Shootout at the No-Way Corral

Portrait of a federal employee: A man or woman, some of whom have sworn an oath to protect and defend the country and her citizens, some of whom have a particular area of academic expertise, and some that simply have specific skill sets and a job description that utilizes those skills. Men and women who raise families, live and love in local communities, and scrape out a living just like the rest of us, here in the United States of America.

These are not villains; they are our friends and neighbors, also known as: We The People.

I get it… this November are the mid-terms; election politics are in full swing and nothing can sink a campaign or party viability quite like the blood of Americans on home soil. But sometimes conflicts transcend votes, and require strict adherence to principle. Even of it requires a little bloodshed.

Nineteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing and twenty-one years after the 51 day stand-off against the Branch Davidians in Waco, politicos are afraid to confront sensitive situations with anything but sensitivity.

Lotta good that does us.

While we spend millions on security and surveillance of the Boston Marathon, we stand down to armed men in the Nevada desert to avoid a potentially violent confrontation. Our ideas of threat assessment seem selective and poll driven. We steel ourselves against the bogeyman of terror from without, while we surreptitiously downplay the demons who foment terror from within.

Cliven Bundy’s little war in Nevada has been going on since before the Clinton administration took office. And what I can’t understand, for the life of me, is why we let this type of thing escalate to this point, and when it does, why we handle it with kid gloves.

The federal government and Bureau of Land Management keep letting this situation get out of control. They have won ruling after ruling in federal courts, but keep trying to play Mr. Nice-Guy. Hemming and hawing, they go back and forth to court, constantly worry about the safety of their employees, and back down from confrontation. They’re getting bullied by a redneck.

In the latest stand-off with ranchers, Bundy and his gun totin’, rootin’ tootin’ “militia”, the BLM has stood down again, dropping their plan to legally seize this tax cheating miscreant’s cattle from federal land. All in an effort to “protect” federal authorities.

Election year or not, this is unacceptable.

The GOP calls itself the “Party of Lincoln”, but when did the Democrats become the “Party of Stuart Smalley” (no offense Senator Franken)? Instead of walking tall and carrying a big stick, we shuffle along wearing kneepads and a crash helmet.

For decades, an underground “movement” has been building in this country. Armed anti-government “patriots” who wrap themselves in the American flag and the Constitution, while they ignore the most basic tenets of both - E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.

These “patriots” believe that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of us all. And since the election of President Obama, these groups have exponentially increased in number, and exponentially increased their weapons stockpiles and firepower. These are not the actions of “patriots”.

Here’s the thing: when armed gunmen threaten violence against the government, that is armed insurrection and rebellion. This is spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution, and is not defiance, not protest, and not an exercise of the First Amendment. No my friends, the word we are looking for here is “Treason”.

The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Now, I have been a peacenik for my entire life. I have always questioned and confronted authority, and made myself be heard, or at least ignored en masse. I don’t generally advocate violence, but I am also a patriot, and I believe that the United States’ strength comes from our unity, even when we disagree. In a government of, for, and by the People, the government is us; all of us.

And armed rebellion is treason; period.

Clive Bundy’s little insurrection started long before President Obama came into Office, but today, it’s Obama’s watch, and the buck should stop with him.

I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and our right to peaceably redress grievances. This is what our courts are for, and what nonviolent resistance is about. Bundy has exercised these rights for decades. And repeatedly, he has lost.

That should be the end of his story; but it isn’t.

His answer today is to rally men to his side with guns to threaten and interfere with federal authorities legally charged with doing their jobs. He denies federal authority over public lands, citing the Constitution, the very embodiment of federal authority. He is willingly leading an insurrection.

When he considers his own liberty to evade taxation, trespass on federal land, and threaten federal workers to be superior to the federal government’s authority to tax, manage public lands, and do their jobs, he threatens We The People. That means every one of us; you, me, and anyone else who can call themselves an American.

The Constitution is not a weapon; it is a shield.

Forget the mid-terms Mr. President. Send in the BLM to legally seize Bundy’s cattle, have them supported by federal agents, and have the National Guard there to support them. Letting these armed insurrectionists dictate terms is surrender, and We The People lose. Let’s face it,… they aren’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so it certainly won’t cost any votes. But it just might restore law and order.

If they fire so much as a warning shot, send in overwhelming force to subdue these rebels; and rebels are exactly what they are. A federal employee may be threatened in the course of performing their duties, but allowing them to be threatened is unacceptable. Go in and make arrests when you can and leave bodies when you can’t.

President Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with a minimal loss of life. But the loss of life was necessary to preserve a way of life. The President takes an oath to defend the safety and security of the United States, and to protect our way of life. Turning the other cheek to armed insurrectionists violates that oath.

I am a firm believer in protest and dissent, but this is neither protest or dissent. Adhering to the First Amendment does not always lead to a win. But adhering to the Second Amendment when you don’t win, should and must lead to a loss.

It’s time to take off the gloves and roll up our sleeves. Armed insurrection cannot be sanctioned or quietly endorsed, publicly or privately, in this great nation. Allowing this behavior emboldens these rebels and threatens us all. They view the government as the enemy, and the government is us; and that makes us their enemy.

It’s time to face down Bundy’s Bovine Brigade and force them to pull up their steaks, or turn them into hamburger.

And justice for all...

“An unjust law, is no law at all.” - Martin Luther

Good for you Texas! As the state’s ban on same-sex marriage heads out the door, make sure that you slam the door on it’s ass.

*“Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration - it is a constitutional mandate. Consequently, equal protection is at the heart of our legal system and is essential for the existence of a free society.”

One more state rules against such bans on marriage. Not gay marriage; not same-sex marriage; not like-gendered marriage. Marriage. The formal, state-sanctioned partnership between two consenting adults. Marriage being a contract between two people; a contract that need not depend on the gender of the parties involved.

*“In this case, Defendants argue the right to marry does not include the right to same-sex marriage. That is, Defendants claim this is a ‘definitional’ issue, in that Plaintiffs are seeking recognition of a ‘new right to same-sex marriage’ as opposed to the existing ‘right to marry’. This Court finds this argument fails, as the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their ‘existing’ right to marry on account of their chosen partner. That is, an interracial marriage was considered to be a subset of ‘marriage’, in the same way that same-sex marriage is included within the fundamental right to marry.”

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed the ban on same-sex marriage, and two years later, an overwhelming majority - 76% of voters - amended the Texas Constitution to include this ban. But a law passed by legislation and/or by the voters of a state must still comply with the United States Constitution. If said law does not comply, that law will always be overturned; it’s just a matter of time.

Texas passed this law on the specious basis of “protecting traditional marriage” between a “one man and one woman”. I’ve always scoffed at the notion of “traditional” marriage. Throughout human history, traditional marriage has been between one man and multiple wives, some of them being children. You don’t see many people scrambling to defend that tradition, do you? Regardless, the law is intended to preserve rights and not traditions. In many marriages, philandering and spousal abuse are traditional as well…

*“Defendants’ mention that Texas ‘public policy’ allows the state to deny recognition to validate out-of-state marriages, but fail to articulate what that ‘public policy’ is. Assuming Defendants’ public policy arguments refers to preserving Texas’ definition of traditional marriage, the Court finds that tradition alone cannot justify the infringement on individual liberties.”

But, in the tradition of the Alamo (and Texans do love their traditions), the state intends to fight to the death. The last man standing will be the presumptive new governor, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Having already appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court, Abbott believes that the decision will be overturned by the appellate court. The 5th Circuit handles cases for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so there is a chance - albeit slight - that the court may overturn the decision. That said, it will wind it’s way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and based on previous precedents set by the Court, including those set by the Roberts Court under United States v. Windsor, the ultimate outcome will be… Marriage. No qualifier; simply marriage.

*“Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.”

The GOP in Texas is apoplectic. With an election right around the corner, and their great legal minds, the reactions have been lockstep, out of touch, and unclear on how the U.S. Constitution actually works.

“Unelected judges”, said Senator Ted Cruz, “should not be substituting their own views for the reasoned judgments of the citizens of Texas, who adopted our marriage law directly by referendum. The court’s decision undermines the institution of marriage, and I applaud Attorney General Abbott’s decision to appeal this ruling”

Except Mr. Cruz, as a former Solicitor General of Texas, you know damn well that this is exactly why the courts exist, and that it is their entire function. They judge, citizens don’t.

“The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box”, said Governor Rick Perry, “We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

Does that sound like Governor George Wallace, or is it me?

The state’s GOP donors are even more freaked out and frantic. “The voices and values of ordinary citizens,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, “are being trampled by judges determined to impose profound social change that affects citizens in the deepest and most fundamental ways.”

Ordinary citizens? Does that make our gay citizens extraordinary?

“This hollow victory and clear attack on morality and the rule of law will not stand in Texas.” President of Texas Values Jonathan Saenz commented, “This is just the beginning of an epic battle that will ultimately win in the name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage - one man, one woman.”

Epic battle, like the Alamo. Somebody should remind Saenz that Texans were routed at the Alamo, with no survivors. Epic battle indeed.

There are still two related cases making their way through the federal courts in Texas. These may be halted until the 5th Circuit Court can review yesterday’s decision. In one case, the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether same-sex couples, legally married in other states, can be divorced in the state of Texas. In order to grant a divorce, the state would have to recognize the marriages as valid, which they have not done, as of yet. After yesterday’s decision however, Texas may indeed have their decision made for them.

This case will definitely make it’s way to the Supreme Court.

In his angry dissenting opinion in Windsor v. United States, Justice Scalia was prescient in his assertion that the Court had opened a can of worms, leading state courts to overturn previous legislation banning same-sex marriages. Good for him and his clairvoyance. I can’t wait to read his dissent when the Court bans this type of discriminatory and prejudicial abuse altogether.

Five other bans have been overturned by federal courts on the question of gay marriage, exemplifying the domino effect that Justice Scalia prophesied. Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Ohio have all had bans overturned as unconstitutional, while cases in 20 other states are making their way through the courts. Meanwhile, seventeen states already allow marriage equality.

This will certainly be revisited by the Supremes. Judge Scalia’s heart might not take it. We may have a vacancy on the Court before this is over. Then again, we may not have to worry about his heart, as it seems to be made of stone. Maybe instead it will be his head that explodes.

*Excerpts from the court decision of Orlando Garcia.

Hate speech

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I have become more and more perplexed by the stupidity expressed by the people of my country and people of the world at large. I come from a nation that was formed under the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. A nation that aspired to be thoughtful, informed, and involved in making life a more humane and beneficial existence than it had ever been before, for all. Well,… so much for that idea…

Today, our stupidity goes far beyond simple cognitive dissonance. Today, we are mean, and filled with hate and spite for that which resembles actual truth. We dismiss truth out of hand when it doesn’t further our personal agendas or when it contradicts our rhetorical narratives.

People would like to believe that the truth is somehow “subjective”. Some truths may correctly be described as a matter of personal perspective, while others are simply objective truths supported by reams of evidence and confirming data. These are the truths that are of utmost importance.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. These are not fungible concepts.

This is illustrated by our lack of understanding of such concepts as "hate speech". We would define hate speech as: “communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.” I find this definition lacking, and all too egocentric, individualistic, and politically correct.

If you commit a gay-bashing, you commit an act of violence, motivated by fear and hate. If you use the word “faggot” while doing so, this is deemed “hate speech” and you have thereby committed the additional offense of a hate crime. The way I see it, if a deaf mute commit’s a gay-bashing, he has already committed a hate crime, without having to say a word. The same would apply to racial attacks and abuse against women.

I think we need to come to a new consensus on what the phrase “hate speech” should really signify. Hate speech should signify statements that further and encourage ignorance and stupidity, as these are the lowest forms of hate that there is. Speech that advocates stupidity and ignorance, broadcasts hate and contempt on a grand scale. The grander the scale, the harsher the “hate speech”.

I am a strong defender of the Freedom of Speech as described in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that everyone has the right to say and believe what they want. But I also believe that with this freedom and power comes great responsibility.

We should be held responsible for the things we say. Not so much for the words we use, or whom they may offend, but what may result from the speech that we choose. The ideas that our words convey. Furthermore, we should be held accountable for the effect that those things have on our society at large. And if our speech degrades the function of our society, then that speech is corrosive and destructive.

It is “hate speech”, plain and simple.

Our school systems and media are largely to blame for our stupidity, and enable this "hate speech" to run rampant in the public sphere. Our schools do not teach the discipline of thought, nor encourage the search for truth. They all too often fear the “oppression” of student ideas, regardless of their veracity (or lack thereof) or basis in reality. Political correctness run amok, disarming the teacher from the ability to enlighten and educate the child as an appeasement to the child’s family and it’s “parental authority”.

So when the child says that black people are inferior to white people - because that is what their mommy and daddy have taught them - teachers are forced to respect their “opinion” even though their opinion is patently false. The student might be lectured on the error of that reasoning, but they are not admonished for their “opinion”; only counseled on how it may be perceived by others.

No. False opinion should be nipped in the bud. It is not truth, it is not thoughtful or informed, it is simply ignorant, stupid, and wrong. And it should not be “respected” as a differing view of reality. It should be squelched, admonished, reprimanded, and punished. And so should the child.

The media perpetuates this type of “reasoning” (a word I use with knowledge that it is anything but in this circumstance). News agencies today provide a contrived narrative on everything - from abortion to zoology - and apply the false equivalencies of “two sides to every story”. The fair and balanced approach. Life is not fair and balanced, and likewise, our journalistic purveyors should not be either. They should be honest.

A discussion on the utility of vaccinations is held between a virology expert, and a housewife who says her child’s autism is caused by the smallpox vaccine. We have the expert scientist on one side talking about biology, and we have a housewife talking about something she misread six years ago in Redbook.

This discussion gets the viewing audience thinking. They begin to weigh the pros and cons of the “debate” and the “controversy” and start forming their own judgments based on the “arguments”. They begin making a comparison not of apples to apples, not even of apples to oranges… No; they instead compare apples to rocks. And the stupidity spreads like an untreated virus, vectoring into the public as a “viable opinion”.

It is the spread of this disease that needs to be deemed as “hate speech”. We should look upon lies, ignorance, and stupidity as detrimental to our health as a nation - and the world - and not validate them with the trite excuse of: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion”. People’s opinions carry no weight when they are empty. As Aldous Huxley said: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”.

I agree that opinions matter. I am an opinionated son-of-a-bitch. But the difference between an informed opinion, and the conditioned opinion is light years apart. If your own opinion is informed, even if offensive (which mine often are), it still has standing as a legitimate point of view. But when your opinion is based on imaginary and deceitful “information”, disregarding facts, data, and evidence to the contrary, it is based on fear, hate, and lies. This is the weakest of foundations, and an idea is only as strong as the foundation it is built upon.

When Creationists seek to validate their “science” as an alternative to evolution, they should be rebuked, with extreme prejudice. It is no more a science than masturbation is. Creationism gets you to where you want to be, but takes no real effort to do so, and miraculously leaves your hands clean with no clean up required.

If Creationism wants to debate the science of creation, their fight is with astronomers, not evolutionary biologists. Astronomers study the beginnings of the universe and how life developed from the stardust that it is made of. The Big Bang Theory is the science of the stars and how creation came to pass; not the study of flora and fauna.

But the idea that their theology is a “science” at all is a hateful attack on human knowledge, and should be labeled as hate speech.

When people discuss global climate change, it is appropriate to debate the plausible causes and effects of climate change, and how it may affect life on Earth as we know it. Ask what impact does man have versus nature, and how do we mitigate the likely effects of rising sea levels and mass extinctions of species.

But people who claim that it is a hoax, or that it is some grand conspiracy perpetrated by environmentalists, is just another hateful attack on reality - an observable phenomenon - and should be labeled as hate speech.

When a person wants to discuss the differing cultures of whites versus blacks or those of differing nationalities, or the differences between women and men, or variances in human sexuality, these are very legitimate areas of debate.

But when a person states that white people are genetically superior to all others, or that women cannot perform with the mental acuity of men, or that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed, well then this perpetuates fear, hate, and ignorance. This is a hateful attack on the fundamental realities of the human condition, and should be labeled as hate speech.

When the left and right debate policies, and political discourse is a game of “he said, she said”, this is the normal function of civil debate. Arguing over nuance and vision should be encouraged and even applauded, as it exhibits strength of intellect and character, two vital aspects of the ideals that our country was built upon, and ideals that are - and should be - emulated around the world.

But when they start bandying words about such as “Nazi”, and “Socialism”, and “oppression”, well then the conversation has degraded to fearful, hateful, and idiotic. Debate is one thing, but charges of mislabeled and uninformed “Communist conspiracies” and other fallacies should be labeled hate speech.

Many things are subjective, and can take on different meanings depending on the observer’s individual point of view. The only universal truth is change.

But when something is demonstrably false, and spread as a truism, it needs to be confronted, and the speaker should be publicly shamed and humiliated.

I am not even averse to the idea of making it punishable as a criminal offense, because a lie told often enough takes on the perception of truth. I know that this could be considered a parallel to “thought crime”, but it is not. You are still allowed to “think” as you see fit. But keep it to yourself. If you spread this sort of “hate speech”, you are committing a hate crime. A crime against humanity.

We all know that the Earth is not flat, and we must not allow others to believe that it is.

So, speech said during the commission of a crime - racists, homophobic, or sexist - should not be considered criminal; just another piece of evidence that would go to the motive of the crime. Criminal acts caused by fear and hate are adjudicated based upon their severity and motive.

But speech that spreads falsehoods, lies, and stupidity should be silenced, and discredited, if not criminally sanctioned. Because it does not further discourse. It does not inform. It does not provide insight or enable awareness.

It only spreads hate.

And that is hate speech.

Top of the world looking down on creation

Texas public schools are at it again.

On Monday, the Austin American Statesman printed a story about a charter school operator and the questionable science curriculum that they are teaching with regard to evolution. I use the description “questionable” as this is what the God Squad would like you to believe. The fact of the matter though is that they are undermining science with religion, using the specious idea that science is “questionable” and they are promoting “critical thinking skills” to the student body.

The article can be found here:  http://www.statesman.com/news/news/critics-say-students-are-taught-creationism-in-two/nc3hC/

The schools in question are Lanier and Travis High Schools whose biology curriculum states: “Many leading scientists are questioning the mechanisms of evolution and are disputing the long timeline required for the evolutionary process.”

Experts say that this is an outright lie. Further, they say that discrediting evolution in such a manner, undermines science, and “…invites students to consider creationism as an alternative.”

It is not.

The Charter School operator, Responsive Education Solutions' CEO, Chuck Cook says that their “…science curriculum teaches evolution, noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories,…”

There are no “competing theories"; this very idea is an affront to science and does a disservice to students.

Responsive Education Solutions receives $80 million in state and federal funding, and has been served with a cease-and-desist letter by at least one national advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and could be open to lawsuits for violating the First Amendment.

The Texas State Board of Education has been under fire for nearly a decade with regard to it’s stances on science and social studies standards. These problems, though lessened in recent years, are still under scrutiny for their bowing to pressures from the public to make political and religious based curriculum the standard in Texas public schools, as opposed to fact based, scientifically and historically accurate teaching.

The Board’s response to this brewing “controversy” is to point to their own 2009 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) guidelines which state: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific explanation, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

Responsive Ed’s Cook responded in a letter to staff and parents that, “Our science curriculum does examine all sides of the scientific evidence relating to evolution - both for and against - just as we are required to do by the [Texas standards] for biology.” This in their effort to provide a “…balanced look at differing opinions on the theory of evolution…”.

Nice try Mr. Cook, but “opinions” have no place in the realm of scientific study, and there is no legitimate science that goes "against" the theory of evolution.

Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and author of the very textbook approved by the state of Texas for biology education, says that the standards explicitly require the curriculum to be centered on scientific - not supernatural - explanations. The textbook contains no mentions or allusions to creationism.

Yet Responsive Ed’s curriculum crosses the line into the realm of religion, creationism, and intelligent design. The section called Origin of Life includes the bible quote, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” This does not appear in the textbook, and Miller points out that, “The TEKS standards are quite specific in requiring the scientific explanations.”

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, going back to the 1960’s, that teaching creationism in public schools is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State has said that by requiring science teachers to explore “all sides” of evolution, the state of Texas has invited them to talk about creationism.

This allows personal opinions to be compared with the scientific method, a wholly deplorable notion in and of itself.

“The court rulings are crystal clear”, says Boston, “Another thing to consider is that charter schools are public institutions. This curriculum, it fits in with the more modern attempts to bring creationism into the schools.”

Likewise, activist Zack Kopplin questioned Responsive Ed’s curriculum in an article on Slate.com, were he accuses them of teaching “stealth creationism” by seeking to discredit evolution. “They will give you evidence for it [evolution], but, right after that, say the evidence is weak,” he told the American Statesman, “They undercut all the evidence they provide.” He went on to state that students are “…likely to see creationism as an alternative, so it’s effectively teaching creationism in the classroom.”

The Austin Independent School District is conducting a review of the curriculum, going through it line by line, in an effort to see “…what’s been taught each day.”

So, given this story, and the consistent stupidity displayed by all official governance starting with the Board down to the very teachers in the classroom, I think it is time to go over a few facts…

First and foremost, scientific theory can be tested. A theory exists based on not proof, but the body of evidence that supports a theory. Evidence acquired through extensive testing, experimentation, and observation. Theories such as gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution are real. They have withstood rigorous and extensive testing, experimentation, and observation, all of which support the theories in question. There are no competing theories to these, nor does evidence exist that disprove these theories. That is why they are theories and not hypotheses.

Creationism however does not even rise to the level of scientific theory or hypothesis. Testing cannot be performed. Experimentation cannot be performed. Observation cannot be performed, only explained away with theology. If creationism were theory, it would provide evidence of the existence of god, ending religious and spiritual inquiry altogether with concrete explanations of the divine.

It has not.

Second, evolution does not compete with religion. There is nothing to stipulate that evolution is not a part of a grand design, or that it is. It cannot stipulate one way or the other, because again, scientific theory requires examination, experimentation, and observation. It can examine, experiment, and observe the evolution of species, but has not unequivocally determined the origin of the existence of life on Earth or throughout the universe. Evolution neither confirms or denies the existence of god, or a grand design. But, it doesn’t try to.

The flip side of that equation though, is that creationism and intelligent design in fact do deny evolution. They stipulate that evolution is unscientific, and largely an atheist attack on faith. God created the universe and gave man dominion over the Earth and all of it’s flora and fauna. For, it is written…

These views are not only antithetical to scientific theory and exploration, but in my opinion, border on criminal negligence. Stupidity has no place in public schools, and creationism - as “theory” - is just plain stupid. Anyone affiliated with a public school that spreads this ignorance should be banned for life from any contact with the public school systems, including membership in the PTA.

Third, the state guidelines stipulate: “…analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific explanation…”. I would posit first that students do not have the ability - no matter gifted they may be - to do this using the scientific method. I would also posit that one can analyze evolution, and even observe it in action, however they cannot do so with creationism. Therefore, creationism cannot be evaluated scientifically, and has no place in a science classroom.

Fourth, it is a false equivalency to pose this as “controversy”. There is no controversy when putting science side-by-side with theology. This is an apples to oranges comparison, and by calling it “controversial” it tries to make an apples to apples comparison. It is not.

Parochial schools, many of which provide fine educations, such as top notch Catholic high schools and universities, do not make such “controversy”. Students are taught science in science classes - including the theory of evolution - and are taught theology in philosophy courses. This further attests to the fact that evolution and religion are not incompatible, and can exists in their own forums.

Fifth, this only serves as a solid argument for a national curriculum. There is a reason why American test scores and educational development lag far behind many other nations. Local and state control of schools give way to school boards being populated with “Flat Earthers”, housewives, religious leaders, and people with political agendas. These are the same people who question whether or not sex education courses should be "medically accurate". I shit you not; this is a topic of discussion right now in a nearby school district.

These people have no place setting curriculum. They might effectively manage school districts, but the material taught in schools should be designed by people in the respective fields of science, math, history, and English; not by people who have no background, therefore no credible or pertinent knowledge of such subjects.

Lastly, in a secular society, religion should not be a concern of public schools. No accommodations should be made with preference to any religious activities. Prayer groups should not be allowed, dietary restrictions should not be allowed, and gender segregation should not be allowed. It is not up to the schools to make sure the religious lead a life of piety, it is the responsibility of the pious. The only time that religion should ever be mentioned in school outside of the personal opinions of the student body, should be in a philosophy class, where it can be discussed in relation to other religions and spiritual movements. Not taught, but discussed.

Schools have a responsibility to society. We need to continually encourage them to meet those responsibilities, and not allow them to churn out ignorance disguised as science.

Tsunami warning

Oxfam reports that 85 people own the same amount of wealth as 50% of the world’s population. The other 7 billion of us fight over the rest of it like scurvy dogs.

John Kennedy said: “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

But a boat is not safe against a tidal wave.

Everything that we know and love is threatened by the ever growing tsunami of income disparity. Life as we know it is threatened with extinction, and there is nobody around to usher us two by two into the safety of an ark.

There is no high ground. This wave will cover the earth, leaving no stone unturned, and no plant untouched. There is no safe harbor. No seawall to protect us. No Coast Guard to perform daring rescues at sea. No Poseidon to save us; only the Kraken and Davy Jones’ locker.

We tie ourselves to the mast as the sirens call to us. The sirens sing of success and ownership, but they offer us only greed and servitude, if they don’t devour us instead. But whether we heed their call or not, we are still perilously close to the shore, carried by the powerful current. Either way, we will be smashed upon the rocks, shipwrecked.

The flood with surely sweep us away. We will sink to the depths like famed Atlantis. Drowned.

Many are torn from their moorings already. They have endured unemployment and foreclosure. Forfeiture of lands and theft of resources. A drought of opportunity and stagnant pools of fetid poverty that breed diseases.

Many others are doomed to be capsized, keel up, destined to end in the drink. The life jackets that we cling to will only serve as bright orange beacons to help locate and identify the dead. As if their identification will serve any other purpose than to verify the body count.

When the sea ebbs, all that will remain is silt and debris, the broken reminders of a once great human civilization. The eddies and tide pools will churn with death, while the sharks creep into the shallows.

Those who survive will be marooned. They will be flotsam and jetsam, strewn upon an empty beach. Our sand castles washed away, eroded by the crashing wave.

We are lost between the Scylla and Charybdis. To one side a beast that threatens to eat us alive. To the other, a swirling whirlpool - a cesspool - threatening to swallow us whole.

The Occupy movement gave a brief glimmer of hope. A spark that flashed for a moment, and then was gone. I see know that the flame was engulfed by the moist sea air; extinguished before a fire could be built to keep us warm. We are to be sunk under our own weight, as our bilge tanks erupt and overflow, and the crews dive overboard in panic. The engineers will be buried alive in the sludge. The navigators - blinded - pushing us into uncharted territory.

Our rudder is torn asunder, and we careen hither and yon, adrift. The ship cannot be righted, as we float helplessly in an unforgiving ocean. We burn under a blistering sun, circled by man-eating predators, and dying of thirst while surrounded by water.

Few of us man the lighthouses, and even we will eventually be swallowed. The buoys are off anchor, while men muddy the waters with the detritus of their foaming ideologies of liquidity and adventurous notions of piracy.

They ignore our warnings, while the wave rushes on and a perfect storm builds on the horizon. And all will be washed away, leaving nothing in it’s wake, but death and destruction.

And mankind will sleep with the fishes.

Debunking the debunkers

As a life long, die hard, in-your-face Liberal (spelled with a capital L), it irks me to be in agreement with the right, unless they have crossed the aisle and embraced a progressive cause. But the NSA scandal has actually left me in agreement with many on the right. Although in agreement, I would like to think that my opinion is based a bit more on rationality, and pragmatic common sense, as opposed to their usual jingoistic 'Us vs. Them' mentality.

I read an article the other morning posted at Mother Jones. They had picked in up from another website (TomDispatch) and posted it in an effort to debunk so-called “myths” surrounding NSA surveillance. As I read through it, I was dismayed at the overreach of the writer, and the broad based assumptions and specious arguments made in an effort to debunk said “myths”.

Please read the article as posted by Mother Jones (at the link below).

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/10-myths-nsa-surveillance-debunk-edward-snowden-spying?page=1

(Afterward, please read my point by point rebuttal arguments below. It may be helpful to read them side by side, in order to contrast them together more efficiently, and maintain continuity.)

As disconcerting as it is even to me, I recognize that this is a very complex issue. The moral questions are obvious, however looking at it objectively, there are few clear cut solutions or obvious fixes.

Ultimately, per our system of government, we must allow the Congress and the Judiciary to do their jobs, and strike a balance between liberty, safety, and morality.

*****

1) NSA surveillance is legal

Legal. Not with “quotation marks”, and not final, but legal. Just as slavery was once legal, legal does not differentiate between good law or bad law. Legal is law.

Until such time as these surveillance programs are deemed illegal, they are still legal. This is not a question of semantics, this is a question and point of law. Even if down the road the Court finds that some or all of these legal techniques are unconstitutional, that will not negate their legality today, it will only make them illegal moving forward. Just like owning slaves before Emancipation didn’t make you criminal, only owning them afterward did.

The question of the secrecy of these laws, is a question of national security. Classified and Top Secret information is kept from the public and not from the people charged with oversight of such programs. There are certain things that the public does not have a right to know, specifically when it comes to intelligence matters. This is not an opinion, this is factual based on FISA rulings, several Supreme Court rulings throughout the years, as well as upon precedents set by lower courts.

2) If you’ve done nothing wrong…

The Constitution does not in fact guarantee a right to privacy. There is an implied right, but not a guaranteed right.

The Fourth Amendment prevents the illegal search and seizure of your person and property. This boils down to the fact that the State cannot search you or your belongings without a warrant in your home. In public is another matter.

The police do not require a warrant to perform a search of your pockets, your vehicle, or even your blood alcohol level when you are outside, in the general public. All that they require is probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The information superhighway is a public domain, and not something that you can hide in your sock drawer at home. This does not make it right, but it is the law.

That said, police use many different means during an investigation. Many such means cannot be used against you as evidence (lie detector tests and psychological profiles for instance), however they are investigative tools used to establish the viability of a suspect.

So although the concept of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is a distraction, it is disingenuous to claim that investigative tools used to establish or exonerate a suspect’s viability are somehow illegal and draconian. If the information is deemed by the courts to be inadmissible as evidence, then they cannot be used against you in a prosecution.

3) The use of “metadata”

Again, this would fall under the realm of an investigative tool. Like a lie detector, it may not be admissible in court, however it would establish motive and opportunity, proving the viability of a suspect in order for the State to zero in on a suspect and collect evidence. Establishing the whereabouts and movements of a “person of interest” is a standard investigative tool, and one that is quite legal and Constitutional.

Alternatively, if the tracking of someone’s whereabouts and movements brings the police to your door with questions, those questions would also be a part of the investigative tool chest, and could either make you a “person of interest”, or clear you in an investigation.

4) Checks and balances…

Yes there are checks and balances and oversight of the NSA and surveillance programs. The problem with checks and balances is that they are only as thorough as the questions being asked.

The lack of proper oversight can be laid at the feet of those who failed to properly oversee such things. If the proper questions were not posed to the NSA, one cannot blame the NSA, they must blame the inquisitors.

I personally warned of the possibility for abuses to Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff, and was rebuffed like some scared little conspiracy theorist while the USA PATRIOT Act was being debated.

Granted, Snowden’s information has lead to finally asking the proper questions, however he didn’t take that information to the overseers, he took it to the foreign press. A whistle-blower would have brought this to an oversight committee or a member of Congress in an effort to expose a lack of oversight and his concerns of malfeasance, and hopefully establish better oversight and proper lines of inquiry. If that was unsuccessful, then exposing his concerns to the press would have been a last line of defense, at which time the press would have brought this information first to those charged with oversight, and only then to the public at large.

There are laws in place that provide a venue for whistle-blowers and protections for the same. Snowden could have blown a whistle, but instead leaked classified information to a foreign press agent.

(note: My article on Edward Snowden can be found at the link below)

http://incendiarylanguage.blogspot.com/2014/01/for-whom-whistle-blows.html

5) But I trust the President on this…

This is an entirely false premise, as the President (Bush, Obama, and their predecessors) only receive national security information. They do not collect it. They do not oversee it. They only receive it, and use it to the best of their ability to fulfill their Constitutional duties.

6) The private sector uses personal information so why not the government?

This goes back to the information superhighway. The internet is not a government run entity. Sharing your personal data with facebook is a choice and a function of agreement. But once you do, it is now out there in the ether - public domain.

The Fourth Amendment prohibitions of illegal search and seizure do not apply in the same way when you broadcast information publicly, which is what you do every time you use the internet or a cellular phone.

If you want the Fourth Amendment to apply, keep your communications inside your home. Write letters and get a land line, as both require a warrant before they can be reviewed by the State. But once it is out there in public, your implied right to privacy is diminished greatly.

7) Isn’t surveillance for our own good?

This is the "Old Reliable" argument. Although I find it personally distasteful, I do see the viability of surveillance as a deterrent and preventative measure to attacks on our national security.

Although rife with possibilities for abuse, surveillance tactics have been vital in maintaining the safety of the U.S. as a nation. Surveillance tactics were used to apprehend Al Capone, John Gotti, and the Oklahoma City bombers, among others.

Again, the tactics and methodologies used by law enforcement are tools. But evidence used in a prosecution must meet the bar of Constitutional protections. These investigative tools are used to prevent crimes and/or apprehend criminals by establishing their viability as suspects. They are not used as evidence in their prosecutions in a court of law. We are after all a nation of laws, with the right to review the evidence against us and to face our accusers.

8) Terrorists are everywhere and dangerous

Indeed. Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, but so too was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. Osama claimed responsibility for his crimes, making him the primary suspect. Tim McVeigh only did after being arrested, and he was arrested by law enforcement officials who used investigative tools and a snitch, while Rudolph was on the lam for decades, and it took years to find him and build a case.

If fertilizer sales been reported before hand (which they are now), McVeigh could have been apprehended before carrying out his devastating attack. Had metadata been scrutinized (which it is now), Rudolph could have been established as a viable threat, and the Atlanta Olympic bombing could have possibly been thwarted.

The same people who vilify Bush and his administration for “not connecting the dots” are the same people who now glorify Snowden for bring our attention to the fact that the NSA is now trying to “connect the dots”. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

9) We’ve stayed safe. Doesn’t that prove its efficacy?

Not at all. That said, it doesn’t disprove it either.

10) Doesn’t protecting America come first?

This argument is the most egregious of all. Protecting national security and providing more for the infrastructure are two entirely different things.

Though I whole heartedly agree that we as a nation do not do enough to rebuild ourselves and reclaim our standing as a Great Society, I also believe that keeping our nation safe from threats, both foreign and domestic is a responsibility that we have as a government, and as a people.

If one were to try an prioritize what comes first, my argument would be election reform and taking money out of the electoral process.

But the government doesn’t have that luxury or get to prioritize. It has to maintain all of it’s functions, all at the same time.

Matters of life and death

Two stories have been making national news, both involving “brain death” and “life support”. Both are reported from agenda driven standpoints, without any serious journalism, all the while ignoring basic common sense.

The first case is Jahi McMath, the thirteen year old declared “brain dead” after complications arising from a “routine” tonsillectomy.

First of all, there is no such thing as “brain dead”. Once brain function ceases, a person is dead. Period. This is not only the scientific definition of dead, but it is also common sense, as without brain function, all other bodily functions cease as well. The heart won’t beat, circulating blood throughout the system, and the respiratory system fails, no longer converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.

There has never been a reported case of brain function suddenly restarting, and the patient coming back to life. That is the realm of science fiction, and not science fact. The notion of “brain dead” is a euphemism for “machines can keep the organs functioning artificially”.

Second, the term “life support” would only apply to machines that keep a patient alive. This presupposes that the patient is alive, which Jahi McMath most certainly is not, as her brain function has ceased. A ventilator is not “life support” in this case, because the only function it has is to keep her lungs working, something that her lifeless body can no longer do on it’s own.

The media has tried to make this a tragedy, and I guess it is, but not for the reasons that have been reported. The media would like you to believe that this was a “routine” surgery, that somehow Children’s Hospital of Oakland was negligent, and that her parents have lost a child, something that no parent should have to face.

The real tragedy here is child abuse and neglect.

This was no “routine” surgery. A tonsillectomy is a routine procedure for tonsillitis, inflammation of the tonsils caused by infection. This procedure was performed in an effort to alleviate Jahi’s sleep apnea.

This child was morbidly obese. Her sleep apnea was a direct result of this condition, and not an infection. This procedure was done to help her breath at night. It was an elective procedure, and had nothing to do with her tonsils, but with her respiratory dysfunction.

In addition to this fact, Jahi’s mother, Nailah Winkfield, not only chose this surgery for her little girl, but with her mother being veteran nurse, she was well aware of the consequences and complications that could possibly arise.

Anyone who has ever been under the knife knows that pre-op releases are required which detail such things, and that anesthesia itself can cause a patient to die on the table. Especially if that patient has underlying conditions such as respiratory issues and obesity. This was in no way a surprise to her family; the surprise was that it happened to them. These things only happen to other people.

The second case is the case of Marlise Munoz of Fort Worth, Texas. Marlise was fourteen weeks pregnant when she collapsed from an apparent blood clot, and lay unconscious for at least an hour before being rushed to the emergency room.

When she arrived at the hospital, her brain had been deprived of oxygen for too long, and she too was pronounced “brain dead”. In Texas, “brain death” is clearly defined as legally dead, and would have meant automatic disconnection from a ventilator. But in trying to revive her, they detected a fetal heartbeat.

The controversy in this case is the state's fight to keep her on “life support” due to Texas’ anti-abortion laws. Although Marlise’s desire to not be placed on “life support” is well known, she too is dead, and therefore cannot be kept on “life support”.

But her child is not.

The argument that she is being placed on “life support” is fallacious, as she is quite scientifically and legally dead. But keeping her on a ventilator does not keep her on life support. Keeping her on a ventilator keeps her child on life support, that life support being her uterus. The ventilator at this point is simply the power module of her as an incubator. Her body is the life support machine until the child is either born or miscarries.

Her husband, Erick is trying - some would say valiantly - to fight this procedure in Court, saying that the state is overstepping it’s authority by keeping his “brain dead” wife on “life support”.

I am not a pro-life advocate. In fact, I am vehemently pro-choice, and actually think that in some cases, abortions should be mandatory. But this child is in it’s second trimester, and it’s parents, Erick and Marlise chose to bring it into the world.

It seems to me that, now that Marlise is no longer alive and is unable to care for the child, Erick would rather see it die as well. How’s that for a caring and sensitive husband? He says very little about the child inside his dead wife, but insists that the state remove her from a ventilator, per her wishes, and let her rest in peace. The result of such action meaning the assured death of their unborn child.

Both of these cases touch on sensitive issues that many people have their emotions heavily invested in; at least that is the way that the media report it. But both cases are obscured in legal wrangling, while ignoring the common sense implications.

Jahi McMath is dead, not due to malpractice on the part of Children’s Hospital, but due to the neglect of her parents to properly care for her health and well being. Instead of seeking restitution from the hospital, they should be charged with child abuse and neglect, and prosecuted as an example to other parents who let their children become morbidly obese, and try to fix the condition with surgery.

Marlise Munoz is dead not through anyone’s direct fault, but by an unforeseen accident. As Marlise can no longer speak on her child’s behalf, the state has, determining that her bodily function being prolonged is necessary for the health and well being of the child that it nourishes. Regardless of her wishes and her DNR order, this is no longer about her. Erick Munoz’s determination to have her ventilator disconnected, knowing full well that their child will die as a result, is nothing short of attempted murder.

One family seeks to use the legal system to place blame on others, while the other family seeks to kill an infant because it won’t have a mother to care for it.

Both cases, in reality, are people shirking their own responsibilities, and hoping that you won't notice.