Opining Online

How dare they interfere with our politics? Why… there oughta be a law!

Of course there is a law saying foreign nationals do not have all the rights of political free speech granted to natives, both corporeal and corporate. And despite what some (our President, for example) are saying, the recent Supreme Court ruling doesn’t say that restriction is unconstitutional.

But… I have long had misgivings about interference of simple speech, ie speech not directly tied to a cash contribution, in our political shenanigans. For example, I thought the Guardian’s Operation Clark County was astoundingly arrogant, but not illegal.

In this same light, I felt it both legal and “OK” to express my desire that Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. I did not feel that it was right for me to donate money to him. I’m not a Massachusetts resident — I am a foreigner to Massachusetts. (on several levels!)

While I am completely comfortable with the idea that cash — however generated — enables free speech, I’m not comfortable with cash from outside the boundaries of the election. I would be highly irritated if Bossier City residents poured money into the campaigns of Shreveport mayoral candidates, for example.

I’m not entirely comfortable with Lech Walesa openly campaigning within this country in a governor’s race also. He’s definitely a foreign national and he’s raising money for a candidate in a U.S. race? That does not set well with me.

But, more importantly… is it legal?

It is appalling that President Obama, with his background, cannot — or refuses — to speak accurately about a Supreme Court decision:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Full text of 2009 State Of The Union address

Alito’s reaction

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (pdf)

You know my opinion. Read and view the above links and decide for yourself.

“…it’s as if we’re politically stuck in a permanent state of election. A political priapism. The United States of Viagra or something. The “they” run for office, the more “we” run. Against them! And the more I wasnt to run. Away”

Yup. I often feel as if I should blog more about politics but when I get that feeling and look into it a bit, I’m repulsed. Plus, I usually (always) find another blog or article where someone else has written essentially what I am thinking much better than I could write it.

However, one thing I am disgusted with is blind partisanship and I haven’t really seen a lot written about that. The fact that Coakley — arguably the worst senate candidate from any state in decades — got as many votes as she did can only (in my mind) attributed to a willful blindness. See here.

I was thrilled by the possibility that Scott Brown might win the special election for Senator from Massachusetts… now it’s beginning to be a bit more thrilling: it’s looking probable.

It’s hard to imagine a worse candidate than Martha Coakley for any office. Even her defenders are having a hard time with her record. See this question and answer post at Bitch Ph.D.: Just Doing My Job?  

It’s almost enough to render me speechless, but not quite.

Basically, a reader of that blog wants to feel better about having decided to vote for Coakley, but can’t quite dismiss Coakley’s insistence on keeping an innocent man in jail. Basically, M. LeBlanc answers that all prosecutors do that so don’t worry about it.

So, what’s the moral status of advocating that someone who is likely innocent remain in prison? It’s a tough question.

Is that a tough question for my few dear readers?

Usually when you hear a lot of bad stuff about a political candidate, someone on his/her political team comes out screaming “it’s not true”. But that isn’t the case here. Coakley’s supporters are acknowledging some pretty awful acts and inactions, yet voting for her simply because… because why?

Does partisanship trump morals? Ethics? Everything? If so, we are truly doomed.

That’s what the Senate seems prepared to give the American public for Christmas this year. It’s as if they know we might need it to keep us warm next winter. Too bad about that global warming and all.

Touted as a revenue neutral proposal, Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) is pushing for 1% of the world’s population (approx. 60 million people) to become ‘complaint free’. The day before Thanksgiving is to be the ‘Complaint Free’ Day.

Read it all here.

I am SO glad I got all the complaining out of my system earlier this week. But just in case something else comes up, I have a week left to complain.

Am I the only person who now feels compelled to complain about something through Nov. 25th?

Having just awakened from one of my infamous 15 hour naps, I find I have nothing important to say. I know that surprises you.

Get used to it, OK? Even the President has mostly nothing important to say. What I lack is his ability to say nothing eloquently.

What could possibly be said meaningfully or eloquently about poor Meghan McCain’s twitter castastrophe… and why is everyone so upset that she has boobs? I have boobs. Some people are boobs. Boobs are ubiquitous, right? Then… the feminist side of me jumps up screaming why are boobs associated with foolishness and ignorance, er… I mean dumb and blonde?

Is there an actual association between hair color and boob size? Or is there an association between women of average or better intelligence who happen to be blonde and have big boobs who have “made hay” of a perceived link?

As a big-boobed blonde of above average IQ who has given birth to a redhead, blonde, and brunette of above average IQ (and I won’t comment either on the boob size or gender…) I gotta ask… does penis size correlate with IQ? Is smaller smarter?

If I remember correctly, women with bigger boobs have more trouble breastfeeding than to do women with smaller ones. In some way this makes a lot of sense since lower primates and mammals do not develop big boobs. So is this smaller breast size and greater ability to breastfeed a sign of greater evolution or a sign of the productivity of lesser evolution?

At what point in human evolution did the appearance and associated utility of mammary development become  important? If only nourishment of the next generation were considered, small breasts with large nipples would be the norm.

Where did humans go ‘wrong’ in their preference? And did males have anything to do with it?

And what are we to do with the incredibly stupid JP in Tangipahoa Parish who will not marry “mixed” race couples?  It’s fairly obvious that this man opposes only black/white marriages. How would he decide on an Asian/Caucasian marriage or on an Native American/Caucasian marriage? An Hispanic/Caucasian marriage?

While we are given little information on his opinions of “mixed race” marriages not of the black/white type, I am not reluctant to “guess” at his opinion of other mixed “race” types.

And… once again, I am compelled to remember my sharing of photos of grandchildren with a black woman. Her grandson had blue eyes and blonde hair while my granddaughter had black hair, near black eyes and “much darker than white” skin.

It’s rather ironic that my caucasian genes might lower the IQ of my Asian granddaughter and that the caucasian genes might raise the IQ of the black woman’s grandson… theoretically, at least…

And while we’re thinking about racism and it’s incomprehensible negative effects, do not forget those who think that Barack Obama’s black heritage is of a higher intelligence than those whose black heritage is through slavery.

There is a cognitive dissonance thing going on among those who think Obama’s blackness is more “pure” because he is descended from an “actual” African and those who think his “African” descendance is less pure than an American African descendant.

Frankly, as “post-racialist” I think it matters not at all. He chooses the background that most helps his agenda. Unfortunately, his lack of understanding of history confuses him in identifying his agenda.

Gore Vidal: We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US. You have to get to the 13th paragraph to find he actually said a “military” dictatorship.

Hmm… where else did I read about the military taking over the U.S. today? That’s right, Newsmax, as noted here at Memeorandum. But even Newsmax columnist, John L. Perry, didn’t say that it was a sure thing like Vidal, but just that is wasn’t ”unrealistic.”

Via Villianous Company, where Cassandra apparently has a stronger stomach than I, as she appears to have actually read Perry’s column:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

To further quote Cassandra:  “All right, moron. I won’t call it unrealistic. How does batsh*t crazy strike you?” I couldn’t agree more and the same applies to Gore Vidal.

But… back to Vidal’s interview and something even a bit more batshit crazy:

Vidal raises his fingers to signify a gun and mutters: “Bang bang.” He is referring to the possibility of Obama being assassinated. “Just a mysterious lone gunman lurking in the shadows of the capital,” he says in a wry, dreamy way.

Now that’s holy batshit crazy.

Cui bono? Should Obama die in office (even if of natural causes) it will be the left and their policies which would most likely benefit. That would assure his status as hero, martyr, or both. It would assure no Republican president for at least 8 years, probably more.

UPDATE: It’s possible this post should be titled “Loony Left Meets Loonier Left”.  John L. Perry, the author of the now-removed Newsmax article worked on the White House staffs of both LBJ and Carter.

One thing, and one thing only IMHO, is promoting the idea of open carrying of firearms and that is an attempt to lessen the fear of people who own firearms.

Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.

The shock and horror of some people when they see a firearm is what has spurred this movement. It’s an attempt to debunk the idea that anyone who owns or carries a gun is a domestic terrorist.

It is a backlash against years of scare-mongering from the media. The question of whether one should do something merely because they legally can is somewhat (not entirely) mitigated by concerted efforts of those who desire to remove legality from the action.

unidentified, first-time shooter trying out various handguns

UPDATE: What does mulch do?

• Retains water
• Inhibits weed growth
• Moderates temperature
• Prevents erosion

The Liberal

A month or so ago, I got involved in several discussions over on ScienceBlogs in which conservatives were maligned rather harshly by other commenters. So I asked one of them to define what he meant by “conservative” and he directed me to his blog’s Ideology archives.

Obviously some of the entries are simply political snark and Coturnix of A Blog Around The Clock is a prolific blogger. He refers to George Lakoff’s books, particularly Moral Politics, very often. I haven’t read that book. After having read so much of Coturnix’s writing about it, I’m tempted, but then wonder if I’d just be bored.

I’ve chosen what I hope are representative posts of this one liberal’s idea of conservatism. Note that neither the author nor I have made any attempt to organize these in a manner of one thought flowing to another. They are basically chronological, which is fitting. Some of the following links go to a previous blog written by Coturnix. 

Regressives: What Should We Call Them? – March 28, 2005
Moral Order - June 23, 2006
Nurturant is not Coddly! – July 21, 2006
Why Creationists Need To Be Creationists - July 26, 2006 (see last comment for links to updates)

The Conservative

Assistant Village Idiot has thoughtfully arranged links to his series of posts on the roots of liberalism here. I cannot thank him enough because that makes finishing this post so easy on me.

Are there two distinct “political” or “worldview” tendencies based on biology?

The current Democratic and Republican parties do not define either liberalism or conservatism in terms other than the liklihood of re-election. The political parties exist only for their own self-interests, the public’s interest be damned.

The political parties are too self-centered to actually realize and put into play what might actually work in their interest because of the “public be damned” attitude of both.

The two party system has rendered “the house divided” a reality.

Both parties have doubled down on their ill-considered bets and the house will win.

But what is the house betting on? It’s safe to say the house is betting on both losing, but when the house wins, who wins? My guess is ultimately nobody because that is who the house ultimately represents… if all have placed their bets on one side or the other.

What happens to those who didn’t bet? These are the ultimate losers. Or, if some definition of political unity could be written, they would be the ultimate winners… and as such could lessen the penalty of the losses on the extremes.

So perhaps the middle — those who do not place a bet — are the ultimate winners. And because they are, those who did place a bet will not suffer the extreme punishment of winner take all.

Why and how could this be so? Precisely because the middle bet simultaneously that the extremes were both right and wrong. The only way is for one or the other of the extremes to be completely correct. How likely is that?

It’s not very likely because the extremes are, in reality, very similar. Let us take for example the extreme ID view that all reality was created at once and universal truths can therefore never change AND the opposite extreme view that reality is always changing and that there are no universal truths.

At least, I think these views are presented as opposite. Is that correct?Opposites are very unique things in that they have nothing in common and when combined yield something neutral.  It is only by accepting grey as the outcome of all colors that opposites make sense.

Thus grey would be the color of utopia, would it not? It is, as well, the color of moderation. Therefore there might be a connection between moderation and utopia. Is it as much a fantasy to wish for a moderate world, accepting of all as it is to wish for one ruled by either liberal or conservative values? Which of the three would be the worst? The second worst?

Is the thing most wrong with the middle is that it lacks conviction and the fire of certainty? Is that lack what makes it appealing to some?

Alphecca recently commented on how the AP defines “assault rifle” or weapon. Basically, it’s a rifle that looks mean, or “military” and it really doesn’t matter how you define the terms. It’s been my experience that where the media is concerned, AK-47 and assault weapon are synonymous.

Well, darned if the media didn’t have it right this time. Although I doubt they were any more aware of their correctness than I was.

It seems that the AK-47 was designed by copying certain features of the original “assault rifle”, the Sturmgewehr 44. It seems Hitler was highly impressed by that precursor to the AK-47 and gave it a name “satisfying his demented dream of eternally attacking the world”. (p.331)

There is nothing important I disagree with in Comrade PhysioProf’s essay — Constitutional Originalism, Natural Law, and the Ninth Amendment, except an apparent inability (or unwillingness) to discern whose ox is being gored.

He is arguing that “textual originalism” is a convenient tool for conservatives:

This provides a theoretical basis for conservative claims that there is no Constitutionally protected right to many things they despise: gay marriage, abortion, health care, housing, food, etc.

As far as marriage is concerned, the government should be involved only so far as it is a contract between two people. The states have defined this contract differently, some are community property states, some are not. Divorce is the legal dissolution of that contract. That’s as far as the government has any say in marriage as far as I’m concerned. It should in no way be involved in defining who can get married beyond setting an age limit, as it already does, of who can legally be a party to a contract.

That some people wish to have their marriage recognized by their church and are willing to accept further constraints due to religion are outside the realm of government. Government should not enforce a doctrine of religion. I believe that’s covered in the 1st Amendment.

Abortion is a bit different because it involves death of living tissue and pits the rights of one against another. Some will argue that it is only the death of a living tissue which, if such life were protected would mean it would be illegal to kill a mosquito. Others argue that because the tissue is human it has special status and protection. Government, especially the federal government should not be involved in defining where life begins.

I see a role for government only after the fetus is capable of survival outside the mother’s body. After that point, to me at least, it is obviously murder of a helpless individual and the government should and must protect that individual. This is not representative of my personal moral preference (no abortion ever unless the mother will die because of the pregnancy) but my view of where government has the authority to intervene.

Now I address whether there is a protected right to health care under the 9th Amendment. The idea that government cannot make a law denying health care to any group or individual is certainly protected. Does this mean that government has a duty to make laws mandating health care for every individual? Frankly, can anyone define what health care actually is?

Is it possible that mandating health care of certain types violates some of the enumerated rights? Why, yes it is. While I personally advocate for mandated vaccinations to increase herd immunity, I do not think that government should be able to force anyone to inject something into their body that they do not wish to. On the other hand, I can see where government has a right to refuse some services to people who wish to exercise this right.

Left out of Comrade PhysioProf’s list is whether there is a right to education. Most states (not necessarily the federal government) mandate education for their citizens to a great degree. Parents are punished for not sending their children to school or otherwise providing a state-sanctioned education. When public tax dollars are used to provide education, I see no problem with requiring vaccinations in order to partake of publically funded education.

Housing. Is there a natural right to housing? Further, is there a natural right to a certain standard of housing? What is this standard? Must this standard include ownership? Do SROs meet this standard? Damn, this is almost as sticky as abortion, is it not? Or… perhaps it is stickier. Should the federal government require the Amish have electricity? Some of my most idyllic memories of childhood are living in a place with no electricity and no running water. I realize now how much work my mother put into taking care of me in such circumstances, but in no way do I feel deprived for having experienced them. Rather, I feel privileged.

I once worked for a social service agency that perceived its continuing existence in providing housing. The working motto for the agency’s CEO was that any housing she would not be comfortable in was inacceptable for any of her clients. That is truly unrealistic, IMHO, although it is understandable. 

It is an unfortunate fact that federal government mandated housing has not been a success. I’m enough of an idealist to wish it had, but enough of a realist to realize it’s failed. There is no natural right to a defined standard of housing, however much I wish it to be so.

Food. Calories, to be exact. Should the federal government concern itself with providing a given number of calories to every citizen? Should the federal government concern itself with providing a certain quality of calories to every citizen? Should access to vitamins be a right? See above, where I  comment on the mandating of vaccinations, and then consider whether government is empowered by natural law to limit or mandate the consumption of any substance.

It should be obvious by now that I favor little intervention in our lives by government. It’s also imperative that I address the 2nd Amendment, which was not addressed by our dear Comrade, but was by one of the commenters,  Dr Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde:

(Ignore the social conservative agenda of gays and abortions here; I’m talking about guns, unemployment assistance, business regulations, etc.)

Let’s address this parenthetical comment in a backwards manner. I’m not adverse to business regulations. Multiple posts could be generated on how I think business should be regulated and these matters are not addressed by the first ten amendments. Secondly, I’m going to address unemployment assistance separately.

But… guns……. ah, the 2nd Amendment. I personally think it addresses the right of individuals acting collectively to prevent a tyrannical government – ie, one which espouses taxation without representation, one which imposes limits on personal freedoms, one which mandates behavior, etc. It hails the idea that government should not control violence. If government is the only wielder of violence, what recourse does the citizen have? None…?

What the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly cover is the right to self-defense. This is, IMHO, covered by the 9th Amendment. Between the two, guns and their cousins (knives, blunt objects, baseball bats, mace, and tasers) are implements that are covered by both.

It is, to me, obnoxious, that humans do not have a right to self-defense, either of their corporal body or their form of government.

Let us not forget that icon of privacy, the 3rd Amendment. This is, IMHO, along with the 4th Amendment that a man’s or woman’s… ie, a citizen’s house is their castle.

Unemployment assistance — is there a right to a job and/or an income? hmm… This is actually a question of insurance, because that is what unemployment assistance is. It is insurance against a downturn of business success. It does not guarantee assistance if the employee was fired because he stole from the business or failed to perform in a way that assisted the maintenance or growth of the business.

Businesses pay premiums, generally based on their unemployment claims statistics, to a state insurance fund. Where is there a right to a job or to unemployment compensation? It is a monetary decision on the part of both the state and the business, is it not?

Is there a right to employment? Can the federal government compel you to hire any given individual? If not, there is not federal mandate for unemployment assistance. It is strictly the business of insurance, is it not?

Now… really… don’t get me started on insurance. Really. It is, IMHO (as so much of this essay is) a protection racket. No… don’t encourage me!!

While I maintain that Comrade PhysioProf is not necessarily wrong, I also maintain that there is no evidence of a definitive answer in the essay. Progressive is a noun as meaningless as Conservative. Neither offers an answer that should be written in stone. Or law.

Dr. Isis pointed me to Comrade PhysioProf… and I suggest that everyone read Dr. Isis because she wears really hot shoes and does really hot science.

While I disagree with most of Obama’s goals and policies as stated during the campaign and acted on so far, I do think he’s a brilliant politician and he’s got brilliant political advisors. So I have to wonder why they’ve chosen Rush Limbaugh as the conservative to elevate in the public’s attention.

In the campaign, Obama ran against Bush and the last eight years. There was little opening for McCain to say or do much that did not feed into that narrative. Bush was the easy target and the Obama campaign used him to effectively to distract from McCain’s campaign. Palin was used in the same way.

It appears they are setting up Rush Limbaugh to use in 2010. And they are succeeding because Republicans are going along with it. It will be easy for them to use him as a distraction in every 2010 contest. The theme will be something along the lines of all conservatives let Rush do their thinking for them. And they may not be far from wrong.

Scientists say the dose is what makes something poison and too much Limbaugh will weaken the Republican party. I am seriously disappointed that Michael Steele played into their hands so neatly and easily.

More HERE.

Since that phrase was uttered in Obama’s Inaugural speech, much has been written about what that rightful place should be.

My personal take is that science should be near the top. It epitomizes (or should, at least) logical thinking. Logical thinking comes in handy no matter the discipline, so science should be teaching us logic in all things. At least the most important things that impact our daily lives.

Science Blogs took the question seriously and many of the contributors there have offered their comments. You’ll find my comments in several of their posts.

It should be pointed out that I am science junkie. I’ve been one since the early 1980s when my son’s closed head injury sent me to the medical library at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. At that point in time, all I wanted to do was understand the reports of his CT scans, and later, his MRIs.

I learned the parts of the brain, from Wernicke’s area to the substantia nigra quite easily. It’s like reading a map in a way. I understood the reports about the significant and diffuse areas of injury that suggested that he might never speak or walk again. Thankfully, he proved those prognoses wrong. He does not walk perfectly or speak/communicate perfectly and his anxiety at realizing he doesn’t isn’t shown on a CT or MRI scan.

Innate curiosity took over from there. How can one learn just a little bit without wondering what came before and what might come afterwards? And how does this relate to seemingly unrelated things?

Thus began my on-again, off-again subscribtion to Scientific American. It’s recently been mostly off-again because of ScienceBlogs and ScienceDaily.

All of this leads to the most important statement I want to make:

SCIENCE IS IMPORTANT TO ME.

Because it is important, I am disgusted with poor science, science which aims primarily at a monetary result, and woo – science which is just junk – and closely related to making money over advancing knowledge. With all this in mind, I am linking the best of the responses (IMHO) of the ScienceBlogger’s answers to the “rightful place” of science (in no particular order):

Pure Pedantry - Science can tell us what is and in some cases what might be, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. Science can make us intelligent, but it cannot make us wise.

Neurotopia 2.0 – Science needs a voice. A voice of reason, a voice of information. So when the government, or your friend down the street is trying to make a decision, it won’t just be gut instinct. It will be feelings, AND science, AND social considerations, AND economics. And based on all of these factors, a decision can be reached. When science is included, I feel that decision is more likely to be beneficial. The place of science may not be at the very top. But it should at least be in the cabinet. And it should definitely be in the classrooms.

Not Exactly Rocket Science – This difference, between “Science: the Details” and “Science: the Principles is crucial to me. Lacking the former deprives you of knowledge; lacking the latter deprives you of the tools with which to acquire knowledge. The details are what most people think of when they think of science, and they view them as the provinces of geeks and boffins. The principles are a way of thinking, whether people think about it or not, and they are everywhere.

Respectful Insolence - The U.S. still has a healthy scientific endeavor, and the government is not the be-all and end-all of science. Unfortunately, the logo and the concept behind the Rightful Place Project seem to imply that it is, particularly given that President Obama’s statements about science were the inspiration for the project.

Let’s get one thing straight right here: “Revitalizing” science, whatever that means, does not depend upon government. It does not depend upon Barack Obama. There is no doubt that the government is very important as a funder of science, particularly biomedical science, and that the President can do a lot to support science in the U.S., but it is Americans doing science who determine how vital the scientific endeavor in this country is, not the government.

Corpus Callosum - What is being asked is this: help define the rightful place of science in our world.  The answer is this: Literature, Science, and the Arts.  The three noble human endeavors.  Each necessary; none sufficient; each overlapping; none mutually exclusive.

Science is one leg of the three-legged table that elevates all mental sustenance out of the mud. 

AND that, my friends, ends this inquiry into the rightful place of science. However, I’d like to submit an afterthought of my own:

Science is not well served by today’s popular media, be it television, internet, or print. Too much hoopla and too much hype. Were we to listen entirely to popular media, we’d think obesity is caused by a virus and we’re all doomed because of miniscule detectable amounts of mercury in high fructose corn syrup.

Where do you think the rightful place of science is? Could it possibly be in the pages of our newspapers, TV stations, and their websites? Nah… real science isn’t that good for scary headlines.

(formatting changed for clarity and links added)

I’m agreeing with Maureen Dowd. Again. It has me checking the definition of blue moon.

Well, almost agreeing anyway. She’s advocating putting the screws to Wall Street’s Socialist Jet-Setters and I have to admit I’d like to see that too. At least to the current crop of nincompoops. The problem is that stupidity is not a crime and that’s all they are guilty of. So far.

I want to see them suffer much more than humiliation and ridicule, though I’m disappointed that Ms. Dowd thinks these gentlemen would be trustworthy enough to fill an ATM with cash.

Nor would I trust most of the Representatives and Senators to do such a job either. And that’s where I’m in disagreement with Ms. Dowd. ”Let the show trials begin.” she writes. The show trials we have in this country are Congressional investigations and that’s like asking the Mafia to turn over one of its own. I’m not interested in sacrificial lambs, I’m interested in actual reform. Trials before juries of their peers, with the understanding that their peers are average Americans, whether they want to believe that or not

Let’s wish Andrew Cuomo, New York’s attorney general, good luck in his investigation of the $4 billion in bonuses paid as Merrill Lynch was failing.

A picture is worth a 1,000 words and + or – $15 billion.

Big Three.