Maine makes it 5/50

I present without (much) comment the following from the governor of Maine, John E. Baldacci:

"I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste." “I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.” “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
Welcome to the inevitable progress of American society. Cue wingnut outrage in 3, 2 ...

Continue ReadingMaine makes it 5/50

The GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Frank Lutz, in yet another sterling example of Republican doublespeak, calls on the GOP to 'support Healthcare Reform". Only one problem with that statement - the GOP has absolutely no proposals to reform healthcare. Not one! The only perspective he offers is how to sound like you are for reform, yet offer no proposal of your own. From the article:

“You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM,” Luntz advises in a confidential 26-page report obtained from Capitol Hill Republicans. “The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes ‘President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,’ then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. “Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.” Instead, Luntz says Republicans should warn against a “Washington takeover” of health care, and insist that patients would have to “stand in line” with “Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare.”
That would be instead of standing in line waiting for a 'for profit' bureaucracy to determine your fate. As it currently stands, the current proposals are too limited, since none of the current proposals on the table include single-payer, as used in most of the developed world. In fact, at recent senate hearings physician activists in favor of single payer were removed from the chamber and arrested for interrupting the proceedings, while the committee went on to hear solely from industry lobbyists in favor of industry-based solutions. [via Politico]

Continue ReadingThe GOP are for Healthcare reform! Honest!

Republicans idea-less on energy issues

Think Progress has summarized current thinking by the GOP on energy issues:

Throughout the discussion on America's energy future, Republicans have been notably absent. In March, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, an effort to "work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses." The man chosen to head the committee -- which includes notorious climate change deniers Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and John Shimkus (R-IL) -- is none other than House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), who, just last night, refused to even admit that climate change is real. "Well, let me tell you," he told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming." "Then why should your party believe you're going to get serious about it, if you say the science is mixed?" Matthews asked. Pence replied, "Yeah, it's a fair question."
And what about the Chamber of Commerce? It MUST be walking in lockstep with the GOP, right? Wrong:
An analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) found that just four of the 122 board members at the Chamber share the group's questioning of science and stark opposition to federal regulations to reduce global warming pollution.

Continue ReadingRepublicans idea-less on energy issues

Connection between certain religious beliefs and the willingness to torture

There appears to be a correlation between some types of religious beliefs and the willingness to torture, according to a recent PEW study. Skeptico looks at these results and asks some well-considered questions. He concludes:

Even so, significant or not, these results hardly support the view that religion (specifically Christianity) provides a moral compass, or that reading the Bible or going to church is necessary for one to be moral or good.

Skeptico also recommends a visit to the page where the Skeptics Annotated Bible collects Bible passages concerning torture. And no, not all of these passages promoting torture are from the Old Testament.

Continue ReadingConnection between certain religious beliefs and the willingness to torture

Just run the Monty Hall experiment and get it over with

Monty Hall was the host of a TV game show called "Let's Make a Deal." I watched it when I was a boy and it was quite entertaining. One of the specific games on the show involved offering to allow a contestant to pick one out of three wrapped prizes. Some of the prizes were valuable, but one was often a worthless gag. After the contestant chose one gift, Monty invariably removed one of the two wrapped gifts that the contestant did not take. He then asked the contestant if he/she wanted to trade the box he/she originally chose in return for choosing the other remaining gift. Should the contestant stay put or should he/she switch? My gut feeling says that there is nothing to gain by switching, but there are many experts who disagree with me. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about the Monty Hall problem. Many mathematically-inclined experts insist that you should ALWAYS switch after Monte takes away one of the three hidden prizes. There’s all kinds of high end mathematics involved in many of these analysis (see here for instance). The dispute gets really high-pitched sometimes, which is usually a clue that experts are claiming to be certain when they really don’t have any right to be. What I’m wondering is this: why don’t some social scientists simply gather empirical data in a lab? Assign someone to be Monty and let college students play the roles of contestants. Set the experimental parameters precisely (this needs to be done carefully because there is some question as to what, exactly Monty knows and does) and run the test over and over, until you’ve got LOTS of data. Have some students always make the switch. Have others never make the switch. Then tally the results and tell the mathematicians that you have the real answer. So that’s my thought: allow real-world trials tell the theoreticians the answer. Then let’s move on, please. Or has someone actually run the Monty Hall skit over and over in a lab yet and added up the results? I haven’t seen it yet, if this has been done.

Continue ReadingJust run the Monty Hall experiment and get it over with