Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Papal Bull

My first column for the Daily Pennsylvanian student newspaper was just published yesterday. My column will be running under the heading "The Devil's Advocate." Here's the whole column, enjoy. 
During his Christmas address in Vatican City, Pope Francis reached out to atheists, saying, “I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace. [Join us] with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace.” The line received an uproarious ovation, but I wish to withhold my applause.
Which nonbelievers do not already desire peace? Does he think we prefer war, death or destruction? Why not ask us to work toward peace, instead of just desiring and praying for it?
Now, before you start jumping all over me for being too pedantic, allow me to explain why I’m so hesitant to take Pope Francis’ grand gestures at face value.
In early 2013, Pope Benedict XVI captured the public interest by resigning the papacy because “God told him to.” Benedict’s tenure as pontiff was marked by a sharp turn to the right, seeking what he called a “smaller purer church.” Compared to the much beloved Pope John Paul II, Benedict was a disaster for the church’s image. So when the papal conclave elected Pope Francis, the first non-European Pope since 1272 and a man who was renowned for his kind manner and work with the poor, the contrast was incredibly stark.
Ever since, I have watched countless liberal pundits and writers proclaim Francis a godsend for progressive values. I cannot help but be reminded of 2008’s enthusiasm for Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign. Both generated a large amount of early enthusiasm through their eloquent pronouncements before actually making policy changes — Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and the pope was named Time’s 2013 Person of the Year.
Let us revisit some of the pontiff’s highlights from his first year:
On May 23rd, Pope Francis suggested that “even the atheists” can go to heaven. Amid the ensuing media sensation, Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica quietly released a statement clarifying that the Pope meant atheists can go to heaven … by becoming Catholic.
In a “surprise interview” on a plane back to Rome on July 29th, Francis said, “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?” Once again, proponents of social justice lauded the sentiment as new gospel — forgetting to mention that Francis has never changed the church’s opposition to homosexuality. As recently as 2010, he called gay adoption a form of discrimination against children and claimed marriage equality would “seriously damage the family.”
It should have come as no surprise that two months later the pontiff would order the excommunication of Australian priest Greg Reynolds, who was advocating for gay marriage and the ordination of female priests.
Perhaps everything the pope says that sounds remotely liberal should be followed by an asterisk.
“But, Collin,” I hear you cry, “you’re an atheist! Why do you even care what the pope has to say?”
I care because the Catholic Church leads and influences over 1.2 billion (as it likes to boast) parishioners worldwide, with over 70 million in the United States alone.
I care because Pope Francis has made no effort to correct the lie that condom use increases AIDS transmission — a falsehood propagated in Africa by the previous pontiff.
I care because estimates suggest the church’s annual spending approaches $170 billion worldwide, 10 times the annual profits of Walmart. I say “estimates” because the church is tax-exempt, so it is not required to report its earnings.
What do you think?

I care because the Catholic Church spent over $2 million in 2012 fighting marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, Washington and my home state of Minnesota.
1

I care because Catholic hospitals account for 15 percent of hospital beds in the United States and many more worldwide, and the church’s stances on contraception, abortion and end-of-life care often dictate which medical interventions are prescribed.
I care because Pope Francis could change it all.
Regardless of your beliefs about the pope and his alleged hotline to heaven, he holds tremendous power over many of the people and issues I care about greatly. I hope I am wrong about Francis being purely a PR campaign, but actions still speak louder.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

GOP Calls for more Abortion Talk?

The GOP is apparently considering renewing it's vocal opposition to abortion rights.

In the last few years the GOP has tried to tone down it's rhetoric when it comes to women's health issues, especially in the wake of such luminaries as Todd "Shut that whole thing down" Akin. Some strategists and advocates within the party seem to think this was a mistake.
“Not talking about it has not worked well for us. Not responding has not worked well for us. It’s a conversation the party has to have.”-Ellen Barrosse, Delaware National Committeewoman
The proposed measure says "Pro-Life Republicans should fight back against deceptive rhetoric regardless of those in the Republican Party who encourage them to stay silent."

Here's the problem with this strategy. The reason your whole "let's not talk about it" strategy on rape, abortion, and contraception doesn't work very well in conjunction with renewed efforts at the state level to restrict women's healthcare access. Cutting back on rhetoric while taking more actions only makes you look sneaky and disingenuous.

Monday, January 20, 2014

New Rule: Republicans must stop claiming Lincoln

Today, the Republican Party of Minnesota decided to take this MLK day to remind us of how they've never stopped fighting for freedom

Included in their mailing was a link to this video of Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory explaining why he switched his party affiliation to Republican. I for one cannot follow his reasoning.


It is the right decision, not only for me but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community. You see in recent history, the Democratic Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what's best for black people. Somehow, it's been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.
Fredrick Douglas called the Republicans the party of freedom and progress, and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the emancipation proclamation. It was Republicans in Congress who authored the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process under the law.
The Democrats, on the other hand, were the party of Jim Crowe who defended the rights of slave owners. 
It was the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower who championed the civil rights act of 1957, but it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill. 
The rest of the video cries out for rebuttal as well, but this quote was the root source of my irritation.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln and Eisenhower were Republicans, when the Republicans were the liberal party fighting against the racist conservative Democrats. The Parties have change dramatically over the centuries, most drastically over the last 50 years. Eisenhower may have championed a civil rights bill as a Republican liberal Republican, but it was Lyndon B. Johnson (D) who in 1960 would fill in the holes and compromises the 1957 legislation.

When LBJ made that decision, he rightfully feared retribution from his own party, particularly southern democrats. Nixon would soon arrive on the scene to pioneer "The Southern Strategy" which finally secured the southern state voting block for the Republican party. Over the next decade, the Republican Party solidified it control of the Bible belt. Soon, the rise of evangelical movements like Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" would come to dominate the Republican party in the name of social conservatism.

In a very short span of time, the pro-segregation Democrats gave way to the pro-equality Democrats and the liberal Republicans morphed into the party evangelical conservatives they remain to this day.

So don't give me any of this "Lincoln was a Republican" bullshit anymore. The only thing the two parties have in common over all this time is the name.

But Guillory isn't done yet:
You see, at the heart of Liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the Left is only concerned with one thing: control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare food stamps, these programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were ALWAYS intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.
The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. 
And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they've always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Out prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self initiative and our self reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.   
Sometime [sic] I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that is has become a cliche. The idea of freedom is complex and it's all-encompassing. It's the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It's the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it's the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. 
It's the idea that parents must be the decision makers with regards to their children's education, not some government bureaucrat. But most importantly it's the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness, free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than author of our destiny [Guillory points heavenward]. 
These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican. So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment so that we may all echo the words of one Republican Leader who famously said: 'Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty we are free at last.'
Let's assume for a minute that the Democrats are indeed the party of disappointment and they have failed in their attempts to alleviate suffering in the African American community. Even so, I don't understand how you can justify turning to the party implementing Voter ID laws in many states that were considered far too obviously racist by the Voting Rights Act to be implemented before conservatives on the Supreme Court struck it down because apparently racism doesn't exist anymore.

I don't understand wanting government to have less control and joining the party of mandatory ultrasounds and .

I don't understand calling for emails and phone records to remain "free from government search and seizure" and joining the party that instituted the Patriot Act in the first place.

I don't understand joining the party that needs to be coached on how not to sound racist in order to better fight for racial equality.

I don't get it at all.


Tuesday, December 24, 2013

An Open Question on Moral Legislation in Government

Like it or not, our government does legislate morality. Outlawing murder, rape, theft, and fraud are to varying degrees moral statements codified in law.

While I think we can agree that a purely religious backing for these moral statements is insufficient for justifying laws, I'm not entirely sure what we think should be a sufficient condition for legislating a moral principle.

Does the majority determine morality? Do we base our determinations in utilitarian, puritanical, or deontological ethics?

Can banning weed be justified on grounds of moral purity? How about banning meth and heroin for the moral conviction that we don't want people to be hurt or hurt others?

If you believe abortion is murder, that would justify banning it without exception (except perhaps life of the mother) using the same arguments for banning murder itself. Who determines what the moral stance of the country should be on the issue?

Should we keep gay marriage illegal because many people deem it to be immoral on religious grounds? Probably not; but what about for a moral appeal to purity?

I myself disagree with most of these hypothetical laws and justifications I've proposed, but I'm not entirely clear on what principles I'm appealing to other than my own convictions on morality in order to make that determination. That would seem to put us back to square one with majority rules on morality. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

How else can we (or should we) collectively determine the moral stances our government should take?

If you have any suggestions please leave a comment, because I don't have an answer at the moment.

Friday, July 5, 2013

It's a Mad World

Yesterday was the 4th of July, a holiday during which we celebrate an act of treason to the King of England telling him they were fed up with a long list of governmental overreaches he had inflicted upon the colonies. And how do we celebrate such a holiday? By doing what we do best: blow stuff up.


But through the whole day, while people all around donned red and white striped tops, flag pins, and other American themed apparel, I sank into my chair as I took the holiday as a chance to catch up on national and international news. By the time fireworks began to fly into the low hanging clouds and disappear over the Pacific, I had lost all impetus for celebration.

I used to think that "godless America hating lefties" were a myth created by Fox News to scare old people out of their retirement savings, but now I fear I have become one of them. If America is, as supposed, the sum of our founding documents and constitutional principles, then I have very few grievances to levy against her. However, if we instead define America as the sum of actions taken in her name by her people, I find so much more objectionable material.

So, in deference to the Declaration we nearly deify this week, I want to air my list of grievances.

Belief in Evolution by country. We're the one right above Turkey.
Another chart to drive home how odd we are

All of this also goes to another grievance: our debates are over facts not opinions. Instead of discussing differences in theory of governance or opinion on policy, we spend a vast portion of our public discourse disputing reality.

I could go on and on and on but I can't take writing this diatribe any longer.

Still, I feel I can't leave my computer without reminding myself that being able to write this post without any fear of reprisal from my government means that perhaps my country isn't that bad after all.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Why Go to Space?

In the depths of the recession, and even in fair economic weather, many people continue to raise their voices in protest to America's investment in space travel. Today, one of my coworkers forwarded a letter from Ernst Stuhlinger, former Associate Director for Science at NASA. Though written in 1970, the letter is equally as powerful today. For those who don't want to read the whole thing, xkcd summed up the sentiment admirably.





May 6, 1970

Dear Sister Mary Jucunda:

Your letter was one of many which are reaching me every day, but it has touched me more deeply than all the others because it came so much from the depths of a searching mind and a compassionate heart. I will try to answer your question as best as I possibly can.

First, however, I would like to express my great admiration for you, and for all your many brave sisters, because you are dedicating your lives to the noblest cause of man: help for his fellowmen who are in need.

You asked in your letter how I could suggest the expenditures of billions of dollars for a voyage to Mars, at a time when many children on this Earth are starving to death. I know that you do not expect an answer such as "Oh, I did not know that there are children dying from hunger, but from now on I will desist from any kind of space research until mankind has solved that problem!" In fact, I have known of famined children long before I knew that a voyage to the planet Mars is technically feasible. However, I believe, like many of my friends, that travelling to the Moon and eventually to Mars and to other planets is a venture which we should undertake now, and I even believe that this project, in the long run, will contribute more to the solution of these grave problems we are facing here on Earth than many other potential projects of help which are debated and discussed year after year, and which are so extremely slow in yielding tangible results.

Before trying to describe in more detail how our space program is contributing to the solution of our Earthly problems, I would like to relate briefly a supposedly true story, which may help support the argument. About 400 years ago, there lived a count in a small town in Germany. He was one of the benign counts, and he gave a large part of his income to the poor in his town. This was much appreciated, because poverty was abundant during medieval times, and there were epidemics of the plague which ravaged the country frequently. One day, the count met a strange man. He had a workbench and little laboratory in his house, and he labored hard during the daytime so that he could afford a few hours every evening to work in his laboratory. He ground small lenses from pieces of glass; he mounted the lenses in tubes, and he used these gadgets to look at very small objects. The count was particularly fascinated by the tiny creatures that could be observed with the strong magnification, and which he had never seen before. He invited the man to move with his laboratory to the castle, to become a member of the count's household, and to devote henceforth all his time to the development and perfection of his optical gadgets as a special employee of the count.

The townspeople, however, became angry when they realized that the count was wasting his money, as they thought, on a stunt without purpose. "We are suffering from this plague," they said, "while he is paying that man for a useless hobby!" But the count remained firm. "I give you as much as I can afford," he said, "but I will also support this man and his work, because I know that someday something will come out of it!"

Indeed, something very good came out of this work, and also out of similar work done by others at other places: the microscope. It is well known that the microscope has contributed more than any other invention to the progress of medicine, and that the elimination of the plague and many other contagious diseases from most parts of the world is largely a result of studies which the microscope made possible.

The count, by retaining some of his spending money for research and discovery, contributed far more to the relief of human suffering than he could have contributed by giving all he could possibly spare to his plague-ridden community.

The situation which we are facing today is similar in many respects. The President of the United States is spending about 200 billion dollars in his yearly budget. This money goes to health, education, welfare, urban renewal, highways, transportation, foreign aid, defense, conservation, science, agriculture and many installations inside and outside the country. About 1.6 percent of this national budget was allocated to space exploration this year. The space program includes Project Apollo, and many other smaller projects in space physics, space astronomy, space biology, planetary projects, Earth resources projects, and space engineering. To make this expenditure for the space program possible, the average American taxpayer with 10,000 dollars income per year is paying about 30 tax dollars for space. The rest of his income, 9,970 dollars, remains for his subsistence, his recreation, his savings, his other taxes, and all his other expenditures.

You will probably ask now: "Why don't you take 5 or 3 or 1 dollar out of the 30 space dollars which the average American taxpayer is paying, and send these dollars to the hungry children?" To answer this question, I have to explain briefly how the economy of this country works. The situation is very similar in other countries. The government consists of a number of departments (Interior, Justice, Health, Education and Welfare, Transportation, Defense, and others) and the bureaus (National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others). All of them prepare their yearly budgets according to their assigned missions, and each of them must defend its budget against extremely severe screening by congressional committees, and against heavy pressure for economy from the Bureau of the Budget and the President. When the funds are finally appropriated by Congress, they can be spent only for the line items specified and approved in the budget.

The budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, naturally, can contain only items directly related to aeronautics and space. If this budget were not approved by Congress, the funds proposed for it would not be available for something else; they would simply not be levied from the taxpayer, unless one of the other budgets had obtained approval for a specific increase which would then absorb the funds not spent for space. You realize from this brief discourse that support for hungry children, or rather a support in addition to what the United States is already contributing to this very worthy cause in the form of foreign aid, can be obtained only if the appropriate department submits a budget line item for this purpose, and if this line item is then approved by Congress.

You may ask now whether I personally would be in favor of such a move by our government. My answer is an emphatic yes. Indeed, I would not mind at all if my annual taxes were increased by a number of dollars for the purpose of feeding hungry children, wherever they may live.

I know that all of my friends feel the same way. However, we could not bring such a program to life merely by desisting from making plans for voyages to Mars. On the contrary, I even believe that by working for the space program I can make some contribution to the relief and eventual solution of such grave problems as poverty and hunger on Earth. Basic to the hunger problem are two functions: the production of food and the distribution of food. Food production by agriculture, cattle ranching, ocean fishing and other large-scale operations is efficient in some parts of the world, but drastically deficient in many others. For example, large areas of land could be utilized far better if efficient methods of watershed control, fertilizer use, weather forecasting, fertility assessment, plantation programming, field selection, planting habits, timing of cultivation, crop survey and harvest planning were applied.

The best tool for the improvement of all these functions, undoubtedly, is the artificial Earth satellite. Circling the globe at a high altitude, it can screen wide areas of land within a short time; it can observe and measure a large variety of factors indicating the status and condition of crops, soil, droughts, rainfall, snow cover, etc., and it can radio this information to ground stations for appropriate use. It has been estimated that even a modest system of Earth satellites equipped with Earth resources, sensors, working within a program for worldwide agricultural improvements, will increase the yearly crops by an equivalent of many billions of dollars.

The distribution of the food to the needy is a completely different problem. The question is not so much one of shipping volume, it is one of international cooperation. The ruler of a small nation may feel very uneasy about the prospect of having large quantities of food shipped into his country by a large nation, simply because he fears that along with the food there may also be an import of influence and foreign power. Efficient relief from hunger, I am afraid, will not come before the boundaries between nations have become less divisive than they are today. I do not believe that space flight will accomplish this miracle over night. However, the space program is certainly among the most promising and powerful agents working in this direction.

Let me only remind you of the recent near-tragedy of Apollo 13. When the time of the crucial reentry of the astronauts approached, the Soviet Union discontinued all Russian radio transmissions in the frequency bands used by the Apollo Project in order to avoid any possible interference, and Russian ships stationed themselves in the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans in case an emergency rescue would become necessary. Had the astronaut capsule touched down near a Russian ship, the Russians would undoubtedly have expended as much care and effort in their rescue as if Russian cosmonauts had returned from a space trip. If Russian space travelers should ever be in a similar emergency situation, Americans would do the same without any doubt.

Higher food production through survey and assessment from orbit, and better food distribution through improved international relations, are only two examples of how profoundly the space program will impact life on Earth. I would like to quote two other examples: stimulation of technological development, and generation of scientific knowledge.

The requirements for high precision and for extreme reliability which must be imposed upon the components of a moon-travelling spacecraft are entirely unprecedented in the history of engineering. The development of systems which meet these severe requirements has provided us a unique opportunity to find new material and methods, to invent better technical systems, to manufacturing procedures, to lengthen the lifetimes of instruments, and even to discover new laws of nature.

All this newly acquired technical knowledge is also available for application to Earth-bound technologies. Every year, about a thousand technical innovations generated in the space program find their ways into our Earthly technology where they lead to better kitchen appliances and farm equipment, better sewing machines and radios, better ships and airplanes, better weather forecasting and storm warning, better communications, better medical instruments, better utensils and tools for everyday life. Presumably, you will ask now why we must develop first a life support system for our moon-travelling astronauts, before we can build a remote-reading sensor system for heart patients. The answer is simple: significant progress in the solutions of technical problems is frequently made not by a direct approach, but by first setting a goal of high challenge which offers a strong motivation for innovative work, which fires the imagination and spurs men to expend their best efforts, and which acts as a catalyst by including chains of other reactions.

Spaceflight without any doubt is playing exactly this role. The voyage to Mars will certainly not be a direct source of food for the hungry. However, it will lead to so many new technologies and capabilities that the spin-offs from this project alone will be worth many times the cost of its implementation.

Besides the need for new technologies, there is a continuing great need for new basic knowledge in the sciences if we wish to improve the conditions of human life on Earth. We need more knowledge in physics and chemistry, in biology and physiology, and very particularly in medicine to cope with all these problems which threaten man's life: hunger, disease, contamination of food and water, pollution of the environment.

We need more young men and women who choose science as a career and we need better support for those scientists who have the talent and the determination to engage in fruitful research work. Challenging research objectives must be available, and sufficient support for research projects must be provided. Again, the space program with its wonderful opportunities to engage in truly magnificent research studies of moons and planets, of physics and astronomy, of biology and medicine is an almost ideal catalyst which induces the reaction between the motivation for scientific work, opportunities to observe exciting phenomena of nature, and material support needed to carry out the research effort.

Among all the activities which are directed, controlled, and funded by the American government, the space program is certainly the most visible and probably the most debated activity, although it consumes only 1.6 percent of the total national budget, and 3 per mille (less than one-third of 1 percent) of the gross national product. As a stimulant and catalyst for the development of new technologies, and for research in the basic sciences, it is unparalleled by any other activity. In this respect, we may even say that the space program is taking over a function which for three or four thousand years has been the sad prerogative of wars.

How much human suffering can be avoided if nations, instead of competing with their bomb-dropping fleets of airplanes and rockets, compete with their moon-travelling space ships! This competition is full of promise for brilliant victories, but it leaves no room for the bitter fate of the vanquished, which breeds nothing but revenge and new wars.

Although our space program seems to lead us away from our Earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars, I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by space scientists as our Earth. It will become a better Earth, not only because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our Earth, of life, and of man.



The photograph which I enclose with this letter shows a view of our Earth as seen from Apollo 8 when it orbited the moon at Christmas, 1968. Of all the many wonderful results of the space program so far, this picture may be the most important one. It opened our eyes to the fact that our Earth is a beautiful and most precious island in an unlimited void, and that there is no other place for us to live but the thin surface layer of our planet, bordered by the bleak nothingness of space. Never before did so many people recognize how limited our Earth really is, and how perilous it would be to tamper with its ecological balance. Ever since this picture was first published, voices have become louder and louder warning of the grave problems that confront man in our times: pollution, hunger, poverty, urban living, food production, water control, overpopulation. It is certainly not by accident that we begin to see the tremendous tasks waiting for us at a time when the young space age has provided us the first good look at our own planet.

Very fortunately though, the space age not only holds out a mirror in which we can see ourselves, it also provides us with the technologies, the challenge, the motivation, and even with the optimism to attack these tasks with confidence. What we learn in our space program, I believe, is fully supporting what Albert Schweitzer had in mind when he said: "I am looking at the future with concern, but with good hope."

My very best wishes will always be with you, and with your children.

Very sincerely yours,

Ernst Stuhlinger

Associate Director for Science

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Don't let them take our right to bully!

I'm in the middle of finals now, so I'm almost back to having time to post regularly again. Thank you all for being patient with me. I should be working on my projects but this email came across my inbox and I couldn't sit still.

The "Minnesota Family Council" is out there right now fighting to keep the MN legislature from passing anti-bullying bill. What is most astounding about it is how up front they are about all of it. (Emphasis in original. I'm not kidding).


Legislative Alert!
Call your state senator and representative and urge them to oppose the "Anti-bullying" bill (S.F. No. 783/HF 826) which will impose a $26 million mandate on all schools and require “politically correct” diversity training in all public and private schools in the state.*
CLICK HERE to identify and contact your legislator.
  • Requires schools to monitor student communications, not just in the school and school events, but whenever students might be communicating with other students.
  •  Applies to private, religious schools.  Massive and unprecedented attack on the rights of religious schools to direct the operation and content of the programs.  
  • Imposes a costly, unfunded mandate on all public and private schools.  (In the Senate bill.)  Fiscal notes the annual cost for schools will be $26 million.
  • The definition of the bill is likely unconstitutional because of its overbroad reach.  In the Senate bill, anything which has a “detrimental effect on the physical, social or emotional health of a student” constitutes bullying under the bill.   This could include comments, intended or not, which makes a student feel bad. Or which “creates or exacerbates a real or perceived imbalance of power between students”. What does that mean?  
  • Gives special attention and protections to at least 19 groups in society, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” (boys and girls who want to dress as the opposite sex).  So if male student comes to school dressed in female clothing and is teased.  That would constitute bullying under this bill.
  • Bureaucratic nightmare.  Forces schools to document, retain the records of thousands of bullying complaints, incidents, real or perceived and forward information to the state.
  • Would be used as a tool to reshape the attitudes and values of school-age children regarding family structure and sexuality
  • Goes far beyond bullying to require schools to “prevent and reduce discrimination”.  This could include, alternative views on sexuality and family structure issues. 
In short, this bill will create an administrative nightmare for school officials, and impose burdensome and confusing legal responsibilities on teachers, school staff, and volunteers. It represents a gross intrusion on parental autonomy and religious freedom in both public and private schools. 

Oh you're finished? Well allow me to retort. Let's go item by item.

1. "Requires schools to monitor student communications?" That just means you aren't allowed to look the other way and pretend bullying isn't happening, as many administrators have demonstrated a desire to do in the past and present.

2. "Applies to private, religious schools." When it comes to the government telling religious people how to practice their faith, I totally agree. But one of the exceptions is the safety of children. Mandating that bullying be monitored and actively discouraged is as much a valid state concern as building inspections.

3. "Imposes a costly, unfunded mandate on all public and private schools." Minnesota currently has a budget surplus, but it has come at the expense of shuffling around our obligations to our high schools. Still, Minnesotans on both sides of the aisle have been historically very strong on giving education funding a priority.

4. As for the constitutionality, I see no issues with this bill. In fact, it seems a quite logical extension of the 14th amendment, especially the equal protection clause. Also, why is preventing "detrimental effect on the physical, social or emotional health of a student" bad or even remotely vague?

5. "Gives special attention and protections to at least 19 groups in society, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” (boys and girls who want to dress as the opposite sex).  So if male student comes to school dressed in female clothing and is teased.  That would constitute bullying under this bill."

Yes, and it damn well should be. The harmful speech and quite often violence directed towards trans individuals especially deserves our attention. But apparently it should be perfectly acceptable to ridicule someone for their gender according to MFC.

6. "Bureaucratic nightmare." I'm getting sick and tired of the "we can't regulate anything because it involves paperwork" argument. Yes, government regulation involves bureaucracy. Get over it! So do the FAA, the FDA, the NIH, the NSF and all the other three letter organizations that keep us safer every day. I'm willing to live with that, and in fact I'm probably living because of it.

7. "Would be used as a tool to reshape the attitudes and values of school-age children regarding family structure and sexuality." As opposed to programs that do nothing of the kind like abstinence only education?

8. "Goes far beyond bullying to require schools to 'prevent and reduce discrimination'.  This could include, alternative views on sexuality and family structure issues." Once again, I have to marvel at the blatant disdain for opposing discrimination. "OH LORDY NO! They want us to prevent and reduce discrimination! What has this cruel world come to that we are no longer allowed to pray upon the homos in peace?!"  I haven't seen someone so openly oppose progress since the 2012 Texas GOP Platform.

And it's not like they don't realize how bad that sounds. Looking further into the MFC website I found an entire page dedicated to explaining why they oppose the legislation: (emphasis mine this time)
Who -- in the sensitive, civilized Minnesota of 2013 -- could possibly be in favor of bullying? If you were short or fat in sixth grade, you may have cringed from bullies yourself. If your kids have endured bullying, you've suffered through it with them. No child should have to put up with bullying. So how could a decent person oppose a campaign at our State Capitol to prevent it? 
But what if the antibullying campaign now unfolding there has little to do with protecting the traditional targets of bullies: kids who are pudgy, shy or "vertically challenged"? What if it's driven instead by a political/cultural agenda that's not so much about stopping bad behavior as it is about using the machinery of state education to compel children to adopt politically correct attitudes on "the nature of human sexuality," "gender identity" and alternative family structures?
So what if it is? That's still no reason to be in favor of bullying. Even if the entire bill was written by Dan Savage, Rachael Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres and other authors of the Gay Agenda, is that any reason to allow or even encourage discrimination? Imagine a bill 50 years ago entitled the "Anti-bullying of Black Teens" bill. Would it be a sound argument for the opposition to say "it's driven by a political/cultural agenda using the machinery of state education to compel children to adopt politically correct attitudes on "the equality of the races," "desegregation," and other alternative societal structures?"

While poking fun and making light of this message is all too easy, we must remember that bullying does great harm. My generation may be much more accepting of LGBTQ people, the old prejudices still seep through. Bullying is one of the leading causes of suicide among teens. When I was in school, nearly every day "gay" or "queer" was spat at me as though it were an insult. I was rarely beaten, but I've had many a locker slammed on my head as bullies walked by laughing.

But here's the thing: I'm not gay. While the intimidation and insults still hurt me emotionally, I could very easily remind myself that they were wrong, that I wasn't actually some sort of inhuman other, that I wasn't "one of those people." And at the time, even I considered gays to be lesser, disgusting, and sinful; after all, that is what I was taught. It pains me to admit it, especially since two of my best friends from that time later came out themselves. I shudder to think what harm I could have inadvertently done had I known then.

So when someone tells me to my face that even discouraging this sort of bullying is a bad idea, or worse an abridgment of their liberties, there are few words that can express my contempt.

The few that come to mind?
And the horse you rode in on.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Drones on NOVA

Just saw this very well done spot on NOVA about drones. It even features one of my professors, Dr. Kumar, in the last segment. Check it out.



Watch Rise of the Drones on PBS. See more from NOVA.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Wingnut Folder: Cherry Picking Edition

Once again it's time to immerse myself in the bin of ineptitude that is my wingnut folder. Running for the Worst Thinking from a Think Tank award this week is CFACT.org, an advocacy group nominally dedicated to proving that "the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s pressing concerns."

Sounds good right? Well, read on at your own risk. (Some Emphasis Added)


Collin,
The scientific evidence continues to mount against the global warming scare.
Last week even Rachendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, finally acknowledged that there has been no global warming for seventeen years.
Yet President Obama, who wouldn't utter a peep about global warming throughout the long campaign, resurrected it election night and then featured it prominently in his inaugural and state of the union addresses.


The facts are against him, yet President Obama is going all out:
  • He appointed radical climate change alarmist John Kerry as his new Secretary of State.
  • He has instructed EPA to impose new, draconian carbon restrictions on power plants certain to raise energy prices and cost jobs.
  • And he even said in his State of the Union address he’ll stop at nothing to push the Green agenda -- “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations [from global warming], I will.”
CFACT's friends and supporters see right through the President’s radical agenda. And if you’re like us, you may ask yourself, “who could possibly fall for this global warming hooey?” 
You're not going to like the answer.   
The President's new global warming push is having a powerful impact on public opinion. Polls show, believe it or not, more and more people coming back into the climate fold. It's not like it was at the beginning of the scare, but every backwards nudge to public support is cause for real concern.    
So what to do about it? We know we can't rely on the establishment media to get the true facts out. Not without a good hard shove anyway. 
But CFACT will not stand idly by. We're taking action.


I'll start with a point of agreement, we can't trust the mainstream media to get out the facts on climate change.  According to MediaMatters, the major news networks combined devoted less than 8 minutes TOTAL in 2012 for Sunday news to coverage of climate change. Add to that nightly news and the number rises to only about 65 minutes. That is an appalling lack of coverage for such a major issue.

I also want to thank CFact for citing their source for the graph on their billboard (despite not labeling axis, denoting scale, reference or anything else but two labeled data points). That citation made it so much easier to find out exactly how misleading their chart is.

To make things easier, here is the same chart from that paragon of accurate science reporting the Daily Mail with axis labeled (albeit incorrectly). 


There are a couple of inconvenient facts about this chart. The data actually shows tenths of a degree above and below the world temperature average of 1961-1990, so the chart already shows a 0.5 C increase in average global temperatures since that time period.

But more importantly, they left out the rest of the HadCRUT4 data from before 1997.

HadCRUT4 data from 1975 on, start of CFACT chart is the dotted line.
Interesting how they only showed the second half of that chart. This chart starts at 1975 because that does actually indicate a change in the trend with statistical significance.

Let's zoom out some more.

From HadCRUT4 Report. Start of CFACT chart shown by Green Line
Well would you look at that! Amazing how a little context changes the meaning of a chart isn't it?
So how did the Daily Mail pick the start date of that chart to be 1997? Here's David Rose's explanation.
A Some critics claim this newspaper misled readers by choosing start and end dates that hide the continued warming. 
In fact, we looked at the period since 1997 because that’s when the previous warming trend stopped, and our graph ended in August 2012 because that is the last month for which Hadcrut 4 figures were available.
At least he's honest about intentionally cherry picking the data. But he goes on...
In April, the Met Office released figures up to the end of 2010 – an extremely warm year – which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically significant warming trend after 1997, albeit a very small one. However, 2011 and 2012 so far have been much cooler, meaning the trend has disappeared. This may explain why the updated figures were issued last week without a media fanfare
So two years of "much cooler" global temperatures is all it takes to completely negate a 35-100 year trend?


Well let's take that trend from 1975-1997, extrapolate it, and see where we should be right now.

Thanks to Tamino for the data crunching
As you can see, the apparent plateau in the data is actually an artifact of the temperature increasing much faster than the trend line between 1996-97. The downtick in temperature rise from 1997-2012 has just now balanced the uptick from 1975-97.

I'm no climate scientist, but that still looks like a rising trend to me.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

There Will Come Soft Rains

I just finished reading the Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury and had to share my favorite chapter. As it turns out I had come across this as a short story in high school, but I found it even more hauntingly beautiful this time around in the context of the Martian Chronicles.



There Will Come Soft Rains
By: Ray Bradbury

In the living room the voice-clock sang, Tick-tock, seven o'clock, time to get up, time to get up, seven o 'clock! as if it were afraid that nobody would. The morning house lay empty. The clock ticked on, repeating and repeating its sounds into the emptiness. Seven-nine, breakfast time, seven-nine!

In the kitchen the breakfast stove gave a hissing sigh and ejected from its warm interior eight pieces of perfectly browned toast, eight eggs sunny side up, sixteen slices of bacon, two coffees, and two cool glasses of milk.

"Today is August 4, 2026," said a second voice from the kitchen ceiling, "in the city of Allendale, California." It repeated the date three times for memory's sake. "Today is Mr. Featherstone's birthday. Today is the anniversary of Tilita's marriage. Insurance is payable, as are the water, gas, and light bills."

Somewhere in the walls, relays clicked, memory tapes glided under electric eyes.

Eight-one, tick-tock, eight-one o'clock, off to school, off to work, run, run, eight-one! But no doors slammed, no carpets took the soft tread of rubber heels. It was raining outside. The weather box on the front door sang quietly: "Rain, rain, go away; umbrellas, raincoats for today. .." And the rain tapped on the empty house, echoing.

Outside, the garage chimed and lifted its door to reveal the waiting car. After a long wait the door swung down again.

At eight-thirty the eggs were shrivelled and the toast was like stone. An aluminium wedge scraped them into the sink, where hot water whirled them down a metal throat which digested and flushed them away to the distant sea. The dirty dishes were dropped into a hot washer and emerged twinkling dry.

Nine-fifteen, sang the clock, time to clean.

Out of warrens in the wall, tiny robot mice darted. The rooms were a crawl with the small cleaning animals, all rubber and metal. They thudded against chairs, whirling their moustached runners, kneading the rug nap, sucking gently at hidden dust. Then, like mysterious invaders, they popped into their burrows. Their pink electric eyes faded. The house was clean.

Ten o'clock. The sun came out from behind the rain. The house stood alone in a city of rubble and ashes. This was the one house left standing. At night the ruined city gave off a radioactive glow which could be seen for miles.

Ten-fifteen. The garden sprinklers whirled up in golden founts, filling the soft morning air with scatterings of brightness. The water pelted window panes, running down the charred west side where the house had been burned, evenly free of its white paint. The entire west face of the house was black, save for five places. Here the silhouette in paint of a man mowing a lawn. Here, as in a photograph, a woman bent to pick flowers. Still farther over, their images burned on wood in one titanic instant, a small boy, hands flung into the air; higher up, the image of a thrown ball, and opposite him a girl, hands raised to catch a ball which never came down.

The five spots of paint - the man, the woman, the children, the ball - remained. The rest was a thin charcoaled layer.

The gentle sprinkler rain filled the garden with falling light.

Until this day, how well the house had kept its peace. How carefully it had inquired, "Who goes there? What's the password?" and, getting no answer from lonely foxes and whining cats, it had shut up its windows and drawn shades in an old-maidenly preoccupation with self-protection which bordered on a mechanical paranoia.

It quivered at each sound, the house did. If a sparrow brushed a window, the shade snapped up. The bird, startled, flew off! No, not even a bird must touch the house!

Twelve noon.

A dog whined, shivering, on the front porch.

The front door recognized the dog voice and opened. The dog, once huge and fleshy, but now gone to bone and covered with sores, moved in and through the house, tracking mud. Behind it whirred angry mice, angry at having to pick up mud, angry at inconvenience.

For not a leaf fragment blew under the door but what the wall panels flipped open and the copper scrap rats flashed swiftly out. The offending dust, hair, or paper, seized in miniature steel jaws, was raced back to the burrows. There, down tubes which fed into the cellar, it was dropped into the sighing vent of an incinerator which sat like evil Baal in a dark corner.

The dog ran upstairs, hysterically yelping to each door, at last realizing, as the house realized, that only silence was here.

It sniffed the air and scratched the kitchen door. Behind the door, the stove was making pancakes which filled the house with a rich baked odour and the scent of maple syrup.

The dog frothed at the mouth, lying at the door, sniffing, its eyes turned to fire. It ran wildly in circles, biting at its tail, spun in a frenzy, and died. It lay in the parlor for an hour.

Two o'clock, sang a voice.

Delicately sensing decay at last, the regiments of mice hummed out as softly as blown gray leaves in an electrical wind.

Two-fifteen.

The dog was gone.

In the cellar, the incinerator glowed suddenly and a whirl of sparks leaped up the chimney.

Two thirty-five.

Bridge tables sprouted from patio walls. Playing cards fluttered onto pads in a shower of pips. Martinis manifested on an oaken bench with egg-salad sandwiches. Music played.

But the tables were silent and the cards untouched.

At four o'clock the tables folded like great butterflies back through the paneled walls .

Four-thirty.

The nursery walls glowed.

Animals took shape: yellow giraffes, blue lions, pink antelopes, lilac panthers cavorting in crystal substance. The walls were glass. They looked out upon color and fantasy. Hidden films clocked through well-oiled sprockets, and the walls lived. The nursery floor was woven to resemble a crisp, cereal meadow. Over this ran aluminum roaches and iron crickets, and in the hot still air butterflies of delicate red tissue wavered among the sharp aroma of animal spoors! There was the sound like a great matted yellow hive of bees within a dark bellows, the lazy bumble of a purring lion. And there was the patter of okapi feet and the murmur of a fresh jungle rain, like other hoofs, falling upon the summer-starched grass. Now the walls dissolved into distances of parched grass, mile on mile, and warm endless sky. The animals drew away into thorn brakes and water holes. It was the children's hour.

Five o'clock. The bath filled with clear hot water.

Six, seven, eight o'clock. The dinner dishes manipulated like magic tricks, and in the study a click. In the metal stand opposite the hearth where a fire now blazed up warmly, a cigar popped out, half an inch of soft gray ash on it, smoking, waiting.

Nine o'clock. The beds warmed their hidden circuits, for nights were cool here.

Nine-five. A voice spoke from the study ceiling: "Mrs. McClellan, which poem would you like this evening?" The house was silent.

The voice said at last, "Since you express no preference, I shall select a poem at random." Quiet music rose to back the voice. "Sara Teasdale. As I recall, your favourite...


There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;


And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white;


Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;


And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.


Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;


And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn
Would scarcely know that we were gone."The fire burned on the stone hearth and the cigar fell away into a mound of quiet ash on its tray. The empty chairs faced each other between the silent walls, and the music played.

At ten o'clock the house began to die.

The wind blew. A falling tree bough crashed through the kitchen window. Cleaning solvent, bottled, shattered over the stove. The room was ablaze in an instant!

"Fire!" screamed a voice. The house lights flashed, water pumps shot water from the ceilings. But the solvent spread on the linoleum, licking, eating, under the kitchen door, while the voices took it up in chorus: "Fire, fire, fire!"

The house tried to save itself. Doors sprang tightly shut, but the windows were broken by the heat and the wind blew and sucked upon the fire.

The house gave ground as the fire in ten billion angry sparks moved with flaming ease from room to room and then up the stairs. While scurrying water rats squeaked from the walls, pistolled their water, and ran for more. And the wall sprays let down showers of mechanical rain.

But too late. Somewhere, sighing, a pump shrugged to a stop. The quenching rain ceased. The reserve water supply which had filled baths and washed dishes for many quiet days was gone.

The fire crackled up the stairs. It fed upon Picassos and Matisses in the upper halls, like delicacies, baking off the oily flesh, tenderly crisping the canvases into black shavings.

Now the fire lay in beds, stood in windows, changed the colors of drapes!

And then, reinforcements. From attic trapdoors, blind robot faces peered down with faucet mouths gushing green chemical.

The fire backed off, as even an elephant must at the sight of a dead snake.

Now there were twenty snakes whipping over the floor, killing the fire with a clear cold venom of green froth.

But the fire was clever. It had sent flame outside the house, up through the attic to the pumps there. An explosion! The attic brain which directed the pumps was shattered into bronze shrapnel on the beams.

The fire rushed back into every closet and felt of the clothes hung there.

The house shuddered, oak bone on bone, its bared skeleton cringing from the heat, its wire, its nerves revealed as if a surgeon had torn the skin off to let the red veins and capillaries quiver in the scalded air.Help, help! Fire! Run, run! Heat snapped mirrors like the first brittle winter ice. And the voices wailed. Fire, fire, run, run, like a tragic nursery rhyme, a dozen voices, high, low, like children dying in a forest, alone, alone. And the voices fading as the wires popped their sheathings like hot chestnuts. One, two, three, four, five voices died.

In the nursery the jungle burned. Blue lions roared, purple giraffes bounded off. The panthers ran in circles, changing color, and ten million animals, running before the fire, vanished off toward a distant steaming river.... Ten more voices died.

In the last instant under the fire avalanche, other choruses, oblivious, could be heard announcing the time, cutting the lawn by remote-control mower, or setting an umbrella frantically out and in, the slamming and opening front door, a thousand things happening, like a clock shop when each clock strikes the hour insanely before or after the other, a scene of maniac confusion, yet unity; singing, screaming, a few last cleaning mice darting bravely out to carry the horrid ashes away! And one voice, with sublime disregard for the situation, read poetry aloud in the fiery study, until all the film spools burned, until all the wires withered and the circuits cracked.

The fire burst the house and let it slam flat down, puffing out skirts of spark and smoke.

In the kitchen, an instant before the rain of fire and timber, the stove could be seen making breakfasts at a psychopathic rate, ten dozen eggs, six loaves of toast, twenty dozen bacon strips, which, eaten by fire, started the stove working again, hysterically hissing!

The crash. The attic smashing into kitchen and parlour. The parlour into cellar, cellar into sub-cellar. Deep freeze, armchair, film tapes, circuits, beds, and all like skeletons thrown in a cluttered mound deep under.

Smoke and silence. A great quantity of smoke.

Dawn showed faintly in the east. Among the ruins, one wall stood alone. Within the wall, a last voice said, over and over again and again, even as the sun rose to shine upon the heaped rubble and steam:

"Today is August 5, 2026, today is August 5, 2026, today is..."

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Consequences of Gay Marriage according to Tony Perkins

Decided to go through my email wingnut folder and right on top was this GEM from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC). (Emphasis mine)
Dear Collin,
This year the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases that will also have a lasting impact on the very soul of our nation.
Windsor v. United States could overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that codifies the traditional, historic definition of marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. 
Likewise, Hollingsworth v. Perry could permanently overturn California's amendment to preserve traditional marriage under Proposition 8.
If the Supreme Court does not uphold the constitutionality of these two laws, it will not only lead to the destruction of traditional marriage as we know it, but subvert our American democratic process and force people like you and me to affirm counterfeit matrimony or face punishment by the federal government. 
We simply cannot let this happen! 
Hollywood, the education establishment, and even the Obama administration are working overtime to indoctrinate you, me, and other Americans into thinking that same-sex "marriage" is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage,
 Both my laughter and tears are locked in battle trying to outdo each other. Gay marriage will not lead to the destruction of a single "traditional" marriage. You know what it will lead too? Gay people getting married.

That's it! Full stop! Case closed! Can we get back to work now?

But according to Tony, there's a lot more we should be worried about should the Supreme court overturn DOMA. Lets see if I can help him answer some of his pressing concerns about the future.
And if they succeed, what will ultimately happen to those of us who rely on Scripture as a guide to life and refuse to "change our politically incorrect views?"
  • Will the federal government now tell pastors what they can and cannot preach from the pulpit so it conforms to approved government speech?
Ummm..no. 1st amendment makes that illegal. Next?
  • Will pastors who preach against same-sex "marriage" and homosexual behavior be prosecuted for hate speech?
Only if they are actually spewing hate speech from the pulpit.
  • Will churches that refuse to host same-sex "weddings" lose their tax exemptions?
Probably not, which is a crying shame.
And there are other very serious consequences:
  • The military will have to provide "married" housing to same-sex couples at taxpayer expense.
 They damn well better. All the best for our fabulous men and women in uniform right? Also, why are you so concerned about the taxpayer expense of military spouse housing and not, say, the military?
  • Christian adoption agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples or close their doors.
Only if they take government money. If they are discriminating for any reason, the government can have no part in it. Really! It's in that constitution you wave around when we try to take away your guns!
  • Christian-owned companies and even para-church ministries will be coerced to extend married benefits to same-sex couples.
If by "coerced" you mean dragged kicking and screaming into the next century (in your case probably the 19th) by social progress, then yes you will definitely be coerced. If you mean the government will be interfering with your ministries or private businesses, then no. 1st amendment.
  • And children who won't affirm the legitimacy of the homosexual "lifestyle" choice will be forced to undergo psychological counseling.
First of all, no they won't go through psychological counseling. If they're bullying kids based on their sexuality  they'll be treated the same as any other bully.

But secondly, how is it okay, Tony Perkins, to approve of putting gay youth through traumatic, damaging, and ineffective camps that purport to change their sexual orientation, but not okay to change kids' minds about the legitimacy of being gay through counseling?

And you are worried about the damage gays are doing to society?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Sip Heard Round the World

In one of those moments that is inexplicably hilarious, though ultimately meaningless, Marco Rubio took a drink from what could only be described as a sippybottle in the middle of the Republican response to the State of the Union.

I don't know about you, but I thought it'd be bigger.