UPDATE: Personhood bill passes VA Senate committee

HB1, commonly referred to as the Personhood Bill, having been passed by the House of Delegates, is now on to the Senate for review. It has passed its first hurdle, namely being passed by the Senate Committee for Education and Health. They passed the same bill as the House with the same amendment, specifying protection for contraception.

The bill passed the committee with a vote of 8-7, strictly along party lines. It will now be heard by the full Senate. If the Senate follows the same timeline as the House then a vote in the Senate can be expected in the next week or so (There's two more weeks left in the session). The Republicans and Democrats each hold 20 seats in the Senate, with Lt Gov. Bill Bolling having the tie breaking vote. While neither he nor Governor McDonnell have said whether they would vote and/or sign the bill, both have proven to be decidedly pro-life in the past, which would suggest they may look favorably on the bill should it pass.

Obama moves to discourage domestic investment, calls it "reform"

The Obama White House has released a plan to "reform" corporate taxes. As I've said repeatedly in this blog, the United States has the dubious distinction of being second highest in corporate taxes (behind Japan). Fortunately, Obama recognized this problem and is moving to correct it. He's lowering our current rate of 35% all the way down to 28%, which moves us from second highest all the way to the coveted spot of...fourth, and still way above the OECD average.

Fantastic!

If that wasn't good news enough, get this. The tax plan also introduces a new "global minimum tax" on earnings overseas. That means that companies that earn money globally would have to pay a tax on that money. That's right, those darn evil corporations won't be able to hide their money overseas anymore! We'll really stick it to them!

Except taxes like that affect money when it is repatriated. It taxes money that comes back into the states. In other words, this global minimum tax actually discourages the repatriation of funds back into the states. That means less money made overseas being invested here at home.

But don't take my word for it! Why don't we hear from Obama's own economic counsel?

While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to keep their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home. Adopting a territorial tax system would bring us in line with our trading partners and would eliminate the so-called “lock-out” effect in the current worldwide system of taxation that discourages repatriation and investment of the foreign earnings of American companies in the U.S.

James Pethokoukis analyzed the plan.

4. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand how harmful corporate taxes are. Here’s the OECD: “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

5. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand who bears the burden of corporate taxes. It’s workers. AEI economists Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur have found that “corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries. Higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.”

6. Obama and Geithner apparently don’t understand that “corporate income taxes have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth,” according to the Tax Foundation:

That graph shows a pretty clear correlation between higher taxes and low economic growth.

"But what about revenue? We need that money so that the government can function!"

I'm glad you brought up that point. We are in luck here; our pals the Brits just raised the taxes on the wealthiest citizens dramatically (to 50%) in order to produce more revenue. The result? Revenues went down by more than 500 million pounds!

So, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy slow economic growth, produce less revenue, and cost money out of each and every citizen's pockets in the ends...

But hey, at least it's fair, right?

This just in: Babies are people, regardless of geographical location

The House of Delegates in Virginia passed a bill two days ago, on Valentine's day, that declared that in Virginia an infant will be deemed a person from the moment of conception. Its fate in the Senate is unclear.

The bill was proposed by Delegate Marshall, noted a noted pro-lifer. HB1, which can be read here, is being referred to in the media as the "Personhood Bill". Article one and two state the purpose very simply:

"§ 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

The bill goes on, but even just those two articles would essentially make abortions illegal in the state of Virginia. After all, if the unborn child is in fact a human with protectable interests, we can't very well go off killing it for no good reason.

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the premise of this bill. If you want to read my full stance on abortion, check out this article I wrote back in March of 09. Here's the highlight: abortion arguments are really about the moment when life begins. The logical reasoning for this is simple:

• Humans have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, among them a right to life.
• Intentionally slaying an innocent human is murder (To be contrasted by slaying a human who is not innocent, such as an aggressor or a criminal).
• The above facts are true regardless of geographical position. A person does not cease to be a person if they are moved from point A to point B. Therefore, a person's location in a hospital, living room, or the uterus of another person is immaterial to their rights as a person (unless they got there through nefarious means. I do not consider being conceived terribly nefarious).
  
• Therefore, the abortion argument has nothing to do with whether a child is unborn, but whether the fetus is in fact a human child, and when it becomes one.

I am of the opinion that the only non-arbitrary moment we can define as the beginning of life is conception. Any other point in time is completely arbitrary and beyond our abilities to measure accurately. Only at conception, a well defined moment we can measure, can we be absolutely certain that we are not destroying a life. Show me another time when we can absolutely be certain that the spark of life is not present, and I will be in favor of abortions until that time.

The liberal friend of mine who brought this bill to my attention asked me to imagine that I had a uterus. "How would you feel if the government told you what you could do with it?" she asked me.

I would be outraged, of course! It is my uterus! I would picket the capitol building and demand the stopping of the infringement of my rights. I'd get an "I <3 my uterus" tattoo, and maybe take my uterus on outings to increase bonding time. I would do these things up until the moment I became pregnant. At that point my uterus is no longer simply an organ. It is an organ that contains a unique human life. My rights end where the rights of another begin, and just as I have the right to free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I have the right to do with my body as I will but not if in doing so I will kill another.

I, too, have a thought experiment challenge. Imagine that you are transported back to the uterus, aware of your surroundings, with all your experiences. Does your location in said uterus invalidate your humanity? The geographical location of a person is immaterial.

All of the above being said, I am not without concerns about this bill. Any time you give a government power, it will eventually abuse that power. Allowing a fetus to be declared human, which I agree with wholeheartedly, has many consequences which should be considered. The drafters of the bill identified two, specifically.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

This protects an overactive government from attempting to regulate prenatal care under the auspices of "protecting the unborn child from negligence", which is a clear case of overreach into the private life of a citizen. Likewise, it does not allow for the unintended consequence of shutting down fertility clinics, which exist to allow loving parents to have children of their own, an admirable goal by any estimation.

What happens if a woman smokes while she is pregnant? It is terrible, I agree, and poor parenting, but should the government be able to regulate it? What about drinking? Half a glass of wine can actually be beneficial in some cases for a pregnant woman. What about a full glass? Two? Should the government regulate this?

What if a woman goes out on an icy day, slips, and therefore has a miscarriage. She's killed her baby, who is now a human. Is this murder? Manslaughter? What if the miscarriage is stress induced? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant until she unintentionally killed the little human inside of her?

Common sense would disallow nearly every permutation of the above consequences. Unfortunately, relying on common sense to restrict the power of government practically guarantees abuse. I would feel much safer about this bill if a few more paragraphs were added. I am no lawyer, but for example:

"Nothing in this bill will be interpreted as cause of action against a woman who directly or indirectly causes harm to come to her baby unless it can be proven that such harm was intentional and malicious."

This would place the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate a clear motive before being able to prosecute (which would be the case in nearly all abortions, but not for an after dinner glass of wine).

I would also be careful not to disallow the mythical "abortion to save a mother's life" case. These cases are exceedingly rare. While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.

Note, I personally would hope that even in the case of a mother's life, the mother in question would have the moral character to place the life of an innocent child above her own. Who among us would laud a woman for jumping out of the way of a bus, instead of throwing her child to safety, essentially trading her child's life for her own? I would not be in favor of legislating this sort of morality, however.

There are few times when I am genuinely proud of my legislature. This is one of them. I applaud them for their intentions, and caution them on their consequences. Tweak this bill just a little bit more, Virginia Senate, and we can have the protection that the unborn deserve without the potential for grave Orwellian consequences.

One more step: Pentagon lessens restriction on females in combat

The Pentagon is expected to propose new rules today that would lessen the restrictions placed on the roles that military women can fulfill in combat. Before my military compatriots reading this hyperventilate and pass out, rest easy: "Restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place." But, "Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up".

"Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits.

The new jobs opening up for female service members will be combat support positions, including communications, intelligence and logistical positions, defense officials add. Typically, these jobs have been made available at the combat brigade level, but not at the lower battalion level, which was deemed too close to combat situation."

The article goes on to note that on today's battlefield, the line between "front line" and "rear echelon" can get kinda blurry.

On this particular move, I have no objection. Women already serve in support roles admirably well in other levels, and having them at Battalion will probably not affect things much at all.

My concern comes from the direction these moves are taking. The ultimate goal seems to be to get all restrictions removed from women in combat, to the point where I, as a Sergeant and Infantry Fire Team Leader, may have a woman serve under me directly in combat.

Truly, my concern isn't actually women in combat, per se. One only needs to glance at the IDF, for example, to see that this can be done. My concern is due to the fact that the decision makers on this issue are likely to be influenced by politics, and they will be more concerned with doing what is "fair", rather than what is effective.

As I've pointed out time and again, the military is not supposed to be fair. It isn't about fair, because what the military is about is war, and war isn't fair. The purpose of the military is to "break stuff and kill people". Anything that supports this goal should be kept. Anything that contradicts it should be removed. You don't have time to worry about fair, because if you take time out to worry about that, people will die.

This is a fact that decision makers under hostile fire must face time and again. Take, for example, a situation where I have two soldiers, Joe and Bob. I need to get a soldier across the street (which is being fired on by the enemy), so I can have a support by fire position on some objective. If I know that Joe is faster than Bob, I'm going to send Joe. Every time. It doesn't matter if Joe went last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. Fact is, Joe is more likely to accomplish the objective, so Joe it is.

If our goal is to have women in combat, that is fine, but decisions need to be made far in advance to make this happen. It needs to be understood that this is a gradual change, and careful preparation will be needed to make this happen.

For starters, physical standards must be the same. As it stands now, if I do 42 push ups, 53 sit ups, and run a 16 minute 2 mile, I barely pass the PT test. If a woman does the exact same thing, she excels. While this may be more "fair", recognizing that women are in general physically weaker than men in some areas, it does not make for a good combat soldier. If it is deemed that X standard is what is necessary for an infantry soldier to excel in combat, then every infantry soldier must be able to meet X standard, not just those who happen to be born with a penis.

It should be pointed out that this standard excludes many men, not just women. It isn't sexist, because it is an absolute. Just as I feel no shame in not being capable of being a Navy SEAL (My testicles are orders of magnitude too small for that), a woman who cannot meet the standard of the Infantry and must therefore serve in support should not feel shame in that either. If it was easy, it wouldn't be elite, and we wouldn't get those bitchin' blue cords.

Secondly, there are psychological aspects that would have to be considered. Before you jump me, women, I'm not talking about the minds of women. I'm talking about men.

There are some facts about the mind of the majority of males in our society that must be considered. The primary one is this: Men tend to protect women.

As anecdotal evidence of this, ask a group of your male friends if they would interfere if they saw a man strike another man. You would likely get varied responses, like "Well, did he deserve it?", or hedged conditions like "Only if it got out of hand". Then ask that same group if they would intervene if a woman were punched by a man. The responses will be markedly different. Perhaps not every man would intervene, but I guarantee the responses would be sharply contrasted nonetheless.

If that is the difference in mindset when it comes to a simple domestic dispute, imagine the difference in seeing women around you in lethal danger, or actually dying. If you like, you can read a real world account from a Marine officer on how his men acted differently around women in their midst, even in combat.

That is not to say that these problems are insurmountable. Physical standards will exclude many women, but not all. Training can be designed to limit the protective instincts of men in specific situations. For example, humans are intensely disinclined to kill others of their own species (See "On Killing" by Lt Col Grossman), but our military's training has reduced this reluctance in high stress situations dramatically. This training does not seem to bleed greatly into normal life, as demonstrated by the fact that military veterans are no more or less likely to be productive members of society than any other citizen. If we can remove instinct in certain situations for this one thing, why not others?

What it is to say is that these problems do exist, and I have very little faith that those in charge will take these problems seriously. Instead, they will do what they always have done. They will simply steamroll the policy into existence. Then they will leave it to grunts like me, who don't have the luxury of being "Echelons above Reality", to deal with the consequences.

Update: Judge declares orcas are not people

From Reuters:

"The only reasonable interpretation of the 13th Amendment's plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to non-persons such as orcas," wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller.

Thank goodness. Now I can eat my meat in peace.

Finally: PETA argues Constitutional rights for whales

A California federal court is deciding a case brought by PETA concerning Seaworld's breach of the constitutional rights of their employees. Specifically, they are suing to end Seaworld's slavery of their whales.

Yes, you read that right. Whales.

PETA filed a lawsuit in October of last year on behalf of five living orcas, named
Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises. Presumably PETA intervened because the orcas were unable to fill out the necessary paperwork themselves.

PETA argued that "continuing the whales' "employment" at SeaWorld violates the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery...Slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on race, gender or ethnicity...Coercion, degradation and subjugation characterize slavery and these orcas have endured all three."

District Judge Jeffrey Miller has reviewed the response by Seaworld (including their motion to dismiss) and is expected to decide later.

The PETA complaint demands legal guardians be appointed for the whales, in order to get them to more suitable habitats "in accordance with each plaintiff's individual needs and best interests." Presumably, these guardians would also be responsible for setting curfews and assisting the newly emancipated whales in finding gainful employment.


"It's a new frontier in civil rights," said Jeff Kerr, PETA general counsel.

Seaworld agreed, saying that the case is unprecedented because the claims "are so baseless that no party has ever wasted the time, energy and expense of any court in making such claims in a lawsuit". Seaworld's motion to dismiss went on to say that "[The 13th amendment] only protects people, not animals, from slavery and involuntary servitude." and that the courts lack authority to extend the amendment to animals, which could "open a veritable Pandora's Box of inescapable problems and absurd consequences."

The whales themselves could not be reached for comment.

I think...well, at least I hope...it's safe to say that this patently ridiculous lawsuit will be jettisoned from the court system. Imagine, though, if it isn't. If Constitutional rights are extended to whales in order to prevent slavery, what would be in that "Pandora's Box" of problems?

Well, to start with, why would they only get 13th amendment rights? Why not 1st? Or 2nd? We can't be abridging the right of whales to bear arms. And naturally the next question is, what makes whales so special? If them, why not all mammals? Obviously all meat eating would have to cease immediately. After all, if we can't have whales performing tricks for fish, then having cows being slaughtered so I can have a delicious steak is obviously a breach of cow rights. We'd be down to eating chicken or fish.

But wait! It would only be a matter of time before the powerful Land Impaired Lobby for Birds and Fish argued that mammals aren't so special, and that fish and birds should also receive such protections.

Of course, we'd have to put the brakes on the whole circle of life thing. Entire new police divisions would have to be funded to investigate all the cases of murder whenever one animal kills another, violating the victim's right to life.

Plaintiff, Mr. Fluffy Tail, alleges his "life partner" Mr. Poofykins" was eaten by the cat, Mr. Whiskers.

Mr. Whiskers refused to comment.

Brave new frontier, indeed, PETA. Well done.

The Haversack: Alien planets, arachnid sex/vision, and reporters arrested in America; EDIT: Added humming bees

I was perusing the internet for interesting facts that I can spout at parties, which will either make you the coolest guy there (if you're partying with geeks), or clear the way to the drink table (at any other party with normal people). Either way, a win in my book. Nothing popped up that was worthy of a post by itself, so here's another edition of the Heward's Handy Haversack.

First up...

Habitable "super-Earth" discovered (?)

Scientists say they may have discovered a planet about 4.5 times as massive as Earth that could be potentially habitable due to its being located in the "habitable zone" of its star.

"It's the Holy Grail of exoplanet research to find a planet around a star orbiting at the right distance so it's not too close where it would lose all its water and boil away, and not too far where it would all freeze," Steven Vogt, an astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told SPACE.com. "It's right smack in the habitable zone — there's no question or discussion about it. It's not on the edge, it's right in there."

Orbiting a star in the constellation Scorpius, the affectionately dubbed GJ 667C (Seriously fellas? Couldn't come up with a better name real quick for the news story? I mean, it costs you like 20 bucks to register it with NASA. Couldn't find that in the budget?), the planet is only 22 light years away. The planet is part of a triple star solar system; scientists say that while the other stars are "pretty far away" because the system is spread out, it would look really neat.

Meanwhile, back on Earth...

Bees hum specific tunes based on health

From the UK, beekeepers in Scotland have begun to use iPad sized devices that record and analyze the humming in a hive. Mr. Evans, an electronic engineer turned beekeeper, developed the device after several "bad encounters" with hives that were about to swarm. He wanted to be able to get a better feel for what was going on inside the hive before he was stung to death by thousands of bees.

His invention is based off the previous work of a Mr. Woods in the 1950s. He developed an "apidictor" which analysed the humming of bees in the hive. The problem with this device, it seemed to Mr. Evans, was that the beekeeper still had to visit the hives and insert a microphone into their swirling cloud of death.

His monitor used digital algorithms to recognize the different sorts of hums, and then sends that information back to a central master unit.

Hopes are that this device will help to increase honey production by more accurately gauging the health of the honey bees. It may also help scientists determine what is causing the bee population to fall by figuring out what was going on in their little worlds right before their sudden collapse. Also, fewer beekeepers will be stung in the face.

Speaking of innovation in the world of insects...

Spiders develop detachable penis

As an answer to the age old question "How do I have sex with my lady and not get subsequently eaten alive?", spider scientists have come up with a solution. Just ditch your penis.

The orb-web spider apparently has two of them, after all. This spider has evolved to be able to ditch their entire palp, analogous to a penis, (as opposed to just the tip, like many other spiders...Just the tip. Just for a second. Don't eat me!) and attempt to escape becoming a meal on wheels. The cool thing is that the palp keeps on pumpin' after it is detached. In fact, while only 20% of spider sperm makes it in while attached, up to 80% gets deposited total.

In other arachnid news...

Jumping spiders have unique, green light based vision

There are a variety of different mechanisms creatures have developed to be able to judge distance. Humans use what is called "binocular stereovision", where our brain judges distance by triangulating data viewed at different angles by our two offset eyes. Some insects "move their heads side to side to create an effect called motion parallax — nearer objects will move across their field of vision more quickly than objects farther away."

The jumping spider, which pounces on its prey from the sky, doesn't adjust the focus of its eyes, which are also too close for human like vision. Japanese researchers have found that they judge distance by comparing the blurriness in one image to another.

Rather than having a single layer of photoreceptor cells, the retinas in the spider’s principal eyes have four distinct photoreceptor layers. When Terakita and his colleagues took a close look at the spider's principal eyes, they found that the two layers closest to the surface contain ultraviolet-sensitive pigments, whereas the deeper layers contain green-sensitive pigments.

However, because of the layers' respective distances from the lens of the eye, incoming green light is only focused on the deepest layer, while the other green-sensitive retinal layer receives defocused or fuzzy images. The researchers hypothesized that the spiders gauge depth cues from the amount of defocus in this fuzzy layer, which is proportional to the distance an object is to the lens of the eye.

To test this the researchers put some spiders and fruit flies in a jar, bathed the thing with various types of light, and saw what happened. Sure enough, in green light these spider ninjas accurately pounced on their prey. In red light, however, the spiders consistently jumped too short.

Scientists think that this could have possible implications for vision systems in future robot designs.

Great, just what we need. Cyborg jumping spiders with super vision.

You know what's more frightening than cyborg spiders?

Congressman orders arrest of reporter for...reporting...

Hailing a new age for government transparency, the Chairman on the U.S. House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment (I bet the have the best team T-Shirts) ordered the arrest of a reporter during a top secret, very exclusive, open session of the subcommittee. Open, as in, anyone can watch if they wanted.

The heinous crime that the reporter committed was not having the proper press credentials. Which would be cool, except that the reporter (One Josh Fox) repeatedly attempted to get the credentials previously so that he could film this hearing for a documentary. The requests were denied, despite the fact that there was plenty of room for cameras (which I'm sure is just as shocking to you as it was to me, cause watching the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy meetings sounds about as awesome as being trapped in a cage with a sexually frustrated panda).

No reason was given for the credentials being denied to Mr. Fox.