Can't We Find Something More Productive To Do?

All the nonsense regarding Grand Theft Auto is really getting out of hand. Today, an 85-year old grandmother sued Rockstar Games because of the explicit content. Her lawyer claimed “no parent would knowingly buy an adult-only video game for their children.” Apparently, though, a parent has no problem buying a game rated “M” for a child under 17, since grandson is only 14. I stand by my previous comments: Rockstar did not fail the children, nor did they (in the words of Sen. Clinton) “game the ratings industry.” GTA carries a clear label indicating that the content is unsuitable for those under 17. Yet grandma bought the game anyway. If she is upset, it is her own fault.

Whether or not the content was included by Rockstar is not the issue. Even the hacker who released the mod stated that the content was absolutely inaccessible by a customer unless the customer took an overt act to enable it. By its very nature, this act is a violation of the End User License Agreement (and technically it is illegal). Rockstar could not force customers to view the content after the sale of the game – the customer had to choose to view it. Could Rockstar have done more to prevent this? Yes, they could have better controlled their source code during final release, but that would not have stopped a determined modder from (illegally) inserting similar code and making it available on the Internet.

Whether it is movies (anyone remember the parents who sued Disney Pictures because Johnny imitated a scene in The Program) or video games, it is the parents who have the obligation to determine what is appropriate for their own children. This situation is no different from parents who sued school boards in the 1980s when school systems banned the book “Huckleberry Finn” from libraries because of a certain derogatory word. Why, in that case, did the parents claim the responsibility for determining suitable material, and now they abrogate that right? It defies all logic to suggest that parents have the responsibility for reading material, but the government bears the responsibility for visual material.

After the release of GTA III, a 15-year old in Chicago stole 200 cars in 30 days. Check the math – that’s nearly 7 cars per night! He was found innocent because he “got the idea” from the game. Where were the parents during his joyriding spree? Rockstar did not make this kid steal cars. He actively chose to do so. To suggest Rockstar bears any responsibility for his actions shows that his parents lacked the proper maturity to be parents.

Now Congress is getting involved, as last week the House voted 355-21 for the FTC to launch an investigation. This is in stark contrast to the nearly annual vote the House takes to shield gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. It is ludicrous to argue on the one hand that a producer of one consumer good should not be responsible for the actions of its customers while simultaneously arguing that the producer of a different consumer good is responsible. There is absolutely no difference between the two – both produce a product, both have customers that use the product in a manner other than what was intended. Therefore, both must be treated the same. That is common sense. And lest someone pervert this into an argument for gun control, shielding manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from improper use of their product is the only reasonable outcome of a common sense analysis of the limits of liability.

In the present case, it baffles me how grandma can be upset. Are we to believe that she has no problem giving 14-year old Johnny a game rated “M” (meaning may be unsuitable for anyone under 17), but she does have a problem if the game is rated “AO” (meaning may not be bought by anyone under 17)? What if Johnny were 10 instead of 14? What if he were 16? Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, how does government act to enforce it? At some point grandma and the parents must be held responsible for providing the game to someone to whom it was not intended.

Delete All

I never used to get any Spam. Most people don’t believe it when I tell them, but it’s true. No notifications of UK lottery winnings, no hidden millions in Nigeria, no drugs from Canada. None of it. I controlled my email address religiously. When a website asked me to enter one, I took a line from Homer and entered nobody(at)nowhere.com. I only gave it to people who had a need for it. It worked well.

That is until recently. I started using my email for my networking contact. That has proved to be a major mistake. Now, about 10 of the Spammers get through to my inbox on a daily basis. Fortunately, they are all conveniently delivered by Yahoo! to my “Bulk” mail folder where they can all be deleted with one mouse click.

What does this have to do with It’s Not Rocket Science? It absolutely amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people are still falling for these email solicitations and (even worse) opening them. The most egregious offenders even forward me their Spam chain letters. Now that so many people have me in their address book, my formerly super-double-secret email address is at the mercy of the email harvesters.

It’s really my fault. I assumed that after so many years of media coverage of Spam, viruses, and worms that everyone was as diligent as I was about avoiding becoming a victim. I assumed that since virtually every PC sold in the US comes pre-installed with a virus checker that people would actually use it. I assumed that since so many excellent Spyware and worm checker programs are available for download for free from reputable sites that people would actually download and use them. Well, you know what they say about assuming.

Let’s do a quick reality check. Do you know anyone who ever received cash from Microsoft for forwarding the “We’re testing a new email tracking system” email? How about anyone who obtained the hidden millions in Nigeria? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Everyone knows that one is fake, but this one from Ethiopia must be real!

I keep hearing people talk about how “the government should do more to stop Spam.” I have a great idea: let’s follow the well-publicized email rules regarding suspect emails. The chance that I miss something important when I receive an email from an unknown person with a subject like “check this out!” is a tiny fraction of the chance that I will spread unwanted Spam by opening said email.

Say What???

Today a teacher’s organization in the UK said that the word “fail” should be banned from use in British classrooms and replaced with the phrase “deferred success” to avoid demoralizing pupils. Their theory is that by telling a student they have failed, the student may be forever scarred and “put off” from learning. Apparently they have never heard of Thomas Edison, who holds more US patents (and that by a substantial margin) than any other person. He was thrown out of school because he “deferred success” for too long.

This touchy-feely Montessori garbage has gone too far. Students are in school to learn. If they do not learn, it is not a “deferred success.” Teachers do not exist to “facilitate the discovery of knowledge.” They are there to teach. As the wise Mr. Miyagi said, “teacher say, student do.” That is the nature of school. Color-coding a student’s failure with creative language does them a disservice. They will not be adequately prepared for a world that does not dance around the subject.

Of course, they can always get jobs in America, because here you do not get “fired” at work. Instead you get “selectively transitioned” or some such nonsense. Maybe that is where the teachers in England are getting this. We have invented phrases whose sole purpose is to hide the true facts of a situation, perhaps to allay some of the guilt we are told that we should feel for other people’s problems.

Case in point, here in California, we do not have “illegal aliens.” Instead, we have “undocumented immigrants.” They used to be called “undocumented workers” but the media decided that term was still too negative. “Undocumented immigrant” is supposed to make me feel like it is my fault (or more generally the government’s fault) that they do not have the proper paperwork. The whole messy business of how they got here really isn’t important.

People cannot solve their problems until they acknowledge that they do in fact have a problem. Using colorful language does not encourage people to engage in critical self-analysis and then seek ways to correct their problems. Instead, it teaches them at best that they do not have a problem, and at worst that someone else is responsible for their life. This is not a way to ensure the betterment of society. People need to be responsible for their own lives and accountable for their own actions. Otherwise, the entire human history on Earth will be a “deferred success.”

I Guess It Was Only A Matter Of Time

Now I don’t really know why I’m surprised by this, but today we hear that one of the parents of the three N.J. boys who died in the trunk of the family car has hired a lawyer. According to statements, another of the parents have said they haven’t thought about suing (which is really not the same thing as saying they won’t sue, is it?). The lawyer was hired on the basis of the fact that autopsy reports indicate that the boys likely died between 13 and 30 hours after climbing in the trunk. Although experts say they probably passed out after an hour or two, and although the parents looked for them for at least 3 hours before calling the police, the lawyer has stated that the blame for the deaths rests “squarely on the shoulders of the police.”

I stand by my previous comments in “Who’s Responsible for Your Life, Anyway?” How can this be the fault of the police? The parents themselves did not see fit to look in the trunk of their own car. The parents, who knew the trunk was defective, did not tell the police that they knew (which has been factually established) that at least one of the boys had previously climbed into that trunk. And yet the investigation into why the police failed to look is continuing. The report is expected to be released next week. It should make for an interesting read. How can it possibly take 1 month to investigate why police “failed” to look in a spot the parents quite obviously did not consider important?

It defies any reasonable definition of common sense to say that the police are at fault simply because death did not occur until after the police search started. This argument is as imbecilic as it is dangerous. Here is the problem. Finding in favor of the parents in this case would set the precedent that any injury taking place after the police are involved is the fault of the police. Thus, if a victim of any crime were to die after the police were called to investigate, the relatives of the victim could sue the police for the death. The police force will be mired in frivolous litigation, and communities will be unable to cope with the financial burden of the liabilities. Services will be cut and we will all suffer as a direct consequence of this type of lawsuit.

If, as one mother said, “suing anybody will not bring them back,” why hire a lawyer in the first place? Not too many stereotypes of lawyers include the attribute “altruistic.” Hiring a lawyer is the first step to filing a lawsuit. Because it is often difficult for the average person to separate emotion from logic, juries are far more likely to side with the parents than with a governmental organization. Knowing this, the city is likely to seek an out of court settlement. Inevitably, the parents will claim “it’s not about the money.” If it’s not about the money, why bother with the lawyer?

The police already face a very difficult task. They are constantly accused of not using enough force when a criminal gets away and simultaneously accused of using too much force when they capture the criminal. They are sued for illegal search and seizure when they want to look for contraband in school lockers and then sued when a student goes on a shooting rampage.

The police are not all-knowing, all-seeing mind readers. Their investigation is only as good as the information they are given. A reasonable person would not expect the local police to know the history of his car’s trunk (if they did, someone would probably sue them for a civil rights violation). In any other crime, if a witness withholds material evidence, the witness can be charged as an accessory. If the parents want to insist this is a crime and not a horrible accident, why are we accusing the police of these deaths, instead of throwing the parents in jail?

An Open Letter To Sen. Clinton

In case you don’t understand your job function, please allow me to recommend to your attention the Constitution of the United States. As a Senator, you have certain duties that need to be fulfilled. None of those duties includes pretending you are not campaigning for President. Your latest crusade against the publishers of GTA, in addition to attempting to steal the limelight from Rep. Leland Yee who started this whole, ridiculous nonsense, is nothing more than a thinly disguised means to get free publicity. Now I don’t particularly agree with either of you, but if you are going to use your name recognition to get on the bully-pulpit to further your obvious ambitions, it might be wise to understand what you are criticizing.

There have been “modders” as long as there have been video games. Video game “mods” are not controlled by the publisher of the game itself. They come from programmers at large who, in violation of the clearly stated End User License Agreement, decompile, modify, and then recompile source code. To say that they are “activating hidden code” in the original game displays a complete lack of understanding of the software development process. As a general rule, you probably shouldn’t be spouting your opinion on subjects about which you clearly know nothing.

Let me make a simple analogy to help you understand. In most residential communities, there are noise ordinances that make “glass-pack” mufflers illegal. If I buy a car and then subsequently install one of these “mods,” the auto manufacturer is not responsible. No one is saying that I have “activated” a hidden feature of the car. I guess that you do understand that, as you are not trying to restrict the sale of cars. So you must have some vague notion of the limit of control that car makers have over what happens to their product after it is sold.

The situation is no different for the video game industry. Yes, there is code in the game that animates the characters. Yes, there is code that directs the display of those characters on the screen. But when a modder hijacks that code and introduces substitutes to make the actions different from what was intended, it is not correct to say that those actions were "hidden" by the game publisher. So my question to you is, do you just not get it, or are you just using this as an opportunity to (not) campaign for President? In either case, you are not serving your duties as a Senator.

It is not government who should be regulating what is and is not appropriate for minors. That is the job of parents. If parents are not going to police their own children, they are not responsible enough to be parents. It is that simple. GTA carries a clear label indicating that the content is unsuitable for those under 17. The video game industry, like other entertainment industries, makes a reasonable effort to educate consumers on the ratings system. If consumers ignore that advice, it is not your responsibility to start an investigation against the game publisher. Let me make this clear: Rockstar Games did not fail the children, their parents did. If you want an investigation, investigate the parents.

Please stop (not) running for President and, to quote your husband, “get back to the business of America.”

A Brief Lesson On The Court System

This may come as a bit of a surprise to some, but the truth is, no matter who becomes the next Supreme Court justice, life will pretty much be the same. Whether the political philosophy of the ultimate nominee is to the far left, far right, or somewhere in between, laws will not be changed in the short term.

Oddly enough to me is that it is the conservatives (OK, to be fair to my fellow ‘Pubs, the ultra-conservatives) who are the most vocal in this debate at the moment. It seems that they want Bush to select someone who will immediately reverse precedent on everything from abortion rights to affirmative action. Well, I’m sorry to say, that is not how the court system works. Perhaps they should spend some of their funds raised for advertising campaigns on educating themselves on how the court system works.

You see, with the exception of the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court here in California, higher courts grant certiorari only when a statute or specific aspect of a particular case has an ambiguous legal standing. In order for any ruling to come under scrutiny at the Supreme Court, someone needs to file a lawsuit that makes its way from the lower courts, to the appellate court, to the state Supreme Court, then on to the Circuit Court, and finally, after all that (and usually many years), to the US Supreme Court, with possible backtracking at any step to a lower court that is directed to re-hear a particular facet of the case in question.

The nature of the lawsuit, and in particular, the issue which is contested as being ambiguous, determines whether or not any of the higher courts grant certiorari. If an issue has been adequately examined by the courts in the past, and there is no area that needs further review, it is unlikely that a lawsuit could get a hearing. Now I grant that this entire process can be short-circuited by the 9th Circuit, which has a long history of “legislating from the bench.” However, that would still require the US Supreme Court to agree to hear the issue. While not everyone always agrees with every decision, one fact that is indisputable is that they have been remarkably consistent in their reasons for granting or denying a hearing.

This process is specifically intended to ensure that laws are rooted in the Constitution, and are not changed at the capricious whim of whatever justices happen to be on a particular bench at a particular time.

The problem faced by the ultra-right-wingers is finding an issue with enough ambiguity to make its way through the system. In the case of affirmative action, that legal leeway quite possibly exists due to Justice O’Connor’s irreconcilable opinions in the two University of Michigan lawsuits. However, it will still take a new case based on new circumstances (and someone with the financial resources) to chaperone the case through the court system.

The situation for Roe v. Wade is much more complex. A direct challenge to Roe cannot be made, as it would never be granted certiorari. That leaves the ultra-right crowd with the problem of finding a “back door” into the Roe ruling. As an example, assume Congress passed a law making heart surgery on fetuses illegal. Assume also that a doctor who performs some other type of surgery on a fetus is subsequently sued under that law. Finally, assume that one of the lower courts ruled the intent of the law was not to be restricted to heart surgery, and therefore the doctor is guilty. In this scenario, a credible challenge to Roe could then be made under the argument that abortion was surgery. Herein lies the problem – all of this takes time and specific assumptions, and therefore, the law will not be overturned any time soon.

As I argued in my previous post on the Supreme Court (“On Hollywood, the 4th of July, and Supreme Court Nominees”), the political bickering going on from both sides is outside the intent of the “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution. Justices should be selected based on a history of rulings that were compatible with the framer’s intent. There is no provision in the Constitution that could be construed as to allow a judge to insert his political philosophy. Indeed, the Constitution provides the specific (and only allowable) test when evaluating cases. That test of course is to examine whether or not the challenged statute arose as a law under the Constitution. In order to ensure there was no room for politics, the framers added the “necessary and proper” clause to the powers of Congress.

If the President and the Senate adhered to this, there would be no need to examine the political philosophy of prospective nominees. And there certainly would be no need to subject innocent Americans to the endless barage of TV ads from groups that evidently do not understand the Constitution.

We Needed A Study For That?

A study published today in the British Medical Journal indicates a causal link between cell phone use while driving and serious-injury accidents. The data indicates that there is no safety benefit to using hands-free devices. Duh! Did anyone bother to check the original study data from a few years ago? You know, the one that led to many states and localities passing hands-free legislation in the first place? The one that said talking on the phone used up something like 60% of the parts of the brain involved in driving? The one that said it was the use of the phone, not holding the phone that caused the problem?

The findings even support claims that hand-free laws were detrimental, as drivers perceived an increased safety factor and therefore increased their phone usage. This is exactly why several localities passed ordinances against using the cell phone while driving, period.

The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association is already criticizing the study by claiming that the distractions caused by the phone are similar to those caused by eating (again, Duh! – that study was done many, many years ago) and by talking to passengers. To the latter point, that condition was tested for by the original study and found to be non-contributing to increased accident rates. I suggest the CTIA have a chat with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety before they make such claims.

It is clear that CTIA’s goal is to link a proven bad habit (phone usage) with a normal, everyday, safe activity (talking to passengers) in an effort to prevent legislation that would clearly be detrimental to their industry goals. After all, no one is seriously considering banning talking in the family car.

Lest someone accuse me of hypocrisy, I have said that government does not exist to save you from yourself, but they do have a responsibility for protecting me from you. When actions in which you engage directly impact my rights, government has an obligation to enact legislation that minimizes your chance of “success” and punishes you if you do “succeed,” ridiculous links to other activities notwithstanding.

We certainly don’t need a study to tell us that phone usage is the problem. A quick drive around town will suffice to demonstrate that on average, users of cell phones have the worst driving habits while using the phone. Whether it is failing to signal, slowing unnecessarily, failing to yield, or blowing through stop lights, it is clear that concentration on driving is interrupted by the conversation on the phone.

Everyone has been in a car with a driver who turned down the radio while looking for a street address. It is a subconscious act brought about by the fact that we can only concentrate on one thing at a time. So what is more important, what you are having for dinner, or getting home safely to eat it?

It’s not rocket science. There was a time in the not too distant past when there were no cell phones. Somehow the world survived. Might I suggest that call can wait 20 minutes?

Why Are We So Negative?

There was a time in the not too distant past when companies chose to pursue differentiated strategies because their products or services had a perceived value which was an intrinsic characteristic of the product or service. There was also a time when politicians campaigned on their own merits, which were qualifications that were inherent in the candidate.

This morning I heard an ad on the radio for Kelly Moore Paint Stores. The ad was a standard 30 second radio spot, of which approximately 20 were dedicated to criticizing Home Depot. Although the name was never used, it was very clear that Home Depot was the target. There have also been ads on TV recently from both Lowes and OSH which do the same thing. Everyone derides the size and supposed impersonal nature of Home Depot's service.

My question is, if personal service were valued by the customers of Kelly Moore, et. al., why do they have to criticize the competition? If it were a truly differentiating factor for which people were willing to pay a premium price, wouldn't it be better to advertise that your store had the service?

Politicians no longer say “vote for me because I have a, b, and c.” Rather, they say “vote for me because my opponent lacks a, b, and c.” Usually, the candidate who is the first to declare that he will not resort to mud slinging is the first one guilty of this tactic. They seem to draw a very fine line of distinction between “vote for me” and “vote against my opponent.”

This pervasive negative attitude infuses our daily lives. Have we become so jaded as to actually require this type of advertising? I'd like to believe that advertisers do this not because we require it, but rather because they think we will expect it. I can't believe that society is so far gone as to envision a future where we compare the negatives of products and services, rather than the benefits.

In many of NBC's “The More You Know” spots, they talk about hate and prejudice and caution us to avoid teaching them to younger generations. But when that message is sandwiched between thinly disguised attack ads, what actual message is being received? It's not rocket science. If companies and politicians focused on their positive attributes, everyone would benefit.

The Passing Of A True American Hero

I don't know how I missed this, but I just read that Admiral James Stockdale died this week.

With advanced appologies to all CPOs out there, I think that "The Watch" is a fitting tribute:

"For twenty years this sailor has stood the watch

While some of us were in our bunks at night this sailor stood the watch

While some of us were in school learning our trade this shipmate stood the watch

Yes.. even before some of us were born into this world this shipmate stood the watch

In those years when the storm clouds of war were seen brewing on the horizon of history this shipmate stood the watch

Many times he would cast an eye ashore and see his family standing there needing his guidance and help, needing that hand to hold during those hard times. But he still stood the watch

He stood the watch for twenty years. He stood the watch so that we, our families and our fellow countrymen could sleep soundly in safety, each and every night knowing that a sailor stood the watch

Today we are here to say, shipmate... the watch stands relieved. Relieved by those you have trained, guided, and lead. Shipmate you stand relieved.. we have the watch..."

Sailor, rest your oar.

Do We Live In The Same Country?

I saw a news item today that talks about how much the world hates America and Americans. The source is purported to be a survey conducted by Pew Research. According to the article in question, virtually every country on the planet hates us. Ignoring for the moment that the author of said article is quite obviously an ultra-left wing America hater himself, I have one simple question: if the whole world hates America, why are so many trying to enter this country? OK, I really have two questions. The second one is: why do the majority of those trying to enter do so illegally?

It stands to reason that if the author (and the study, for that matter) were correct, people from virtually every country on earth would not be trying to come to America. It is inconceivable to think that someone would be willing to risk everything to go to a place they hated, regardless of whether or not the opportunities were better there than in one's native land. It seems equally inconceivable that someone would equate "better opportunity" with a country that, according to the article, is the most hated in the entire world, known repressive regimes not excepted.

There are only three conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1) the author has grossly overstated the results of the research, 2) the survey itself was flawed, or 3) America is the greatest country in the history of the world.

Quite obviously, I am of the opinion that the latter is true. There can be no other explanation for why so many thousands of people each week attempt to enter this country illegally. The liberals in this country go out of their way to help illegal aliens. Just yesterday, a federal circuit court dismissed a lawsuit seeking to bar illegal aliens from attending public schools at the in-state tuition rate. Here in California, repeated attempts have been made to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses. And last summer, two of California’s Congress Critters personally sponsored illegal aliens so that they could remain in America. Most importantly, both of said Critters were Democrats who specifically stated to the press something to the effect of “America offers the greatest hope for these families.”

The author attempts to defend his untenable position by claiming that the world hates America because of Iraq. Which part do they supposedly hate? Was it us bringing justice to a tyrant? Or was it spreading the doctrine of freedom to a part of the world that woefully needs it? Maybe it was the fact that we stopped the oppression of women and minorities, freeing many who were denied the right of an education. After all, the illegal aliens clearly did not come to America to escape these things in their own countries. The courts in America certainly have never granted asylum status to refugees from oppression. (Special note to the author of the article: I am being facetious.)

America has historically tried to stay out of the role of international policeman. When conflict breaks out, the world hates us for not getting involved. Once we are involved (and coincidentally save the collective posteriors of everyone), they hate us for being involved. So to all of you who currently hate America, I have just one thing to say: stay home!

Get Your Politics Out of My Science

It seems absurd to think that 80 years after the Scopes trial, with all the advances science has made to the betterment of society, that evolution is again being put on trial around the country in various school boards.

Science, like history, is not political. It is completely amoral. Science requires strict adherence to the scientific process whereby theories are formed, experiments conducted, and revisions to theories are then made. The goal is to approach a complete understanding of the topic in question. That, of course, can only be achieved when an exhaustive proof of the theory is complete, at which point it becomes a hypothesis. There can be no room for religious discussion, as religion necessarily is a matter of faith, which cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, science and religion are not mutually exclusive - they operate in different realms.

The very credibility of the entire scientific profession is called into doubt when proponents of pseudo-sciences are able to elevate their claims to the schools and force the indoctrination of their religious belief system. It is just as true that religion is debased when proponents of pseudo-religions based on dubious scientific claims are brought to prominence by attention starved "celebrities."

Since the Scopes trial, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools is tantamount to state endorsement of religion, and therefore proscribed by the First Amendment. (As an aside, it seems that we talk a lot about the Constitution here at It's Not Rocket Science. Could it be that this is the single, greatest document ever written?)

So now the creationists have wrapped their beliefs around a new "science" called "intelligent design." Their entire claim is based on the belief that some organisms are just too complex to be explained adequately by evolution,

Now please hold on to your hats because this is going to come as a shock to some: their claim is lifted (nay, plagiarized) directly from Darwin's On the Origin of Species! In that work, Darwin himself offers about 8 specific areas where he himself felt evolution may be unable to explain adequately the natural world. More to the point, Darwin specifically states that certain things are so complex that he was unsure that enough time had elapsed in the history of the world for them to have evolved. He uses the example of the eye as his test case.

For each one of his charges against evolution, he offers his analysis, based on observation and application of the scientific method, why he felt that evolution still provided the best explanation. This is exactly the way science is supposed to work. But let's return to that troublesome eye for a minute...

Darwin was unable to offer an explanation for an organ as complex as the eye, yet he felt that evolution was involved. Fast forward to the late 1990s and a group of scientists decided to put that to the test. In carefully crafted and well documented tests, they showed how, starting with a simple sensor that was sensitive to light, they could, through a series of incrementally small changes, "evolve" rudimentary sight. Now this certainly does not rise to the level of exhaustive proof, but it does show how, consistent with the theory, evolution could have led to the creation of complex structures.

What have the re-branded creationists done? They only claim that certain things are too complex. They have offered no experiments or rational explanations. They are merely reciting their belief system. This is patently the realm of religion and not science, irrespective of whether it is called creationism or intelligent design. A "theory" that cannot be tested is not a theory. In defense of their beliefs, they argue that if evolution were true, it should be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. The scientific community could not be more in agreement. They are just waiting for that scrutiny.

It's not rocket science. You cannot level unsubstantiated charges and then claim that your "questions" amount to a critical analysis of an established theory. If the intelligent design crowd wants equal time in the public schools, they must offer a scientific basis for their claims, not a religious one.

On Hollywood, the 4th of July, and Supreme Court Nominees

Last night I observed a truly appalling sight. Several prominent members of the Hollywood anti-America crowd were to be seen either hosting or sitting in the VIP areas of many of the nation's celebrations. The last time I checked, there were 365 days in an average year. I don't understand why these pretend patriots who spout anti-American rhetoric for 364 of them would be so honored by Americans. Is America really that enamored with "celebrities?" I'd like to see them put their money where their mouth is and get the heck out of this country. One of the great things about freedom is that you are free to leave.

On an entirely different subject, today we hear that the Senate is "gearing up for a fight" over potential nominees to replace Justice O'Conner. On the Sunday talk shows, many Senate 'Dems even went so far as to recall the "controversial" nomination of Bork so many years ago. Both sides are already leveling charges against as-yet-unnamed "presumptive" nominees.

I have a great idea: let's return to the Constitution and have an independent judiciary. There should be no talk of "originalist," "constructionist," or "progressive-ist" interpretations. There is only one legal interpretation of the Constitution, which is the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a law, not merely a framework for government. That is why it succeeded where the Articles of Confederation failed. The only test for a Supreme Court nominee should be whether previous rulings adhered strictly to the Constitution. That is what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

These men were very wise. They recognized that Congress may not agree with the Justices, so they provided a Constitutionally legal way for them to change the rulings: amendments. The requirement for Senate "advice and consent" was never meant to be a roadblock. Both parties have taken the limits of this duty too far.

It's not rocket science. The courts are supposed to determine if laws are allowed by the Constitution. That wonderful document even tells them how to make this determination. The Constitution boldly declares that Congress has the right to pass all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the specific, enumerated powers. Anything that does not meet the test of "necessary and proper" and anything outside one of the designated powers is by definition, unconstitutional. The wording used was very precise. The requirement is "necessary," not "expedient" or "helpful" or even "desirable." The Founding Fathers in this manner ensured that politics were not involved. I'd like to offer some advice to the Senate: read the dang document!

Our Lives, Our Fortunes, And Our Sacred Honor

In honor of the 4th of July, it is only fitting that I post a few observations on the Declaration of Independence.

It seems that the only part anyone ever remembers is the second paragraph (all men are created equal, etc.) This is most unfortunate, as that is neither the main idea nor a central point of the document. Even worse, however, is that political correctness has run so far amok that this line has been usurped beyond its value in the Declaration.

First and foremost, the second and third paragraphs are taken directly from John Locke (Second Treatise on Government, I believe). Admittedly, Thomas Jefferson used language that is infinitely more readable than the original idea from Locke, but the point is that he was merely stating facts that should be "self-evident." The meaning of the Declaration would not have changed one iota had Jefferson not included the "all men are created equal" part.

Why, you ask? Quite simply, the Declaration is a very eloquent, impassioned plea regarding the duties of government. It is not, sorry to say, a statement of utopian ideals regarding equality. Jefferson, by way of 18 specific charges against the crown, reasoned that Great Britain had disclaimed the right of rule over the colonies, and that they were therefore independent. This is a very key distinction. The colonists tried repeatedly to seek redress through the system that was enjoyed by all other loyal British subjects, but being denied certain rights which were expected, had to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The men who signed the Declaration knew that in so doing they would be branded traitors to the crown, and in fact, at least 4 of them were subsequently hung by the king. Most of the rest lost everything they had. Yet they were willing to do this in order to ensure that future generations of Americans had the same rights that they had come to expect (and indeed had enjoyed until roughly 1765). These men knew that if they failed, oppression and not liberty, would rule the world.

On this anniversary of that noble work, let us all remember that because of men like these and all those who have served the cause of liberty since, no foreign legitimate military power has set foot on American soil since 1815. Throughout America and indeed in all corners of the world, the Glorious Cause has resulted in countless millions being afforded the opportunity for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

There's No Budget? How Can That Be?

Well once again, California has failed to pass a budget plan on time. But wait, how can this be? Didn't Ahnold tell us that passing Prop 61 would solve this problem? Oh, that's right - no one actually read Prop 61. You see, it did not require a balanced budget. All Prop 61 said was that the Governor should propose one. It did not say he had to propose one, nor did it say the state government had to enact one.

The hold up this year is that the Democrats are squabbling over $1B for social programs that the state cannot afford. Even worse, though, is that they are doing this simply to improve their prospects of defeating Ahnold in November.

One consequence of electing a Democrat in November will be an immediate increase in income taxes, which the 'Dems want to do now. However, historically in this state, there has never been a time in California when increased income taxes resulted in increased revenue. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. Every single time taxes increased, revenue decreased. This is an indisputable fact. Increasing income taxes will not solve California's budget deficit.

There is a tax whose increase would mitigate the problem - Proposition 13. The problem is that this is the one tax which Democrats will never touch. Prop 13 is what allows Warren Buffet to live in a multi-million dollar home and pay an annual property tax only slightly higher than what I pay in monthly rent. Passed around 1979, Prop 13 prevents reassessment of property tax until a home is sold, regardless of improvements or housing price increases. The truly ironic thing is that Prop 13 helps more wealthy owners of expensive houses than it does minorities according to Mr. Buffet. Yet the 'Dems insist this is a progressive tax policy to help the "historically disadvantaged." It is really very simple - repeal Prop 13 and we will instantly have more money at the local level to fund the services whose costs are now borne by the state.

The government goes out of its way to tell people to be careful of going into debt. It pays for programs to help people get back on track and avoid bankruptcy. Clearly the government understands in principle that debt is bad. So why is it that once they cease to be individuals and start to be a legislature that they forget the basic rule which they constantly tell the rest of us: live within your means? Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do?"

It's not rocket science. Government cannot accurately predict what tax revenue will be, but they can control their voracious appetite for spending. It's high time that we adopt both zero-based budgeting and spending plans based on actual, collected revenues, not projected ones.

Neither Ahnold nor the state Democrats understands the problem. They are too busy picking fights with each other. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. We need to stop focusing on who is red and who is blue and start focusing on who has a plan which will actually work. Tom McClintock was the only candidate in the recall who had a balanced budget proposal. We missed an opportunity to solve California's problems simply because he is a 'Pub.