Acknowledge Sucess and Failures

Opponents of the war in Iraq have a problem. Republicans are making the point that the surge has worked and opponents are intellectually dishonest if they don't accept that fact.

They have a point. For several reasons, one of which is the surge (which I did not support), the situation in Iraq is much better today than it was a year and a half ago. There is certainly more hope that we can leave an Iraq that will become a nation that will not be a source of violence and instability in the world.

The problem, of course, is such an admission would be seen as an endorsement of the war and the policies of the Bush Administration. Even though the surge didn't meet many of its own goals and it is generally agreed the war was a mistake and the Administration bungled badly many major issues during the first 3 or 4 years, any concession of success now would be used by proponents of the war as proof that the opponents were wrong. Wrong about opposing the surge. Wrong about opposing Administration policies and tactics. Wrong about questioning the rationals for going to war. Of course, all such assertions would wrong.

While the adage "Hindsight is 20/20" may seem to be irrefutable, it is merely a statement that it is easier to link a known result to prior actions than to predict which actions will achieve a particular result. Even when we have a result, it may not be possible to tell which actions were instrumental in achieving the result. And such analysis often cannot rule out that other actions might have produced even more favorable results.

That is a complicated way of saying, yes, our situation in Iraq is better today than it was a year and half ago and the surge was one of the actions that got us to this point. It was not the only action. It may or may not have been the most significant action. Finally, there may have been other actions that were not taken that would have put us in an even better position.

Even if you agree that we are in a better position today, it will be a long time before we have the perspective to say whether, given the costs in lives, injuries, dollars, etc., the surge was worth those costs.

Senator McCain says that if Senator Obama's plan from several month's ago had been followed we would now be facing defeat in Iraq. I'm sure he believes that, but he has absolutely no way to prove that or even make a convincing argument. A speedy withdrawal as Senator Obama proposed may have forced the Iraqi's to step up more quickly. It might have eventually resulted in situation similar to today, though possibly more costly for Iraq, but less costly for the United States. Remember, at the time there were reports that the threat of a speedy withdrawal seemed to force the Iraqi government to start planning for an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal.

Books have and will be written about Iraq successes, failures and missed opportunities, but that doesn't help Democrats acknowledge some obvious success without conceding defeat.

I think Democrats should acknowledge the success of the surge when Republics acknowledge that we should never have invaded Iraq, but that is not going to happen. The next best plan is to closely link an acknowledgment of success to an abbreviated list of the failures and a transition to a defined exit strategy.

Something like, Given that we were misled into a war that was unnecessary and badly managed for four years, the surge has had more success than events up to that time would have predicted. The United States military has once again performed their duties magnificently and rescued this country and this Administration from a precarious situation. Now that the violence in Iraq is down from the high levels at the start of the surge, that the Iraqi's are moving closer to a position where they can govern and defend themselves and that Iraq has expressed a desire for us to withdraw our troops by 2010, it is now time for us to develop a plan and set a timetable to leave Iraq and finally concentrate on the real war on terrorism.

Fox-Fair, Balanced and Hypocritical?

Watching Fox News [sic] Sunday today generated a couple of thoughts.

The panel talked about the significant news coverage that the major networks are giving Senator Obama's current foreign trip. While the "liberal media" whining was not as pronounced as I expected, their was consternation that even since the end of the Democratic presidential campaign the coverage of Senator Obama on the major networks has been significantly more extensive than the coverage of Senator McCain. This was from a panel that itself seemed to me was talking a lot more about Senator Obama than Senator McCain.

The untimely death of Tony Snow gave Vice-President Cheney a chance to laud his many accomplishments. Among those was this quote, "...he was a major player in the conservative movement." Tony Snow was the founding anchor of Fox News [sic] Sunday. I guess bias in the media, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Windfall Profits - Apples and Oil

Several times over the past few months I’ve heard that the oil companies should not be singled out for a windfall profits tax because their return on sales is only about 8.5%. They whine that several other industries have much larger returns.

I’m certainly not an economist, but this doesn’t sound right.

Suppose I sell apples at my roadside stand. I sell 100,000 apples a year at a dollar a piece (I’ll keep the numbers simple to make this easier – on me). My return is 10% so I normally make about $10,000 a year. Half my sales are from apples I grow and harvest the other half I buy at market value from other farmers.

Luckily I live in an area where people eat their apples religiously believing that it keeps down their health care costs. So when an apple blight in Brazil quadruples the price of an apple, my sales are unaffected. The cost of apples I buy to resell goes up, but the price I charge for each apple rises correspondingly, so now my annual sales are $400,000. I’m still making my 10% of sales so suddenly I’m raking in $40,000 a year. That is an extra $30,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing.

Suppose that for the 50,000 apples I used to pay 80 cents each to buy, I’m now paying $3.20. People are pretty much willing to pay whatever they have to so they can have their daily apple, so I just pass these costs along (maybe a little larger markup since I deserve to get more per apple since the apples are worth so much more). My overhead costs didn't go up, but I can make a much larger profit. I can put some of this money back into the business (a new truck, a new tractor, repave the parking lot, etc,) and still be making extra money.

But what about the 50,000 apples I grow? Although my costs to grow them did not change at all, each apple is worth 4 times as much. I’m raking in a ton of money with no additional effort since I can now sell them for the same price as I sell the apples I buy from other farmers.

I’m also not a tax expert, but I'll bet there are significant tax breaks to offset my additional profits and decrease the taxes I would otherwise pay. This may be where my example breaks down since I guess I would have to pay taxes on my increased profit for each apple. But if this were a non-renewable resource (my apples are a renewable resource since I can grow more apples next year), I bet there would be significant tax breaks that increase as the value of the resource being sold goes up, such as depreciation. So I can probably avoid a lot of taxes because I am selling a resource that by market valuation costs a lot more to replace.

Oh yeah, the value of my farm also just increased dramatically since my orchards can now generate higher revenue.

So when the oil companies cry that their profits are not excessive, tell them you’ll agree when your boss quadruples your salary and you don’t have to do anything extra to earn it.

You Have To Speak More Clearly!

I realized years ago that the thought processes of Democrats and Republics are different. I was recently reminded of this when I pondered John W. McCain's insistence that the war in Iraq was justified, even if it wasn't always properly executed at the beginning, and his adamant assertion that he would never surrend - which is the way he characterizes Democratic plans for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.

I then realized that members of both parties probably agree that Obama's statement "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in..." actually reflects what he will do if elected.

What! Republics and Democrats agree that Obama will do what he says?

Yes. Democrats hear Obama's statement and believe that since we were very careless getting into Iraq, Obama is promising to be very careful getting us out. Republics, who still believe the war in Iraq was justified and see no problem with the way it was sold to the public, believe we were not careless at all about getting into Iraq, which means Obama is promising to be not careful at all about getting out of Iraq - thus their claim that he plans to surrend in Iraq.

OPAWTY? - Virtual Water

The June issue of Discover Magazine had an article about virtual water (Better Planet: Virtual Water..., by Thomas M. Kostigen). Virtual water is the amount of water it took to provide a service or item for you - from start to finish. For example, it is estimated that it takes about 1,900 gallons of water to put that one pound steak on your grill and about 53 gallons to put a single egg in your refrigerator.

I'm not sure why these are virtual gallons of water. I am pretty sure I've never consumed a glass of virtual water, but then again who really knows what is in all those bottles we consume. Maybe it is virtual water and that is why we have to pay so much for it.

From the article I learned that like your carbon footprint, you have a virtual water footprint. The average person on earth has a virtual water footprint of about 328,000 gallons of water a year. That is the number of physical gallons of water a person uses directly in a year plus the number of virtual gallons used in a year to produce the food and goods a person consumes and uses. In the United States the virtual water footprint of the average person is about 656,000 gallons a year while in China the average is only about 185,000 gallons - which is good since there are so many more Chinese. If their footprint were as large as ours, they would be very thirsty.

Why are we talking about virtual water? Because we, who live on a water based, water rich world are running out of fresh water. The virtual water concept is supposed to allow us to make better choices. The author, Thomas Kostigen, makes the point that if each of us avoided wasting just one cup of coffee a day we could save enough virtual water to give two gallons of water a day for a year to each of the 1.1 billion people who currently don't have access to clean water. Remember, it is not just the physical water in the cup, it is also the virtual water used to grow the coffee bean, roast it, ship it, etc. Luckily I don't drink coffee so I don't have to carry the guilt of ignoring a billion thirsty people. It took me years to get over the trauma I caused the starving Chinese people when I didn't eat my vegetables as a child.

If the concept of virtual water catches on you can bet it will be added to the content list of packaged food. 180 calories, 0 grams of trans fat and 319 gallons of virtual water.

Let's get real. Are dwindling supplies of fresh water a problem? Yes! But not because we are wasting water on unconsumed coffee. And not because we eat too much meat and not enough grain. The problem is there are too many of us. As the Chinese become more prosperous their virtual water usage will go up. If their virtual water usage even rises to the current world average they are going to be in serious trouble. Likewise, we could cut our virtual water footprint in half, but if our population doubles in 100 years, as might happen, we have put off our problem, but not solved it.

When we are talking about a global water shortage on a water rich planet, people should take note. The problem is not too little water, it is too many people.

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?


You can check your virtual water footprint at WaterFootPrint.org.

Ignorance and Stupidity Are Not Free

Anyone who was an adult during the 1970's knows that $4.00 a gallon gasoline or even $10.00 a gallon gasoline prices are not the worst that can happen. The worst is when you can't buy gasoline at any price.

Anyone who was an adult during the 1970's should not be surprised at the current price of gas. If back then you thought about the issues even a little, you should have known that this day was coming. You couldn't know when and you couldn't know exactly what would cause it, but you should have known it was coming and you should have known that if we didn't plan ahead, the situation could be even worse.

There was a short period in the 70's when people lined up for hours to get gas to fill up their cars. Fights broke out in gas lines as frustration soared and tempers flared. Imagine how your life would change today if you couldn't buy enough gasoline to get to work or drive to the grocery store or if you had to spend hours in line to buy it.

Given the events of the 70's, it is hard to understand why we aren't better prepared today. Not!

Al Gore was accused of proposing a 50 cent a gallon gas tax back in 2000. The rational was that higher gas prices would make alternative energy sources more viable and provide incentives to use this finite resource wisely. I don't know whether or not he really made the proposal, but I don't remember many people thinking it was a good idea. Long term thinking is not a strength that comes naturally to people. It is also not a strength of most businesses (SUVs and large pickup trucks are really cheap right now). It should be a strength of government, but not when people vote their short term self-interests and politicians don't have the character to educate people with the painful truth.

Actually, the current high price of gasoline is one of the best things that could happen to us. The painfully high prices may provide motivation to address the problem before there are severe shortages that would turn a problem into a disastrous. Let me put it another way - a return to $2 a gallon gasoline would be bad for the country.

I do wonder if $4 a gallon gasoline is painful enough. It may take even higher prices. It will also take some time for people to realize that $2 a gallon gas is a thing of the past and accept that difficult changes must be made. I know that many people are struggling with these high gas prices, but there is a valuable lesson to be learned. Ignorance and stupidity may be natural and easy, but they are not free. The high price of gas is an indication that we failed to acknowledge the obvious; oil is a precious and finite resource.

So here is the question of the day - what other important issues are we ignoring because the problem is not obvious or the peril is not immediate or the issues are complicated or the solutions are painful?

Ignorance and stupidity are not free.

Clinton For Vice-President

It is long past the time that Senator Clinton should have thrown in the towel. She has waged a magnificent campaign and we all know the best candidate doesn't always win. She needs to graciously concede after the final primary on June 3rd.

Senator Obama should offer Senator Clinton the vice-presidency, if they can come to a few agreements.

They each must be able to forget the rancor and anger of the primary campaign. Senator Clinton must agree to work whole heartedly for Obama's election, success as president and reelection and he must promise to support her presidential ambitions when his terms are complete.

Finally, Bill Clinton must never publicly offer political or policy advice during an Obama administration. He can work with his foundation and he might be called upon for special projects, but he is to stay out of the political limelight and preferably well away from the White House.

I'd have a prenuptial drawn up for everyone to sign. That includes President Clinton.

OPAWTY?-What is a Pest?

If overpopulation by any other species caused as much environmental damage as human overpopulation does, we would have long ago created an industrial strength pesticide to control their numbers.

Over Populated -
Are We There Yet?

You Can Have My Flintlock...

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

To my reading, the Second Amendment clearly states that the right of people to bear arms is linked to service in a Militia. Since “well regulated Militia”, as they existed in 1789 when the Second Amendment was written, no longer exist, the un-infringed right to bear arms no longer exists. Militias are archaic and references to them in the Constitution should be removed. The US Constitution is a magnificent document, but references to slavery had to be removed. The Second Amendment applied to an historical situation that no longer exists and it should be repealed.

But what I believe is unimportant, the Supreme Court is in the process of determining how the Second Amendment applies to a Washington, DC, ban on handguns. The high level arguments generally revolve around whether the amendment grants a collective right related to service in a Militia or an individual right.

The questions posed by the Justices in open court seem to indicate they believe the Second Amendment grants an individual right. I hope their decision does not upset the status quo which has allowed reasonable legislative restrictions on firearms. I don’t believe there are currently many laws that seriously infringe gun ownership for hunting, sport or self-defense.

If the strict constructionist justices on the Court rule that the Second Amendment grants an individual right, they will unleash a domestic arms race. “Infringe” is a strong verb, the kind strict constructionist judges like and all judges will find hard to circumvent. If residents of DC are “infringed” by a restriction that they cannot own handguns, although they can own long guns, certainly laws that allow ownership of semi-automatic weapons, but do not allow ownership of fully automatic weapons, “infringe” gun owners rights. How many other current laws will be challenged as infringing? If I can own a fully automatic assault rifle, why not a heavy machine gun?

If the Court rules the Second Amendment grants an individual right, will they try to allow for restrictions to the right? How will they do that? There are restrictions on the right to free speech, but given the clause that links arms to Militias, any weapon appropriate for a Militia would seem to be appropriate for an individual. Given the link to Militias, is a law against ownership of an RPG an infringement?

I guess a strict constructionist judge could rule that an individual has an un-infringed right to any firearm available to a citizen of 1789.*


* Maybe Charlton Heston had it perfectly right when in 2000 as president of the NRA he held a flintlock rifle over his head and said you could only take it from his “cold dead hands”.

Monuments To Stupidity

The shoulders of highways in my area are becoming littered with shrines to people killed in traffic accidents. Aren't many of these monuments to stupidity? Either the stupidity of the person killed or a victim of the stupidity of another driver?

I have sympathy for the person killed through no fault of their own, such as a passenger in a car hit by a drunk driver, but I'm not in favor of a roadside shrine for them. And what about the person whose bad behaviour caused the crash and died? Does their stupidity and/or bad driving deserve a monument?

Maybe we should have a way to indicate if the person memorialized was a victim or a perpetrator. Maybe a white flag for a victim and a red flag for a perpetrator. Or maybe shrines to victims can have candles or lights and perpetrators can't. If you caused your own death and maybe the death of someone else, you can't advertise at night.

Some of these monuments can be large and garish. If you have an accident because you were distracted by a garish monument for a previous accident victim, are you a victim or just stupid? I wonder if you can sue.

Should monument construction guidelines be driven by an apportioning of blame, like insurance claims? Maybe the victim should take a 25% share of the blame for their own death because they were talking on their cell phone and didn't notice the on-coming car swerving into their lane. The blame flags can have red and white panels sized proportionally to the persons share of blame for their death.

And why do we call these "accidents" when so many are the result of lack of skills or bad judgement? Too many people want to be the fastest driver on the road rather than the safest.

What is the protocol and etiquette of monument building? On a dangerous corner where many accident's have occurred, do earlier victims have squatters rights and later victims have their monuments erected nearby with arrows to show the actual location of denouement?

When an accident takes the life of both the perpetrator and victims, do victims receive a preference for the location of their shrine based on the percentage of blame they were assigned? Come to think of it, is it really appropriate for the family of a perpetrator to erect a memorial if other people were killed or injured?

Is it ever appropriate for a victim's family to trash a perpetrator's memorial? Possibly as way to find closure (a much overused concept these days).

A corner of an intersection I traverse on my daily commute has two crosses (presumably to accident victims/perpetrators, but I guess they could just be advertisements for the local churches). This corner was farm land that is being converted to a strip mall. I've been wondering what they are going to do with these monuments. Leave them alone? Tear them down? Rebuild them in an architectural style to match the mall? If monument builders are smart they'll get easements before they build anything elaborate.

At what point should memorials be taken down? I suppose these monuments are meant to honor the deceased. In that case, shouldn't you take care of them in perpetuity like tombstones? If you put them up to honor the deceased, what are you saying when you take them down? Are you saying you don't care any more? If you just let the monument decay from the elements, what does that say?

I first saw this monument trend 30 years ago when I lived in the southwest. Now it is a national movement. What is next, monuments in emergency rooms, hospital rooms and nursing homes? You can't have people tripping over monuments in the emergency rooms. How about using those walnut plaques with spaces to add names at later dates - like the ones used for employee of the month. These wouldn't take up much space and people could take comfort in knowing the place of their loved one's demise has been documented. Can you imagine buying a house and finding a brass marker in the living room noting the location of the passing of Uncle Stewart in 1985 after an overly rich Thanksgiving dinner?

As you can tell I think these roadside memorials are ridiculous. I understand the grief that motivates people to build them, but grief is an emotion that we all deal with at some point. Put up a garish headstone in the cemetery, keep pictures on the wall, but let's not clutter the shoulders of our highways. Show a little sympathy for the people who have to mow the roadside weeds.

Tag Team: Democrats vs John W. McCain, III

Clinton and Obama should pledge that for the rest of the nominating process they will treat Senator John W. McCain as the opponent, not their fellow Democrat. Democrats fear that the during the next few weeks, in their attempt to secure the nomination, Obama and Clinton will damage each other and make it easier for McCain to defeat them in the general election. Since, for the Democrats, it should really be a contest about who can beat McCain, start the general election campaign now. It would be two candidates (and campaign treasuries) against one. Obama and Clinton should make their case to Democratic primary voters by showing which one will be the best at beating John McCain. They should each realize that for the sake of the country, to paraphrase McCain, it would be better for either of them to lose the nomination than for a Republic to be elected president.

For a more detailed discussion, see my post below.

Clinton/Obama Tag Team Against McCain

I was hoping that Senator Obama would score a decisive victory over Senator Clinton in Texas and Ohio. We can't afford a continued Democratic nominating process that might weaken the eventual Democratic nominee. Too many times I’ve watched Democrats nominate qualified candidates only to have them trounced in the general election by a Republic.

The past eight years have made it clear.

• The American voter doesn’t know a qualified candidate from an unqualified candidate.
• The country can’t afford another president like Bush (John W. McCain is just Bush Heavy).
• It is the responsibility of the Democrats to nominate a candidate that can win. Whether or not that candidate is the most qualified is not important.

With that in mind, I propose that Clinton and Obama make a pact and take a pledge.

Clinton and Obama should pledge that for the rest of the nominating process they will treat Senator McCain as the opponent, not their fellow Democrat. Democrats fear that the during the next few weeks, in their attempt to secure the nomination, Obama and Clinton will damage each other and make it easier for McCain to defeat them in the general election. Since, for the Democrats, it should really be a contest about who can beat McCain, start the general election campaign now. It would be two candidates (and campaign treasuries) against one. Obama and Clinton should make their case to Democratic primary voters by showing which one will be the best at beating John McCain. To paraphrase McCain, they should each realize that for the sake of the country, it would be better for either of them to lose the nomination than for a Republic to be elected president.

Michigan and Florida need to schedule primaries. Those voters plus Pennsylvania would be judging which candidate is better against McCain. Even if the voters don’t follow the script, we would have weeks of tag team effort and massive campaign funds to use against McCain. Obama and Clinton can highlight their differences, but do nothing to attack or weaken their Democratic opponent. If the Democrats stay united, they will have significantly weakened support for McCain and made the true general campaign, no matter which candidate is nominated, much easier.

Obama and Clinton should also pledge that the losing candidate will whole heartedly continue to vigorously campaign and raise money for the winning candidate. It would be their responsibility to deliver their supporters to the Democratic nominee. This should be a team effort all the way through Election Day in November.

Michigan and Florida must be primaries, not caucuses. While Obama may do better in a caucus, this is a test for electability in the general election. New elections in Michigan and Florida are just a matter of money.

In a country that abhors rewarding law breakers, it may seem unfair to give Michigan and Florida such power after they ignored party rules, but the blame should go to party and elected officials, not voters. Besides, Democrats should focus on winning not retribution. One way to appropriately punish Michigan and Florida would be to require that all delegates from those states be new people. Florida and Michigan would have to come up with new slates of delegates and any super delegates that owe their credentials to association with these states would have these credentials revoked.

Democrats need to stay focused. This is not about Clinton or Obama. It is about putting a Democrat in the White House in January, 2009!

Elephant Shit

Click on cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans Elephant Shit

Used with permission.

Who Has The Best Record?

President Bush and the Republics, over many years, repeatedly claimed that their policies have kept us safe since 9/11. A gutsy claim since a single attack on the U.S. would have opened their domestic antiterrorism policies to even more questions.

Over and over they've told us we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. Another gutsy move since an attack here would raise questions about how terrorists we are defeating in Iraq managed to get to the U.S..

While their Iraq logic is also less than flimsy, they are correct. Thankfully, we have not been attacked in the United States since 9/11. By my calculations, that is about seven years and five months.

Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republic presidential race because he loves his country so much, he would rather not be president than see this country fall into the inept hands of Democrats and then, eventually, inevitably, to defeat at the hands of terrorists. (Is this not an echo of McCain's I'd rather lose the presidency than lose a war?)

I understand that logic and truth are not bullet points in the Republic platform. Heck, they are never even on their New Year's resolution lists. The lists that are forgotten by January 2nd. I am continually astounded that there aren't some voices in the party who can stand up for reason and logic. There are flakes at both ends of the political spectrum, but Republics like to elect and follow them. If the Democrats are the big tent party, the Republics are the closed room, closed minds party. And yes, sometimes the Democrats' big tent seems like a circus tent, but I'll take a big top with three rings over an ideological dungeon of fear.

But, as usual, I digress. I believe the first attack in the U.S. by Islamic extremists was the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 26, 1993. We didn't have another attack in the U.S. during the remainder of Bill Clinton's term which ended in January, 2001. That was a period of about eight years. Do Republics ever give Bill Clinton credit for having kept us safe for eight years? We weren't attacked again until he left office and George Bush and the Republics were in charge.

This year Republics will once again run a campaign of fear and once again claim that only they can keep us safe. Democrats need to remind the country that after seven years, yes, thankfully, the country has not been attacked again, but Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed, the justified war in Afghanistan has not resulted in a secure country, Pakistan is even more insecure, Iran has been enabled and emboldened and Iraq is an unnecessary mess that has cost thousands of U.S. lives and casualties, billions of dollars, degraded our military options and cost us diplomatically.

Terrorism is a serious threat that cannot be ignored, but statements that only Republics know how to keep us safe are inane.

Does Life Begin at Implantation?

If human eggs are destroyed, no one seems to be concerned. Possibly because very few human eggs result in a child. Of the up to 2 million oocytes (immature eggs) that each human female is born with, only about 400 will mature and be ovulated. For each monthly cycle, about 20 cells begin the process to become a mature egg, but only one or two will complete the process. By the way, this maturation process for each egg begins about 100 days before ovulation.

If human sperm are destroyed, no one gets concerned. Even more sperm are produced than eggs, so the chances of any sperm resulting in a child are minuscule.

Once a sperm and an egg are joined, commonly called conception, many people call the merged cells a human. While estimates vary, the chances of a fertilized egg resulting in a live child are only about 33%. Natural events end the process for most fertilized eggs before they are implanted. One can conjecture that many women who are "late" really are pregnant, but the process is halted naturally very early.

Once implantation occurs (the egg is implanted in the uterus about the 6th day after fertilization), the embryo at this point has about a 66% chance of surviving to birth.

The process of human development is very complicated. There are many problems that can interrupt the process before the birth of a live child.

We have an on-going ethical debate about when life begins. Why is it that an egg or a sperm is not seen as human life, but a fertilized egg is? None of the three can result in a child by themselves. At the minimum, the fertilized egg must be implanted in the uterus. This would argue that cells in a petri dish are not human. Yes, those cells could be implanted and result in a child, but an egg could be fertilized with a sperm in a petri dish and then implanted. If the embryo in a petri dish is human life, then the egg and sperm in their petri dishes are also human life. Of course, that is absurd.

Since invitro fertilization and some birth control methods routinely kill fertilized eggs, a belief that human life starts at fertilization not only is not supported by natural events, it would cause many people to be labeled murders.

When life begins is an ethical question, not a scientific one. But science shows us that for those who believe human life starts very early in the process, implantation is a more logical starting point than fertilization.

Cartoon used with permission.

For more information on the latest science on human reprodcution, see the article The Good Egg, printed in Discovery magazine, May, 2004.

Goober for President

A YouTuber suggested the perfect nickname for Governor Huckabee, Goober.

I'm not sure why I'm writing so many posts to prove the Governor deserves that nickname. Well, sure, he is an easy target and it is a lot of fun, but why do I keep pointing out how unqualified he is?

If Huckabee is the Republic nominee for president, the Democrats won't have to spend a dime to campaign against him. Except maybe they should buy him airtime to talk to directly to the American people about his views on the important issues facing the U.S. Heck, Democrats could even give him a little help and tell him what the important issues are. (Hint: it is not Pakistani's crossing the border illegally.) I think about 30 minutes of Huckabee's Homilies would be enough to convince the vast majority of voters that Huckabee should go back to preaching in Arkansas.

Democrats could save the money they would have used in the presidential campaign to maintain a permanent majority in Congress. "Permanent majority." I never really liked that phrase until now.

Maybe I should consider laying off of Goober and concentrate instead on McCain, the only qualified candidate the Republics have.

God to Huckabee: Shut up!

When asked why his campaign has suddenly taken off, Governor Huckabee basically said it was God's work.

I know people of faith don't have a lot of need for reason and logic, and I don't like to question or make fun of someone's faith, but Governor Huckabee brought this into the public domain, so let's think about his statement.

His god is obviously a god of action. That is, his god is active in the world. His god changes things in ways that would otherwise not have occurred. For example, Huckabee would not be leading in Republic polls were it not for his god, God, either manipulating the results of the polls or getting into peoples heads and making them support him.

I believe that people of faith do not normally claim to know why God does what he does, so unless Huckabee is having conversations with God that already fall under the cover of executive privilege, even he doesn't know why God has chosen to move him up in the polls.

For all we or Huckabee know, maybe God isn't rewarding Huckabee, but rather punishing Romney. As soon as Mitt mends his ways, he'll go up and Huckabee will go down in the polls.

If Huckabee does go on to win the presidency, won't he have one hell of a political debt to pay? This makes other campaign contributors look like pikers. Would Huckabee have to turn the U.S. into a theocracy to pay off the debt? Then again, if an active God wanted the U.S. to be a theocracy, why didn't he just make it that way to begin with? The first ten articles of the constitution could have been the ten commandments.

If Huckabee doesn't win the presidency, what is he going to say? Probably something like, "We aren't capable of understanding God's plan. I'm sure he has some other tasks for me." Or maybe, “I sinned by presuming to divine God's actions.“ What he won't say is something like, “I was just making that crap up to win favor with the evangelicals”.

If Romney wins, Huckabee will probably just think Mitt made a pact with the devil. If Clinton wins, Huckabee will have to question his faith in God and the power of prayer.

If God is really manipulating the election so that Huckabee or one of the other candidates will be the next president, why are we all bothering to help our candidate or even vote? If God is picking the next president, then he can also vanquish all the terrorists, end the war in Iraq, feed the poor, hook President Bush up with Scarecrow and put a man on Mars. What does he need us for? (Duh... The Wizard of Oz... Scarecrow has a brain.)

So, if you believe Huckabee is corrrect and that God is making him go up in the polls, then quit watching the debates. Don't worry about voting. What you think about politics or who would make the best president doesn't really matter. God will cast the final vote. Relax and read a Good Book.

If you think Huckabee has been listening to too much of his own preaching, then support and vote for a candidate that believes they and we are responsible for our own actions, successes and failures.

Hot Stock Tip

Here is a hot stock tip for you - buy book publishers. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are so secretive and they've presided over an administration with so many scandals and failures, come February, 2009, there will be dozens of books published.

White House insiders will be running to get their story out first and distance themselves from the worst president and vice-president in the history of the United States.

Gov. Huckabee, Does God Answer Your Prayers?

I heard an evangelical minister on NPR yesterday say that some ministers who wanted to support Mitt Romney were having a problem. They had previously demonized Mormons from the pulpit and now were having trouble finding ways to retract those statements and recommend Mitt Romney for president. I can see they have a problem, but then again their plight is a admission of on-going ethical problems. Sounds a lot like situational ethics to me.

In Charles Krauthammer's column, "Huckabee exploits religion in fighting Mitt Romney", Mr. Krauthammer takes Governor Huckabee to task for playing the Mormon religion card for political gain while refusing to label Mormonism a cult. Krauthammer also points out that Huckabee claims that religion isn't the most important issue when choosing a president and then labels himself a "Christian Leader" in political ads. Finally, Krauthammer laments that Mitt Romney has to defend his religious beliefs.

I disagree. The evangelicals, conservatives and Republics have worked hard to thrust religion into politics. Now they have to live with the results of that invasion. When people like Governor Huckabee call themselves a "Christian Leader" and when he says he believes his recent political success to be the work of God, he opens himself to every question the voting public has about his religious beliefs. When candidates publicly exploit their religion for political gain then that religion must be open to examination just like any other institution or organization where the candidate has previously worked or served. It a candidate publicly exploits their religious beliefs for political gain, then those beliefs should be subject to the same level of examination as any other part of the candidate's public or political life. If your religion and faith is a private matter, keep it private.

I suggest another YouTube debate for the the Republic presidential candidates dedicated to religious issues where the faithful and skeptics can ask each candidate tough religious questions.

When Is Treason Warranted?

In previous posts I've complained about Governor Huckabee's weird belief that the Second Amendment not only guarantees a citizen's right to keep weapons to use against the government if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, he acts like it is a citizen's DUTY to keep weapons to use against the government.

I would like Governor Huckabee to give us some reasonable scenarios where the use of violent armed actions against the government might be justified, but he doesn't seem to be reading my blog. Does Governor Huckabee understand that the definition of treason includes "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance..." (Merriam-Webster)?


I've tried to ask Second Amendment supporters to give me some examples of government actions that might justify an armed revolt. Ignoring those people who think I am an uneducated idiot, the responses are usually incidents from two hundred years ago or they cite Randy Weaver's stand-off at Ruby Ridge. I think some of them would include Waco, but I doubt that many would claim Oklahoma City. In short, they have no good historical examples and they have not suggested any likely future scenarios where violence against the government would be warranted.

It is interesting that Oklahoma City is not seen as a good example of justifiable violence against the government. I believe that it was government actions at Waco that motivated Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Federal Building. Don't people who believe that they need guns for self-defense against the government realize they are using the same basic reasoning that Timothy McVeigh used to justify his violence?

Actually, I see a situation looming that many people might use to justify violent action against the government. That is the up-coming review of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

I predict there will be violence if the Court should rule that the Second Amendment is a collective right (the right to bear arms is only as it relates to Militia) rather than an individual right. I also predict you will never see a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. The threats of violence would be so intense politicians would decide to leave it to the courts to slowly rein in our obsession with guns and violence.