Encoded Tax Code

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written (and I paraphrase) that judges have a responsibility to write their opinions in a way that the average person can understand, because it is the average person who will have to live by these decisions. I only disagree with Justice Scalia on one account: this edict is not limited to the judiciary.

I believe it is immoral for those in power to write laws they expect the citizenry to obey, which the citizenry cannot understand.

Tomorrow each of us are going to be subjected to a thing known as Title 26 of the United States Code, or the Tax Code. It is thousands of pages long (13,000+ at one source). It cannot be found complete at one source, and must be accessed in parts. It is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. And there is no human on this planet that fully understands the code.

Everyone complains about the confusing nature of the tax code, the orneriness of having to comply with it. Most complain about the amount of money lost to businesses trying to stay current with the ever changed code. But like the weather, no one does anything.

The pressure, however, is building. On tax day (normally referred to as thieving day around here) there are going to be hundreds of “tea parties” around the nation. Officially these are to protest the rampant spending of the government. Our tax code and our spending are explicitly linked.

If you feel the way I do, try to attend one of these rallies, or contact your congressmen. Let your voice be heard. We are approching the tipping point.

Politics and Science – All Manure

Either President Barack Obama is a dumbass or he thinks we are. I’m leaning toward the second, but I’m willing to accept it is a combination of the two.

Obama announced today that he is going to divorce politics form scientific decisions made by the government. And tomorrow I’m going to divorce the green pigment from the paint on my wall. To claim that either anything done by the government or that any policy set forth in science can be removed from political consideration is – you’ll forgive me for this – patent bullshit.

The announcement came on the heals of reversing the Bush administration policy of not using federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Are we to understand that making this decision was not politically motivated by the Barack of Obama? A certain and large segment of the population (including the immediately preceding President) held that destroying embryos holds strong moral implications. By allowing the embryonic research to go forward, Obama is making the (political) decision that destroying an embryo is not tantamount to murder. Agree or disagree, that is not a scientific decision, it is a political one.

Has this man never seen a science fiction movie? Let me summarize the basic plot to 99.6% of all sci-fi movies. 1) Use a new scientific technology that looks cool on camera. 2) Create a situation where the characters have to make a moral decision about using the new technology. 3) blow things up (this is for the people who might vote for Obama; they won’t get #2) All technology is just a tool. Where, when and how to use the tool is a political and moral decision.

So, as we continue down this road where political considerations are removed from scientific decisions, what will our future look like? How will the Obama administration proceed from here?

In the brave new world of national heath care that President Obama has called for we will come to the point where elderly people will be sick, but their life expectancy and contribution to society will not equal this cost. Scientifically it would be easy to conclude that it is not worth spending the money on them. The next logical step is that if we are simply going to let them die, shouldn’t we proactively put them out of their suffering? Please, Mr. President, explain to me how you are going to approach this topic without bringing politics into the mix?

Or what about the other end of life, Mr. President. If we are going to provide the health care for the entire populace would it not be prudent to make sure that the people entering that populace were healthiest they could be? We have it within our scientific power to limit who can reproduce with whom. Only allowing those deemed, scientifically, fit to have children could be allowed. This would ensure that the children born would have the best genetic chance to remain healthy and not burden the health care system. Should we allow science to simply run its course, or should we use politics to decide the morally correct direction to take this tool at our disposal?

Or how about the tact the entire DNC is taking on global warming? While there are plenty of scientific minds that believe in global warming there is also plenty of evidence and plenty of scientists who reject the premise. The party has, however, deemed the debate to be over and is plowing ahead with, ahem, political actions without regard for the scientific debate about this topic.

Oh, wait, how about this one!? In those science fiction tales referenced before, science breakthroughs happen in mere minutes with the result of tests seen within a few scenes. But here in the real world science advances take time and are often found wrong. Recent enough to be considered modern history, the predominant scientific theory held that people with darker skin color, like, oh say… the President’s, were inferior due to being less evolved. The sentiment in the scientific community was that these inferior persons should not be allowed the same rights and privileges as more evolved persons. I’m pretty sure it was political arguments that railed against this line of thinking until it was scientifically proven wrong.

The thought of removing political reasoning from scientific processes, especially involving the government is ridiculous. Hey Barry, next time you want to announce something this outrageous, don’t make a general public announcement; save it for the Democrat National Convention. You’ll get more acreage out of your fertilizer.

Deep Thoughts: Oldies NASCAR

Is this a sign of the times? The radio station in Atlanta covering NASCAR events is no longer a country music station.

It is an oldies station.

Deep Thoughts: None of Them

I’ve been looking over the remaining two candidates and thinking back to the rather anemic crop we originally had to pick from. I was wondering if, when this whole debacle is over, I could get a bumper sticker that said “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for any of them.”

Deep Thoughts: Twizzlers

When I left for work today an army of ants were swarming on a Twizzler some one had thrown there. When I came back, the Twizzler was still there but the ants had abandoned it.

I believe the only logical conclusion we can draw from this is that Twizzlers are not real food.

Music : An Interactive Event

Across cultures, across continents, music is a powerful force. Music has been known to stir the hardest of hearts and to “sooth the savage beast.” But music, compared to other mediums, is a very interactive event requiring active participation on the part of the listener.