I am in Las Vegas this weekend for two reasons.

1) My brother’s bachelor party for a wedding that is ten months away
2) To purchase and hopefully transport successfully from Las Vegas to Kansas City, 4 dozen vegan donuts from the best donut shop, Ronald’s Donuts.

Last night, as people arrived, the drinking ensued. We arrived early enough that I was able to partake easily for a few hours, stop at around 9:30, get to bed early, and be up at 5:40 am local time, and get those donuts. All worked out perfectly. Everyone I’m hanging out with in Vegas is still hung over at 8:40 am local time, while I’m completely fine. No traffic or people to slow me down getting donuts either. I was able to leave my room, get a cab, drive to the donut shop, ride back, and get to the room in 25 minutes. I have the chat log to prove it (note, all times are CDT):

(08:15:34 AM) Shane: so i’m gonna head out now to get donuts *kiss*
(08:15:36 AM) Shane: bbiab
(08:39:53 AM) Shane: mission accomplished

Kelly questioned how much time I would have just laying around in the hotel room. Currently, I’ve been up three hours, watching “The Lone Gunmen” for the most part. Apparently, I’m spending a lot of time laying around the hotel room while people recover from last night.

We’re staying at the Palms, in the “Playpen Suite.” It’s not a horrible suite by any means, but I don’t think it lives up to the reputation. In fact, a lot of little things seem kind of cheap. I have 2 lights in my room on a nightstand, sitting around unplugged because there is no nearby outlet. My shower/tub filled up because the drain wasn’t quite working. There is no vent in the bathroom either, the water pressure was kind of weak, and the clock radio’s alarm doesn’t work. I’m not sure the AM reception does either. The best place I’ve stayed at in Vegas, is my brothers’s time share suites. at the Hilton properties here. They’re really nice. Kelly and I spent a week in one during our “honeymoon”, and I think I remember us really enjoying it.

Well, that’s it for now. There is a movie theatre possibly calling my name in the casino, and I might try to do some walking around before it gets too much hotter.

The New York times has a story about the desire of some in the field of evolutionary biology to have a paradigm shift.

Is Darwin due for an upgrade? There are growing calls among some evolutionary biologists for just such a revision, although they differ about what form this might take. But those calls could also be exaggerated. There is nothing scientists enjoy more than the prospect of a good paradigm shift.

This story will give Intelligent Design pimps (ID’ers) a couple conflicting issues to deal with. ID’ers love to claim how rigid and unchanging scientists are concerning evolutionary theories, and this article highlights the desire of many scientists to change the theory. Of course, it could also lead ID’ers to now claim there is a real “controversy” within the evolution community. The article, to me, clearly outlines the technical differences all within the context of Darwinian evolution. It highlights the greatness of science: the constant pursuit of knowledge without superstition. If this is ever what ID’ers mean by “teaching the controversy”, I might be for it.

Peedee was harder for me to write a poem about. He has a personality that was harder for me to describe than Ralphie’s. In addition, Ralphie is a wiener dog, and that automatically makes him easier to write about.

Peedee

Peedee is bright eyed and full of bark
Just looking at him you know he’s smart
Opening doors to get at his treat
He knows a hundred words on when to eat

He runs as fast as the wind goes
Stops and checks the air with his nose
He knows things are about to go down
His mind sparks and covers all ground

He looks at other dogs and scoffs
Only he knows the toys and payoffs
He can see where he last left them
And if someone moves them, mayhem

He jumps to the window at the slightest sound
Looking for any living creature around
Sometimes its kids, sometimes it’s a bunny
To Peedee, trespassers aren’t funny

He checks out every window knowing each view
He’ll double check each one before he’s through
His bark and howl ,bring all dogs to his spot
He’s in command of the canine onslaught

Cunning he leaves the dogs behind
He has his mother to search and find
Hopping onto her lap, he curls into a ball
Once again, he outsmarted them all

During the 80’s, one of the only shows I watched on Nickelodeon, was “Mr. Wizard’s World”. Some of my most vivid memories of the show we the early flight simulator software packages for PCs, and the experiment to show that sound waves traveled slower than the speed of light. Don Hebert, aka, Mr. Wizard passed away today at 89. His website has the details:

Mr. Wizard Studios

According to On The Issues, Ron Paul voted yes on “an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.” It’s just another indication of where Ron Paul stands with regards to treatment of homosexuals. He doesn’t want gays to either marry or raise kids. What a guy.

Furthermore, I would like to bring back Ron Paul’s comments from the debate and highlight once again the evidence of how anti-homosexual he is:

MR. SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.

Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?

REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

To sum up, Ron Paul thinks the current policy is a good one, and that disruptive conduct by heterosexuals or homosexuals should be grounds to dismiss military personnel. On the last part, I agree in general. However, and here is the key point:

Unlike “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Ron Paul, I don’t think the act of merely saying one is gay is disruptive

There is no other way to interpret Ron Paul’s comments. If he thinks the current policy is a good policy, then he thinks just being gay is disruptive. So despite all the blather about state’s rights, individual freedom, blah, blah, from Ron Paul, that only applies if you’re straight. If you’re gay, forget it. You’re too “disruptive.”

When not bashing Ron Paul for being anti-gay, I also now own a home, which is in the process of being updated to the current century. I thought I would list some of my home projects online. Here is the page:

Home Projects. Eventually, I will include pictures and plans.

Last night, Ron Paul revealed (not for the first time) his right wing social agenda in response to a question about Bush’s past mistakes. According to Ron Paul, we’ve gotten away from “Christian philosophy” when we enacted pre-emptive war. I’m not sure why Paul felt the need to say “Christian” but judging by his legislative history, it’s because he wants to push a Christian view of society.

In 2004, Ron Paul supported and praised HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. The sole purpose of this act is to allow states to mandate that “under God” be allowed in the pledge. How libertarian is it to wink and nod at states forcing religion onto people?

Once again, Ron Paul fails to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens of the United States.

My last post on Ron Paul generated a lot of hits and comments. Most comments were negative and in some cases contained ad hominem attacks on me. I realize that Ron Paul is the darling of the blogosphere so this response was not unexpected. Digg users are especially in love with Ron Paul. However, despite all the comments against my conclusion about Ron Paul and his desire to use the power of the federal government to push his right wing social agenda, I’m not budging. I believe I’m correct. I did a little more digging and I think I’ve found more evidence to support my case, and in addition, the case that Ron Paul cherry picks what issues he thinks the federal government should be involved in.

The media has fallen in love with Ron Paul. Doing a quick Google News search comes up with 2,520 recent articles when just searching for “Ron Paul”. My guess is that because Ron Paul is against the war and is pushing the idea that 9/11 was our “fault”, the press loves him. I can’t really think of any other reason. I can’t believe the majority of journalists are as libertarian as Ron Paul when it comes to the role of the federal government. I doubt many journalists want to eliminate any vestige of a social safety net as Ron Paul does. It has to be his position the war. He’s against the war and he “blames” us for being attacked.

Even though I think Ron Paul is somewhat wrong with his position on the war, at least it’s a position I can respect. There are definitely points to being totally non-interventionist in our foreign policy. It’s a legitimate argument to make. However, the one issue that Ron Paul is totally wrong on and the press is ignoring, is Ron Paul’s abortion position. He is very pro-life, and has lately tried to hide behind “returning the power” to the states. I’m not buying it.

In 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4379, which has the purpose of “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.” Now, it is the job of Congress to create the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, and it has the power to restrict, but this is quite a radical step. And just what is Ron Paul wanting to restrict?

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

(1) shall not adjudicate–

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

It almost sounds reasonable until you realize that this law would allow individual states to setup state religions, and the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule on state *established* religions. It’s also curious that a state’s rights advocate would only target very socially conservative issues. Why not gun control? Commerce? Why such religious based targets?

I think the answer is that Ron Paul is no libertarian. Instead, he wants to use his power as President to push his far right agenda.

It gets worse.

Also in 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 776 which said:

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Ron Paul wanted a federal law that declares life begins at conception and at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the zygote is a full person and protected under the law as any born human. I don’t think I’m way off base to say that this law would effectively ban abortion. If a zygote is a person, then abortion would be murder, prosecutable under the law. This is a very, very extreme position, and very un-libertarian. It’s downright draconian.

Ron Paul and the media can continue the charade that he’s just a small government, pro-liberty maverick. I know the truth, that Ron Paul would use his power to push his far right agenda. I will not buy the hype.