Some Random Thoughts

Apparently St. Jude is not politically influential enough because it isn't one of the 111 (so far) companies/union groups that are exempted from having to obey the new federal healthcare law for their employees. I thought we believed in the rule of law in America. Apparently not because the federal government has taken upon itself the task of deciding who WILL and who WILL NOT be subject to federal law. If this health care law was supposed to be so great why is the federal government allowing over 100 companies to not abide by it? I see this as an acknowledgement that the law is detrimental to business and to our economy and I recall being told the opposite by this president earlier this year. But what do you expect from a bill that freakin' nobody reads and even our then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it"?

In the meantime, as of January 1, my out-of-pocket maximum increases, my ER co-pay increases and my monthly premium increases by 20%. I'd be surprised if the same doesn't happen for you.

Random thought 2 - Sarah Palin makes me want to throw up. Really, it's gotten to where I can't even look at her anymore without having a nauseating physical reaction. The thing about Bristol Palin being on Dancing With the Stars can be explained by the fact that she's young and dumb and she sees an opportunity to cash in on her infamous recognition factor. That's fine, that's what young and dumb people do. But Sarah Palin on a reality TV show? I really wish she would dissociate herself from the conservative movement because she's a huge liability to getting qualified, credible, competent candidates elected who espouse good old-fashioned conservative values. I think she's been corrupted by fame, fortune, and popularity. I think she had potential waaaaaay back in the beginning but as soon as the machine got ahold of her and she tasted one sweet morsel of fame, as soon as she stood in front of applauding and cheering audiences she started saying obnoxious things and speaking in Republican soundbites. She's a quitter. She quit on the people of Alaska and became nothing more than a political cheerleader for anybody who calls themself a conservative. So she tours the country talking about "mama grizzlies" and saying "you betcha" and "by golly" and basically reveling in her own shallow influence. Now she sees an opportunity to make more money and be more famous and loved (by mindless kool-aid drinkers) by having a camera in her face while she fishes and hunts and cooks dinner and whatever else she wants us to see her doing. I'm sure she'll do plenty of talking about God and Bibles on her show. Well I don't have cable so, no, I didn't watch Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC. I wouldn't have watched it regardless but alot of people did and that's frightening. Why do we continue to validate this type of person in America?

Vaclav Klaus 2012

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech republic. I've heard things about this guy before and I like what I've heard. He's spot on about this economic thing in my opinion. Can we grant him US citizenship and coax him into running for president in 2012. If he's not interested maybe he's got a brother or a cousin that could run?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN259750420100925

Shameful

I was proud of the unbias that I demonstrated by criticizing the recent vote by Republicans. I should have known that it wouldn't take long for democrats to trump them.

You should know that inside my blood is boiling and I'm doing a whole lot of self-editing on this one. The words I would like to say would get me in big trouble at home. I'm angry because what I'm about to tell you about highlights just how big of a joke we've become - literally. I've often felt that Congress doesn't take any of our problems all that seriously, that they somehow thing this is all some kind of game and now I know that this is how they feel. Regrettably, we're led by a bunch of - see I can't say what we're led by because there's no way to describe it without using obscenities, lots of them.

Today there's a dog and pony show congressional hearing on immigration reform and who has the subcommittee called to testify? None other than the highly qualified, widely respected for his experience in immigration law - Steven Freaking Colbert!!!!
And what's better he's going to be testifying in character!!! Did you get that? STEVEN COLBERT IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know what to say. The dems are in control of congress which means that they chair these committees which means that they are responsible for this joke only it's not a joke, they're completely serious. They're turning to a political comedian/satirist to testify under oath in front of congress. If I was a republican (or anybody with common sense) on that committee I would stand my butt up as soon as Colbert starts to take the oath and walk the heck out of there. The hallowed halls of congress are no place, NO PLACE, for that kind of circus.

This country is a freaking mess. It's a pathetic joke. We need immigration reform and we need our immigration laws enforced and THIS is their answer? Now look, when we had cable I watched The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is hilarious. Colbert is hilarious but these guys aren't journalists. They're comedians that make satirical political commentary. They're characters. And they're very, very good at that. I was well aware of the fact that there are alot of liberals who can't seem to separate fact from satire and they follow these shows as if they are legitimate news sources (trust me I know some) but I didn't know that even our congress people view these tv shows this way. I mean this would be like congress calling Carroll O'Connor to testify, in his Archie Bunker character, on the state of race relations in the
1970s. It's exactly the same and it's pathetic. Now I'm going to find out who runs this subcommittee and I'm going to send some emails. I may not self-edit as much in my email to whoever that pathetic piece of crap is.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This week the democrats brought to the senate floor a bill which included a repeal of the antiquated, Clinton-era Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) policy. We all know what that policy is so I won't go into it here. The measure failed to pass with a few democrats joining all (I think) republicans in voting against the bill. In the spirit of fairness I should mention that a number of the republicans who voted against the measure expressed a desire to overturn DADT but felt that other provisions in this bill precluded them from being able to support it. Now this is a common thing, to throw an amendment into a bill (such as a defense spending bill) which you know the opposing party would not support thus causing them to vote against a bill so that you can come out and say 'hey, these guys voted against increasing funding for our troops' when the reality is much more complex than that. So I took a breath and thought 'okay, let's see what is so awful about this bill that the republicans had to vote against it even if it meant that DADT doesn't get repealed.' I must be missing something. If anybody knows more about this bill than I do please enlighten me. I hear republicans complaints about how Harry Reid was greatly limiting the ability to introduce amendments to this bill and how the period of time in which the bill would be debated was being limited as well. I'm not sure how big those issues should really be. It doesn't appear to me that there are such awful things in this bill that you would vote against it. DADT wasn't even going to be repealed until a thorough poll of military commanders was taken in order to assess any potential negative effects of repealing that policy.

I think the republicans lose on this one. How is repealing DADT a bad thing? This is the height of hypocrisy in government. It was in 1990-whatever when Clinton installed it and it is today. If I'm a business owner and I fire or don't hire somebody based on their sexual preference I'm getting taken to the cleaners. We're talking lawsuits coming from every direction. Yet if you're the government/military you can exclude somebody based on whether they want to hold a girl's hand or a boy's?? This is just one of thousands of examples where government insists that they are above their own laws. We all have to include everybody regardless of race, religion, blah, blah, blah. And rightly so. But government doesn't have to. I'm very disappointed in the republican party. This is not what conservatives believe in. And it's not what Americans believe in. It's 2010, nobody is losing morale by having a gay guy working with them. It doesn't affect morale in my workplace, why do we think it would affect morale in the military? And even if it did would that work as an excuse for discrimination in MY business? Why not judge people based on the content of their character (or in this case their commitment to protecting the USA) and not on the gender of their romantic partners? We're fighting endless wars for heaven's sake, shouldn't we welcome absolutely anybody who is physically and mentally competent and passionate about defending the country? It's mind-blowing! In 50 years our society (if it exists) will assuredly look back to the early 21st century and wonder what in the world we were thinking.

Conservative ideas are good for this country. I think that conservative ideas are, in most cases, BEST for this country. Republicans used to espouse conservative ideas. They no longer do and I'm not convinced that Republicans have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008 well enough that they will be able to govern this country any better than the democrats have been. I look forward to a Republican takeover of the House in November because we've got to slow down this train wreck that Obama has us on. But that alone is not the answer because although we're more likely to get conservative ideas from the Republican party, it's not a guarantee. If I have the option to vote for a conservative-leaning democrat I'll gladly do it.

Didn't We Already Know This?

Yet ANOTHER scientific study refuting the (non-existent) "evidence", aka paranoia, concerning vaccination and autism. Yet, somehow, I doubt this will do anything to change the minds of those who are hellbent on convincing the world that vaccinations are a scourge on humanity. The hardcore anti-vaccine crowd (not the concerned parent, the hardcore wackos) has done so much damage to public health measures in this country. They're as ill-informed and agenda driven as those PETA nuts who protest the use of animals at medical research institutions and make physical threats against those who perform the research. The larger question is - why does there continue to be such a vocal minority in this country that REFUSES to understand science?


http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/moreevidencethatvaccinesdontcauseautism

The Great Debate

Several years ago I posted on this issue on Sarah's blog and now I'm bringing it to my own blog. It really doesn't have to do with politics but I haven't had politics on my mind lately. I've been thinking more about baseball and my work (in that order).

EVOLUTION!!

Here's what I mean by evolution - the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms caused by naturally occuring alterations in the genetic component of the organism.

As a scientist I think about these things a great deal. Very little in the biological sciences makes sense outside of the context of evolution especially in my field of immunology and infectious diseases. As a Christian scientist I think about these things even more than most scientists I imagine. Why? I've been a serious student of biology for 12 years now. I have seen astounding evidence in support of organic evolution. I also have been taught, and sincerely believe, that God is the creator. I suppose I should feel some kind of conflict within my heart as these two ideas are presented as mutually exclusive explanations for the variation among species, but I just don't. I think the theories of evolution are not necessarily at odds with revealed truth. Many church leaders in the early 20th century (when this topic became hotly discussed) thought so as well.

One thing is simply not debatable. Evolution occurs. That is not open to question. Why else do we need flu shots each year? Where do drug-resistant bacteria come from? That's evolution. Evolution is a fact. I suppose alot of people have a hard time going from micro-evolution to macro-evolution, that the physical body of man evolved from a less complex species. I don't have a problem going from one to the other because the basic principles are the same. I'm not married to the idea but the evidence leans very strongly in that direction and I'm not offended by the idea because I know that this body of mine wasn't actually created by God in the literal sense anyway. And I know that this body doesn't represent who I really am. Plus, my body is going to undergo some pretty fantastic changes (yes, Sarah it will get even better) after its resurrection so why should I be insulted by the notion that my body represents a step in the evolutionary process?

Some people I know have used scripture verses as a basis for their opposition to evolutionary theory. That's foolish. The scriptures aren't a science text. God's purpose in showing the creation to Moses was NOT to demonstrate how he did it. Moses would NEVER have understood that. God's purpose was to let Moses know 1) God's omnipotence, and 2) mankind's relation to God. I don't like when people use scriptures to make a point that the scriptures aren't meant to make. Scripture is for answering the questions of 1) who are we?, 2) why are we here?, 3) how do we need to live to have a glorious resurrection. I love this quote from an official explanation of the church's view of evolution:

"Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, none of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research."

The church is saying 'look, ultimately it doesn't matter whether evolution is right or wrong. As a church we're only concerned with what happens AFTER all of that.'

Now a little about the earth's creation. We know that the earth, as it appears today, does not resemble the earth that was formed "in the beginning." One thing that baffles me is that many religious folk have no beef with the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a river and that the islands of Hawaii sprang out of the ocean originally as volcanoes. No, most people don't have a problem recognizing that natural processes account for the geology of the earth while continuing to believe that God created it. Yet, suggest that a natural occurrence, a "Big Bang", explains the origins of planet earth and suddenly you've blasphemed. Do these people believe that God waved His arms and the earth simply was? We know that's false. God does not create de novo, rather He created the earth out of matter that already existed. So if God leaves the earth to be shaped by natural occurrences now, why wouldn't he create it using natural occurrences? After all, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? See? I think evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory are not only the best explanation for the origins of earth and life on earth given our current understanding but actually perfectly in accordance with what we know about God's characteristics and how He works. Besides, if you understand biology and find those things interesting then evolution is actually very beautiful and majestic. A God who can weave an intricate creation such that mankind is the end result of a process put into place billions of years previously is truly a God that is deserving of our reverence and obedience.

I find it interesting that the church maintains a position of neutrality on the issue of organic evolution. They are, on the other hand, adamant that we are literally spirit sons and daughters of God, a premise that I have no qualms with whatsoever. In fact, that supports my earlier point. My spirit was literally created by God in it's present form. My body? A completely different story. I don't imagine that during the course of earth's mortal existence God will see fit to reveal the method by which the human body came into being. I'm sure it will surpass even current evolutionary theory in its intricacy and grandeur but I won't be surprised to see that we humans had at least a few things correct.

A popular opposing view is intelligent design. Intelligent design has lots of flaws, the most prominent in my mind being that they use scientific examples of complexity (such as the eye or bacterial flagellae)to make the point that these systems couldn't have evolved independently. Well, science has successfully refuted both of those examples. The components of the eye and the bacterial flagellae have been demonstrated to have a role outside of their primary functions. The point here is that we do Christianity and God a disservice if we explain away very complex things by saying 'well, God did it.' That's true, but science advances very rapidly and will soon have a better explanation than 'God did it.' Does the scientific explanation mean that God didn't do it? No, but it does mean that God works with the laws of nature to accomplish His creative efforts.

Well, I've got alot more to say on this topic but I've got to save something for the comments.