The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.

That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.

A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.

When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.

One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.

• Neil deGrasse Tyson, “If I were President”.

New York, Aug. 21, 2011

In Washington, a friend is someone who stabs you in the front.

The Social Security invention
Reflected a simple convention:
Each lady or gent
Who paid as they went
Would be funding one-ninth of a pension.

• Dr.Goose

Holy crap! Rhyming political limericks. Into my RSS reader you go.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

squashed:

(sds asked this question. Here’s an answer.)

Marriage is traditionally in the realm of state’s rights—so we should look at the 14th ammendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These two sentences are perhaps the most important and most debated in the Constitution. They do not say that the states must have laws governing things like marriage—but if the states have those laws, they must give everybody equal protection. Some states once had miscegenation laws. As you might imagine, those were unconstitutional under this ammendment. I’m sure some people argued that they should be constitutional—after all, everybody has the same right to marry somebody of the same race. The Supreme Court saw that argument for the garbage it is.  (The case, appropriately, is Loving v. Virginia. Mr. and Mrs. Loving sued. Throughout the opinion, they are referred to as “the Loving couple.”)

So the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that everybody has a right to marriage. And soon the California Constitution will state that at least one type of marriage is not permissible. But the Constitution does state that if there are going to be laws offering various protections (like spousal priviledges), they have to offer everybody the same type of protection. Some might argue that everybody is equally free to marry somebody of the opposite sex. I would find that one hard to make with a straight face. It’s pretty clear that many people have no interest in marrying somebody of the opposite sex.

You want change, vote obama, cause thats all you’ll have left after he
raises your taxes.