I can never read articles like this one without the words "unintended consequences" flashing over and over in my brain. The science of using genetically modified or alien species to achieve some human goal is one that has an extraordinarily spotty record. It's great in theory, and the biggest successes have obviously been with genetically modified plants and food animals, which exist and propagate under fairly controlled conditions. However, when we've introduced plant and animal species into the wild to solve some human "problem" we've often found the newly introduced invasive species to cause more problems than they solve.
Insects and microbes are a particularly touchy case, because once they're out in the wild, they could prove impossible to eradicate and to prevent from spreading to unwanted areas. A bug that could "swim in a pond and soak up sunlight and urinate automotive fuel" is a bug that could pollute vast bodies of open water, one might think.
The technology is fascinating, and has many possibilities, but it's frustrating to read an eight-page article that never does due diligence and goes beyond "Rah, Rah! Isn't this cool?" to ask hard questions about safety and responsibility.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Are We Supposed To Be Outraged By This?
Florida tells 91-year-old World War II veteran he must prove his citizenship to vote
Florida did an audit of its voter registration rolls and is trying to clean them up. It's hardly a huge imposition to have to provide some citizenship info, no matter whether you're a WW II vet or not. What does it matter that he's a 91-year-old vet? We all have to deal with paperwork now and then.
I think we should be giving Florida kudos for trying to protect the integrity of its elections.
Florida did an audit of its voter registration rolls and is trying to clean them up. It's hardly a huge imposition to have to provide some citizenship info, no matter whether you're a WW II vet or not. What does it matter that he's a 91-year-old vet? We all have to deal with paperwork now and then.
I think we should be giving Florida kudos for trying to protect the integrity of its elections.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
History Is Only Important As It Relates To Obama
Via Commentary Mag: Obama has added references to himself into the whitehouse.gov biographies of every President since Calvin Coolidge. Obama has thereby achieved a standard of creepy previously not seen outside Hollywood, The Soviet Union and North Korea.
The Candidate of Consequences
Power Line has a good article comparing Obama and Romney's analytical skills and experience. It's pretty sobering to consider that Obama has never in his entire life been in a position where his decisions -- and his failures -- had significant consequences, until becoming President. Wow. Romney has been dealing in terms of measurable success and failure his entire adult life.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Romney is, in every measurable way, the more serious, tested, experienced person.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Romney is, in every measurable way, the more serious, tested, experienced person.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Censors are Sofa King Stupid
Northamptonshire sofa firm's slogan branded 'offensive'
I admit I was completely puzzled for a minute by what anyone could find offensive about the company's ad slogan, touting that their prices are "Sofa King Low!" Finally, I said it out loud to myself. I giggled a bit. Really, don't people have anything better to do than find stuff like this to be offended by?
I admit I was completely puzzled for a minute by what anyone could find offensive about the company's ad slogan, touting that their prices are "Sofa King Low!" Finally, I said it out loud to myself. I giggled a bit. Really, don't people have anything better to do than find stuff like this to be offended by?
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Marriage
We're really being distracted by both political sides in this debate. My own views on gay marriage have always been clear to me: I oppose it. However, I was always troubled by holding that view and it was not until I thought more deeply into the issue that I realized why.
There are really two issues here.
First, the morality and legitimacy of gay marriage. This is a moral, cultural and religious issue. For thousands of years, marriage was sanctioned and sanctified by the church and there was very little government involvement in the institution. People who didn't seek church sanction had common law marriages. It was all rather casual.
It's hard for people to understand today in our heavily-monitored world, but for much of history, you could set out walking or riding, and in a day or two, a matter of less than a hundred miles, you'd be somewhere where nobody knew you, nor had they any easy way to check up on you. It was possible, in those days, to live an essentially anonymous life, unless you were a notoriously wanted criminal.
There were no master registries of your marriage. It might be filed in a church record, or at the county courthouse where you were married. But if that courthouse was 500 miles away, people just took your word on it for the most part. You were married because you said you were married.
Now we get to what is, for me, the real issue. The issue of government intrusion into the institution of marriage. At what point did we decide it was vital for government to monitor and be the sole arbiter of the legitimacy of a marriage?
I can't condone that. I reserve the right to speak with scorn and disdain regarding gay marriage, but I cannot abide the idea that the federal or state governments get to set the terms for approval of my marriage under God. It's between me, my wife and God. That being the case, I obviously have no standing to ask the state or federal government to set the terms for approval of a gay couple's marriage.
The problem, however, is that the state has intruded so deeply into the institution of marriage. It has set itself so firmly as the sole judge of what marriage is or is not -- it is even allowed to issue rewards and punishments to people based on their marital status -- that we cannot separate the issue of state approval of gay marriage from the issue of state control of all marriage.
So, my stand on principal is that I want the government out of the marriage business. That's rightly the role of churches and individuals. Any state role can be handled under contract law. If I want my spouse to have joint ownership of my possessions and right of inheritance, I can do that via civil contract. If I want to say that this is my wife in the eyes of God, that's not the state's business.
If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" then Congress cannot rightly sanction the Christian concept of monogamous marriage while prohibiting other forms of marriage, because marriage is a fundamentally religious concept as much as it is a social concept.
The state needs to retreat to speaking in terms of rights of contract under civil law, not in terms of the religious and cultural language of marriage.
If we are a free people, then we do not need the state to set the terms of our marraiges for us. We have rights of free association, which would include the right to marry who we want. Our personal lives are not a proper subject for state intrusion.
I know that people think that if we condone all sorts of immoral unions that we contribute to the moral decline of the nation, but the moral strength of a nation does not derive from its laws. The reverse is true. A nation's underlying moral strength is reflected in its laws. If we are culturally and morally strong, then the laws are a mere afterthought. You cannot make people respect monogamous heterosexual relationships, and the cultural background that go with them, by forbidding them the alternatives. That respect can only flower in individual human hearts, and only by choice, and by following good examples, not by compulsion. If we are a moral people, we will appear to be a moral people. If we are a people in decline, we cannot halt that decline with laws forbidding moral decline.
There are really two issues here.
First, the morality and legitimacy of gay marriage. This is a moral, cultural and religious issue. For thousands of years, marriage was sanctioned and sanctified by the church and there was very little government involvement in the institution. People who didn't seek church sanction had common law marriages. It was all rather casual.
It's hard for people to understand today in our heavily-monitored world, but for much of history, you could set out walking or riding, and in a day or two, a matter of less than a hundred miles, you'd be somewhere where nobody knew you, nor had they any easy way to check up on you. It was possible, in those days, to live an essentially anonymous life, unless you were a notoriously wanted criminal.
There were no master registries of your marriage. It might be filed in a church record, or at the county courthouse where you were married. But if that courthouse was 500 miles away, people just took your word on it for the most part. You were married because you said you were married.
Now we get to what is, for me, the real issue. The issue of government intrusion into the institution of marriage. At what point did we decide it was vital for government to monitor and be the sole arbiter of the legitimacy of a marriage?
I can't condone that. I reserve the right to speak with scorn and disdain regarding gay marriage, but I cannot abide the idea that the federal or state governments get to set the terms for approval of my marriage under God. It's between me, my wife and God. That being the case, I obviously have no standing to ask the state or federal government to set the terms for approval of a gay couple's marriage.
The problem, however, is that the state has intruded so deeply into the institution of marriage. It has set itself so firmly as the sole judge of what marriage is or is not -- it is even allowed to issue rewards and punishments to people based on their marital status -- that we cannot separate the issue of state approval of gay marriage from the issue of state control of all marriage.
So, my stand on principal is that I want the government out of the marriage business. That's rightly the role of churches and individuals. Any state role can be handled under contract law. If I want my spouse to have joint ownership of my possessions and right of inheritance, I can do that via civil contract. If I want to say that this is my wife in the eyes of God, that's not the state's business.
If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" then Congress cannot rightly sanction the Christian concept of monogamous marriage while prohibiting other forms of marriage, because marriage is a fundamentally religious concept as much as it is a social concept.
The state needs to retreat to speaking in terms of rights of contract under civil law, not in terms of the religious and cultural language of marriage.
If we are a free people, then we do not need the state to set the terms of our marraiges for us. We have rights of free association, which would include the right to marry who we want. Our personal lives are not a proper subject for state intrusion.
I know that people think that if we condone all sorts of immoral unions that we contribute to the moral decline of the nation, but the moral strength of a nation does not derive from its laws. The reverse is true. A nation's underlying moral strength is reflected in its laws. If we are culturally and morally strong, then the laws are a mere afterthought. You cannot make people respect monogamous heterosexual relationships, and the cultural background that go with them, by forbidding them the alternatives. That respect can only flower in individual human hearts, and only by choice, and by following good examples, not by compulsion. If we are a moral people, we will appear to be a moral people. If we are a people in decline, we cannot halt that decline with laws forbidding moral decline.
Scrubbing the Evidence
The Election Law Blog posts a statement from the Obama administration, regarding their egregious failure to verify the identifies of donors on their web site.
They purport they they rely on "a manual process to review any transaction flagged by AVS, also taking into account other fraud risk factors, and using fraud detection services provided by our credit card processor." Of course, this is bunk on stilts to anyone familiar with e-commerce transactions.
The Obama campaign refunded my own example transaction on 5/1/2012 -- nearly a full month after the donation was paid out. It's pretty obvious to me that they realized they were getting heat about this issue and decided to go through their transaction logs and refund the most egregious examples.
They purport they they rely on "a manual process to review any transaction flagged by AVS, also taking into account other fraud risk factors, and using fraud detection services provided by our credit card processor." Of course, this is bunk on stilts to anyone familiar with e-commerce transactions.
The Obama campaign refunded my own example transaction on 5/1/2012 -- nearly a full month after the donation was paid out. It's pretty obvious to me that they realized they were getting heat about this issue and decided to go through their transaction logs and refund the most egregious examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)