On a separate topic

In a previous post I mentioned the Gainesville area jackass preacher who plans to burn a copy of the Quran this weekend to "show them darned Muslims what's what" (well, he didn't exactly say that).

The only way I knew about this, of course, was that this pitiful little publicity stunt is all over the news.  General Petraeus has pointed to this as something that extremists will use in shoring up "the story" - the big lie that the US is at war with Islam.  Religious leaders of multiple faiths are pleading with this bozo gentleman to call off his little charade.  And the mayor of New York has stated that while he disagrees with this man's actions, he will defend his right to do it.

In my view the news organizations should have treated this as the non-event it should be.  This is a book, people.  People print them, people buy them, and people dispose of them. Pakistan has had several mosque fires in which copies of the Quran were undoubtedly burned up - where were the mass riots?  People rip copies of the Bible - where's the outrage.  People burned copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - did Ms. Rowling shed tear one (hint:  she's been paid enough in royalties to be richer than, well, royalty)?

In this country you can burn anything you own (either because you built it or bought it) on your own property unless you're creating a nuisance, committing a fraud, or violating outdoor trash burning laws.  Heck, I'd go outside a burn a copy of Ken Ham's book The Lie: Evolution today if I owned a copy and didn't think it would set the grass on fire.  And would I get national press coverage, calls from famous clergy, and people rioting in the streets?  I should think not.

So how should this have been handled?

• Most people should have ignored it.
• Spiritual leaders should have called this guy the ignoramus doofus ill-informed oaf goober that he is.
• Assuming the Islamic world heard about it at all, they should have taken this for what it is, not as the official policy of, well, anybody.

September 9th Update:

The madness continues.  Protests in Indonesia and Afghanistan, statements from the State Department and White House, and calls from the Pakistani government (whom you'd think would be preoccupied with real problems like, say, the millions of people made homeless by flooding).  All over someone with no authority and limited following declaring he mihgt - just might, mind you - burn a book.

Book Burners Anonymous

Based on recent news, it appears that the pastor of a minuscule church near Gainesville, FL has decided to burn copies of the Quran this weekend to send radical Muslims a message.  The message is something about Islam, evil, sin, and some such rot.

Given how people reacted to the rumor that a Quran was placed in a toilet, I can imagine that they may be offended actual video footage of someone deliberately burning one and calling their religion evil.

This is a blatant cry for attention ("look at me, I'm being a firebug!") and this jackass clearly does not speak for me.

Piracy, Murder, and Kidnap? Really?

In a recent blog post at DC's Improbable Science titled Rachel Corrie: piracy, murder and kidnap on the high seas, Professor David Colquhoun started his comments on the raid by Israel on ships attempting to run their blockade of Gaza by stating, "Once again the Israeli defence force has shown behaviour worthy of Auschwitz guards."

I'm finding it very difficult to understand his comparison with the Auschwitz concentration camps in this incident.  Did the Israeli defense forces (IDF) kill nearly a million people through a variety of means?  Did they torture their captives? Did they force their captives to labor making, say, synthetic rubber or fuel?  Did they perform cruel "experiments" on them?

The worst I can find they did was to shoot people armed with clubs and knives who attacked them.  Many were wounded, several died.  They also used non-lethal force in boarding other ships when the occupants attempted to repel them without weapons.

And what of Professor Colquhoun's post title?  It was a funny sort of kidnapping, if it was that, as ransom was neither sought nor paid and the alleged kidnappees were treated for their injuries and sent out of country.  Add the fact that the alleged kidnapper was a sovereign nation - and typically the term "kidnap" does not refer to the official act of a nation.

Likewise "piracy" seems like an odd choice of words.  The official armed forces of a sovereign country enforced a blockade, which was an official policy of that country.  It even appears they sent most (if not all) the captured cargo to the intended destination.  It seems particularly inept as piracy; certainly even the Pirates of Penzance would have done a better job of it.

Professor Colquhoun certainly has every right to his opinions on the Gaza blockade and the actions of the IDF.  His use of hyperbole does nothing to further his case.

Maybe I'm a Rino

So I've been worried for some time that I may no longer be a Republican. I know I'm for a limited role for government and I'm for fiscal responsibility. I'm certainly against slavery (as well as other forms of discrimination) and favor keeping the union together. I think on the whole a free market and property rights are good things, though anything can be carried to excess. And, unless the Constitution's changed I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

However, it appears that in order to be a Republican these days you have to be strongly, violently against two things: abortion and legal recognition of marriages between people of the same sex. The current political campaigns in advance of the primaries has brought this to the fore. Our candidates for Senate make a big point of how pro-forcing-women-to-risk-their-lives-to-have-that-baby-hey-that's-what-happens-when-you-have-sex they are and how weak their opponents are on that same topic. Even county officials have this as a point on their campaign literature - though how that topic is likely to come up in the job of Judge Executive is beyond me.

Unfortunately, there's no other party I can believe in so far either.

The power of the purse, only less girlie

A recent letter to the editor in our local paper asked the question, "since when does the President have the authority to tell hospital administrators what their policies should be."

The answer, apparently, is when the hospital accepts funds from the Federal government.

To explain. President Obama has signed an order to the effect that hospitals that accept Medicare funds need to have policies more friendly to non-married people. This means no keeping significant others away from the gravely ill even if they aren't, technically, next of kin. It also means accepting the patient's stated (or apparent) wishes on who should have authority to make medical decisions on his/her/its behalf.

Under other circumstances, the President would have no authority to just order a private institution like a hospital to change its policies. The President could cajole, or advise, or yell at, and this might be cause the institution to reconsider - but couldn't order. But in this case, the institution relies heavily on Federal funds. The government has the right to declare which organizations it will do business with and which it won't. Presumably, the President has the authority to base those decisions on a number of factors, including the institutions policies (though I expect that this will go to the courts for a real determination). So the President - by the power of the purse - is using non-legislative means to achieve an end.

Now, I assume hospitals have their reasons for the policies they've adopted. They may even be good reasons from some point of view. However, I applaud President Obama for this action.

Two things you don't do on airplanes

Many years ago, you used to be able to walk into an airport, go up to the gate, and even board the plane without going through any kind of security check at all. You didn't even need a ticket. People greeted travelers as they were getting off the plane, and they could see people off at the gate. It wasn't unheard of for people without tickets to actually go on the plane to see people off - as long as they left before the door closed. Nobody thought much about danger from passengers in air travel.

Except, of course, for the cigarette smoke. People could actually smoke on airplanes. Eventually planes had designated smoking and non-smoking sections - but if you were within 3 rows of smoking, you were in smoking.

Of course both of these things changed. Security was first. I recall a trip to the airport when they had recently added a security station you had to go through to get to the gate (anyone could go to the gate, though). There was a big sign saying what you couldn't carry, along with a warning that all comments about weapons, hijacking, and the like would be taken very seriously.

One member of our group thought that was funny and (as a joke) said he'd better take his gun back to the car. The security person looked at him real hard and asked if he really wanted to say that. The correct response ("No, sir!") was given - the point was made and I don't recall other jokes being made about airplane safety at airports or on airplanes.

Some years later they gave up the farce that a small sign stuck on a headrest would magically keep the smoke away from the non-smoking section and made all US flights non-smoking. They make announcements about that before every flight, and apparently it's a federal offense to tamper with or disable the smoke detectors in airplane lavatories.

So, two rules that have been in effect for years - don't smoke on planes, and don't make comments (even in jest) that could sound like threats to airline safety.

Apparently not everyone got the memo. According to the news, a Qatari diplomat on a trip to Denver used the airplane restroom for a smoke break. When people became concerned about the amount of time he had spent in the lavatory, he is alleged to have made a reference to lighting his shoes.

Naturally the nice air marshals sat with him the rest of the flight to keep him company, and made sure he had an escort when they landed (along with some shiny steel bracelets). The FBI spent quite some time discussing this matter with both the diplomat and with the other passengers.

The diplomat did not pose an actual threat and is the beneficiary of diplomatic immunity - which means this will never go to trial. While many were inconvenienced, nobody was hurt.

Assuming the news stories are correct, I don't know if he was simply clueless and self-absorbed or an incredible jerk.

Reform ... or business opportunity?

Presuming the new health insurance reform law is not overturned in the courts or repealed by Congress before many of the provisions take effect, things in the US are going to change. And in all of the comments for and against, I haven't heard anything about the exciting new business opportunity I see for a few enterprising souls. That opportunity is: health insurance sales offices at or near hospital doors.

The new rules will make pricing health insurance considerably simpler due to community pricing. The fact that existing conditions can't be used to deny insurance suddenly makes it worth ones while to buy insurance while, say, being wheeled off the ambulance.

Hospitals have everything to gain from such an arrangement - not only rent and a possible commission, but just because someone with insurance is statistically more likely to pay their bill than someone without. "You don't have insurance? Would you like some? We can hold off admitting you while you go to the office just past that pillar. If you prefer, I'm sure our friendly concessionaire would be happy to meet you halfway."

As for the insurance agent (or agents), this is an ideal situation. The buyers are motivated and are unlikely to request competitive quotes while bleeding. Indeed, the very fact that the patient arrives without insurance suggests he/she/it is not familiar with the prices in the market, and may be open to a more expensive policy. Much like a book store in a large airport, the insurance agent can command a higher premium due to location and timing.

And even the soon-to-be-insured patients benefit. They get convenient service while waiting for the x-ray technician to do those horrible things x-ray technicians have to do ("OK, now bend your arm backward and hold it flat against the plate while making a shadow rabbit with your hand. Smile!"). Their hospital bills, less a deductible and co-pay, are paid for without regard to preexisting conditions like, oh, a broken femur. And of course it's in the hospital's interest to only allow legitimate policies to be sold in their facility, so the patient has some reason to believe they're dealing with an honest, though not necessarily inexpensive, product.

But what of those who can't buy insurance before being admitted? Say they can't sign the forms due to being unconscious or having two broken hands? What of them? An enterprising agent would make room calls once the patient or the patient's next of kin is ready to buy insurance. Granted, no insurance will pay for treatment given before the policy is purchased, so it is clearly to the patient's advantage to buy early. However, this policy may cover a significant portion of the patient's treatment.

It's surprising that this isn't discussed more in the popular press or political speeches.

The Predictive Power of Evolution

Some years ago, I recall part of the creationist argument against evolution as a valid scientific theory was:

It makes no testable predictions.

This was said, of course, to blunt similar criticism of creationism as a theory. Observations that don't match up with the creationist story are waived away with divine intervention. Evolutionary theory, in this view, is no better because terms like "survival of the fittest" are non-predictive (how do you tell is fittest? It survives!). Your theory, they say, is no better than ours.

Except of course that's nonsense and a recent Nova episode, What Darwin Never Knew, did a masterly job of proving this. I cite but one example.

When Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species the mechanism of inherited traits was not understood at all. While the basic concepts were there and some of the ways that dominant and recessive traits were passed on had been observed, molecular genetics was a century in the future.

We now know that cells contain DNA and that this controls how living things develop. We are now able to sequence DNA reasonably rapidly, and have sequenced the DNA of multiple species. And they're finding that many of the key changes in DNA between species are not in the protein-coding genes. There are other genes that are "switches", which turn these genes on and off. The "switches" are further controlled by "body-plan" genes, which control when and how long switches are thrown. And a minor set of changes to the "body-plan" genes can be responsible for big changes in characteristics.

This is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. If a change to, say, arm length or brain size required the coordinated changes of hundreds of genes (or indeed, creating entirely new genetic information), then the probability of such a change occurring, being successful, and being transmitted to a new generation is vanishingly small. Yet now it can be seen that these changes can be caused by a very small set of changes, which is far more likely.

Did it have to be that way? In a creationist world, we could fully imagine that every species could have had unique genes, totally unlike any other. One would not expect that, say, the genes that control the size, shape, and placement of a fin in a fish would be the same ones that control the size, shape, and placement of a chimp's arm. And yet, that is what we find.

Dear Michael Steele, Chairman, Republican National Committee

Thanks so much for your cordial letter. I'm honored to be considered your friend. I appreciate the opportunity you've given me to provide my views on various policy questions.

I must admit I was somewhat surprised at first by the rather abrupt and preemptory tone of your letter. On reflection I became convinced that you were somewhat incensed when you wrote it, and there's no need to apologize for the tone (hey, what are friends for?).

However, I find I can't in good conscience fill in the enclosed survey as it appears to have been created by an overworked staffer. The only valid answers are "yes", "no", and "No opinion" - and in a great many cases my opinion is somewhat more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Additionally, there are questions that are poorly written and which seem to discuss policies that don't match my recollection of those of the current administration or the Democrats I'm aware of. I presume those are the result of extreme time pressure that led the staffer to take shortcuts, and these have frankly spoiled what might have been a good and worthwhile survey.

Here are my responses in detail:

1. Do you agree with Barack Obama and the Democrats that taxes should be raised for the sake of "fairness", regardless of the negative impact it is likely to have on the economy? Why, no, that would be madness. I'm shocked President Obama and the Democrats have taken such a position. I am, however, extremely concerned about both the current federal deficit and the outrageous national debt. I've been concerned about this since the Nixon administration, and few administrations have done much to actually resolve this issue. I feel there will be no alternative - the government raises funds by taxes, and we need more taxes collected in order to cover the deficit before we can begin to make a dent in the debt.
2. Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry? While I certainly had a twinge when Chrysler and GM received federal funds, I believe the government took what they considered necessary steps to keep the economy afloat and sustain confidence in the currency for a short period. Based on what I currently observe, it seems unlikely that this will be repeated on any scale any time soon. It also appears that much of the bailout funds will be repaid. On the whole, it may have been a distasteful but necessary exercise.
3. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants? Well, not in so many words. However, I agree with George Bush and John McCain and believe our current immigration policies are too restrictive in some cases. I also believe that should the policies be loosened, it would be silliness to refuse people who had come sooner than legally allowed to achieve legal immigrant status. Perhaps that's just my heritage.
4. Should English be the official language of the United States? I guess that depends on what such a designation would mean in practice.
5. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program? It depends - did they pay their FICA contributions (and did their employers pay their half)? If not, they certainly didn't earn eligibility; if they did, it seems kind of odd not to give them the services they paid for.
6. Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass? I was unaware of such an effort, so can't really answer without knowing what's being "pushed" and how much support it has. I do support limited welfare, and consider the most recent reforms better than the previous state. However, there's always room for improvement.
7. Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate? That would be horrible abdication of the Senate's responsibility - though in all fairness, I'm sure that every president wished that the Senate would do just that.
8. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability? No, of course not. Based on what I hear on the news, I don't believe President Obama believes this would be prudent either, at least not based on what I read about the Race To The Top fund. Does your staffer have a citation?
9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? Probably not, but why does the location of the bureaucrats matter? Would it be better if the office that administered the health insurance plans were located in, say, Omaha or Peoria? No, that's just humor. Having health insurance that is usable anywhere in the U.S. rather than being restricted to a particular state would be a tremendous convenience, but that suggests that either the insurance would be separately registered and governed in every state, or would be regulated by a federal policy.
10. Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals? The government already does this with Medicare, and it seems to have improved health care availability for those who are covered. I suspect it's not as simple a question as it appears at first glance.
11. Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies? Pretty confident, yes, as long as there's a reasonable profit involved. Maybe not as many, maybe not as fast - but certainly they'll continue to be developed.
12. Are you in favor of creating a government-funded "Citizen Volunteer Corps" that would pay young people to do work now done by churches and charities, earning Corps Members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans? No. Indeed "paid volunteers" seems an oxymoron. Do you have names of people who have proposed such a system? Also, the terminology here seems somewhat ambiguous - typically I think of a veteran as a former member of the armed forces, and people leave the armed forces under a great many financial conditions. Is this the same pay as someone who was honorably discharged and is not serving in the reserve - which would be none? Or are you talking of someone who has retired?
13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed? No - the all volunteer force has been quite successful overall. I do believe that under some circumstances a draft would become necessary, but I don't see those at this time. Do you have names of those Democrats who have proposed this?
14. Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation? They should be allowed to unionize to the same extent as other government position such as air traffic controllers.
15. Do you support Democrats' drive to eliminate workers' right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment? I believe that a worker should be allowed to vote for or against a union in a manner that does not invite intimidation or retribution from either side. However any such vote should be done in a cost effective manner.

I notice you also gave me the opportunity to contribute money to the Republican Party. While I have already budgeted all my available funds for this type of purpose for the year, I promise I will not contribute to the Democratic Party. Certainly my not contributing to the Democrats is worth as much to you as a contribution to the Republicans would be.

In closing, thanks for thinking of me and please consider providing a little more supervision in developing these surveys.

Your friend,

Mephistopheles O'Brien

As if you needed to be reminded

According to this, Pat Robertson believes that the Haitian earthquake was not caused by movements in the earth's crust. Nope, it was caused by a pact with the devil the Haitians made to get out from the rule of the French.

"True story."

It remains a mystery why this idiot has the following he does.

He still does not speak for me.

Addendum: My apologies for calling Pat Robertson an idiot - it's not fair.

Have We Immanentized the Eschaton?

About 20 years ago, I became convinced that several things are true:

• Carbon dioxide, water, and methane are all greenhouse gasses.
• Greenhouse gasses reflect infrared energy (heat) back to the Earth.
• An increase of greenhouse gasses will, in the absence of other factors, increase the average temperature of the earth.
• If the average temperature increases, the amount of water that evaporates will increase, further increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
• Various measurements have shown recent increases in greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide, both near human activity and also distant from it.
• A number of human activities generate carbon dioxide (e.g. burning fossil fuels) while a number of other human activities reduce the amount of plant life capable of removing carbon dioxide (e.g. development and improper land management).

My conclusion: human activity demonstrably increases the amount of greenhouse gasses, and this will (in the absence of other factors) lead to changes in climate. I don't have enough training or knowledge to predict exactly what those changes will be or how quickly they will occur, however there are those who claim to have such training and knowledge who have published their projections. I have no basis to dispute their claims.

However, I have issues. In no particular order:

• I find it difficult to comprehend that someone really has developed a method to determine the average temperature of the earth based on local weather readings that is demonstrably accurate to a tenth of a degree Celsius, and that this method has been demonstrated to be consistent for the last hundred or hundred and fifty years.
• It amazes me that people are able to extract a trend line for this data that shows an upward trend of a degree every few decades, given that the instantaneous temperature at any point in the planet can change 5 degrees Celsius in less than an hour. A huge amount of noise has been processed to extract a very quiet signal.
• While the computer models have made a number of predictions, it's not clear to me that different models show the same predictions nor that these have been confirmed by observation.
• When the weather is colder than average or storms are less intense than predicted, people are very quick to point out that weather is not climate, and that local effects in no way are representative of the planet as a whole. When extreme weather hits or there is a local heat wave, people are quick to say that this is exactly the kind of thing we should expect as the planet heats. Now, granted, both may well be true because weather is highly variable both day to day and year to year, and perhaps we would be seeing more heat waves, droughts, and severe storms (depending on your location) on a hotter Earth. However, this ends up sounding very much like the financial analyst who blames all losses on the market but takes credit for all gains.
• The magnitude of what will really need to be done to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions to a pre-industrial level - given that the human population more than doubled in the last 50 years - is rarely fully discussed.