I very much like this idea. Children should not be held accountable for the crimes of their parents. And when parents bring their children with them into the country illegally, it is definitely the parents committing the crime. Those children that grow up here know no other way of life but this one. And the DREAM Act was specifically targeting those immigrants who would most likely to become productive members of the economy.

Now, Republican Senator Mark Rubio is touting his own alternative to the DREAM Act, which apparently has some differences from the bill that was put before the Senate in 2009. What I've heard most on the news is that Rubio didn't like that the original DREAM Act provided a direct path to citizenship, while his alternative would only grant them permanent residence status. Now, whether it's a case of Rubio misrepresenting the original DREAM Act or a case of bad reporting, I'm not sure, but the original DREAM Act didn't lead directly to citizenship. I've checked the first place of lazy researchers, Wikipedia, as well as DreamAct.info. The DREAM Act would only grant permanent resident status. (Or maybe I'm just doing my research poorly.)

Personally, I'd like to see something that lead more quickly to citizenship, but limiting it to permanent residency seems like a reasonable compromise to me. It allows those children who grew up and were raised in this country a chance to seek citizenship without the threat of being exported to a country they barely know.

In my life, especially since I've moved to Texas, I've met many people who came to this country illegally. Most of those people I know were brought here by their parents while they were still very young - before they'd even started school. They're every bit as much a product of and a part of American culture as I am. They themselves did nothing wrong. The only difference is that they just happened to be born a little further south than me. Most of those people that I know have since become legal residents or citizens, but it was a more difficult process than it should have been, and they were under constant threat of deportation. In fact, some of them, as elementary school children, would take a packed suitcase with them to immigration hearings about once a year. Had they been deported, they wouldn't have been allowed to return home, so their suitcases were all they would have been able to take with them.

Unfortunately, even permanent residency for people committed enough to serve in the military, or gifted enough to graduate from college, is too much to ask of some Republicans. It's true that some members of the GOP, such as Rubio, are supportive of ways to keep such people in this country, but Boehner has already come out and said that he didn't think even Rubio's watered down version of the law had a chance to be passed due to Republican opposition.

To put a personal face on this issue, here are a couple stories of people who were brought here illegally as children, and then went on to be exactly the types of people you'd want to stay in this country.

• Jose Godinez-Samperio - Came to the U.S. when 9, Eagle Scout, high school valedictorian, completed college and law school on a full ride, passed the bar exam - not accepted by bar due to lack of immigration papers
• Daniela Pelaez - Came to U.S. from Colombia when she was 4, high school valedictorian with 6.7 GPA, accepted to Dartmouth - ordered to be deported but received a 2 year reprieve

I really just can't understand the opposition to keeping productive members of society in this country due to the crimes of their parents.

I've also discussed my job a few times on this site. As I shifted towards discussing more controversial topics, I've tapered off on discussions of my job. But, since this website is moderately popular, I know people are finding it, and making the connection between me and the company I work for.

So, let me just say, all thoughts and opinions on this website are mine alone, and are in no way indicative of those of the company I work for. The company itself has no official policy or position statements on most things I discuss, because they're just not related at all to the type of work we do. As far as co-workers, from the little we've discussed any of these topics (which is very rarely, since they're not relevant to our jobs), I can say that my co-workers and I have a broad range of views and opinions.

So, if you happen to come across this site and you happen to know where I work, don't let my views on these topics influence your opinion of the company I work for.

Alice,

Thanks for visiting my site and taking the time to comment. From the first comment you left me, I take it that you're 12 years old. In real life, I'd be very hesitant to discuss issues such as this with someone of your age without knowing how your parents felt about it, since many parents have strong feelings over these issues. But, since you were precocious enough to leave me two comments, I think it's okay to discuss it a bit. However, I'm still not going to attempt to debate this with you, or to push any particular view on you. Rather, I'm going to comment on how to think about the world.

In your life, you're going to meet many people with many different views, from atheists like me to Christians like yourself, along with Christians from different sects with slightly different beliefs, and probably even people from completely different religions, like Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jews. We all have conflicting beliefs, so we can't all be right. And it's not just religion. There are all types of claims about the world that people make - whether coffee is good for you or not, whether or not global warming is happening and is a threat to our society, if a special carburetor can give your car 100 mpg, if vaccines can cause autism, or whether the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. You'll need to figure out for yourself which claims are true, which are false, and which ones you just might not be able to know for sure.

So, when thinking about claims about the world or the universe, it's always good to ask, 'How do you know?' It may be literally asking someone, or it may just be asking it in your mind. But the answer should always be better than simply because somebody said so. I tend to think science is the best way to answer questions, so I think the answers should be based on evidence.

And don't be afraid to point that question inwards and ask it of yourself. Once you examine your own beliefs, you'll probably find that much of what you thought you knew actually is true. Good. But you'll probably also find things you thought you knew that were wrong. All the better - because now you're not wrong anymore. Just never be afraid to admit when you're wrong, so that you can correct yourself.

If you're interested in reading more on this, I'm going to give you two links. The first is a letter written by a fairly famous scientist, Richard Dawkins, addressed to his daughter. It's been put it on the Internet, so that anybody can read it that wants to.

Good and Bad Reasons for Believing

This second one was a hypothetical letter written by another scientist, P.Z. Myers, to a girl who was quoted on the Internet (he never actually sent her the letter, since he only found out about her by reading about her on the Internet).

Dear Emma B.

So thank you for visiting my site and taking the time to comment, and thanks for being concerned about me. I'll take my chances on not believing in any gods, but I wish you the best of luck in learning about the world.

There was one page that hadn't made the list before, What's the Point of Intercessory Prayer?. My Ray Comfort entry just missed the list this month, coming in at 11th. My 2011 entries are starting to gain more traffic. One made the list this month, and a few more were right behind in the top 20.

Overall traffic was normal - down a bit from last month, but still within the range of what it's been for the past year.

Top 10 for April 2012

1. Autogyro History & Theory
2. Blog - Debt Ceiling - Frustration With Politics
3. Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes
4. Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?
5. Factoids Debunked & Verified
6. Blog - Letter to Pharmacy about MBT Shoes
7. Factoids Debunked & Verified, Part II
8. Blog - Running AutoCAD R14 in XP Pro 64
9. Blog - Casio EX-F1 - First Impression of the High Speed Video
10. Blog - What's the Point of Intercessory Prayer?

The first two chapters of the Book of Job are pretty short. If you're not already familiar with the story, I'd recommend reading them and the final chapter before going on with the rest of this blog entry:

• Job, Chapter 1
• Job, Chapter 2
• Job, Chapter 42

If you're too busy for even that, here's the quick synopsis - Job was a very successful man. One day, when Satan was visiting with God, God bragged on Job, "Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless--a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil." Satan challenged God that Job was only faithful because he was so blessed, so God said, "All right, you may test him. Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically." So Job lost everything he had (including his servants and children), but stayed faithful to God. In their next encounter, Satan got God to allow Job to be harmed physically, so long as his life was spared. So Job was afflicted with boils from head to foot. Then follows 39 chapters of Job complaining of his troubles, questioning why they befell him, his friends responses, and even God's responses. Finally, in Chapter 42, God restored Job to his former glory - more so in fact - with even more camels, oxen, donkeys, sons and daughters.

Reading through that Yahoo Answers page, I find it somewhat amazing the rationalizations that Christians go through in justifying this book and trying to make it consistent with a loving god. Here are just a few examples. (Note that the references to Job's wife are due to the original questioner stating that Job's wife died along with his children.*)

It was all a test that made Job stronger rather than cause him to rebel against The Loving and Caring God of the Universe. And the dead relatives and servants of Job are going to go to a better place. So God did nothing wrong and He never does anything bad. You can count on that because God gave Job much better things after his suffering.

you really are of the devil if you can read how the devil killed Jobs children and STILL blame God.

If I asked you to say something about satan I suppose you'd say what a good ununderstood chap he is.

He has YOU blinded, lets hope your children grow up to be better - when you are dead and gone maybe there will arise a better generation.

All Satan asked for was authority over Job. Job 2:4. Job's wife never died. He continued after this 'test' with the same wife. (You said you read the account. you should know). The fact his children died is an example of Satan going too far, not abiding by the agreement.

BLASPHEMY AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING

IT WAS ALL SATANS idea and God allowed it....pray for some wisdom and guidance...

God already knew Job was a man of outstanding faith and integrity, so he allowed Satan to try and prove his point. He did warn Satan NOT to kill Job. Notice, though, when all was said and done, God gave Job an additional 140 years, 10 more children, and increased his wealth. Additionally, in the earthly resurrection Job will receive back to him all 20 of his children, and those of his servants that Satan killed.

God did not allow Satan to harm Job, take his possessions or kill his children in order to test him. Satan made false charges against Job and all humans and God had faith in Job to be able to prove Satan's charges false. Job did not remarry. His wife did not die. She gave birth to more children.

The book may be entitled Job, but it's really about satan. It's about showing him that no matter what the circumstance, those that have a strong relationship with God cannot be removed or drawn away from it even when divine protection is temporarily removed.

First, I'm going to address something that wasn't even mentioned in most of those comments on the Yahoo Answers page. As I already quoted, in the first chapter, God told Satan to "Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically." And just a few verses later, the Bible describes how Job's servants were killed - some murdered, some by "the fire of God", and how his children were killed after a wind knocked over the house they were in. Stop and think about that. The Bible is putting Job's children and servants among his possessions - that he owned them. I've discussed the ambiguity of servant vs. slave in the Bible before, and this just reinforces that according to the culture in which the Bible was written, it was okay for a man to own other people.

Then there's the question of just how good Job was. For those 39 chapters following his misfortunes, Job went on and on whining about how unlucky he was. What a self centered man. What about his children, who were crushed to death? Or his servants, who were murdered? Or his servants' wives, who were widowed? Or his servants' children, who were made fatherless, or maybe even orphaned? All those people killed, and all those families affected, and all Job could think about was how unlucky he was. If he was what God considered "the finest man in all the earth", there must not have been very many fine men around at the time, or God had a warped sense of what constituted fine.

Okay, now let's get into how this book of the Bible reflects on God. Most Christians believe that God is all knowing, all powerful, and good and loving. So, when Satan challenged God about Job's character, God should have already known what was in Job's heart, and shouldn't have needed to put Job to any test. God already knew the answer. So what was the reason for allowing this test to occur? Was he merely trying to demonstrate to Satan Job's loyalty? That seems a bit callous, putting a man through such troubles just to prove a point to a fallen angel. And of course, God knew Satan's character before the tests were begun, so even allowing for free will and assuming God didn't look into the future to know exactly what was going to happen, God knew what Satan was capable of and how Satan would likely torture Job. But even assuming that Satan surprised God, God is still supposed to be all powerful. So even if Satan violated the terms of the deal, God sat back and allowed Satan to continue to torment Job. In the real world, when someone has the power to intervene and prevent the injury of someone else, especially when there's very little cost to the first person, at the very least we'd consider it immoral not to act, if not criminally negligent.

Just imagine any parent with a child. If a known criminal came up to them and challenged them about the character of their child, would it be okay to let the criminal torment their child to test the child's character? What if there were terms, and the criminal violated the terms, would you expect the parent to let the challenge continue? It's ludicrous when you put it in real human terms. I don't know what should make it substantially different in divine terms.

And the above assumes that it was Satan causing all the harm, but some people were killed by the "fire of God", and the end of Job 2:3 seems to indicate that God was responsible for at least some of Job's suffering, "And he has maintained his integrity, even though you urged me to harm him without cause." That would be like a criminal going up to a parent, and convincing the parent to harm their own children.

Moving past the challenge itself, when God finally showed up to talk to Job directly, the Lord went on and on bragging about how powerful he was. It sounded like a 'might makes right' argument, not based on any type of real morality.

And then, when Job was finally restored to his glory, the manner in which it was done is still unsettling. After having lost all of his children, they were simply replaced, as if this made everything alright. I'm a parent myself, and I love my daughter intensely. If tragedy were to strike and my wife and I were to lose her (which I hate writing even as a hypothetical), it would be heart breaking. And it's an insult to even consider that she could be replaced with a new child.

I realize that this is where Christians quit looking at death as a bad thing, since they believe in an afterlife, but think about how people actually react to death. Nobody celebrates at a funeral. They're always sad affairs. Loved ones are gone, and they're going to be missed terribly. Pretending that there's a heaven doesn't take away the grief. And in the story of Job, there's also the manner in which everybody died. It wasn't the Angel of Death taking them peacefully in the night. Everybody died a painful, violent death.

I have to admit, that the Book of Job isn't entirely inconsistent with a notion of a god. It's just inconsistent with the mainstream Christian view. If you take away one of the following three assumed qualities of God, either loving, all-knowing, or all-powerful, then the Book of Job makes much more sense. A capricious god, or one who didn't care deeply about his/her creations, would have no qualms about putting a person through such a test. Even a god who didn't know how the test would play out might go through with it. But that's not the type of god most Christians believe in.

So, if the Book of Job reveals anything, it's not a God worthy of praise and adoration or worship out of love, but a God worth worshiping only out of fear, lest you be the target of his next wager with Satan.**

*Job's wife is mentioned only once in the Book of Job at 2:9, so according to the Bible version of the story, there's no indication that Job took a second wife. However, a later, slightly different version of the story, the Testament of Job, does give Job two wives. (Wikipedia)

**Of course, atheists recognize there's no need to fear the non-existent, so I guess what the Book of Job really reveals is the mindset of the culture that created it.

To explain the model a bit, I went to Wikipedia and looked up the diameters of each of the planets (all 8 of them - sorry Kuiper Belt objects), and their distances from the Sun. I averaged out their distances so that I could draw the orbits as circles instead of ellipses - not perfectly accurate, but it still gives a good idea of the sense of scale. I put all that into a spreadsheet, and then divided everything by 1,000,000, to get it in sizes that would work in Solidworks. And keep in mind that Solidworks deals in inches by default. So for example, instead of drawing the Sun at 864,900 miles in diameter, I drew it at 0.8649 inches in diameter. The Earth, instead of being 92,956,050 miles from the Sun, was drawn at 92.956 inches from the Sun. And the biggest distance, Neptune's distance from the sun, instead of being 2,798,310,157 miles from the sun, was drawn at 2798.31 inches from the Sun.

Actually, just stop and think about those numbers. If the Sun was less than an inch in diameter, the Earth would be almost 8 ft away (the standard height from floor to ceiling) and only .008" in diameter, while the most distant planet, Neptune, would be 233 ft away (23 stories).

Anyway, here's the model, in two different formats, along with that Excel file that I mentioned.

• Solidworks Model - Solar System.SLDPRT
• E-Assembly Model - Solar System.EPRT
• Excel File - Solar System Scaled Sizes.xls

That first format is Solidworks. It's the better of the two 3D formats, but you need the right software to view it, and Solidworks isn't cheap (a couple thousand dollars a license - so not really for home use). The second format is an eDrawing. There's a free viewer that you can download. The third file is the Excel file. It has a few more ways of scaling that just what I discussed above, which should be pretty obvious from the text.

Here are a few images taken from the model. Each image has been scaled to fit on the blog. If you click on it, you'll get the full size version.

This first picture is the Sun and all of the planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. It's tough to see the inner planets (Mercury through Mars) because they're so tiny. They look like little more than a smudge in the image below, but they're a bit easier to make out if you click on the full size version. The vertical line just to the left of the terrestrial planets is the center of the Sun. In the model, all of the planets are aligned. The image below was made by first looking straight down all of the planets, then rotating the model just 0.04º so that you could see each planet without it being obstructed by any other planet. Another way to think of this is that it shows the planet sizes to scale, and shows the distances properly relative to one another.

This next one is the same view as above, except zoomed in on the terrestrial planets. Again, the tick mark on the left shows the center of the Sun. You can see the Moon in front of the Earth (our Moon is the only moon I modeled).

The next three images are a kind of series. They're looking 'down' at the solar system from outside the ecliptic plane. To me, these really gets across sense of distance. The first is zoomed in to just the Sun and Mercury's orbit. The second one zooms out a bit to show the orbits of all the terrestrial planets. The third zooms out to show the orbits of all the 8 planets.

So first, here's the Sun and Mercury. Mercury's so small that it gets lost in the curve showing its orbit.

Next, here's the Sun and the terrestrial planets. You can still make out the Sun as a sphere and not just a point. The little tick mark at the Earth is because Solidworks shows tick marks at the center of all circles, and I drew a circle there to show the orbit of the Moon around the Earth. But even that orbit's too small to see at this scale.

Third, here's the Sun and all the planets. Zoomed this far out, even the Sun becomes just a point. You can really see just how far away the outer planets really are.

And finally, here's our own backyard - the Earth and the Moon. It kind of gives a sense of scale of just how far the Appollo astronauts went.

To me, this does help to put into perspective just how big the Solar System is. When you look at the farthest humans have ever traveled - to the Moon and back - and then see how even that distance gets lost in the immensity of the Solar System, it makes you feel tiny. And then when you consider the vast distances between stars and across galaxies - I just can't even wrap my head around it.

Anyway, have fun playing with the model.

I grew up in a religious house. We went to church every Sunday; my mother was director of the CCD program; my brothers and I were even altar boys (with none of the controversy that has come to light recently). This wasn't all just ceremony. I sincerely believed in God and Jesus, and thought I could feel His presence when I prayed.

But as I got older, I began to question my religious beliefs, and eventually realized that I'd been mistaken. There was no moment of epiphany. The gradual realization came after several years of research and intense self-reflection. I didn't become an atheist just because I didn't like going to church Sunday mornings, or because I didn't want to have to follow the rules anymore. I don't "hate God" (it's a little hard to hate an entity you don't believe in). I read the Bible. I studied science. I read up on philosophy. I became an atheist because that's the way I think the universe really is. But don't confuse atheism with Postmodernism or Nihilism. I still think there's an objective reality. I still worry about how to be a good person. I just no longer see a god as being part of that.

While there were numerous initial seeds of doubt, the process began in earnest in an attempt to reconcile the Bible with the actual history of the planet as revealed through geology and biology. It was at the time Intelligent Design was making big headlines. I'd just recently learned how many people were creationists (prior to that, I'd naively thought most people accepted evolution and the ancient age of the Earth), and it made me wonder if I was being a bad Christian for not taking the Bible at face value. So, I looked into evolution and creationism in a lot more depth than I had before. The evidence for evolution and an ancient Earth are even more overwhelming that I'd already known, and there's really no doubt over them. But still being a good Christian, I vainly thought I'd be able to write a convincing essay showing how the Bible could be interpreted figuratively and still be accepted as true. However, by the time I'd finished researching the essay, I realized that the Bible couldn't have been divinely inspired. I didn't give up Christianity all at once with that realization, but it was a big first step, and within another year or two, I'd basically become an atheist. Obviously, there was a lot more to the process than just realizing that Genesis wasn't accurate, but that could take an entire book to write. [cough, cough - $4.99 from Lulu (or free online)]

This period is also when I took on the responsibility of becoming a father. In fact, once I began having doubts about my religion, this responsibility was one of the main things that drove me to research the issue further - how could I teach my daughter things that I wasn't sure of myself? At first, as a Christian, there was no question on how to address religion with her - respect everybody's views, but Christianity was the true religion. But once I started having my own doubts, things weren't so easy. I'm pretty sure I'm right in my atheism, but I want her to think for herself, and I don't want to indoctrinate her into any particular view like I was into Christianity. So, I make sure that she understands that she's going to have to decide these things for herself.

Until very recently, my daughter went with one of her friends to her friend's church every Wednesday night - kind of like Sunday school, except, well, on Wednesdays. So in addition to me trying to teach her about various religions, she got to hear about Christianity from actual believers. The thing is, without that strong pressure from parents to accept Christianity, it's not an easy thing for kids to swallow, especially when they're being raised with a respect for science. I don't mean to say that religion and science are necessarily antithetical, but science teaches you to question everything and look for evidence. In that sense, faith just doesn't cut it.

Now that I have questioned religion, there's no going back. I didn't simply choose to be an atheist. I studied all the evidence I could find, initially in an attempt to become a better Christian, and atheism was the unavoidable conclusion. I could no more choose to go back to being a Christian than I could choose to go back to believing in Santa Claus, or choose to believe that the Earth is flat. I opened Pandora's Box, and it can't be closed again.

So, I fixed the link on the blog homepage, as well as in the Religion section of the site (where you can read the essays for free), and in all the blog entries that mentioned the book. I guess that now I can expect the profits to start rolling in.

Anyway, here are links to the various formats where you can buy the book.

• Paperback (my favorite)
• ebook - Lulu
• ebook - iBookstore
• PDF - Lulu (I'm only listing this last one for the sake of completeness. You can download a free PDF from this site here, so don't waste your money.)

February didn't hold any surprises. Every page that made the top 10 in that month had made it in previous months. March was a bit of a shakeup. Three of the pages hadn't made the list before, Debt Ceiling - Frustration With Politics, A Naked Ape, and Religion - Various Quotes on Free Thinking, Religion, and Science, and one of the pages had only made the list once before, Email Debunking - Tips on Pumping Gas. I've previously bemoaned that my new blog entries aren't getting much traffic, but two of those entries were from 2011. I guess it really just takes some time for the entries to gain some traction. I am a bit surprised about the Debt Ceiling entry, though, since it's no longer very topical. I do admit to being a little disappointed that my Ray Comfort entry didn't make the list in March. Considering that he motivated me to start this blog, I have a bit of a soft spot for that entry.

Overall traffic is up. March was my third highest month for this site. February was pretty close, just a bit lower on a per day basis.

Anyway, here are the lists.

Top 10 for February 2012

1. Autogyro History & Theory
2. Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes
3. Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?
4. Factoids Debunked & Verified, Part II
5. Blog - Casio EX-F1 - First Impression of the High Speed Video
6. Blog - Creation Museum/2nd Law of Thermodynamics
7. Blog - Running AutoCAD R14 in XP Pro 64
8. Blog - Ray Comfort - Still Ignorant on Evolution
9. Factoids Debunked & Verified, Part IV
10. Blog - My Favorite Airplanes

Top 10 for March 2012

1. Autogyro History & Theory
2. Blog - A Skeptical Look at MBT Shoes
3. Blog - Debt Ceiling - Frustration With Politics
4. Blog - Origin of Arabic Numerals - Was It Really for Counting Angles?
5. Blog - Running AutoCAD R14 in XP Pro 64
6. Blog - Casio EX-F1 - First Impression of the High Speed Video
7. Blog - Book Review - Voyage of the Beagle
8. Blog - A Naked Ape
9. Blog - Email Debunking - Tips on Pumping Gas
10. Religion - Various Quotes on Free Thinking, Religion, and Science

This one was supposedly a reprint from an editorial, but I've been unable to find it online to determine what paper it was originally printed in. I was able to find it in examiner.com, but only as basically a reprint. The only clue is that the man who supposedly wrote it, Ken Huber, signed his name from Tawas City, which Google tells me is in Michigan. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume that someone named Ken Huber did actually write this editorial, and that it did actually appear in print. It doesn't really matter much, since this article has taken on a life of its own in e-mail forwards.

Before getting into my response, I'll note that after I wrote all this, I came across three other very good responses, which I'm linking to below. The first is the shortest and pithiest. The other two are a bit more thoughtful.

• http://www.realkato.com/blog.php?pid=1829
• http://michaelliddy.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/response-to-ken-huber/
• http://dolphindentist.blogspot.com/2010/10/response-to-ken-huber-and-what-has.html

On to the editorial. I'll use my normal approach of putting a section of the original in blockquotes, followed by my comments.

Editor,

Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard?

Lets see: if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics;

Politicians lying is definitely infuriating, but it's not something to bring up in a question of 'what has America become', since politicians have always lied. At least with the dawn of the Internet, it's easy to fact check the politicians.

• http://www.factcheck.org/

if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right;

I suppose Ken Huber is white. If he dislikes a black person just because of the color of their skin, then yes, he's racist. And if a black person dislikes Huber just because of the color of Huber's skin, then that black person would be a racist, too. And if a Latino, or an Asian, or an American Indian, or anyone else dislikes any person just because of the color of their skin, then they're a racist. But the 1st Amendment grants everyone that right, so long as you don't let your personal feelings cause actual harm against those people.

Huber's complaint would be much more persuasive if organizations like the KKK weren't allowed to spew their hatred, but they're free to speak just like everyone else. (I won't link to it, but the mere existence of Storm Front really shows society's tolerance of despicable speech.)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/21/kkk-rally-at-ole-miss-kla_n_366475.html
• http://clatl.com/atlanta/kkk-rally/Content?oid=1430074

the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims;

I hope Huber is upset at the balance of spending, and not just on the fact that the government spends money to rehabilitate criminals. If the overall purpose of the legal system is to make society safer, what do we expect criminals to do once they get out of prison? Turn right back to crime and cause more harm before being arrested again? Or become productive members of society who can actually contribute?

in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process;

How are these related. The first is an issue of tolerance. The second is an issue of separation of church and state. Does Huber want schools to 'teach that homosexuality is OK' while specifically calling out Christianity on its intolerance and bigotry?

I know - not really. He wants to continue to allow people to be bigoted against homosexuals, and he wants to use religion as the excuse to allow it.

you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer;

I've already written about abortion, so I won't rehash all my arguments here. I think there are legitimate debates about how many rights to grant to a fetus at different stages of development, and how to balance those rights against those of the fully human woman who's carrying the fetus, but I also think there are times when abortion is justified.

Huber, though, does point out the hypocrisy of many of the 'pro-lifers'. Apparently, life is only sacred when still in the womb. Once you're an adult, it's okay if the state kills you. (Me - I'm ambivalent on the morality of capital punishment. Instead, I look at it from a pragmatic viewpoint - I don't trust the government to make irreversible life and death decisions, especially when so many convictions for people on death row have been overturned.) I'd have much more respect for the consistency of supposedly 'pro-life' supporters if they were vegetarians and opposed to the death penalty.

• http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/01/abortion_1.html
• http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/09/thoughts_on_the_death_penalty.html
• http://www.innocenceproject.org/

we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them;

Actually, this is a problem. The right wing dominated State Board of Education here in Texas is notorious for the shenanigans it's pulled with textbook standards, from re-writing the religious influences on the Founding Fathers and our nation in general, to last minute back-door dealings on English standards, to injecting creationism into science.

• http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2011/04/texas_education_in_the_budget.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?_r=1&em

we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive;

There actually are communist and socialist parties in this country. They are far more extreme than any Democrats or mainstream politicians who label themselves as 'progressive'.

It's gotten to the point where if you try to have anything in this country publicly funded, it gets labeled 'socialist' or 'communist' by the right wing. If a government funded fire department or police force is socialist, either socialism isn't such a bad thing, or people are throwing around the term where it doesn't belong.

• http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea;

When I look at the border between North and South Korea, I don't see something to aspire to.

if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.

Who has been labeled a terrorist for protesting Obama's policies? I don't see Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck being charged with anything.

And yes, it should be your right to burn any inanimate object you want to (assuming that act isn't dangerous). It may be offensive, but it does no actual harm to anybody. That's kind of the whole point of free speech. Doesn't prohibiting symbolic gestures seem a bit totalitarian?

You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas;

Wait, what? On what broadcast TV channel can you get pornography? The only channels I know of where you can find that type of content are on cable or satellite, i.e. channels that a person has to purchase.

This comparison is just silly. Cable/satellite TV are private services that people purchase. The Internet sites Huber's referring to are also privately owned. A public park is government run. Now, if you want to put up a nativity scene on private property, you've got every right to do so. I see plenty of them around town here during the holidays.

To really see how silly this comparison is, just swap around his comparisons. You can put a nativity scene on TV or the internet, but you can't have pornography in a public park. Appropriate venues for appropriate content.

we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people;

The U.S. has the largest prisoner population in the world, both in absolute numbers and per capita. Just think about that - we have more prisoners than either China or Russia. 25% of the inmates of the world are in the U.S., even though we only have 5% of the world's population And it's not as if the prison systems are public health institutions, or that chain gangs are a thing of the past. We're not soft on crime.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
• http://www.policymic.com/articles/859/georgia-fills-job-gap-with-modern-day-chain-gangs

we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal.

Yeah, because nobody uses lab rats anymore.

There are definitely ethical considerations when using research subjects that experience emotions or feel pain. We tend to place the most restrictions on humans, mostly because it's us humans making the laws and we have high opinions of ourselves. But, humans are also the most intelligent animals, and probably have richer emotional lives than some other animals (though I'd be willing to bet the difference between us and chimps in this regard is practically nonexistent). And we're also the only animals that can give consent, so it does make sense for the restrictions to be highest for us.

But embryos and fetuses are a grey area. How do we judge when it's ethical to experiment on one organism and not another? If it's okay to use rats for research, how is it wrong to use a day old blastula that doesn't even have differentiated cells, let alone a nervous system or a functioning brain? Does the mere fact that it has human DNA make it special? If so, what do we do with HeLa cells, or even biopsies?

The first link below is a non-sensational account of the actual research that takes place with embryos and fetuses.

• http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040103.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work;

Has this guy looked at any stats on wealth distribution or income inequality? The richest Americans have a hugely disproportionate share of the wealth, and both wealth inequality and income inequality are increasing. So who's losing out on money? Or does he think the rich are the ones stealing all that hard earned money from the poor and middle class?

• http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
• http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
• http://theunderstatement.com/post/3999331289/us-wealth-distribution-visualized

we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology;

Not much argument here. The right wing tends to ignore the separation of church and state, suppress free speech, and wants to impose their morality on everyone, while the left wing tends to ignore the right to own firearms (though of course, that's a broad brush both ways). Both parties are ignoring the right to due process and a speedy trial with Guantanamo and the Patriot Act.

we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct;

Wait, wasn't he just complaining about it being okay to burn the flag or an effigy of the President? It sounds like he's arguing for freedom of speech, but only when it's speech he approves of.

When the Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaughs, Glen Becks, and Bill O'Reilly's of the world can get away with saying everything they do, it's hard to argue that only politically correct speech is permitted. (And don't confuse public outcry against the things those people say with restricting freedom of speech - it's really just granting the same freedom to the people who want to criticize their opinions.)

If you want to see problems with freedom of speech in areas where it's supposed to be upheld as a virtue, look to Europe. With their blasphemy laws, laws against Holocaust denial, the U.K.'s libel laws, etc., it makes you appreciative of the freedom we have here (not saying that Holocaust denial is noble, but that the government shouldn't be able to outlaw it).

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law
• http://www.libelreform.org/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

And if you want to see huge problems with freedom of speech, look to the theocracies, dictatorships, and other oppressive governments of the world, which make you really grateful to live in a country that values that freedom as much as the U.S.

• http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/is_there_freedom_of_speech_in_china.html
• http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2011/11/freedom-of-expression-in-arab-world.html
• http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/04/15/speak-out-about-human-rights-north-korea

parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games;

No big argument from me, here. Those types of drugs are over-prescribed. I don't have a strong opinion on the video games.

• http://www.add-adhd.org/ritalin.html
• http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/200905/overprescribing-antidepressants

the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs;

I do agree that welfare needs reform. Through my wife who used to work labor and delivery, I've heard of plenty of people abusing the system by having children just to get a bigger check. But, I also think it's a program that serves a valuable purpose and should stay in place in some manner. As the old saying goes - a hand up, not a hand out. Personally, I'd like to see some modern version of the CCC, but good luck getting that past the Tea Party who'd just call it socialist or complain of government expansion.

To be honest, though, the actual cases of welfare fraud are greatly exaggerated.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

No big argument on this one.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

In regards to the 'raises our taxes', I'll just quote something I wrote before. "I don't understand why taxes all of a sudden became such a big issue when Obama took office. Why didn't we see the Tea Party protesters 3 years ago? The timing seems a bit suspicious. For most people, taxes are comparable to what they've been for the past 50 years. For the wealthy, they've increased slightly under Obama, but they're still significantly lower than they were during the Nixon & Reagan years. The tax burden in the U.S. isn't that bad compared to other countries, either. All the data just makes the Tea Party protesters seem like a bunch of whiners who don't want to pay their fair share to support society."

• http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/03/02/historical-tax-rates-by-income-group-part-2/
• http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/04/historical-marginal-income-tax-rates/
• http://visualizingeconomics.com/2012/01/24/comparing-tax-rates/
• http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?

- Ken Huber
Tawas City

No real comment on this last part.

So that's it - one long rant of claims and comparisons that mostly didn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Updated 2012-03-23 - Slightly reworded the section on freedom of speech, and added the mentions of oppressive countries, since those really are far worse than the U.S. or Europe.

Updated 2012-03-26 - I didn't explicitly state this at the top of this entry, but this originally began as a response to the friend who sent it to me. I actually posted this entry before sending the response, and in reading over the response one last time before sending it to him, I found a few more changes - the biggest being the inclusion of a few more stats in regards to incarceration in the U.S. I also added the links to some of the other reviews that I found.

If you're reading this from the Main Index page, or from the Archives page, you'll see a category listing off in the right column. Before I did the upgrade, clicking on one of those categories would pull up every single entry I'd written in that category. Even worse, if you clicked on the Skepticism, Religion category, you'd get an error message because I'd written so many entries in that category that it crashed the system.

When I upgraded the blog, I tried to implement pagination, but I didn't do it so well and it didn't work. After a bit of troubleshooting today, I've finally got it working. Click on one of those category pages, and it only pulls up 5 entries for that category. Then, at the bottom of the page, there are links to more pages for that category. That should really improve navigation. It's something I've wanted to do for a while now.

If you left a comment in the weeks since I completed the upgrade, and it got blocked by my filters, I'm sorry, but it's getting deleted. I got over 10,000 junk comments in that time, and I'm not going to sort through all of them to try to find the few legitimate comments. So, if you feel like it, leave the comment again.

Update 2012-03-14 Well - it worked. When I checked this morning, there were 198 blocked spam comments, and only 5 that made it through. That's an amount I can live with cleaning up. I'd rather let a handful of spam slip through if it means that legitimate comments also make it through, rather than be too restrictive and start blocking legitimate comments.

Per my usual approach, I've reproduced some of the data from the section on public understanding of science. This year, however, I'm presenting the tables using an image format (I'm tired of fighting the formatting to make an HTML version fit). If you want an actual HTML version, you can find them here: Tables in HTML Format

This first table shows the U.S. compared to other nations. Honestly, the U.S. doesn't stack up so bad. Other than the questions that contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, the scientific understanding of U.S. citizens is on par with those of other countries.

It's worth noting that the questions are organized a bit differently this year (separated between the physical sciences and the biological sciences). There was also a new question on cloning that hadn't been asked in years past. And two questions that were dropped a couple years ago to some attendant controversy have been brought back - the questions on the big bang and human evolution.

This next table is something that had been included in previous years' reports, but I couldn't seem to find it this year. So, I made it on my own. Below that is a graph of that same data, making it a bit easier to see the trends. All in all, nothing much has changed since they started doing these surveys. The only two questions that have shown significant variation over the years are 'The universe began with a huge explosion' and 'Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria'. The big bang question only appears to have changed significantly due to an exceptionally high number of correct answers for the first year for which data is provided (54%). Since then, it's held steady at about 1 in 3 people getting it right. The antibiotics question showed a trend of significant improvement for many years, but seems to have plateaued in 2006 at 56% - the next two reports after that show a slight decrease.

Since nothing much has changed, I'm just going to quote my conclusion from two years ago, instead of trying to think of something new.

"Just look at those results - around a quarter of Americans think that the Sun goes around the Earth, half don't realize that electrons are smaller than atoms, and half don't know that it takes a year for the Earth to go around the Sun! Keep that in mind whenever you hear people citing public opinion polls on the validity of concepts like global warming or evolution.

"It's always a bit depressing to see those numbers. It's hard to believe that the people of our nation are so ignorant. If there's one lesson to take away from these results, it's that we need to vastly improve our education system."

The Indiana House of Representatives had a resolution to recognize the 100th Anniversary of Girl Scouts of America. One of the Republican representatives, Bob Morris, refused to vote for the resolution. His reason? Among others, that Girl Scouts is a "radicalized organization" that "promote[s] homosexual lifestyles", and that they're being used by Planned Parenthood into "sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts".

Morris wrote a letter to his fellow Republicans explaining his views. It can be read in its entirety at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

While Morris was the only member of the Indiana House to not support the resolution, he is not a lone crackpot on this issue. There are more people than I'd like to imagine who are opposed to Girl Scouts for the reasons he discussed. So, for that anti-Girl Scout movement, I think it's worth taking a look at Morris's letter.

Morris's comments haven't gone unnoticed. The council up there, Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana / Michiana, has released a statement responding to Morris's claims:
What We Stand For

I guess I should also add that my wife and I are the co-leaders of our daughter's Girl Scout troop. While that may make us biased in favor of the organization, it also means that we're actually involved and know what actually goes on in Girl Scout activities.

Morris's comments are what I've come to expect from the extreme right - a combination of some things that simply aren't true, and some things that are true but where I disagree with his opinion. Let's start with this one from near the start of his letter.

The Girl Scouts of America and their worldwide partner, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

No, they haven't. How many times do different branches of Girl Scouts need to set the record straight before he'll believe it. Neither the council in Indiana nor the national GSUSA have any official ties to Planned Parenthood. I don't know for sure abut WAGGGS, but they don't set the agenda for GSUSA, anyway.

Here's one of the claims about Planned Parenthood's influence.

A Girl Scouts of America training program last year used the Planned Parenthood sex education pamphlet "Happy, Healthy, and Hot." The pamphlet instructs young girls not to think of sex as "just about vaginal or anal intercourse." "There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!" it states. Although individual Girl Scout troops are not forced to follow this curriculum, many do. Liberal progressive troop-leaders will indoctrinate the girls in their troop according to the principles of Planned Parenthood, making Bishop Conley's warning true.

Now, I don't know whether or not that pamphlet might have been used, but I'll assume it was included as part of a training program for leaders as an example of the type of material they could use when talking with their girls, if they were going to get into that topic. We haven't gotten into any type of sex ed with our troop (and if we ever do, I doubt I'll be a part of that meeting), but it is something I expect a scouting organization to at least touch on. It was something I had to do when I was in Boy Scouts years ago. Remember that any type of sex ed in scouting is kept age appropriate, and that scouting covers a broad age range. It's not as if people are talking to Brownies or Cub Scouts about sex. Those discussions are for the older scouts, who have already reached puberty, and who will have questions about it. And the policy of the Girl Scouts is to make sure that parents approve beforehand of their girls being in those types of discussions. It's not something leaders would just spring on the girls.

Not knowing exactly what was in that pamphlet, I can't see any problems with what Morris quoted from it. No, sex is not "just about vaginal or anal intercourse". It carries a lot more emotion than simply 'making babies', and is as much about an emotional connection with your partner as a physical one. The part about "no right or wrong way" and to "have fun, explore and be yourself" sounds entirely reasonable to me. It's removing the stigma so that people will be comfortable in their sexuality, not ashamed of 'dirty' feelings.

(Well whaddya know - per Snopes, the Girl Scouts never did use those handouts.)

Many parents are abandoning the Girl Scouts because they promote homosexual lifestyles. In fact, the Girl Scouts education seminar girls are directed to study the example of role models. Of the fifty role models listed, only three have a briefly-mentioned religious background - all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists.

Oh, the horror - lesbians and feminists. Just because Morris is bigoted doesn't mean the Girl Scouts should be. One of the things I've been really impressed by with the Girl Scouts is their tolerance and inclusivity.

Plus, I'd sure like to see some documentation of what he's claiming. I can't recall any of the literature we've gotten from the Girl Scouts with anybody being used as a role model because of their sexual orientation. In fact, I can't recall any literature that discussed anybody's sexual preference at all. And I certainly can't think of anybody who was used as a role model for communism.

As far as feminism - what does he expect? Sexism has been a major problem in our country's history, and it was feminists who fought against it. Shouldn't Girl Scouts point out some of those feminists who paved the way for the girls of today.

World Net Daily, in a May 2009 article, states that Girl Scout Troops are no longer allowed to pray or sing traditional Christmas Carols.

World Net Daily? Really?

Anyway, I can assure you that none of that is true. Our council (much to my own personal chagrine) starts dinners and luncheons with a prayer. We've never been told that we weren't allowed to pray with our girls (though obviously, I don't do it), and there are no rules against singing 'We Three Kings'.

Boys who decide to claim a "transgender" or cross-dressing life-style are permitted to become a member of a Girl Scout troop, performing crafts with the girls and participate in overnight and camping activities - just like any real girl.

Who the hell cares? If a kid wants to dress up like a girl and do 'girl activities', and their parents support it and have talked to a counselor about it, who am I to disagree? To be perfectly honest, I'd prefer that there was just Scouts, without the gender distinction. That's how Campfire does it. And once they get old enough, girls can join the Explorers branch of Boy Scouts.

The fact that the Honorary President of Girl Scouts of America is Michelle Obama, and the Obama's are radically pro-abortion and vigorously support the agenda of Planned Parenthood, should give each of us reason to pause before our individual or collective endorsement of the organization.

Does this guy know what 'honorary' means? She's a figurehead, with no real influence over the organization. The First Lady has been the Honorary President since Lou Henry Hoover. They're not picked for their political leanings, but simply because they're the wife of the president. (I can only assume that the first female president will also be made the Honorary President of the GSUSA.)

Now that I am aware of the influence of Planned Parenthood within GSA and other surprisingly radical policies of GSA, my two daughters will instead become active in American Heritage Girls Little Flowers organization. In this traditional group they will learn about values and principles that will not confuse their conservative Hoosier upbringing.

Yeah, all that tolerance from the Girl Scouts sure is confusing.

If you have the time, I really do recommend reading the What We Stand For section from the Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana / Michiana. Here are excerpts of a few of my favorite sections.

GSNI-M remains dedicated to our values of creating an accepting environment where girls build leadership skills necessary for success, supported by our committed staff and dedicated volunteers. We believe that Girl Scouting is the place to develop moral values, strong ethics, and a social conscience which will serve girls throughout their lives.

That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts of Northern Indiana - Michiana is an organization that can server her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.

Yes. Girl Scouting suuports girls from all backgrounds and beliefs. While we are a secular organization that refrains from teaching religious or spiritual beliefs or practices, we believe that the motivating force in Girl Scouting is a spiritual one, and we greatly value our longstanding partnerships with religious organizations across many faiths that share the values of the Girl Scout Promise and Law.

Their response exemplified the values of scouting, without being craven and caving to pressure from extremists. After reading it all, it made me proud to be involved in the Girl Scouts.

March is National Essential Tremor Awareness Month. To quote from the International Essential Tremor Foundation, Essential Tremor, or ET, "is a neurological disorder that causes hands, heads and voices, and sometimes legs and trunk to shake." It is also referred to as familial tremor, benign essential tremor, or hereditary tremor.

To quote from Wikipedia, "ET is one of the most common neurological diseases, with a prevalence of approximately 4% in persons age 40 and older and considerably higher among persons in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Aside from enhanced physiological tremor, it is the most common type of tremor and one of the most commonly observed movement disorders." It's important to realize, though, that ET can occur in people of any age, even newborns.

Although there are some medications to treat the symptoms of ET, those medications are only effective in about 60% of people who suffer from the disorder.

To learn more about ET, visit the International Essential Tremor Foundation. Here are a few pages focused on information.

• Facts About ET
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Children with Essential Tremor
• ET Webinars
• National Essential Tremor Awareness Month

If you'd like to help, you can make a donation.