Most Americans are Not Crazy

It was a good election. Serial liar Romney, a man completely devoid of honesty, principles, and integrity, was convincingly defeated. I wasn't completely happy with Obama, but he was so much better than the alternative.

Nearly all the crazies lost: Allen West, Connie Mack, Todd Akin, Joe Walsh, and Richard Mourdock. Unfortunately it looks like we are still stuck with Michele Bachmann. And Judge Roy Moore won election in Alabama. Alabama secures its reputation as the worst place to live in the US.

Elizabeth Warren, who was the subject of nasty attacks about her native American heritage, easily defeated Scott Brown. Brown was not nearly as extremist as depicted by Democrats, but he was in the wrong state. He would have been a decent candidate for a state like Indiana or Pennsylvania, but not Massachusetts.

Maine and Maryland legalized same-sex marriage. Minnesota turned down a bid to change its constitution to prevent same-sex marriage. And Washington voters have apparently approved a law allowing same-sex marriage.

Two states legalized marijuana. This may be the start of a sane drug policy.

The mathematical illiterates who were skeptical of Nate Silver were proven wildly wrong. Silver's predictions were basically completely correct.

As predicted, crazies like Doug Groothuis are apoplectic. Groothuis raves as follows: "American [sic] does not know how to think, has no moral or political principles worth having, is manipulated by images and slogans, does not fear the idol of the State does not give a rip about unborn children; we will be taxes [sic] for their murders, does not believe in its own God-given greatness."

The dishonest Charles Krauthammer was raving about the "nationalization" of health care under Obama. Krauthammer is a liar. If you want to see nationalized health care, go to Britain. Obamacare isn't even close to "nationalization"; it's a timid initiative that maintains the status quo in almost every health care aspect except insurance. Bush's prescription drug benefit was a much bigger change.

Americans proved that the majority was not racist and was not fooled by pandering. That's a very good sign.

Stephen Woodworth Refuses to Answer

Stephen Woodworth is a Conservative MP from Kitchener Centre, the Canadian riding (Americans would call it a "precinct") where I live. Although we disagree politically on many issues, I had always been impressed with his integrity and seriousness.

Recently he's become famous for trying to reignite a debate about abortion in the Canadian Parliament, by introducing Motion 312.

In a recent press release, Woodworth claims he "hopes to answer even more questions" about this proposal. He says, "I am more than willing to answer any questions Canadians may have".

Yet he refuses to answer my question, which I have asked twice: were abortion outlawed again in Canada, what should be the proper legal penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

He replied, saying it was premature to ask such a question. That's just avoiding the issue.

This is, I'm afraid, typical of those who advocate stricter controls on abortion.

More About The Presidential Science Debate

Well, it looks like the proposed April 18 presidential science debate in Philadelphia is not going to happen. Obama, to his discredit, has refused to participate, and McCain didn't even respond; Clinton was non-committal.

But the good folks at Science Debate 2008 aren't giving up. The latest proposal is a nationally-televised debate on NOVA, the PBS science show, on either May 2, 9, or 16, with host David Brancaccio.

If you have any contact with the campaign staff of the 3 major candidates, contact them to let them know you want this debate to happen.

Update: Clinton and Obama refused to participate in the science debate, but they have time for this debate at Messiah College on "faith, values, and other current issues".

Let's Have a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Politicians aren't scientists, but it's reasonable for the next President of the United States to be knowledgeable about basic issues in science and technology.

Today we're confronted by many threats and politicial choices for which a knowledge of science is useful. An understanding of the biological theory of evolution is helpful for dealing with the crisis of AIDS in Africa, the over-prescription of antibiotics, and the rise of resistance in tuberculosis and staphylococcus infections. A general understanding of biology more generally would be helpful in dealing with bioterrorism and stem-cell research. An understanding of physics would be useful in evaluating our priorities in outer space and the possibility of a dirty bomb attack. An understanding of chemistry and environmental science would assist our lawmakers in dealing with global climate change and ozone depletion. An understanding of astronomy would be helpful for evaluating the threat posed by meteoritic impacts. More generally, an understanding of how science works and the scientific method would help leaders to evaluate competing scientific claims and to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, many of the presidential candidates seem more interested in establishing their religious bona fides then they are in dealing with science and technology. Some candidates seem positively anti-science: Mike Huckabee, for example, has shamelessly repeats an old canard about bumblebees being unable to fly by the laws of physics and seems to believe he is not a primate or descended from primates.

Today I join scientists and other science bloggers in calling for a national debate among presidential candidates on science and technology. Let's have a chance for the scientists and the public to ask the questions and hear the answers of those who would lead.

Principal of Local Christian School Gives Away the Store

As I've previously discussed, there is a current push by some religious groups and the Ontario Tories to fund private religious schools. John Tory, leader of the Conservatives, awoke a firestorm of controversy when he stated that it would just fine if Christian schools decided to teach creationism.

In a September 8 letter to the editor published in our local paper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Bob Moore, the principal of the John Calvin Christian School in Guelph, Ontario, calls the teaching of creationism a "bogey man". He went on to say "...evolution and creationism are non-issues." So far, par for the course.

Now, here's where Moore inadvertently gives away the store. His very next sentence is "The actual scientific study of the origins of the universe in any faith-based school would be remarkably similar to what McGuinty experienced when he was educated in a Roman Catholic faith-based school, and I suspect that he thinks he was well-educated."

Only problem is, evolution is a theory of biology that has nothing to do "the scientific study of the origins of the universe". This is exactly the kind of confusion sown by creationist tracts.

Unwittingly, Principal Moore has demonstrated a lack of understanding of evolution, and the reason why private religious schools shouldn't be funded.

Towards a Canadian Republic

I'm an American citizen who has lived in Canada for nearly 17 years. People often ask me, why haven't I adopted Canadian citizenship? After all, it's now possible to hold dual citizenship; both my kids, for example, are dual citizens of the USA and Canada.

My answer has always been the same: I'll seriously consider becoming a citizen when Canada removes one citizenship requirement: that I swear allegiance to "Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her Heirs and Successors".

As an American who is proud of the republican tradition (small "r" in "republican", please), the citizenship requirement that one swear allegiance to a person seems unappealingly feudal to me. Paul McCartney famously observed that the current Queen is a pretty nice girl, but that doesn't mean I want to swear allegiance to her. As for her heirs, Prince Charles seems like a sanctimonious git, and he'd be one of the last people I'd swear allegiance to. And who knows what further heirs might be like?

Now a Toronto lawyer, Charles Roach, has brought a class action suit against the requirement. This press release argues that "the government should not force people to swear to things they don’t believe in to gain citizenship".

I entirely agree, although I don't know how strong his legal argument is. Canada's Attorney General, though, is not convinced, and apparently is trying to have the complaint dismissed on the grounds that it is "frivolous".

Canada should follow the lead of Australia and remove this archaic and childish requirement.