined to enforce a monopoly on force by making it more difficult for Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to procure and bear firearms."

Really? Really? Background checks to prevent the wrong people from procuring firearms is an attempt to "enforce a monopoly on force?" WTF planet do you live on?

Example 5
"Government and cultural institutions are breaking down the pillars and principles upon which self-government has been built."

Ah yes, the ever popular unsupported assertion. I don't suppose you'd like to provide a specific example of this one would you? No, I didn't think so.

Example 6
"Government is building up its authority and diminishing the role God plays as the supreme authority in the lives of free people."

I'm not even sure what the hell this means. Again, an example of "government building up its authority" would be nice. As for "God" being the "supreme authority," read the Constitution. God plays no part and has no authority in our secular Republic.

Example 7
"Government is broken. No longer does Washington see itself as a servant of the people but rather as their master."

Government isn't broken. It actually does a fairly good job. Congress is broken but not for the reasons this moron thinks "Government is broken."

Consider this, in 2011 ExxonMobil made $41 billion in profit. Yes Virginia, that's billion with a "b" and profit with a "p." That's more than $76 million for every congressman in Washington. Would you like to guess WHO Congress views as the boss?

Ok, enough. I often wonder whether people like this actually believe this crap or they simply think it will stir up the under 80 IQ set and make them money. I'm betting most of the people who say stuff like this are social dominators that are just doing what it takes to lead the authoritarian followers around by the noise and relieve them of what little cash they have.

There have been "wars and rumors of wars" since cavemen started throwing rocks at each other and I don't expect it to stop any time soon. We'll probably always have problems. Of course praying and fasting accomplishes nothing  toward solving those problems.

And then there were Eleven

With little fanfare Delaware voted today to become the 11th state to allow same sex marriage.

Same sex marriages could begin as soon as July 1st.

Can you hear the walls crumbling? Now if we can just keep the SCOTUS away from the trowel and mortar.

The Boy Scout Vote

Well it's May so the Boy Scout council will be voting soon. The problem is this is what I call a "have you stopped beating your wife vote?"

The proposal is to accept gay member into the scouts up until age 18. At age 18 they must leave. This locks the door on any gay leaders. There would be no change of the scout's "no atheists" rule.

The problem is you can either vote "yes" or "no." There is no other option. So if you believe there should be no restriction what do you do?

If you vote "no," because the proposal is incomplete, you essentially vote for the current policy and the boy scouts can say, "see admitting gays was rejected."

If you vote "yes," then they can say "see the proposal was accepted."

Personally I would vote "no" in the hope the proposal would be defeated and the pressure would remain on for a change of policy.

This is the same problem I have with presidential approval ratings. Saying you disapprove doesn't say WHY you disapprove.

Are you disapproving because he's a left wing socialist or because he's not enough of a left wing socialist? If the latter, you're not about to vote for a Mitt Romney instead.

Jason Collins

Jason Collins has just announced that he is gay. What makes this remarkable is that Jason Collins is a professional basketball player for the Washington Wizards of the NBA,

This makes Collins the first openly gay active player in a major professional team sport in North America.

Other players have come out after they retired but no one, before now, has done it while still playing.

Let me tell you, that took guts. A sports locker room is not the place for the faint of heart with all that testosterone and adrenaline flying around.

So far the reaction from politicians, the media and other players has been either positive or silence. Folks from Kobe Bryant to Bill Clinton have expressed their support. The usual suspects on the religious right are, of course, going even more bat-shit crazy than usual but that's no real surprise.

Jason, you the man. I hope this all works out for you.

Now we wait for the 1st gay baseball, hockey and football players to come forward. We all know they're there and it's just a matter of time.

Jets cut Tim Tebow

After one year the Jets have decided to part company with Tim Terrific.

To say the stint in New York was a disappointment would be an enormous understatement. I do not understand why, late in the season, with Mark Sanchez struggling they didn't at least give him a chance.

Now with the draft of Gino Smith from West Virginia, I'm betting we're going to see another circus.

I have an idea, how about the Jets send Rex Ryan packing. I'll bet that would help.

As for Tim, I have no idea. The Jacksonville GM says he doesn't see any scenario where Tebow ends up with the Jaguars and I've always thought that might be the best fit.

So, at least for the moment, the saga of Tim Terrific and the NFL is at a lull but I'm betting we haven't seen the last of this soap opera yet.

Meanwhile, over on Pluto

In case you missed it, the "Awakening" conference, sponsored by Liberty Counsel, was held last weekend at a half full First Baptist Church in Oviedo Florida just outside of Orlando.

As reported by Right Wing Watch headliners included Michelle Bachmann, in person, and Marco Rubio via video.

Right Wing Watch observed that the major themes of the conference included the following, with commentary.

America is in spiritual decline and on the verge of total destruction at the hands of dictator-emulating, jihad-enabling socialist President Barack Obama and his religious-freedom-hating allies in the radical homosexual lobby.

In other words they won't let us force our morality on everyone else and they won't let us persecute everyone who looks different, acts different or thinks different than we do. Oh yeah, and we don't know what the hell socialism is but we know we're 'agin it.

Conservative America, is at war – at war with militant Islam, secular humanism, abortionists, a “radical homosexual activist movement,” and with Satan, who inspires these movements.

So, where's you "god" in all this? I thought he was all powerful? Did he decide to sit this one out?

President Obama is leading America down the road to socialist tyranny.

This despite a Republican house, a conservative supreme court and the fact that you idiots clearly don't know what constitutes socialism. I notice you're not crying about the still improving economy anymore are you?

Public schools are left-wing indoctrination centers and there’s no excuse for Christian parents to send their students to a public school.

In other words, they're teaching the kids REAL math, REAL science and REAL history instead of the delusional conservative crap these folks like to make up.

Christian educators should treat public schools as a mission field.

Aside from the fact that "Christian educators" is an oxymoron, I don't know WTF this even means.

Conservative political losses among Hispanics and youth are due to lousy public education, media bias, and bad messaging by conservatives.

No, its because Hispanics and the young recognize that conservatives are bat-shit crazy and have no handle upon reality whatsoever.

Political action alone will not be enough to save America – only a religious revival and Great Awakening will turn America around.

First of all, what YOU consider to be "America" doesn't deserve to be saved and it won't be. You're not going to be able to reverse the progress of the last 50 years. If anything, it's about to accelerate so get used to the idea.

Therefore conservative preachers need to be much more aggressive in their preaching.

I can't think of a better way to dig your own graves than to let these bat-shit crazy morons be more aggressive. Hey, I have an idea. How about you split off and create a separate political party focused on the themes of this conference?

Yeah, that would work.

Rhode Island Senate Approves Gay Marriage

By a vote of 26-12 the Rhode Island senate passed the gay marriage bill.

The bill needs to return to the house for what amounts to a procedural vote, the governor is expected to sign the bill and gay marriages could start being performed as early as August 1.

Rhode Island will become the 10th state to approve gay marriage. Next up are Delaware and New Jersey.

I'll be at an ACLU Cinco de Mayo event supporting gay marriage.

The dark days of late 2009 seem far away today don't they? Now if only the supreme court has the courage to do the right thing. I'm counting on John Roberts to realize and accept the flow of history.

Rhode Island Gay Marriage Bill Moves to Senate Floor

The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee moved two bills legalizing gay marriage to the senate for debate and vote while rejecting a bill to have a gay marriage referendum that also allowed broad discrimination against gay couples.

Opponents are expected to propose amendments to delay the bill but it looks to be just a matter of time now. Governor Lincoln Chafee has promised to sign the bill into law.

A recent Brown University poll showed 60% of Rhode Islanders support gay marriage while 26% are opposed.

Rhode Island would be the 10th state to approve gay marriage and the approval couldn't come at a better time with the Supreme Court poised to decide on DOMA and Prop 8.

France Legalizes Gay Marriage

Despite some significant opposition, especially from the Catholic Church, France became the 14th country today to legalize gay marriage by a vote of 331-225 in the lower house of the National Assembly.

The law also allows gay couples to adopt children.

Can you hear the walls crumbling? Can you hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calling for cement and trowel to shore it back up?

The Rock Pocket Mouse

The hallmark of a good scientific hypothesis is its ability to make accurate predictions. One of the things that makes the Theory of Evolution so powerful is its ability to make specific, accurate predictions.

The rock pocket mouse is native to the New Mexico desert and has been a research interest of Dr. Michael Nachman of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The pocket mouse is a lover and not a fighter. Dr. Nachman refers to the little thing as the "Snickers Bar" of the desert. It's on just about everyone's menu. Snakes, foxes, owls and even the occasional hawk love to munch on the pocket mouse.

His only hope for seeing another day is to not be seen by the predators that are looking for a quick snack or a light lunch. The mouse's light tan, sand colored fur is its best defense.

Now about 1,000 years ago there was a lava flow in the desert that, when it cooled, turned areas of the ground black. A pocket mouse on a black surface might as well put up a "free lunch" neon sign.

So, if evolution is correct, mice living on the lava flows should have evolved darker fur. That's prediction #1.

Sure enough, pocket mice that live on the lava flows are actually black and not sandy colored.

Prediction #2, there should therefore be an identifiable genetic change that causes the mice to have dark fur and, sure enough, that's precisely what Dr. Nachman and his associates found.

But what about the fact that there are black furred mice on different lava flows hundreds of miles apart? The probability of the same genetic mutation occurring in all of those cases is very, very small. Therefore, prediction #3, there should be different genetic mutations that caused darker fur in different groups of pocket mice and, sure enough, that's exactly what was found.

But wait a minute. The lava flow only occurred about 1,000 years ago. Isn't that too short a time for a genetic change to work its way through an entire population?

Nope, because mice have lots of offspring in a short period of time. Even a slight advantage of 5%-10% allows the change to propagate in a couple of hundred years.

Now granted this is what creationists call "microevolution." There's no speciation involved but so-called "macroevolution" is simply microevolution over a very long period of time. There is no known factor that limits evolutionary change.

The Boston Suspects Press Conference

I just watched the press conference and I have three observations.

(1) It appears this is going to be a Federal prosecution which means the death penalty may be on the table.

(2) Why does everyone focus on fear? Yes, there is always concern when this sort of stuff happens but people did pretty well. I didn't see anyone shaking in their boots. Calm and courage seemed to me to be the order of the day.

(3) Did we really need 12 different people putting in their two cents? One spokesman would have been sufficient.

I'm also not impressed with those people that talk about prayers. If your "god" is all-knowing, prayer shouldn't be necessary.

The Boston Marathon Suspects

Well the first phase is over.

After a firefight last night in which one of the suspects, 26 year-old Tamerlane Tsarnaev, was killed, the second suspect, 19 year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was arrested hiding under a tarp in a boat behind a Watertown house.

Apparently the police and FBI spent the whole day searching a 20 square block area a block and a half from where Tsarnaev was actually hiding.

Maybe now Glenn Beck and the other right wing assholes will stop with the nonsense about a conspiracy to protect a Saudi-Arabian student who they were so sure was involved despite repeated assurances from authorities that the man was innocent.

It's too much to hope that this fiasco will finally demonstrate to Beck's audience that the man is a lunatic unworthy of taking seriously.

On the reality front, I wonder when the criticism of the police and FBI will begin? Despite hundreds of police combing the area they couldn't find him because, essentially, they were looking in the wrong place.

They had even given a preliminary "all-clear" when someone supposedly reported seeing blood leading to the boat. The blood may have been the result of Tsarnaev being wounded in last night's firefight. Maybe if he hadn't been wounded he would have been halfway to Wyoming while the keystone cops were searching everywhere in the town except where he actually was.

Ok, that wasn't nice. Four days to get them both is pretty impressive.

As for the media, I understand they can't sign off when something could happen any second but boy can they talk about nothing. If I had heard one more "neighbor" tell an incoherent story about nothing I would have blown a gasket.

Of the networks, NBC was the least annoying and next was CBS. Fox was doing OK until it brought on Geraldo Rivera who started spewing unsubstantiated crap but, by far the worst, was ABC.

There was this woman who was annoying beyond belief. My daughter thought it might have been Diane Sawyer. I don't know who it was but I would have paid big bucks to dump a bucket of ice water on her to shut her up. Instead I used the channel changer. Great invention that.

Now we move on to phase two. Growth of the right wing conspiracy theories and persecution of the innocent.

Michelle Bachmann will probably blame in on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Glenn Beck is already focused on that poor Saudi student and will probably throw in Common Core somehow.

Matt Barber and Linda Harvey will blame homosexuality and gay marriage and last, but not least, Pat Robertson will blame it on demonic influences allowed to creep into American society because prayer was removed from the public schools.

Boy Scout Gay Resolution

The Boy Scouts apparently, after reviewing responses to its questionnaire from members and sponsors, are proposing to split the difference on its gay ban and allow gay scouts but not gay leaders.

A spokesman stated that the resolution, if passed in May, would insure that "no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone."

No mention was made of atheists so I assume that ban would remain in place. That means that personally I will most likely continue to withhold support. Practically speaking that means I get to buy more $4 boxes of Girl Scout cookies.

The problem of course is this perpetuates the idea that gays cannot be trusted around children. A idea, based upon the existing evidence, repeatedly labeled as false by the professional psychological and psychiatric organizations.

This is a step in the right direction, but its not good enough in my opinion.

Gay rights organizations have already begun to criticize the decision which is no surprise. The big question is whether groups that have withheld support will continue to do so or accept this as an acceptable compromise.

I guess we shall see what we shall see.

New Zealand makes 13

New Zealand became the 13th country to legalize same sex marriage joining Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay. Vietnam, originally was to address the question in the spring of 2013, has delayed action until 2014.

There are 13 jurisdictions in the US, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, the District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland, Washington, Iowa and three Tribal jurisdictions, in which same sex marriages can be performed, 10 jurisdictions in Brazil and two in Mexico.

The wall is crumbling and the forces of darkness are in retreat but the war isn't over yet.

In France opposition to same sex marriage is becoming increasingly vocal as legalization creeps forward and in the US the SCOTUS is poised to pass judgment on two critical same sex marriage cases. The current conservative court could turn back the clock by a decade with a bad decision.

Victory is certain. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost? The SCOTUS could help things enormously by, if not coming down in favor of gay marriage, then at least rendering neutral or benign decisions.

Unfortunately I don't have all that much confidence in a court that includes Scalia and Thomas.

Gun Background Checks

A poll says that 90% of the American people support expanded background checks before someone can buy a gun.

A Senate bill to extend background checks to cover additional situations such as including checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows can't get 60 votes for closure to take it to a vote.

This is a disgrace. Our government clearly no longer works. This is utterly, totally and completely absurd.

Screw the Republicans and those Democrats that don't have the courage to do the right thing.

Bombing at Boston Marathon

Two bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. According to the latest reports there are 3 dead and 113 injured. Who planted the bombs and why is unknown. Law enforcement officials are treating the incident as a terrorist attack which seems reasonable to me.

New York has tightened security just in case and the media is going crazy.

Yes it's a big story but little is known right now and interviewing everyone that was in the vicinity of Boston isn't going to change that.

What do you want people to say?

There were two explosions and they scared the hell out of anyone in the vicinity. That's just plain common sense and a normal reaction. Repeating it thirty-five or forty times isn't going to change anything.

Stay calm, move out of the area and let the authorities do their job. I'm sure we'll all hear about it when they learn what's going on.

The US Media, especially television media, really need to put a lid on it. Speculating and going all loony tunes over things just encourages other nut cases to try the same thing. Remember that baseball long ago learned not to show field crashers on television.

So, who do I think is responsible? I have no clue and neither does anyone else right now so let's not prepare any declarations of war just yet.

The Scouts and Tax Exemption

In California a bill is working its way through the legislature which would deny tax exempt status to any youth groups that deny membership to gay, transgender or atheist members.

The bill is clearly aimed at pressuring the Boy Scouts to lift its bans on gays and atheists. The question is whether this is an appropriate action for the government to take?

The scouts are a private organization and as such have the right to establish membership criteria but they are not entitled to tax exemption.

I don't see anything wrong with this bill. It doesn't require the scouts to change membership policies. That would clearly be unconstitutional. What it does is not reward them with a tax exemption while they exclude members of the population that pay taxes.

Uruguay Oks Gay Marriage

The lower house of the Uruguay congress approved Gay Marriage by a vote of 71-21. The president, Jose Mujica, is expected to sign the bill which passed the upper house by a wide margin as well last week.

Are you feeling like a 3rd world country yet?

It's humiliating that country after country does the right thing while we're still bogged down by extreme right wing assholes.

I'm ashamed. I really am.

Cicadas

I hate those damn things.

After 17 years of peace and quiet they are apparently ready to take up residence in my backyard once again.

They should begin to appear in May sometime and hang around for about a month. Yuck, I'm getting itchy just thinking about it.

They pretty much render use of the yard around my house impossible. They're big, ugly, loud but, luckily, harmless.

I'm all for mother nature but what the hell possessed her to make these things?

The God of the Gaps

At one time in human history a god or gods was credited with literally thousands of things.

Gods made the rain fall; gods made the sun rise; gods caused disease and gods flung bolts of lightening.

In other words, gods were credited, or blamed, with doing anything we didn't understand.

This great divine power is known as the "God of the Gaps."

As scientific knowledge has progressed, and we've found naturalistic explanations for more and more things, the kingdom of the "God of the Gaps" has shrunk until today there are really only two things left, the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

Is it possible that a god or gods are responsible for these things? Sure, however, based upon past experience, I suspect that it's rather unlikely.

I met a Republican the Other Day

Meeting Republicans is not too hard to do in my neck of the woods. As a matter of fact, Democrats are a lot rarer.

He couldn't understand why I wasn't a Republican. After all, I meet the Republican profile. I'm mature, white and upper middle class.

I'm not a Republican for two fundamental reasons.

First, too many Republicans are bat-shit crazy. They deny the science of evolution; they deny the science of climate change; they believe homosexuality is a choice; they want to restrict a woman's access to birth control and abortion; they reject the separation of church and state and believe Christianity and Christians deserve special privileges; they want to gut the public education system and replace it with a voucher hodgepodge that will benefit religion and the wealthy and leave everyone else lucky if they can get a minimum wage job.

Given they're bat-shit crazy, we usually don't even get to the economic questions.

Even if somehow we got past the bat-shit crazy aspects, and could talk about economics, we have a problem. I agree that the budget needs to be balanced so we can begin the task of reducing the national debt.

But the Republicans think you do that by giving rich people tax cuts and ask the elderly, widows, orphans and the working and middle classes to pay, not only for the budget balancing, but also for the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Republican myth is by cutting taxes for the wealthy you grow the economy, you provide jobs and you grow tax revenues.

The problem is there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy do any such thing. George H.W. Bush had it right all along. It's voodoo economics that accomplishes nothing other than making rich people richer and providing the government with a loss in revenue.

How you accomplish something matters. We could eliminate the budget deficit by nationalizing the oil and natural gas industries especially given the boom on the way from new drilling technologies. We could probably also provide universal health care by nationalizing the insurance industry and introducing a one payer system.

But we're probably not going to do these things because most Americans would be opposed. So HOW you solve a problem matters. We're NOT going to balance the budget by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Welfare even if that would solve the problem. That' not to say adjustments to these programs shouldn't be considered, nothing should be off the table.

So, while I agree with most Republicans that we need to get our financial house in order, I disagree with them on how we should do that.

And that's exactly what I told the Republican I met so now he understands why I'm not a Republican. However he's now confused as to why he's one.

The Arms Trade Treaty

Although it was almost ignored by the American media, yesterday the UN passed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

After 20 years of negotiations, 154 nations voted for the treaty that restricts the sale of arms and ammunition to nations racked by conflict. Three nations, North Korea, Iran and Syria, voted against it and 23 abstained including China and Russia.

The treaty has been opposed locally by the NRA and conservatives in general with a ridiculous barrage of misinformation and, to be honest, flat out lies.

There is nothing, and never has been, ANYTHING in the treaty about confiscating guns. The treaty only applies to the export of weapons and would have absolutely no affect on US domestic  gun laws.

As a matter of fact, the treaty is less stringent that the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). In other words it won't even impact US arms manufacturers.

My daddy used to say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. In addition to the NRA, the biggest critics of the treaty were Iran, Syria and North Korea who expressed a fear that exporting countries would use the treaty as a weapon to restrict their access to weapons.

Yeah, that sound to me like another reason to support the thing.

In a last ditch effort to derail things the NRA proposed that what it called "civilian weapons" be excluded from the treaty. I suppose the NRA thinks it matters if you get shot by a 9 mm military sidearm or a 9 mm "civilian" Glock.

Who thought excluding "civilian weapons" might be a good idea? China, Iran, Egypt, Venezuela and Iran. Refer back to previous paragraph to see what my daddy said about the company one keeps.

Now we'll move on to the senate where we'll hear more NRA, Republican and conservative crap about the treaty repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating guns. Which of course it doesn't do but no one seriously expects the NRA, Republican Party or conservatives to deal with facts.

Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court II

So where are we after the oral arguments?

If you listen to the media, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be declared unconstitutional and either the defenders of Prop 8 will be declared to have no standing or the court will let the appellate court decision stand.

I agree on DOMA. The court will strike it down and leave the definition of who's married to the states. I also believe they will leave the definition of who can marry to the states. This will allow both sides to declare victory.

As for Prop 8, I still think the court is going to revert back to the California Supreme Court decision and leave Prop 8 in place. If for some reason they decide not to do that, they'll declare the supporters to have no standing which would leave Prop 8 overturned but would not force the court to address the larger issues.

Again this would allow both sides to declare victory as the court would not be forced to resolve the question of Gay Marriage protection under the 14th Amendment.

The Religious Right is going absolutely off the deep end over this issue and are howling bloody murder that the mainstream media is essentially leading a propaganda campaign in favor of Gay Marriage.

Yeah, they're right about that one. It's called editorializing and newspapers, radio stations and TV stations tend to do that. It's part of the media charter to inform the electorate.

This court is not ready to make a sweeping decision in favor of Gay Marriage but I don't think Roberts is going to tempt his place in history by attempting to roll back the clock either. I still think it will be a compromise that satisfies no one.

North Korea

Those people are clearly crazy. That's what worries me.

I don't think Iran is a threat to anybody because they're smart enough to realize starting a fight with the West would be suicidal. North Korea, on the other hand, may not be smart enough.

The North Koreans may very well be delusional or at least some of them may be. The big question is whether there is a rational element that might step in before things go beyond the point of no return.

I'm not sure what this Kim Jong Un is thinking but things might be getting a little out of hand.

I'm sure the Chinese are jumping all over Un trying to keep him from doing something stupid but it's not clear they have much control over this nut job.

This situation could get tense.

In the meantime, over on Saturn...

Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council (FRC), is warning of dire consequences if the court goes too far on the Gay Marriage question. According to Perkins  "...if you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution. I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this."

A couple of observations.

First, yo Tony, have you been keeping up with the latest polls? The majority now supports Gay Marriage and opponents are, literally, dying off. The younger you are, the more likely you are to support marriage equality.

There's that bubble of delusion again. Conservatives simply do not seem to be able to differentiate between reality and what they want to believe is reality.

Granted, there is a significant regional variation here. The South would probably go bonkers but the rest of the country, including the generally practical Midwest, would probably simply shrug and move on.

The second point is there's almost no chance of a broad, sweeping decision here. I still expect a narrow compromise sort of decision. I don't think this court has the courage to do anything else.

A "social and cultural revolution" indeed. I seriously wonder what planet Perkins lives on?

Update on Oral Arguments

Based upon the Prop 8 oral arguments and questions from the judges, Prop 8 may be in more trouble than I thought.

There is a question as to whether the proponents of Prop 8 have legal standing to defend it. Roberts in particular appears to be showing doubt that they do.

A ruling that Prop 8 proponents have no standing would, I believe, leave the circuit court ruling in place and Prop 8 would fall.

I found it amusing that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out to the attorney defending Prop 8 that he was relying on case from 1971 when homosexual activity was still mostly illegal.

Those of us in the real world find that bizarre but conservatives, in their bubble, probably don't. It must be terrifying for them when reality finally comes crashing in.

Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

The SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8. Given the current make-up of the court, I'm more than a tad nervous about what's about to happen.

Ultimately I think everything hinges upon Chief Justice John Roberts and his concern about how his court will be viewed by history.

The correct thing to do is to declare that Gay Marriage, like interracial marriage, is a clear extension of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. That would invalidate DOMA, Prop 8 and every law and state constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman in the country.

There isn't a snow ball's chance in hell of that happening.

At the other extreme would be to uphold DOMA despite the fact that marriage, based upon the 10th Amendment, should be the sole province of the states, and vacate the federal court decisions on Prop 8 leaving the California Supreme Court's acceptance of the amendment in place.

I don't really expect that to happen either.

I expect a split decision as they say. I don't see how the court can uphold DOMA. I suspect they will rule that the federal government has to respect the individual state's definition of who's married. This also protects the most conservative states from a federal law legalizing Gay Marriage that might be considered down the road.

On Prop 8 I expect the circuit court and Judge Walker's decisions to be vacated and the decision of the California Supreme Court to be upheld. That would leave Prop 8 in place and set the stage for another ballot battle in California to repeal Prop 8 sometime in the not too distant future.

Most knowledgeable observers expect the issue to come down to the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Luckily for me I'm not considered knowledgeable so I can be creative.

No, seriously, I think it's safe to bet that Scalia and Thomas are going to vote (1) to uphold DOMA and (2) to reinstate Prop 8. Justice Samuel Alito will also most likely vote with Scalia and Thomas.

On the other side of the aisle justices Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely vote (1) to strike down DOMA and (2) let one of the federal court decisions on Prop 8 stand.

Kagan and Sotomeyer will probably go with Ginsburg and Breyer but only if the rulings are very narrow. I'm especially suspicious of Sotomeyer. I wouldn't be surprised if she balked here especially on the Prop 8 question.

I think Kennedy is going to lean right on this one and isn't going to be the savior Gay Marriage proponents are hoping for.

If anyone is going to carry that torch, it might be Roberts because he recognizes that history is on the side of Gay Marriage.

I think the compromise is let the 10th Amendment and states rights rule supreme. That would mean the overturning of DOMA but the reinstitution of Prop 8.

I'm thinking DOMA goes down by a 5-4 vote with Roberts, and not Kennedy, casting the deciding vote. Prop 8 gets reinstated by a 6-3, or perhaps even 7-2, vote depending upon where Kagan falls.

Both sides can then declare victory and we can get ready for the next big California vote. This time the electorate will vote to repeal Prop 8 so, ultimately, the forces of darkness will lose again but only after much pain and gnashing of teeth.

Conservatives, as usual, are fighting a losing battle here against the tide of history. Their defeat is certain. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost.

My Bracket

For the first time in my life I filled out an NCAA tournament bracket.

I'd never done it before because I felt I didn't know enough about college basketball. I sure was right.

At the moment I'm sitting at 27 out of 43 correct. That puts me in 2,113,164th place our of 3,329,637. That's only the 36th percentile.

Hey, but all of my final four teams are still alive. What really hurt me was Wisconsin. I was banking on the Badgers to make a run and they got knocked out by Ole Miss in the 1st round. I also had Georgetown going into the final eight and they lost to FGCU in the 1st round and that was supposed to be a easy one.

The top score so far is 39 out of 43. He called Old Miss and Harvard as well?!

It's just a bit of harmless fun as long as no money is involved. But some folks do seem to get really obsessed over the whole thing.

Anyway, my final four are Louisville, Ohio St., Kansas and Indiana. I've got Louisville topping Kansas in the final. Go Cardinals!

Sarah Palin at CPAC

In a speech at CPAC, Sarah Palin told fellow Republicans "Now is the time to furlough the consultants, and tune out the pollsters, send the focus groups home, and toss the political scripts, because If we truly know what we believe, we don't need professionals to tell us."

This is typical neo-conservative arrogance and loss of touch with reality.

It doesn't matter what the facts are, we know what we believe and, if we believe it, it must be true and everyone else must also believe it.

Here's the problem lady, much, not all but much, of what conservatives "believe" is just flat out not true and, as the electorate becomes better educated and more sophisticated, it KNOWS it's not true.

Abortion is not murder; homosexuality is not a choice and it's not evil; guns kill people when the wrong people have them; health care in America sucks unless you have means to afford it; Social Security is NOT charity, it's been earned; Medicare isn't charity either; Evolution really is correct; the US WASN'T founded as a Christian nation; tax cuts for the rich DO NOT grow the economy; global warming is really happening; universities and public schools aren't liberal indoctrination centers; teachers really do work hard and unions are generally good things.

The modern conservative movement is bogged down is a quagmire of WRONG ideas that is literally choking the life out of the traditional good fiscal responsibility ideas that are its historical foundation.

Here's an idea, ditch the right wing nuts and return to the conservative roots of social moderation paired with fiscal responsibility. Until that happens I can't take conservatives or the Republican Party seriously.

As for Ms. Palin, will someone please just make her go away.

Rob Portman Reverses on Gay Marriage

Rob Portman, the Republican senator from Ohio that I thought was sure to be the Republican VP nominee, has announced his support for Gay Marriage.

This is a reversal of a long standing position by Portman opposed to Gay Marriage. Why you ask? Well, according to Portman, it was due to a long thoughtful process after his son announced that he was gay.

In an op-ed for the Columbus dispatch Portman wrote “I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married."

It's amazing how that works out when "gay" takes on a face and a personality rather than being a conservative boogey-man.

I give Portman credit for doing the right thing. Just six months ago I was saying he epitomized the Republican position that gays should be ostracized and now this happens. It takes a strong man to conquer his own prejudices.

Do you hear the walls crumbling?

 Unfortunately the Supreme Court can re-establish all the walls with its DOMA and Proposition 8 decisions. Here's hoping the judges take a lesson from Rob Portman and do the right thing also.

Please Check the Facts

Everyone, including Republicans, Conservatives and Christians, are entitled to their opinion. But they are NOT entitled to their own facts.

Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) epitomizes the Conservative Republican in a bubble with his own set of facts that have no relation to reality.

Hultgren is pushing a bill to divert $110 million a year over the next five years from comprehensive sex education programs to programs that teach abstinence only.

His rationale for this is that programs pushing abstinence only until marriage curriculums have "incredible success records."

This is a statement of fact, not of opinion, and it's just flat out not true. Studies have consistently demonstrated that comprehensive sex education works better than abstinence only education.

A study by the University of Washington showed that students that had some sort of comprehensive sex education were 60% less likely to get pregnant or make someone pregnant.

In the meantime, on the other side of the aisle, a 2007 federal study on Abstinence Only Programs found that they had no impact on teen pregnancy.

Like I've said before, it's not the "Abstinence" part of the program that's the problem, it's the "Only" part. Yes, abstinence should be stressed but it's also useful to insure there is an understanding of the broader picture and why abstinence is so critical.

I continue to be amazed at how conservatives just make stuff up to make themselves feel good or justify their opinions or actions.

Pope Francis I

Much to my surprise the Cardinals have elected a non-European pope.

The newly elected pontiff, Francis I, is Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina and he's a Jesuit to boot.

The election went surprisingly fast. So fast in fact that one has to wonder whether the whole affair, resignation and election, wasn't part of some sort of pre-negotiated plan.

No, I have no evidence to support that conjecture and I'm sure it's simply my natural paranoia coming to the surface.

On the down side the man is 76 years old. That means he was born prior to World War II so I wouldn't expect any real modern ideas from him.

In 2010 he vehemently opposed the legalization of Gay Marriage in Argentina calling it a “destructive attack on God’s plan.”

He's also apparently opposed to abortion access and birth control so I wouldn't expect the church to be moving out of the 14th century anytime soon.

In other words what we have here is Benedict XVI redux as a lot of Vatican watchers predicted.

The Boy Scout's Gay Survey

As it continues its struggle over whether to reverse a long standing policy denying gay leaders and gay scouts membership, the Boy Scouts of America has released a survey to 1.4 million volunteers, parents of scouts and alumni.

The survey, created by a third party, identifies realistic scenarios that may be encountered if the scouts lift their ban. The survey strikes me as fair, even handed and realistic. Here are the six questions along with how I would answer them and why.

Bob is 15 years old, and the only openly gay Scout in a Boy Scout troop. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the troop leader to allow Bob to tent with a heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip?

It's acceptable unless the heterosexual boy objects. What you wouldn't allow is two gay 15 year olds to share a tent just like you wouldn't allow a 15 year old boy and a 15 year old girl to share a tent.

Tom started in the program as a Tiger Cub, and finished every requirement for the Eagle Scout Award at 16 years of age. At his board of review Tom reveals that he is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the review board to deny his Eagle Scout award based on that admission?

It's unacceptable. Tom did the work and he deserves the award that he worked for.

A gay male troop leader, along with another adult leader, is taking a group of boys on a camping trip following the youth protection guidelines of two-deep leadership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the gay adult leader to take adolescent boys on an overnight camping trip?

It's acceptable. No one should be the lone adult on an overnight camping trip for many, many reasons including simple propriety and safety. As long as there is a second adult along, I see no problem with this. The sexual orientations of the adults strikes me as irrelevant.
 
A troop is chartered by an organization that does not believe homosexuality is wrong and allows gays to be ministers. The youth minister traditionally serves as the Scoutmaster for the troop. The congregation hires a youth minister who is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this youth minister to serve as the Scoutmaster? 

It's acceptable. Why the hell would it be unacceptable under these conditions?

Johnny, a first grade boy, has joined Tiger Cubs with his friends. Johnny’s friends and their parents unanimously nominate Johnny’s mom, who is known by them to be lesbian, to be the den leader. Johnny’s pack is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for his mother to serve as a den leader for his Cub Scout den?

It's acceptable. Again, why the hell would it not be acceptable?

David, a Boy Scout, believes that homosexuality is wrong. His troop is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Steve, an openly gay youth, applies to be a member in the troop and is denied membership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this troop to deny Steve membership in their troop?

It's acceptable. The troop should be allowed to remain true to their own beliefs regardless of how misguided some of us may believe those beliefs to be.  

The Will of God is not Entirely Clear

That's what Cardinal Francis George of Chicago says about the upcoming conclave to elect a new pope.

Let me see if I've got this straight. The "all powerful creator of the universe" has not made his will clear to the Cardinal electors.

That sort of implies to me that either (a) he doesn't care or (b) he doesn't exist. Your choice Mr. Cardinal. Personally I'm going with option (b).

Darwin's Conversion

A story circulated by a certain Lady Hope claimed that Charles Darwin, shortly before his death, renounced evolution and died a Christian.

The beyond bat shit crazy creationist sites, and extremely conservative fundamentalist groups, tend to accept the story as true. The run of the mill bat shit crazy creationist site Answers in Genesis rejects it as unlikely.

Both Darwin's son and daughter reject the story and say flat out that it is not true and a fabrication by the devout Christian Lady Hope. Wow, another case of Christian dishonesty. Is anything they ever say true?

Personally I don't know if Darwin rejected evolution or not. I wasn't at Darwin's death bed but I'm inclined to believe his son and daughter rather then the woman with an ulterior motive, Lady Hope.

But it really doesn't matter. Even if Darwin had converted and rejected all of his work as wrong, it's irrelevent. Science is not based upon authorities but evidence. Once Darwin let the genie out of the lamp so to speak, he no longer had any control over the direction things would take.

You can't undo scientific discoveries once those discoveries become widely known.

The Theory of Evolution will stand as long as the evidence continues to bear it out and the evidence has born it out for more than 150 of the most scientifically productive years in human history.

Retirement

I've been retired for two days and, basically, this sucks.

I'm bored already. I've got two or three irons in the fire but when no real money is involved, things can move at a glacial pace.

I feel like a rudderless ship.

Ok, enough with the self pity. Onward and upward as they say.

The Fiscal Cliff Part II

That’s the sequestration part. In case you forgot, the football punted from January 1st to March 1st is about to land this week and there seems to be little or no activity to come up with a sensible approach to reduce spending.

Cutting budgets indiscriminately across the board is a bad way to do things because it doesn’t differentiate between critical services and perhaps not so critical services, and it’s using a meat cleaver where a scalpel would make more sense.

It is essentially a failure in leadership.

To make matters worse it appears that there is a concerted effort not to blunt the impact of the cuts but to make them as painful as possible for political purposes. I do not like playing politics with the welfare of the country.

There are two ways to make yourself look good. You can either do good things or make the other guy look bad. Both parties seem to now focus on making the other guy look bad regardless of what that means for the country.

That’s really messed up.

Why do we keep sending these folks back to congress?

Raise the Minimum Wage?

How good an idea is raising the minimum wage?

It's a good question and I don't think it's a simple answer. In the final analysis it will probably help the economy but in the short term it's going to cost jobs.

It's going to be tough for small businesses to pay $9 an hour without (1) raising prices or (2) cutting payroll. If they raise prices it just puts them at an even bigger disadvantage against the large chain stores. Add this to the pending regulations coming into play with the Health Care Law and some businesses will probably give it up and simply close their doors.

So clearly, in the short term, some people are going to get screwed, but in the long term building more spending power at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, a place with the highest propensity to spend that money, should help fuel an economy that is still sputtering on the edge.

Of course this assumes the sequestering cuts don't send it into a recession free fall. I think that's unlikely and, while I would have preferred more selective spending cuts, we have to start somewhere.

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws

In Pakistan “blasphemy” is a crime. So is “wounding the religious feelings of any person” whatever the hell that means.

In November of 2012 a female teacher at a girls school in Lahore apparently made a mistake while copying Islamic text from an exercise book and then distributed the text to her students. The error allegedly resulted in an insult to the prophet Muhammad.

The word spread and a mob of some 200 loonies attacked the school, burned furniture and graffitied on the wall of the school, “School management are blasphemers.”

Now this is bad but you could use the excuse that this is an extremist element, sort of like the Westboro Baptist church, and shouldn’t be used to judge Islam or Muslims.

However here are the problems with that idea:

(1) The police ARRESTED the principal of the school and he was in jail for 14 days

(2) The school FIRED the teacher

(3) The school took out a full page ad saying “Our school management and the owners have no link whatsoever with this dirty act” and “We appeal to the government and the police to take legal action against this teacher and investigate her real motive.”

Legal action? Dirty act? Talk about throwing someone under the bus. She made a boo-boo. You can’t blaspheme without INTENT. These people are savages. No, I take that back. They don’t deserve to be called people. I’d call them animals but I don’t want to insult animals. All in favor of turning the whole place into petrified glass raise your hands? You can’t carry on a rational conversation with pond scum like this.

Now excuse me while I go and buy another nice gift for my copy of the 1st Amendment.

Head Start

The Head Start program is supposed to give children from disadvantaged families help in future school success. The program has been in place since the mid 1960s.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the program, issued a report in December of 2012 studying the effects of Head Start versus a control group through 3rd grade.

In the Key Findings there is the following statement, "Looking across the full study period, from the beginning of Head Start through 3rd grade, the evidence is clear that access to Head Start improved children’s preschool outcomes across developmental domains, but had few impacts on children in kindergarten through 3rd grade."

In other words, the positive benefits of Head Start were pretty much gone by the end of 3rd grade. In the Final Thoughts section the report identifies multiple studies that "showed a similar pattern of early positive impacts that were not sustained into elementary school."

So, if there are no lasting benefits, what the hell is the point of continuing the program?

The reports tries to provide some justification but it's primarily through speculation such as "...research suggests that positive outcomes later in life are possible."

Give me a call when you have numbers to support that speculation.

Head Start costs about $7 billion a year. Granted this is small potatos in the grand scheme of things, and Head Start may provide other benefits such as freeing up mothers for part time work, but you know the old saying, "a billion here, a billion there, it adds up."

Obama said in his State of the Union address that "Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road."

This was the justification for his proposal "to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America."

From what I've read it sounds to me like the advantages are more theoretical than demonstrated. In a special article on early education Science makes the statement "The value of investment in early education depends on the quality of interventions and the conditions under which they are administered."

The article goes on to conclude "Early childhood education remains peppered with both opportunities and debate. Continued progress will require new research that bridges traditional disciplines of neuroscience, psychology, sociology, economics, public policy, health, and education."

I'm an engineer. I've written a lot of reports in my day and this is the kind of statement you make when you're "sure" something should be true but you don't have any compelling evidence to show that it is in fact true.

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.