Liberal Scientist v. Government

Angry Ramblings of a Science Nerd

2009-05-15T16:17:00.000-07:00

I agree with my classmate (at Lauren's Gov't blog) that there is no such thing as clean coal. However, what is the point of all this political maneuvering and cash incentive to drive a process that IS NOT POSSIBLE? It reminds me of the time that Sen. John McCain (on the campaign trail) offered the same amount of money to anyone who could develop “a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Funny how nothing came of that $300 million, either. Common logic maintains that if someone was able to figure out HOW to capture and sequester one of the smallest and most dangerous molecules in our atmosphere . . . they would have done it already.

But let’s go with it. Let’s imagine that the first step is refined and we can now catch all the carbon dioxide pouring from a smoke stack as we burn some coal. Now we plan on . . . burying it? I get SO tired of this old standby. Burying something on our own planet is not getting rid of it. When the only option that chemists and physicists can come up with is “Eh, we’ll bury it,” that means the problem is not solved. Not only is it unsolved, now it’s a problem for future generations that will surely compound itself in the intervening years. Frankly, it is absurd to me that our lawmakers would rather bury radioactive waste and greenhouse gases than realize where our petroleum road is leading us and start investing in different avenues of energy production. I get it lawmakers, general public. You are comfortable with coal, with oil. Unfortunately, these things have gotten us where we are now – on a planet that (according to some) has already moved beyond the tipping point concerning climate change. I think my ears would perk up if someone, anyone would take the sci-fi route and suggest dumping the CO2 in deep space - not that trashing space is any more probable or desirable, but at least it would involve a new story line.

We still have not addressed the CO2 pouring from the vehicles that unearthed and transported the coal, or the way in which modern coal is extracted. Watch this video for that argument.

Last, but not least, the logistics of the burying. The first time I heard the game plan for sequestered carbon dioxide, I knew it was impossible. It seems even more insidious, and blatantly pandering, to distract the layman with promises of more oil from hard to reach places in an attempt to bypass any explanation of how they will keep the CO2 below ground once injected.

Let me briefly paint a picture for you about carbon dioxide. It’s a very small molecule, and even though it has one carbon at its center, it’s technically not an organic molecule. Animals breathe it out as a waste product of cellular metabolism. Plants breathe it in, separate the carbon from its two oxygens, release these oxygens into our atmosphere, and fix the carbon into long organic chains that comprise wood, leaves . . . almost everything you’d see if you looked around a forest. We animals ingest this fixed carbon when we eat carbohydrates, protein, fiber, or fats and our bodies rearrange the carbon in ways that suit our internal landscape. CO2, as a waste product in our body, moves freely outward through cell membranes in the same way that O2 diffuses into our cells. Even water, sugar, amino acids, or small proteins cannot simply pass through this smallest of membranes. Without rambling on further, in what universe am I to believe that after mass quantities of CO2 are placed beneath the earth or beneath the ocean that they won’t simply diffuse back up again?? Gas molecules, by nature and by definition, diffuse away from each other continually until they are as evenly distributed as possible. (This is one reason why smog is everyone on the planet’s problem, not just the people who live in the city.)

I could expound upon the perils of injecting it below the sea, having it diffuse through the ocean, and thus acidifying the ocean, but I won’t. This clean coal nonsense is denial – denial that the ways the rich have become uber-wealthy will not continue to make the lucky few even wealthier. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (doctor, scientist, educator) described the process humans use to deal with grief and tragedy as five discrete stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. They are not necessarily addressed by every person and can be experienced out of order. If Republicans are finally admitting CO2 emissions are a problem, it sounds as if they’re vacillating between denial and bargaining. Personally, I’m alternately angry and depressed when I read “science” along the lines of clean coal. What will it take to get this country to accept that alternative energy forms are the only way to proceed from here?

Ray of Hope?

2009-05-05T20:59:00.000-07:00

The past week has been a blur for me. Between studying for finals, attempting government homework in vain, and going to work, I heard only vague rumblings about an abortion debate of some kind underway in the Texas Senate. As I sat down to browse the internet before penning a scathing review of congressional priorities in using valuable time and effort to give a woman choices about what she would or would not like to see or hear (as if she didn’t already have the right to see or hear the ultrasound before an abortion) . . . I came across good news. “Under a bill approved by the Texas Senate [on Monday, May 4th,] tuition and fee increases at most of the state’s large universities [may be limited] to no more than 5 percent a year.” This fantastic news is progress towards the State Government once again taking some responsibility for the quality and accessibility of higher education in the state. Since the legislature washed its hands of partially subsidizing colleges and universities in 2003 and allowed them to raise their tuition in compensation, families across the state have been subject to an 86% increase in rates.
The bill now continues on to the House, where hopefully it will be given a nod of approval. In exchange for the capping of tuition increases, as well as some outright freezes, this bill would oversee the re-involvement of the State in contributing to the education of its citizenry. In a legislature and a time period where I often find myself thinking, “Really? These are the topics our leaders and caretakers choose to tackle when people are homeless, dying penniless, or never even having a chance to succeed at anything,” it is refreshing to see that some measures of value are periodically being addressed.

Redefining The Letter A

2009-04-14T20:57:00.000-07:00

Although I did not attend high school in Texas, I’m familiar with high school science content. My high school experience included biology, two chemistry classes, physics, even earth science – which was our Midwestern excuse to hike for a month over the summer in 8 different national parks. One thing you can be sure of: high school science teaches the basics. We have these things called cells. They have smaller parts inside of them that help them function. There are three phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Bunsen burners are fun to light with a striker. You can tap out the song “Low Rider” on the side of any glass beaker. . . High school science IS NOT rocket science. So in what universe would anyone in charge of setting curriculum imagine that beginning students have the capacity to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations?” Isn’t this the time period when you’re first introduced to the scientific process? It’s the equivalent of asking first graders just learning to read to apply those virgin skills to editing Hemingway. . . in Latin.
“In a 2005 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Texas was one of the 15 states to earn an ‘F’ for its science standards; it received a ‘1’ (out of a possible 3) for its evolution education.” How does the State Board of Education seek to improve science education here in the Lone Star state? If you guessed attempting to inject faux science into classrooms, you’d be correct! I propose we skip the religious and conservative undertones of their reasoning, and simply make up a whole new grading system. I’ve thought long and hard about what could be worse than failure. What about – not even showing up to try? If the letter grade A stood for Absent Any Awareness, students could study about the earth being only 10,000 years old and receive high marks concurrently. If the letter grade A stood for Ambivalent And Adamant, we could plant the seed of Anti-Darwinism early and make it impervious to any logic. If A stood for Aberration, students could earn 4.0 GPAs while remaining unmarred by scientific fact.
As someone who lives and breathes science, I find it quite impossible to wrap my mind around this sort of ignorance. These sorts of debates don’t happen at the level of higher education. What would drive a person to intentionally limit what truths young minds are exposed to? After losing his “battle to introduce anti-evolution language in the Texas science standards,” dentist and school board member Don McLeroy said, “Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this.”
The only conclusion I can come to is religion. Religion drives this dentist to impose his beliefs upon ALL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and EVERY TEENAGE TEXAN.
Here are several articles directly related to this story:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=6782

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinion/editorials/science_wins__barely__in_texas_03-27-2009.html

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2009/03/science-wins-in-texas.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_28tex.ART.State.Edition1.4a87415.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27572

In parting, a quote from prolific French poet and human rights activist Victor Hugo:
"There is in every village a torch - the teacher:
and an extinguisher - the clergyman."

Who knew Iowa was so progressive?

2009-04-06T16:10:00.000-07:00

The Blog Burnt Orange Report posted an article from “[their] fellow 50-state bloggers at Bleeding Heartland” concerning the recent judicial milestone accomplished in Iowa’s Supreme Court. Iowa Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, by Phillip Martin, explains why the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa will not be overturned as easily as it was in California or Massachusetts.
The intended audience of the original article is aimed broadly, with no obvious slant appealing to conservatives or liberals. Many links within the article direct the reader to the Supreme Court’s summary, the full text of the opinion rendered, or Iowa’s State website. It could be argued that the article is liberally slanted since no mention of “God” appears and a couple positive financial windfalls of the decision are incorporated (such as the impending boon to the wedding and hospitality sectors as same-sex couples across the state rush to wed). I can’t determine how credible the author is personally, but it speaks volumes that he directs the reader to 6 different links providing more information about the history of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the previously mentioned links.
Toward the end of the article is a release from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) praising Iowa’s ruling. Their claim is that they’re pleased with the decision, although they don’t know “why it took so long.” The statement goes on to elaborate that “[why it took so long] is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.” A list of civil rights ‘firsts’ comes next. I was shocked to find out that. . .

1. In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
2. In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U. S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
3. In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U. S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
4. In 1869, Iowa became the first state of the union to admit women to the practice of law.

Their logic is my logic on this issue: equal rights and responsibilities for ALL citizens. . . true separation of church and state. The old joke is applicable here: “If gay people want to get married, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.” :)

Proficiency in Research Needed!

2009-03-24T21:35:00.000-07:00

An editorial in Monday’s Austin-American Statesman blusters impressively about the apparent negligence of state lawmakers. Referring to a previous issue of the Statesman, the unknown author rehashed the recent outrage concerning a law in effect since 2003. To sum up the description of the law, as well as present the sole numerical evidence offered, “The state Optional Flexible Year Program permits school districts to petition the Texas Education Agency for a waiver of the state-mandated 180 days of classroom instruction. The waiver exempts districts from losing state money for student absences, which means the districts can collect money for students who aren’t in the classroom. This school year, 148 districts were granted waivers, up from 58 in the previous year.” The reason this evidence falters is closely tied to the reality of Texans’ abysmal proficiencies in math, science, reading, and writing. What school in Texas should be cutting back on school time?? Getting an A, as in Absent proceeds to assert (correctly, in my opinion) that the Texas high school calendar should be extended - not reduced. American adolescents already attend a month less school per year as compared to children in South Korea. The claim of the article is that the Optional Flexible Year Program increases student absenteeism while not holding schools accountable. The author’s overt audience would seem to be Texas lawmakers, but Getting an A more effectively alerts citizens (without the use of any statistics or in-depth research) to the rubbish our state legislators may be propagating. It is hard to tell what impact the 2003 law actually had upon schools since zero lawmakers or teachers were asked to weigh in. I would have appreciated a little more detail, such as: What was the point of this law in the first place? Making sure applicable schools would receive the maximum amount of funding possible or encouraging absenteeism? The author’s logic? As anonymous as their name.

Two Towns in Texas

2009-03-06T20:34:00.000-08:00

For all of its faults, the sheer size of Texas guarantees diversity. Diversity, not only in landscape, but also in viewpoint and ideology. While trolling for an article to write about, I came across two from opposite ends of the environmental spectrum. The Statesman tells the story of the "300-acre solar array" approved by the Austin City Council yesterday. Scheduled to begin operating just outside of Austin in Webberville by the end of 2010, this is a perfect example of what makes me proud to be an Austinite. The Texas Observer recounts the extended drama of a West Texas town as it welcomes the construction of the first radioactive waste dump granted a permit in decades. Surprisingly, only one Andrews resident has voiced opposition to burying material that will continue being radioactive well into a million years in the future. The comparison of these two articles exemplifies how outcomes can be drastically different with some foresight and a little bit of daring.

Response to A Classmate #2

2008-12-12T09:59:00.000-08:00

I don’t know why other liberals hate guns. I do know why I will never own, touch, or keep one under my roof. A gun is a tool engineered to stop life. That is its entire purpose. Can I kill someone with a butter knife? Yes. All I need is the will and perhaps some knowledge of human anatomy. Were butter knifes created to kill enemies or hunt game? No. This is the central difference about guns in my mind.
Many studies have shown, time and again, that a gun in a civilian residence is more likely to shoot someone in that household inadvertently than it is likely to halt an unlawful intruder. I agree with you that child safety is the responsibility of the parent. However, there are many irresponsible parents in America today. I need only look at how many children on an elementary school playground are obese to reinforce this fact. Responsible parenting is a hot-button issue in this country. It is, frankly, pointless to tell poor, uneducated parents to “Be Responsible!” Either they grew up with this example and it is important to them, they intentionally endeavor to be responsible parents, or they couldn’t care less and want to do what’s easiest.
Where I grew up in the midwest (Indiana), the only people I knew who owned guns were police officers and farmers. It was shocking to find out that regular, ole Texans can take a one-day class and be licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I don’t know what possible good can come of this compared to everything that can go wrong. Just last week didn’t some famous football player shoot themself in the leg at a nightclub because their gun was tucked into the waistband of their sweatpants?? Of course, holstering your loaded gun in your sweatpants is stupid. That’s my point. PEOPLE ARE STUPID. When stupid people are allowed to own guns, they endanger everyone around them.
I prefer that the only people allowed to own guns are trained police officers, federal agents, professional hunters, and the military. Prescription drugs can harm or help people. That is why only people with significant schooling and training are given prescriptive authority. Guns can kill or protect. This power warrants more responsibility than being able to come up with the cash and attending a one-day gun safety course.

Pardon Me, Sir?

2008-12-05T18:22:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, President George W. Bush granted another group of pardons. I started to wonder about pardons and what they mean for the person receiving a pardon. It turns out that presidents can do two things for citizens who have had a run in with the law:
1.) “A pardon means an executive order vacating a conviction”(Wikipedia). – Thus, making it like it had never happened. If you were a felon, you can now vote, own guns, and check that you have never been convicted of a felony on job applications. Both Presidents Bush pardoned people who had already completed their entire sentences.
2.) “A commutation means a mitigation of the sentence someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction, without vacating the conviction itself”(Wikipedia). – Although a person receiving a commuted sentence would still be a felon and still have to disclose information about it, they would no longer have to be in jail. This will probably happen for Ted Stevens, and has already saved I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from spending 30 months in jail.
Former President Bill Clinton summarizes the numbers best in a New York Times article he wrote in February of 2001 to explain why the power of clemency is granted to the Executive Branch, as well as his reasons for granting some controversial pardons.

"On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president." (Bill Clinton)

There will surely be last minute pardons before “W” leaves office in January 2009, but so far in his two terms 171 presidential pardons have been issued in his name. Let’s look at a direct comparison of the types of crimes pardoned by the Bush Presidents. I categorized each crime into one of eight categories.
1.) Any crime committed with a gun or related to a gun. (Ex: robbing a store at gun point or illegally selling firearms without a license)
2.) Drug crimes (This category got split in two when I realized the low percentage of pardons granted for marijuana possession/distribution when compared to crimes involving cocaine, hashish, LSD, and bootlegging or moonshining alcohol.)
3.) Fraud (Ex: lying on government forms, tax evasion, representing yourself as something you are not)
4.) Theft of money (Ex: bank embezzlement, misapplication of US Postal Service funds)
5.) Theft of property (Ex: possession of stolen mail, stealing a car, theft of government property)
6.) Environmental (Ex: importation into the country of wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws, illegal disposal of toxic waste)
7.) Military (Ex: AWOL from Coast Guard, insubordination, failure to report for duty)
8.) Other – The few crimes that could not fit into one of these categories (Ex: failure to appear in court, conspiracy to gamble regarding football)
At the top of the post, there is a graph showing the percentages of total pardons by both Presidents Bush, broken down by category. (Sorry, but it was a Herculean task to get the graph on the blog. Couldn't figure out how to get the graph in the middle of the story.)

What do the numbers on the graph mean? Basically, if you committed a crime dealing with guns, marijuana, or against the military, you pretty much have no shot at being pardoned. If, however, you’ve conspired to transport cocaine, lied on a government form or stolen money or property, you could be among many who have received pardons for similar actions. At the end of the day, no matter what crime you’ve committed, if the President is your friend (or brother, as when Roger Clinton, Jr. was pardoned after serving a year in federal prison for cocaine possession) you can pretty much get away with anything.

Response to A Classmate

2008-11-14T15:07:00.000-08:00

(This post is a response to a classmate's post concerning his investigation into negative campaign ads during this year's Presidential Election.)
Although I appreciate the explanation of the system you devised to rate the ads and your genuine attempt at objectivity, I wonder where you obtained the 17 Obama ads and the 17 McCain ads? The reason I ask is because your results don’t jive with what the Science Daily, the Chicago Tribune, the Advertising Age magazine, or the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel concluded when they ran the numbers on the mounting negativity in the 2008 Presidential campaign ads.
Three of the above four sources found that McCain ran a higher percentage of negative ads than Obama. It seems that you were unintentionally subjected to some type of sampling bias, since by your tally Obama’s ads were 94% negative and, therefore, the most negative in our nation’s history. This cannot be correct. Even the single source that ranked Obama’s percentage of negative ads as higher than McCain’s totaled him at 68%. The numbers that I, personally, would like to see would be on a timeline. What percentage of which candidate’s ads was negative one year before Election Day? One month before Election Day? One week? I bet if these numbers were correlated with approval numbers in the polls, it would equate to blatant desperation. An example of this would be what The Wisconsin Advertising Project of the University of Wisconsin reported on Oct 8th, less than a month before Election Day – “The McCain campaign's decision to turn 100% of its advertising messages to negative attacks on Sen. Barack Obama last week -- combined with the 34% of Mr. Obama's messages attacking Sen. John McCain -- means that negative ads this time are outpacing those of four years ago in the race between President George W. Bush and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.”
One thing that all studies agree on is that this was, cumulatively, the greatest use of negative campaigning in US presidential election history. I would like to believe these numbers are reflective of the sheer volume of money both candidates threw at advertising this year – more than $1 billion each. What I fear (and I'm about to tell you why I can't believe that phrase is coming out of my mouth) is that it may be reflective of a continuation of the Bush administration’s exceptionally effective tactic of public control – psychological warfare aimed at keeping Americans afraid. When any leadership can keep its constituency afraid of impending doom, no matter what this fabled doom is, they can effectively do anything they want. Once this type of warfare is in place, reason is trampled by rumor, conjecture, and (most recently) lies. If a citizen questions why the nation is invading a foreign land, the answer is, “You don’t want the terrorists to win, do you???” Dissenters are crucified on the cross of public scrutiny.
To be fair, this is not a new tactic and is not limited to the Bush administration. Orwell illustrated this concept very well in his [horror] story, 1984. Hitler used fear to rally Germans together and to him, against a common enemy – those supposedly different from themselves and continually working to bring about the downfall of Germany (the Jews). I don’t want to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis – it is the greatest extreme, the greatest evil to compare anything to. Do I believe that we, as Americans, have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people? Yes. Intentionally and unintentionally, we have devastated a population of poor people trying to eke out a meager living on the hard land they were born on. This is terrible, but not to the same degree as Hitler’s attempt at the focused annihilation of a race.
Somehow I’ve strayed far from where I started when I began writing this reply. The tangent I turned down does, however, relate to the recent election. I think that the reason Obama’s message resounded with so many Americans was its turn away from this fear. Hopefully, we’ll see a continuance of this message.

No, McCain, Don't!

2008-10-17T20:25:00.000-07:00

On the right leaning blog, Free Republic, I found an article entitled, McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can. No author is attributed to the piece and the byline reads INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY. The article explains – and I use that term loosely – why nuclear energy is safe and how much efficient energy Americans are missing out on because of nearly thirty years of government leaders refusing to allow many of the procedures involved with the complicated process of nuclear fission. Although the anonymous author never presents their personal expertise in the fields of say, electrical engineering or nuclear chemistry, they are clearly appealing to those constituents who rightly suspect that something about nuclear reactors might be dangerous.
To support his claim of safe nuclear energy, the author quotes Senator John McCain and William Tucker, “author of the just-published book Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Long Energy Odyssey.” The last I heard, John McCain graduated from the bottom of his class at a military institute. This does not qualify him to know anything but what he’s told about nuclear energy. From the ridiculous lies I’ve heard him spout during the presidential debates, the advisors shaping his energy policy never studied any form of science, either.
One example is McCain’s claim that nuclear energy does not produce carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is intentionally misleading and grossly negligent.
In the simplest terms, nuclear power is a really complicated means of boiling water. While nuclear fission does not produce CO2 during the decomposition of notoriously unstable Uranium-238, McCain’s “no carbon footprint” statement conveniently disregards how the U-238 came to be above ground and at the luxurious swimming pool (a.k.a. nuclear reactor) constructed using huge government subsidies. In 2005 alone, the U.S. Congress allocated thirteen billion dollars in subsidies to revive a moribund nuclear power industry. (Those thirteen billion dollars were not funding the construction of new reactors, mind you. It was money to keep the current reactors afloat because nuclear energy is not financially competitive with oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, or geothermal energy production. The cost of maintaining safety at a nuclear reactor around the clock is too prohibitive for nuclear to be feasible, economically, without the aforementioned huge government subsidies.)
Helen Caldicott, Nobel Peace Prize nominee and antinuclear activist, contends in her book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, that “large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”
Our mystery author then attempts to debunk Senator Barack Obama’s, former President Jimmy Carter’s, and Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s stances that nuclear energy should not be used “until it’s proved to be ‘safe and clean.’” Citing no other source but Tucker, and failing to give Tucker’s credentials qualifying him to expound on nuclear safety, the author implies that what scientists view as radioactive nuclear waste “means jobs, clean air, energy independence and keeping money here at home.” Caldicott and Dr. Carl H. Snyder argue that the environmental impact of nuclear energy is far reaching. Nuclear waste continues to be radioactive for over five hundred thousand years after it has ceased to be suitable for reactors. The only plan for containment of nuclear waste generated in the United States is burial at Yucca Mountain with the hope that the sealed metal containers will never rust or breach, unleashing the unbridled and insidious force that is Uranium – an element nature intended to live its long, unstable life deep within the crust of the earth and safely removed from living things with skin, DNA, or a digestive tract, just to name a few. (The 500,000 years statistic comes from Dr. Snyder, author of one of my favorite textbooks and available in the ACC Library, The Extraordinary Chemistry of Ordinary Things.)
The author criticizes Sen. Reid, by the way, for repeatedly refusing to store the waste we’ve already generated beneath a mountain in his home state of Nevada. A logical person might wonder why anyone would think to bury metal containers deep in the earth with the intention they would never corrode or leak. The answer is that when the American government uncorked the nuclear genie in the sixties, they assumed that by the time we accumulated enough waste to be of concern to Americans’ safety, science would have already figured out a way to magically de-radioactivate the leftovers a half million years ahead of schedule. We all know what happens when a person assumes. . .
Even though McCain On Nukes is a scant two pages, there is too much disinformation to be addressed in anything but a research paper. The EDUCATED bottom line, folks: When someone starts preaching about the safety of nuclear reactors, be afraid and be very afraid. The author's bottom line: "Let's split atoms and not hairs."

Bush Reminds Americans, "You Can't Trust Your Own Judgment!"

2008-09-19T21:49:00.000-07:00

I was sent an email by Planned Parenthood recently that was extremely alarming to me, as a woman, and also as a nurse. Yet again, the Bush administration is meddling in morality. I wish this translated into taking a good, hard look into the depths of their souls and lamenting the lives lost to their ambitious, sadistic greed. That would be a storybook ending, now wouldn’t it?
No, I’m referring to the proposed Conscience rule currently in the 30 day period of discussion before being either put into law or discarded. According to an opinion piece in the New York Times by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards, if this rule became law, any hospital or health care provider accepting federal funds would have to “certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.”
Physicians have had the ability to refuse giving abortions since they became legal. Nurses, by law, must “provide, without discrimination, nursing services regardless of the age, disability, economic status, gender, national origin, race, religion, health problems, or sexual orientation of the client served” (Standards of Nursing Practice, Texas Administrative Code). But the Conscience rule doesn’t refer specifically to physicians and nurses, does it? It refers to all employees, possibly including – the receptionist that answers the phone, the tech manning an ultrasound, or the assistant that bills the insurance company.
While the rule directly targets abortion, sterilization, and contraceptive services, it indirectly goes further. “The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified ‘other medical procedures’ that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions,” write Clinton and Richards.
Let us now assume that you have never taken a risk, made a bad decision, or done something stupid. You have sex wearing a full body condom (since some STDs can be transmitted even while practicing safe sex), only with your spouse (it is impossible they would ever commit adultery), and everyone in your family and circle of friends adheres to the same procedures in their undoubtedly heterosexual relationships. When the receptionist refuses to schedule an appointment for AIDS testing, because her conscience doesn’t include the concept of communicable disease, you and your loved ones are unaffected. When a woman is raped and the hospital pharmacy technician refuses to ring up a prescription for the morning-after pill, she hopefully will be of no relation to you. When your daughter heads off to college and the physician’s assistant at the university health center has a moral objection to the birth control pill, I’m sure your daughter just won’t have sex. Sharp critical thinking skills are abundant in 18 year olds, don’t you agree?

Sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and premarital sex are all extremely personal choices. The decisions we make in these arenas have the ability to impact us on the longest of timelines. There is no black. There is no white. There are only the decisions we make for ourselves. Imagine these options being removed from you. The Bush administration, in an act of blatant condescension, has decided you’re not fit to make certain decisions about your life and your body. You may own it and operate it, but they know better.

Consolidation of Power?

2008-09-19T19:19:00.000-07:00

John Dean’s article, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Incredible and Deadly Lie, is interesting and informative because it exposes the vulnerability of modern day separation of powers. The author suggests that checks and balances instilled by the creators of our republic can only function if elected representatives respect and nurture “the law of the land” that is our Constitution. After examining a possible breakdown in the way information was distributed between the branches before the war in Iraq, Dean gives a brief historical recount of why the Framers came to choose a republic over other forms of government. He then goes on to site the Harvard Law Journal’s article, “Separation of Parties, Not Powers,” that argues “Madison’s vision of separation of powers has, in fact, been trumped in America by political parties.” This article is a good read for lovers of the Constitution and/or haters of Cheney.