Paul M. Jones

Obama is *sooo* smart, he should be able to answer this pretty quickly. He was a Constitutional Law professor, after all.

[A] federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

via Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case - Crossroads - CBS News.

Despite the language in the coverage, it’s not science as a method that people are losing confidence in; it’s scientists and the institutions that purport to speak for them.

Gauchat’s paper was based on annual responses in the General Social Survey, which asks people: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?” One institution mentioned was “the scientific community.”

So when fewer people answered “a great deal” and more answered “hardly any” with regard to “the scientific community,” they were demonstrating more skepticism not toward science but toward the people running scientific institutions.

With this in mind, a rise in skepticism isn’t such a surprise. Public skepticism has grown toward most institutions over the last several decades, and with good reason, as a seemingly endless series of scandals and episodes of dishonesty have illustrated.

In fact, given that Americans have grown broadly more skeptical of institutions in general, it’s not surprising that conservatives are more skeptical of scientific institutions than they were almost 40 years ago. What’s surprising is that liberals have grown less skeptical over the same period. (Perhaps because scientific institutions have been telling them things they want to hear?)

Regardless, while one should trust science as a method -- honestly done, science remains the best way at getting to the truth on a wide range of factual matters -- there’s no particular reason why one should trust scientists and especially no particular reason why one should trust the people running scientific institutions, who often aren’t scientists themselves.

via Skepticism in science rises--Glenn Harlan Reynolds - NYPOST.com.

Sometime last year computers at the U.S. Social Security Administration were hacked and the identities of millions of Americans were compromised. What, you didn’t hear about that?  Nobody did.

The extent of damage is only just now coming to light in the form of millions of false 2011 income tax returns filed in the names of people currently receiving Social Security benefits. That includes a very large number of elderly and disabled people who are ill-equipped to recognize or fight the problem.

But don't worry, ObamaCare won't be like that. Via I, Cringely » Blog Archive The $30 billion Social Security hack - I, Cringely - Cringely on technology.

I’m not a guy who does hype, so I’m going to lay it out straight: You’ve got a job right now as a PHP guy? Leave it and come work for me at Parchment.

It has better pay than you’re getting now.

It has better hours than you’re working now.

It has better management than the place you’re at now.

It has a better mission than the one you have now.

Where you are now, a lot of stuff is solidified in place, and your attempts to improve it are not valued. Here, you’ve got a chance to get in and do stuff right. Where it’s not right, you’ve got a chance to change it and make it right. (But this is not a chance to evangelize your preferred framework.)

You’ll have me as Architect on the PHP side. For some folks that’s a deal-breaker. For most people who actually have had me as a boss before, that’s a bonus. (I can provide references from previous employees on request. ;-)

The boring “help wanted” ad only says so much. Here’s the skinny:

The codebase is a typical PHP codebase. Some of you know what that means. I have already stripped out all the uses of globals. The job is to update it to PHP 5.4, design patterns, and a modern architecture, and add features as we go, while keeping the whole thing running. There are no tests; you will be refactoring to testable units. There is no standard development environment; you might be able to help us create one.

If you live in or near Scottsdale AZ and can be in the office on a daily basis, that gets a preference; otherwise, a telecommute for the right fit is perfectly acceptable. (If you live in Nashville TN we can telecommute together once in a while.)

You need to actually know PHP itself for the simple things. I don’t care if “the framework does that for you” — at the very least, you should know what the framework is actually doing under the hood.

If you blog about PHP, speak at PHP conferences, attend PHP conferences, help others in IRC or on mailing lists with PHP, work on an open-source project where there is at least one other significant contributor, and/or have a Github account where I can see your PHP code, so much the better.

The initial phone interview will consist of a very short programming exercise, not to solve a stupid “gotcha” problem, but to make sure you can actually write a program. (You’d be surprised how many self-proclaimed senior developers can’t write a decent program.) There will be 5-6 technical questions that a mid-to-senior level developer should be able to answer with ease. If you are a Zend Certified Engineer these questions will be no-brainers.

After you pass that we’ll fly you out to to Scottsdale AZ to interview for personality fit. Once you pass that we hire you and you get a better job than you have now.

Send me two copies of your resume: one in plain text in the body of the email so I can read it directly, and attach a Word or PDF copy for my HR guy.

That is all.

UPDATE: Fixed the email address.

... but I predict they won't be. The Republicans are too often as big-government as the Democrats. Regardless:

[There is no] shortage of free-market health care solutions. Among them:

• End the tax discrimination against individual insurance buyers.

• Let consumers buy plans across state lines, giving states an incentive to rein in their out-of-control benefit mandates.

• Let small groups establish association health plans to get benefits of scale.

• Ease the rules that are choking off the medical savings account market.

• Reform the nation's tort laws.

The Supreme Court debate this week exposed the left's health care vision in all its glory -- one that relies on massive federal spending and unprecedented intrusiveness into every aspect of our lives.

This June, Republicans may very well have the chance to offer an alternative vision that relies instead on free markets, consumer choice and open competition to improve what is already the world's best health care system.

via If Supreme Court Dumps ObamaCare, Republicans Must Be Ready - Investors.com.

Just got word that several additional medications have been added to the national list of “drug shortages”. Doctors better start learning more about wilderness medicine at this rate.

via Drug Shortages | WhiteCoat's Call Room.

Obamacare was supposed to be the capstone in the arch of a new progressive era. The Dems were going to show us all that government really does work. Smart government by smart people, using modern methods and the latest up to the minute research from carefully peer reviewed articles in well regarded social science journals can solve big social problems. Obamacare was going to be such a big hit that even the bitter clingers would have to put down their guns and their Bibles long enough to thank the Democrats for this wonderful new benefaction.

But even if the Supreme Court doesn’t pull the trigger and kill the law in June, the darn thing won’t fly. The public hates it, and the longer it’s on the books the less popular it gets. This isn’t like Social Security, a program the public fell in love with early on and still cherishes today. It isn’t like Head Start, which remains dearly beloved even though there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it helps anybody other than the people it employs. Obamacare is only marginally more popular than the Afghan War; already its estimated cost has doubled and we all know these numbers are likely to continue to increase. Obamacare so far is a political flop and shows ominous early signs of being a policy misfire as well. The benefits don’t seem to measure up to the hype, more people are going to lose their existing insurance, premiums are going up and the impact on the deficit is going to be worse.

via The Health Care Disaster and the Miseries of Blue | Via Meadia.

If a man does this, he's a monster; if a woman does it, she's empowered:

This morning’s TODAY Show featured a segment on a woman who chose to leave her husband and two young sons (ages 3 and 5 at the time) while on an extended research trip to Japan because she realized she didn’t want to be a mom anymore leaves my chest tight and my gut aching.

via Mom Doesn't Want to be a Parent Anymore and Leaves Kids - Parenting.com.

The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.  This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. 

via The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble.

... "I want to learn why I am this way."  Then what?  Will learning why you made those choices be what changes your choices?  You're still eating junk food, aren't you?  You're eating it while you're learning  how bad it is. 

"But... why am I this way?"  That question is a narcissistic defense.  It doesn't want an answer, it wants you to keep asking the question.

"I'm a good person, I just am making bad choices."  Wrong.  You're not a good person until you make good choices.  Until then you are chaos.

Via The Last Psychiatrist: "My fiancee is pushing me away and I've lost hope".