Information is Power

The Telegraph reported today that "Scientists could soon be able to routinely screen unborn babies for thousands of genetic conditions, raising concerns the breakthrough could lead to more abortions."  While that is obviously a concern, I think there is a deeper consequence at the bottom of the socialist Utopian slippery slope.

Ideally, couples would use this information to plan for the care of their child.  If you found out that your baby would be born with a genetic disorder you could educate yourself.  You could prepare your home, your finances, your employer and your friends and family.  You could find a doctor, a service provider, a support group or a charitable organization.  Most importantly you could prepare yourselves emotionally.

All this could be done ahead of time so that when your baby arrived you could focus on loving them and providing them with the best possible care.  You could know that everything is already in place and that you're as prepared as you can possibly be.  This would be so much better for you and your baby than finding out in the delivery room that your life is about to be turned upside down.

Unfortunately, many people would use this test to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.  Some people would destroy their unborn children believing themselves to be merciful; but for people who don't consider an unborn baby to be a living individual, they wouldn't need a medical reason.  This test could tell you the gender of the baby, which the House couldn't ban as a reason for an abortion.  If there is no restriction on the reason for an abortion, what happens when we decode the genome and can use this test to determine the baby's eye color, hair color and which parent's nose, lips and cheek bones she will have?

As bad as that is, it's not even the bottom of the slope.  What happens when this test becomes mandatory?  What happens when the government decides insurance companies can deny coverage if the results show that your child has a disorder that will make her a burden on the healthcare system.

It's not that much of a stretch when you consider the liberty-squashing steps being taken right now to make us healthier and reduce healthcare costs for the good of society.  There's already an enormous tax on cigarettes.  Here in New York, you can't allow people to smoke in your privately owned establishment.  Soon, in New York City, you will no longer be able to sell large (over 16 fl. oz.) sugary drinks.  The only justification is that unhealthy people are a burden on society.

Add to that, if Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court, the Health and Human Services Secretary will have the power to decide what's covered and what isn't.  Keep in mind, also, that this test is relatively non-invasive - requiring only a blood sample from the mother and a saliva swab from the father.  (Then again, this requires that the father take responsibility which goes against liberal philosophy.)

Now, I'm sure charities would step forward to help if it ever came to this and I'd like to think it would never happen; but that's where this rabbit hole goes.  Information is power.  Just like the knowledge of radioactive material can be used to power a city or destroy one, this test provides information that could be used to give a child the best possible life or end it.

Actions Speak Louder

President Obama gave his State of the Union Address last night and said a lot of good things last night. He praised out troops, touted American values, recognized the importance of small business owners and the corruption caused by money in politics.

I could go on about all the things I disagree with but instead I will focus on the contradictions left me in a state of disbelief.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.

Wow, that's exactly how I feel about the role of government. Maybe Obama isn't that bad after all.

But wait. What about the most basic economic decision: what to do with our own money? That is definitely is not done better by themselves. He wants to take more in taxes from "the rich." He believes that investing their money in companies that use it to grow and hire more employees is bad. He knows the government would do a much better job spending that money on entitlement programs and financial assistance for those less fortunate.

What about the decision on energy sources and consumption? He supports incentives for energy efficiency upgrades for manufacturers. Apparently they look at the supposed $100 billion of lower energy bills over the next decade and are too stupid to do it. The solution is for the government to give them a tax credit paid for by those rich folks who aren't spending their money the way they should be.

Other things the government should do for us include forcing individuals to buy health care, forcing workers to join unions, forcing companies to hire domestic unionized labor and forcing Catholic institutions to provide its employees with free contraceptive coverage.

So, maybe he believes the words Lincoln said - so we won't accuse him of lying - but he definitely has a different idea about what people cannot do better by themselves.

We can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot... and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

Yes, I had to edit a lot out of even that sentence to find the part I agree with; but still, I'm all for an America with a level playing field.

How does he reconcile this with his proposal to "end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising." That doesn't sound at all like playing by the "same set of rules." Also, the assessment of "promising" is a stretch, at best.

Also, how is the playing field level when almost half of American households don't pay federal taxes and his solution is to make the tax code even more progressive?

No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.

This sentiment I agree with the same now as I did when even President Bush was pushing for bailouts at the end of his last term. Obama, on the other hand, supported the bank bailout when he was a Senator and earlier in this same address touted the results of his bailout of GM. Of course, by "bailout," I mean the contract violating union payoff at taxpayer expense.

He also took credit for Ford's success even though they didn't accept bailout funds.

Finally there were countless examples of proposing ideas or taking credit for solutions to problems he and his party caused or twisting the truth to shift blame or paint a rosier picture.

"Think about the America within our reach:...A future where we’re in control of our own energy and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world." Except that he only supports energy if it's green and heavily subsidized, he is eliminating the two-war policy and just rejected a pipeline that would increase our supply of oil from Canada and reduce the amount coming from "unstable parts."

"A[n American energy] strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs." More like less efficient, more expensive and full of hot air - to put it mildly.

"Companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world" and you support those tax rates and want higher taxes on people who invest in those companies!

"We should support... every risk-taker and entrepreneur" unless they're successful, in which case he will override the capital gains rate and make them pay more taxes?!

"Expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis." Like the practices based on federal government bullying with your party's aim of increasing home ownership among the poor and minorities?

"There are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office" because unemployment is so high even illegals can't find work here!

"I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources" that were only closed because you put a moratorium on offshore drilling!

"And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop [shale gas]" which your party is opposing right now in New York?!

So anyway, if I was completely ignorant of the actual state of the Union and the policies that got us here, this would be a fairly balanced speech that I would have the normal ideological disagreements with. Being someone who follows politics, however, this came across as an infuriating campaign speech meant to deceive as many people as possible and give shout outs to his base. Unfortunately, that's good enough for a lot of them.

"Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity." - Union vote: check.

"Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel’s security..." - Jewish vote: check.

"I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use." - green vote: check.

"Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship." - Hispanic vote: check.

"Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money." - Occupy Wall Street vote: check

"...like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet." - senior, student and poor votes: check, check and check

Let's hope the American people are smart enough to see through this speech and the billion dollar campaign that has officially begun.

Reading Books is Bad for You

Yet another study has been done on sedentary lifestyles and how even a little exercise helps us live longer. What's funny to me is the conclusions they draw.

This one says an hour of TV takes 22 minutes off your life - the equivalent of two cigarettes. Why an hour of TV? Why not an hour of reading a book? I guess they decided that reading a book for an hour offers more benefits; but who are they to decide which hour is bad for me?

I like to watch The Science Channel. Does that not outweigh the 22 minutes lost? What about the time I spent catching up on the day's news or writing this blog?

One conclusion we can draw, however, is that movies are definitely healthier for you than books. It takes several hours to read a book, but a movie with the same story only requires you to be sedentary for about 2 hours.

This is good news for smokers, too. According to the math behind this study, going to a 2 hour movie instaed of reading an 8 hour book saves you 6 hours - meaning you offset 12 cigarettes.

My point is that the math behind these kinds of studies can be used to say just about anything. Here's a final calculation for you. To me, the hour spent exercising is an hour of my life gone. I'd rather lose only 22 minutes while I enjoy an hour of TV or video games... or even a book.

The Kindle Decision

My wife and I are looking into eReaders. If we do get one, it will be the Kindle 3G without ads. The problem is whether or not to pull the trigger.

The recent price drop is frustrating because they cut the price of the 3G with special offers by 25 bucks, but did not drop the one without special offers. I like to think of the different versions in terms of the marginal cost of features.

The base model is still $114. It used to be: add $25 to get rid of special offers and/or add $50 to upgrade to 3G. The price drop messed up that equation. Now it's: add $25 to get rid of either special offers or upgrade to 3G or add $75 to get rid of both. Or, to put it another way, getting rid of special offers on a wi-fi Kindle only costs $25, but removing it from a 3G Kindle costs $50.

Even though the price of the one we wanted hasn't changed, I would feel ripped off if I bought it, now.

The bigger issue, however, is whether to buy an eBook reader at all. I've listed the pros and cons below. Please help me decide if the pros outweigh the cons.

Pros:
- Single device stores your entire eBook library
- Download books instantly from anywhere
- Cloud stores bookmarks and notes that transfer to other devices/apps
- eBooks linked to account, so no risk of loss or damage
- Lots of free and really cheap books
- Free library lending without haveing to go to the library (coming soon to Kindle)

Cons:
- Can only lend a book once, and only for 14 days, and only if the author/publisher allows
- Cannot sell, exchange, donate or give away used eBooks
- New/popular books cost the same as print copies, which is expensive considering the above restrictions and the fact that I will have spent money on the reader, too.

So, right now we're in a holding pattern. I think it will come down to how the library lending ends up working out. The Cons all go away if you only use it for free and library books. Some of the pros go away, too, but any remaining pros outweigh zero cons. Then the question remains: do we buy any books for it?

Jobs Americans Will Do

According to a recent Bloomberg story, McDonalds hired 62,000 people across the United States. It's great to see positive economic news.

What's shocking about this story is the fact that over a million people applied for these jobs. I understand that a lot of these jobs are higher level positions, but I would guess that most are entry level. This completely destroys the premise that there are jobs that Americans won't do.

One major argument that illegal immigration supporters use is that the millions of people that come into the country each year fill positions that Americans don't want. That argument may hold some water in booming economic times but these are not booming economic times.

Imagine if those million prospective workers could find jobs in the labor and service industries that illigal immigrantss typically occupy. The fact is that there is some pride left in America. There are people who would rather work than collect unimployment or welfare - even if that means taking a job that society looks down on.

No job is shameful. No job is beneath us. What's shameful is giving up. What's shameful is looking forward to your next handout and electing politicians who will protect that lifestyle. What's beneath us is accepting a flood of illigal immigrants because they keep prices down.

Denial or Delusion?

For whatever reason, Obama won't admit that the country rejected his agenda on Tuesday. In his post-election press conference, he danced around the question at least five times.

Ben Feller at AP: Are you willing to concede at all that what happened last night was not just an expression of frustration about the economy, but a fundamental rejection of your agenda?

President Obama: I think that there is no doubt that people’s number-one concern is the economy...

Savannah Guthrie:Just following up on what Ben just talked about, you don’t seem to be reflecting or second-guessing any of the policy decisions you’ve made...

President Obama: ... I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward...

Savannah Guthrie: Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?

President Obama: ... I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes... The fact is, is that for most folks, proof of whether they work or not is has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be. And it hasn’t.

Well, he almost got it there. Note, though, that while he says "most folks" don't think his economic policies have worked, he himself doesn't seem to believe that.

Mike Emanuel: ... I’m wondering, sir, if you believe that health care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point, and whether there’s a threat, as a result of this election.

President Obama: ... I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.

Ed Henry: You just reject that idea altogether that your policies could be going in reverse?

President Obama: Yes.

He repeatedly refused to admit that his policies have failed and the American people have rejected his agenda. Even this zinger from Peter Baker - who used Obama's own words against him - didn't seem to sink in.

Peter Baker: Thank you, Mr. President. After your election two years ago, when you met with Republicans you said that, in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences, and that you pointed out that you had won. I wonder what consequences you think this election should have then, in terms of your policies.

So, is he in denial? You may think so; but this interview with Al Sharpton before the election shows that he knew exactly what this election was about.

OBAMA: But the key is to make sure everybody understands this election is important. My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out.

Well, the American people agree. Your agenda for moving forward was on the ballot and we voted strongly against it. But, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, President Obama will continue to fight on, considering his missing arm "but a scratch." That's not denial, that's delusion... or worse.

Representation Without Taxation

According to this The Tax Foundation, more than a third of tax filers had zero or negative tax liability in recent years - significantly higher than the 50 years between 1950 and 2000. I guess the Bush tax cuts went to more than just the rich...


A recent The AP Article reported that almost half of US households had zero or negative tax liability in 2009. Included in the group of non-payers would be a family of four earning $50,000 with the standard deduction and two minor children.

The gripe behind the original Tea Party in Boston was "taxation without representation." Now, some 237 years later, we have the opposite problem - representation without taxation. Almost half of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes but greatly influences how (and how much) tax money is spent.

Without diving into the merits and shortcomings of progressive taxation in general, it is clearly not a good idea to have too many people with no direct interest in fiscal responsibility. Think of it this way: if you go to a restaurant and have to pay for your own meal, you may order the shrimp basket and a glass of water. If the restaurant manager announces that the richest people in the restaurant will be charged for everyone else's meal, you may instead order the lobster feast and a bottle of Dom Parignon.

It is no wonder, then, that non-payers tend to vote for Democrats who support increased handouts and entitlements like Health Care Reform and try to convince voters that tax cuts unfairly benefit the rich.

All is not lost, though. A recent Gallup poll showed that the modern Tea Party is a fairly representative cross section of the citizenry with regard to age, education, employment and other common demographic identifiers.

The stage is set for another ideological battle this November. Will Democrats convince us that HCR won't break the bank; or will the Tea Party's message of limited government and fiscal responsibility sway voters to elect conservatives? This layman is cautiously optimistic that the pendulum will start to swing back to the right.

Fun With Charts

The President recently asked people to start using a new Twitter icon to publicize the progress made by the stimulus bill. The icon is a bar graph that shows the number of jobs lost by month for the last year of the Bush Administration and the first year of the Obama administration.

While most of us look at it and see a typical V-shaped recession curve, President Obama color codes the bars with the downward trend in red (blamed on Bush) and the upward trend in blue (credited to Obama).

I decided to create another icon using the same metric going back to 2004. The first three years of quarterly data are in red (credited to the GOP Congress) and the last three years in blue (blamed on the Democrat Congress).

My point is only this: charts can be used to say just about anything. Feel free to use this one to mock those using Obama's.

Avatar: Great Movie, Irrelevant Message

I went to see Avatar because the special effects looked awesome and the sci-fi space fantasy story looked interesting. I was disappointed by neither (although, I found the 3D more distracting than enhancing). The CG was flawless and the world of Pandora was an engrossing tsunami of visual stimulation. The plot was predictable, but very well conceived and well paced.

The device used to create Avatar’s intriguing fictional story line – exaggerate an otherwise negligible element, extrapolate the consequences in the absence of natural controls and see where it takes you – has been used by many authors. Isaac Asimov explored a future where an exaggerated desire for safety and convenience with no regard for the consequences resulting in robots that protect us through subjugation. Climate "scientists" model a world where CO2 has an exaggerated warming effect while nature’s dynamic checks and balances are simplified and marginalized resulting in a fanciful tale of higher seas, intensified natural disasters, drought and famine. Both are fascinating works of fiction.

Avatar employs this method by exaggerating corporate greed and diminishing moral checks and balances – the result is attempted genocide and environmental destruction to obtain an extremely profitable resource. Throw in some “soldier falls in love with primitive native girl” from Pocahontas, some “spiritual planetary being” from Final Fantasy, a dash of “mind connection, biotechnology and cool military equipment” from The Matrix and a hint of “single-minded enemies vs. balanced, dynamic heroes” from Star Trek and you’ve got yourself a great movie.

As with most stories there is an intended “message.” In Avatar, James Cameron wants us to decry greed and imperialism that “tends to destroy the environment.” While I agree that in the fictional world of this movie this scenario is plausible and abhorrent, in reality, I don't accept the analogy that the American Military-Industrial Complex is as evil as the corporation in this movie, nor is it headed there; so, the “message” is irrelevant. It’s like saying, “stop murdering your neighbors and burning their houses down so you can have a bigger back yard.” Well, I’m not and I wasn’t planning to; so, whatever.

The left:
is getting all fired up about a “liberal message movie” making a big impact. They think conservatives are greedy imperialists that have no regard for the environment or other cultures and believe the record breaking turn-out implies that all those people agree with them. The audience finally sees what evil, greedy bastards we are and will now rise up and defeat conservatism once and for all.

The right:
is getting all fired up about our characterization of the left being vindicated. We think that liberals are arrogant socialists that fraudulently exaggerate every issue to attack capitalism and destroy personal liberty. Hollywood is constantly interjecting its liberal agenda into entertainment media and James Cameron’s has finally admitted what the right has known all along.

If Cameron’s goal was to transform the political landscape and shine light on the evils of unchecked capitalism, this movie was an utter failure as both sides are standing their ground and declaring victory. If, on the other hand, his intention was to earn money like a capitalist by selling a ground breaking special effects movie and wisely exploiting free press by sparking political derision, then it was an overwhelming success to the tune of $1 billion and counting.

For this layman, it was a great movie that earned my money at the box office and probably will again when the DVD is released. Since I don’t accept the political premise, it was purely a work of fiction with a noble, but irrelevant message. James Cameron, you have my condolences… or congratulations.

Real Ideas for Public Education

It is broadly (although not universally) accepted that the education of our country’s children is in the public interest. Therefore, I believe that all children should be able to receive some standard of education from their local public school. Unfortunately, too many schools are not performing that duty and vouchers are as good as accepting defeat.

As with most issues, the core of the problem is a lack of honesty and accountability. A recent Walter E. Williams column highlighted a shocking statistic that 77% of Detroit’s 8th graders scored “below basic” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. How many of those students were allowed to progress to the next grade level? Almost all of them, I would guess. Williams’ article was about Black Education, but, to varying degrees, this is a problem everywhere.

Passing these students only compounds the problem as most subjects build on prerequisite knowledge. How do you learn algebra if your arithmetic skills are lacking? How do you study grammar when you can’t read fluently? Yet we ignore these failures and shuffle these students along to the next level, setting them up for even more failure. Meanwhile, the next teacher has to hold the rest of the class back so he can re-teach the struggling students.

The blame can be shared by all of the involved parties, including: teachers, who see student performance as a reflection of their teaching and don't want to deal with those same bad students for another academic year; school officials, who need to keep their graduation rates and other statistics looking good; students, who do not value education and just want to get through; parents, some who don't want to subject their kids to the embarrassment of repeating a grade, some who hide behind over-diagnosed learning disabilities and some who don’t think they have any responsibility for their child’s education; taxpayers, who feel they are taxed enough for 13 years of education per student and don’t want to pay for more; the list goes on and the consequences are dire. If this continues, the rest of the world will be exporting their low-paying jobs to the United States.

The solution starts with an honest evaluation of students’ abilities, which requires meaningful testing and strict criteria for grade advancement. Then, establish accountability with a balance of penalties and support systems.

At the end of each school year, students should take entrance exams for each of the next year’s classes to ensure prerequisites have been learned. Allowing the higher level teacher to accept and reject students based on entrance exams prevents the lower level teachers from shuffling students along using lower standards. Those not meeting the next teacher’s standards should be enrolled in summer programs to address specific deficiencies; those that are still not ready should be required to repeat the subject.

Students should also have an accelerated learning track available on a subject by subject basis. This track would give faster learning students the opportunity to either finish early or go farther with a particular subject.

Teachers need to be honestly evaluated, and those with consistently under-performing students should be removed after being given the opportunity to improve. This means getting the teachers unions out of the way, which is admittedly easier said than done.

Administrations should provide resources for struggling teachers such as regional workshops to improve weaknesses like maintaining discipline and dealing with student performance and attitude issues.

The parent issue is a bit tougher. Parents and guardians should be engaged in their child’s education. Unfortunately, there is little recourse for dead-beat parents that doesn’t involve an invasion of privacy, which I cannot support. You can force parents to sign report cards and call them in for parent-teacher conferences, but you can’t go much farther than that. Many schools already provide before and after school programs, subsidized lunches and other resources to help parents and students.

I’m sure many schools have variations of these ideas already in place; but I’d be willing to bet that those schools are not the poor performers. In my lay opinion, instituting these or similar programs would serve our kids a lot better than throwing more money at the problem.

The Real Goal of Green Politics

I followed a drudge link to a story about a speech given by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Copenhagen conference. In it, he said socialism “seeks to help all people” while “capitalism is the road to hell.” He proposed that the ”way to save the planet” is to “fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” What was the reaction from the assembled international community? He got a standing ovation, of course.

Just as national policies based on climate change seek to redistribute wealth and expand the size and scope of government at the expense of private businesses and citizens, international policies seek to redistribute wealth globally and expand the size and scope of international powers at the expense of national sovereignty. Unfortunately, the current Congress and President are supportive of these ideas at both levels.

Meanwhile, the “science” validating man-made global warming has been discredited. The core group of "scientists" that have shaped the IPCC position have been exposed as frauds. Predictably, however, now that they are so close to their goal of reshaping society and crippling the economic superpowers, world leaders are not going to let a little thing like facts get in the way.

Do we need any further proof that the end goal of the green movement has more to do with politics than science?

Global Warming Politics

Is anthropogenic global warming threatening the planet?

Al Gore and the IPCC would answer that yes, the Earth is warming because humans are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere and unless we all immediately give a whole lot of money and power to the government and significantly reduce our standard of living, the Earth will self-destruct around us.

I have been a global warming skeptic from the first time I learned of this issue. One of the main reasons is the politics involved. For one thing, there is too much money involved. Yes, grants are given before results are provided, but researchers know that the "right" results will yield follow-on research funding.

To understand the political motivation, look at the proposed solution: give money and power to the government and reduce our standard of living. This begs the question: do progressives subscribe to AGW theory because they really think the planet is in danger; or do they just see another opportunity to redistribute our wealth and control our behavior?

The answer is clear after examining the legislation that passed the House of Representatives. The CBO estimates that the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill would tax and spend about $870 billion over 10 years. The bill would also set up a carbon trading system that transfers even more wealth away from producers. Finally, it would give the government tremendous regulatory authority over private businesses. So far, this is a progressive’s dream.

So what are the benefits of this more-government approach? While it claims to create green jobs, the Heritage Foundation estimates a net loss of over 1 million jobs per year. The environmental impact, the stated reason for this legislation, is almost negligible. Even if you accept the questionable models that the AGW alarmists use, this legislation will only pull back warming by about 1/10 of a degree.

So, this bill gives money and power to the government, lowers our standard of living and doesn’t really fix the stated problem. Even if the science on global warming is true, this is definitely not the best solution. Is there any hope of getting politics out of science? Here is an excerpt from a speech President Obama gave on the topic of science.

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

Given recent news, you may think these words perfectly capture our objections to the "settled science" of anthropogenic global warming. It expresses how many of us feel the IPCC, environmental groups and politicians have been using the issue to push a purely political agenda. We now have evidence of distortion, concealment and destrucion of data that does not support their desired conclusion and of suppressing dissenting research.

If nothing else, President Obama is an excellent orator. His speeches articulate many universal, often conservative, principles that give an impression of an intelligent, thoughtful man worthy of the office he holds. After reading this, I was intoxicated with a sense of hope. I started to question my disagreements with the President. Maybe I'm the one that has been corrupted by the very politics I loathe. He continued his seduction.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.

Bravo, Mr. President. From this, we should be able to extrapolate the President's response to the new evidence that casts doubt on the "science" behind AGW theory, right? Based on his own memorandum, we should fully investigate this issue or we risk basing public policy on unsound science. But wait.

The above quote was taken from a March 2009 Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum that was coupled with the signing of the Stem Cell Executive Order to restore federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Apparently the President considers objections to human embryo destruction an ideological argument that should not enter into scientific decisions. The seduction wore off and my senses returned.

So what is his response to the recent evidence that global warming science has been corrupted by politics? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs continues to spout the same old talking point, that global warming is “not in dispute anymore.” So much for “restoring scientific integrity.” Until the politics can be separated from the science, count this layman as a skeptic.

Human Life is Precious in All Forms

Abortion is a hot button issue, no doubt about it. Many people shy away from talking about it, and with good reason: this issue blends two controversial topics - politics and religion - and has the potential to destroy personal relationships. Nevertheless, people feel compelled to argue their side because it is too important to ignore.

The first, most fundamental disagreement has always been the answer to the question, “when does human life begin?” There are three popular answers to this question: conception, viability, or birth. Let’s work our way backwards.

Birth: there is little argument that once a baby is born, he is a separate, whole human being and is entitled to all the same legal rights and protections as the mother who carried him. Unfortunately, supporters of partial-birth abortion draw a horrifying conclusion as to the exact conditions that constitute “birth.”

Viability: there is at least a legitimate argument to be made - however weak - that if a being cannot survive outside the womb, it is not a “life” yet. The problem is that this boundary is constantly being pushed earlier by technology. Does this mean that life begins earlier today than it did 10 years ago? Will it begin earlier 10 years from now than it does today? The fact that this line moves means that it can never be the right answer.

Conception: a fertilized egg contains a full compliment of human DNA. Some consider this single, unspecialized cell to be a part of the mother’s body. It is, however, a separate individual. Some conclude, because it is completely dependent on the mother’s body for life, that it is naught more than a parasite or a cancer. The difference is what it will grow into.

This single cell contains a complete human blueprint. The only thing remaining is gathering the right materials under the right conditions. For these, an embryo is completely dependent on his mother. I believe that a mother has no right to deny these conditions; in fact, she is already responsible for providing them.

I am against in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research because embryos are destroyed in the process. While sacrificing life in order to create, save or enhance other lives may present a gray area for some, the difference is who is making the choice. An adult can choose to be an organ donor or take part in a drug trial or other medical research; embryos destroyed through research or IVF are not given that choice.

Are there any exceptions? I leave only one: the life of the mother. When faced with a painful decision on which life to save and which to sacrifice, there can be no wrong answer.

Unfortunately, even some conservatives leave the door open in cases of rape or incest. To them I ask: how is a life conceived through rape any less valid than one conceived through love or lust? While the choice was not made by the victim, the new life inside her is no less precious. As for incest, I will concede that the risk of birth defects is higher, but this is no different than any other baby found to have birth defects in utero. Perhaps, in both of these cases, the children can become wards of the state paid for by the guilty party. They certainly need not be destroyed.

That is my lay opinion. It guides my view of all related issues. Note that none of it requires the endowment of a soul or any other theological position as I am not a believer. Even without God – I would say especially without God – human life is precious in all forms.

Thoughts On Veterans Day

Is it possible to express support for our troops without getting caught up in politics? Can we simply say "thank you" without arguing about what we're thankful for?

I proudly fly the US flag and POW/MIA flag in my front yard. They are on a 20 foot pole and, to the chagrin of the Dark-Sky Association, are lighted from dusk to dawn by two 50W halogen up lights. Clearly visible for a block in each direction, many pass it in their daily travels; but I do not fly it for them.


I don’t want to forget the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much so that I can enjoy the spoils of a free society. I don’t want to take for granted the opportunities my children will have because others have fought to protect our way of life.

As I leave for work to earn an honest living, as I come home to my safe, warm house and beautiful, loving family, as I cut the grass and maintain the property I have the right to own; the flag is there for me as a constant reminder.

Men and women in uniform risk more than their lives and limbs. Even those who make it back with their bodies in tact are rarely left unscathed by the horror of war. The POW/MIA flag reminds me that our troops face worse things than death.

I remember them every day. I try every day to live my life in a way that is worthy of their sacrifice. I say “thank you” every chance I get. In future posts I will argue and debate the attacks on the freedoms they protect and I will chastise those in government who chip away at the constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold. Today, though, let me just say “thank you.”


To all who have fought, to all who have died, to all who have made sacrifices to protect and promote freedom for our country and our world, thank you.

Introduction to Lay Opinions

Thanks to the internet, everyone can join in the discussion of any topic imaginable. Conservatives in Texas can exchange opinions with Liberals from New Jersey and Moderates from Ohio. Unfortunately most of it is lost in the noise. What's worse is that most discussions degenerate into personal insults, off-topic rants and other garbage that stifles any chance for real debate.

Through this blog, I will attempt to create a forum where honest, articulate opinions are collected so that everyone can walk away more informed. I plan to strictly moderate comments and maintain a respectful tone. I look forward to the debate.

Disclaimer: I am an unappologetic conservative. I belive in traditional values, limited government and fiscal restraint. I am a registered Republican - so I can vote for conservative candidates in primaries - but I hate partisanship and hold both sides to an equally high standard. My own opinions will be written from that perspective, but my comment moderation will be non-partisan. If anything, I will probably be a little looser with opposing viewpoints.

Let's have at it!