Governor Jindal talks about Gay Marriage

Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April. Credit Pool photo by Gerald Herbert

Governor Bobby Jindal staked his position on the Gay Marriage debate. He stands firm on the rights of businesses to choose not to serve potential customers whose views they find abhorrent.
A lot of people compare this to Woolworths refusing to serve black customers in the 1960's. This is a poor comparison. In the 1960's the vast majority of southern businesses refused to serve blacks, leaving a large group disenfranchised with nowhere to eat, sleep or use public restrooms.
The Gay Marriage push is quite different. In this case we have a small group of people who are being overwhelmingly embraced businesses keen for their money. The few religious business owners who object to their behavior are not preventing them for getting their wedding cakes or flowers from someone else. These potential brides and grooms need to stop pushing their views on others and find the businesses who are happy to serve them. They are not hard to find.
Weak state governments are forcing these business owners to choose between violating their religious beliefs and going out of business. I'm glad to see one governor standing up for religious freedom.

Here's Jindal's full text:

BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in America presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into breaking away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge can miss it.

I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.

A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us. That’s why religious freedom laws matter — and why it is critical for conservatives and business leaders to unite in this debate.

If we, as conservatives, are to succeed in advancing the cause of freedom and free enterprise, the business community must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty. The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half.

Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws, invigorate our schools with bold merit-based changes and parental choice, and completely revamp work-force training to better suit businesses.

Our reforms worked because they were driven by our belief in freedom. We know that a nation in which individuals, and companies, are protected from the onerous impulses of government is one that will thrive and grow. That’s the intellectual underpinning of America, and in Louisiana we defend it relentlessly.

Conservatism faces many challenges in today’s America. Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity. Yet the left has lost repeatedly in state elections all over America. Republicans control 31 governorships. We control nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers, the highest proportion since at least 1900.

Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. It’s a deliberate strategy. And it’s time for corporate America to make a decision.

Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. This is the grand bargain that makes freedom’s defense possible.

Bloomberg and Gates fight Tobacco Company's dirty tricks

Lately major Tobacco companies are using a dirty trick to ensure they hook new customers in the third world. They threaten to sue the countries for unfair trade practices, going to far as to quote lawsuits, in which they were found guilty, in their legal fights. These small countries are quailing under the legal pressure and giving up their fights to protect their own citizens.

 

Today, Mike Bloomberg and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donated $4 million to a fund that will help these countries fight these lawsuits. Good job Mike! Full NYTimes article below:

Cigarette production at the British American Tobacco Cigarette Factory in Bayreuth, Germany.  Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced on Wednesday that they had started a global fund to help low- and middle-income countries fight legal challenges to their smoking laws. Credit Michaela Rehle/Reuters

 

Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced on Wednesday that they had started a global fund to help low- and middle-income countries fight legal challenges to their smoking laws by the tobacco industry.

The fund is modest, at least so far, with a total of $4 million from the two charities. But Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies and the financial data and news company Bloomberg LP, said in a conference call with reporters that the investment was more like an initial marker, and that it was expected to grow as more donors joined the effort.

“The fact that there is a fund dedicated to taking on the tobacco companies in court sends a message that they are not going to get a free ride,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “If they say that’s not a lot of money — yes, well, take a look at who’s behind it.”

He added, “We just picked $4 million just to say, ‘O.K., here, let’s start it.’”

The fund was set up to counter what health experts say has been a strategy by tobacco companies to block smoking laws in poorer countries through legal means. In a number of cases, companies have challenged laws in development or after passage, warning governments that they violate an expanding number of trade and investment treaties that the countries are party to, and raising the prospect of long, expensive legal battles.

Companies say that there are only a few cases of active litigation and that giving a legal opinion to governments is routine for major players whose interests would be affected by a proposed law. But tobacco opponents and officials say the specter of litigation has had a chilling effect for countries that lack the financial resources to defend themselves.

“In an ominous trend, in some countries the battle between tobacco and health has moved into the courts,” Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, said in a statement on Wednesday. Dr. Chan is participating in a conference on tobacco use in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. She added, “We will push back hard.”

The strategy has gained momentum in recent years, health experts say, as smoking rates in rich countries have fallen and tobacco companies have sought to maintain access to fast-growing markets in developing countries.

In Africa, at least four countries — Namibia, Gabon, Togo and Uganda — have received warnings that their laws run afoul of international treaties, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group that will administer the new fund. In Uruguay, Mr. Bloomberg’s charity is also helping the government defend itself in court.

Wealthier countries have also been targets, including Australia, which is in court with an affiliate of Philip Morris International over rules on packaging, and Norway.

British American Tobacco, which issued some of the warnings in Africa, did not respond to requests for comment. Philip Morris International said in a statement, “Governments can and should honor their international obligations when enacting tobacco control measures, and this fund can provide them with resources to do so.”

Tobacco consumption more than doubled in the developing world from 1970 to 2000, according to the United Nations. Much of the increase was in China, but there has also been substantial growth in Africa, where smoking rates have traditionally been low. More than three-quarters of the world’s smokers now live in the developing world.

Every year, more than five million people die of smoking-related causes, more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined, according to the World Health Organization. The organization said in a statement on Wednesday that new data shows a declining rate of tobacco use around the world.

Beyond giving money, the fund will also help countries draft tobacco laws in a way that could help avoid challenge from industry, and establish a network of lawyers experienced in trade litigation. Mr. Bloomberg said some law firms had already expressed interest in volunteering their services. Mr. Bloomberg has committed about $600 million to combat tobacco use since 2007.

Politician eliminates his own position

Would that more politicians did what Matt Adamczyk plans to do: eliminate the position he just won. Here's the pledge he made when running for Wisconsin State Treasurer:

WHY I'M RUNNING I am running for state treasurer on the pledge to eliminate the position. The antiquated office no longer is needed and has become a prime example of wasteful government spending. Governor Walker and the Republican legislature have removed almost all duties that once were the responsibility of the state treasurer and transferred those duties to other agencies. I fully support this effort by Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislature to save tax dollars with these efficiencies. My campaign consists of five pledges I’m making to the residents of Wisconsin if elected: 1. Pledge to work tirelessly to eliminate the Office of State Treasurer 2. Pledge to use the position to find government waste and eliminate it 3. Pledge to never waste taxpayer money 4. Pledge to return 25% of salary to taxpayers 5. Pledge to only serve one term The only constitutional duty of the Wisconsin State Treasurer is to serve on the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands (BCPL). Serving on this board literally consists of two 15-minute phone calls per month. I feel it is wasteful to spend tax dollars on a four person staffed office for just one responsibility. That is why I fully support the Republican amendment, AJR 48, which would replace the state treasurer with the lieutenant governor on the BCPL.

The position is no longer needed since most of its duties have been transferred to other state agencies. But the position and the bloated staff remained until Matt took over. So far he has eliminated positions and wasted technology like cell phones that are being paid for but not used.

Maybe we can get someone in New Jersey to remove some wasted school boards for towns that don't have schools.

Kent Haruf on National Leadership

Below is a quote from one of my favorite authors. The book is on my wish list and I'll get to it eventually. But what a great idea is represented by this quote? And what happens next?

“And so we know the satisfaction of hate. We know the sweet joy of revenge. How it feels good to get even. Oh, that was a nice idea Jesus had. That was a pretty notion, but you can't love people who do evil. It's neither sensible or practical. It's not wise to the world to love people who do such terrible wrong. There is no way on earth we can love our enemies. They'll only do wickedness and hatefulness again. And worse, they'll think they can get away with this wickedness and evil, because they'll think we're weak and afraid. What would the world come to?

But I want to say to you here on this hot July morning in Holt, what if Jesus wasn't kidding? What if he wasn't talking about some never-never land? What if he really did mean what he said two thousand years ago? What if he was thoroughly wise to the world and knew firsthand cruelty and wickedness and evil and hate? Knew it all so well from personal firsthand experience? And what if in spite of all that he knew, he still said love your enemies? Turn your cheek. Pray for those who misuse you. What if he meant every word of what he said? What then would the world come to?

And what if we tried it? What if we said to our enemies: We are the most powerful nation on earth. We can destroy you. We can kill your children. We can make ruins of your cities and villages and when we're finished you won't even know how to look for the places where they used to be. We have the power to take away your water and to scorch your earth, to rob you of the very fundamentals of life. We can change the actual day into actual night. We can do these things to you. And more.

But what if we say, Listen: Instead of any of these, we are going to give willingly and generously to you. We are going to spend the great American national treasure and the will and the human lives that we would have spent on destruction, and instead we are going to turn them all toward creation. We'll mend your roads and highways, expand your schools, modernize your wells and water supplies, save your ancient artifacts and art and culture, preserve your temples and mosques. In fact, we are going to love you. And again we say, no matter what has gone before, no matter what you've done: We are going to love you. We have set our hearts to it. We will treat you like brothers and sisters. We are going to turn our collective national cheek and present it to be stricken a second time, if need be, and offer it to you. Listen, we--

But then he was abruptly halted.”
― Kent Haruf, Benediction    

Gaming theory helps place NYC Students in school of choice

The NY Times neatly reported on the use of Nobel Prize winning gaming theory in the perennial problem of matching New York's high school students with the school of their choice. Since all 75,000 NYC Middle-school students have the option of attending any of the 426 NYC schools and there are many over-achievers, a simple priority list like the college acceptance process used to result in many unhappy applicants.

 

So a group of professors got together and modified a gaming theory called "The Stable Marriage" for this purpose. In the early 1960s, the economists David Gale and Lloyd Shapley proved that it was theoretically possible to pair an unlimited number of men and women in stable marriages according to their preferences.

 

By running a series of rounds of proposals and acceptances with tentative acceptance sometimes being trumped by a rejection and acceptance of another suitor, all the men and women get matched up with someone within their range of preferences.

 

Below is a nice graphic showing the process simplified to ten students, three schools, each of which have three slots, three preferences and three rounds. In reality there are more of each variable but, with computerization, the process works the same.

In 2003, New York City changed its method for matching eighth graders to high schools with a system, called a deferred acceptance algorithm, that was designed by a team of professors, including one who later won a Nobel prize in economic science. The key feature was mutuality: Students submit a list of preferred schools in order, and schools prepare an ordered list of students whom they want or who meet their standards. After rounds of computer matching, schools and students are paired so that students get their highest-ranked school that also wants them. Here, in simplified form, is how it works. In this example, each school can take three students, although it can list more, and each student can list up to three choices.

Sources: Academic papers, with assistance from Parag Pathak, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology

By Ford Fessenden

Big idea for LaGuardia

If you've ever flown into or out of LaGuardia or JFK, you might be forgiven for thinking you weren't in the airport of the greatest city in the world. These airports and their connections to the city are just awful. Newark is better but it is in New Jersey with few connections to New York City. Most large cities have much better connections to their airports.

There is a competition to develop a better plan for these airports with a $500,000 prize.

This guy, Jim Venturi, has a BIG plan that may be what we need, rather than the Band-Aids others are applying to the systemic problem that is air travel into and out of New York.

 

Election Graphics

The New York Times did a great job with a lot of data, showing the swings from Democrat to Republican in the House and Senate over the years from 1944 to this last election. With a very simple graphic and a few words, they show the weight towards Democratic and the shifts over the years as representatives clutched on presidential coat-tails or were ousted as their presidents lost popularity.

I'll let the graphs speak for themselves below.

Putting the E in Estonia

I really enjoyed Talinn when I visited a few years back. Not only was the old town absolutely gorgeous with one beautiful square leading into another, the people were amazing. Everyone seemed friendly and spoke many languages.

So it came to no surprise to me that Estonians have fully embraced the digital world. According to this article, Estonians microchip technology to embed their national identity and access thousands of services, including banking and medical records.

They ignore concerns about privacy in favor of the greater convenience of full connectivity. Coming out from under the Soviet yoke a generation ago, they welcome the slashing of bureaucracy this electronic connectivity allows.

Look at some of the advantages they gain: 98% of Estonians file their taxes online in 5 minutes allowing the tax department to halve their workforce to 1,500 and issue tax returns in a week. Digital signatures on mobile devices are the norm.

Estonia is leading the way here. Is it the right path to the future? Are we heading to 'This Perfect Day?'

Why Democrats can't win the House

Very interesting analysis by Nate Cohn in last week's New York Times that showed why Democrats are unlikely to win a majority in the House of Representatives while winning statewide majorities for Democrats.

Democratic voters are clustered in cities giving huge margins of victory to Democrats while leaving many more slim Republican majorities in more rural districts. Look at the voting pattern of a few states to see the situation:

So while Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote Democratic as a state, handing their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate and putting Democrats in the Senate, they will send more Republicans to the House than Democrats. Same goes for many other states, enough to hand the House to Republicans for many years to come.

Dutch tolerance led to New York's greatness

Great op-ed by Russell Shorto in today's Times showing that the secret to New York's success lay in the roots of the Dutch 17th century tolerance for others. Here is the full essay but I'd like to pull some excerpts here:

 In founding New Amsterdam in the 1620s, the Dutch planted the seeds for the city’s remarkable flowering. Specifically, the Dutch brought two concepts that became part of New York’s foundation: tolerance of religious differences and an entrepreneurial, free-trading culture.

In the 17th century, when it was universally held elsewhere in Europe that a strong society required intolerance as official policy, the Dutch Republic was a melting pot. The Dutch codified the concept of tolerance of religious differences, built a vast commercial empire and spawned a golden age of science and art in part by turning the “problem” of their mixed society into an advantage. Dutch tolerance was transplanted to Manhattan: They were so welcoming that a reported 18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam at a time when its population was only about 500.

While many economies elsewhere in Europe were still feudal, the Dutch pioneered an economic system based on individual ownership of real estate. That came about because the Dutch provinces occupied a vast river delta, in which land was at or below sea level and therefore constantly under threat. People in those communities banded together to build dams and dikes and reclaim land. The new land was not owned by a king or a church. Instead, the people who had created it divided it and began buying and selling parcels. That incentivized a whole society, fueled the growth of an empire, turned the Dutch into entrepreneurs and made them the envy of other Europeans.

Lottery savings accounts

"Lotteries are a tax on the stupid." We've heard this before but this simplistic statement ignores the entertainment value a poor person gets from dreaming about getting rich by purchasing a ticket. Being down and out is a tough situation and the thought that a $1 ticket can bring you riches is worth the purchase price.

My statistics professor once told me: 'The odds of winning the lottery are tiny, but by buying one ticket, you have improved those odds infinitely from zero to this number. Buying two tickets only doubles these odds so stick with one ticket." I use that philosophy when the mega millions gets above a quarter billion.

But I'm not poor and I already save about 20% of my income. How can we encourage the poor to save while still giving them the hope a lottery provides? A long time ago I dreamed of machines located next to the lottery machines at the convenience stores that people could load their money into a retirement account and see the balance and predicted amount at retirement every time they used the machine. Then they would have a choice between instant gratification and long term savings.

But I like a system even better as reported on in today's NY Times article. Here several credit unions offer 'Prize-linked savings accounts.' A small percentage of the interest rate is dedicated to monthly prizes which are randomly given to people who deposit money into their accounts that month. Not only do you have published winners, everyone else wins because they all save money for their futures.

Small oversight leads to huge problems in largest tunnel project

Bertha before drilling began in July 2013. CreditTed S. Warren/Associated Press

It's been 18 months since I first blogged about Seattle's big dig project: the tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct. This was a huge project including the world's largest drill bit with a 57.5 feet diameter. I remember reading a few months ago about the bit hitting an unknown object that caused it to stall. What's going on now?

A hole dug by Bertha, the tunnel-boring machine that went dormant last December.CreditDavid Ryder for The New York Times

In a recent NY Times article, we learn that the pipe it hit back in December caused damage that has stalled the drill until next March. Rescuing the bit required the drilling of a shaft to reach the damaged area, shoring up the tunnel it already dug to prevent it from collapsing, replacing huge parts then making further repairs.

A crane hoisting a tunnel-boring tool at a construction site where a large shaft is being dug to get to Bertha. CreditDavid Ryder for The New York Times

One of the biggest problems is the size of everything involved. When everything is scaled up, the cost and time to repair problems scales up exponentially. The eighteen month delay and hundreds of millions in budget overruns all stem from an eight inch diameter steel pipe that nobody involved in the project knew was in the way of Bertha. I'd love to see the official risk management of this project.

Pharmaceutical companies do not gouge their patients

The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad rap for charging so much for its drugs. A recent Op-ed criticized the $300,000 cost for a cytic fibrosis drug. But reading further in the article we see that this drug, while a miracle at combatting this disease, only works for a population of 2,000 people.

I can do the math and see that Vertex can, at most, gross $600,000,000 for this drug if everyone in this group buys it at full price. Given that a typical drug costs between $1-$2 billion to bring to market, this is still a loss leader. The drug is currently in Phase III clinical trials which mean the company has already spent about half the money.

The FDA and other worldwide regulatory agencies have forced thousands of regulations on pharmaceutical companies to ensure that drugs that reach patients are safe and effective. The work involved in meeting these regulations require thousands of people working full-time to bring new drugs to the market. That costs money. Who else is going to pay for it if not the final customers of the product.

Not every drug is suited for millions of patients so the cost of these specialty drugs must be borne by the small population of patients who need it.

As for pharmaceutical companies raking in incredible profits, do what I do and buy their stock. I haven't noticed any great increases in my stock values.

Clive Bundy gets Blown away

Charles M. Blow is The New York Times's visual Op-Ed columnist. 

What a great op-ed by Charles Blow about Cliven Bundy, the racist western  rancher! I'll reprint it here in its entirety for reference later. Here is the original link to the NY Times article.

It appears that Cliven Bundy, the 68-year-old rancher and freeloader, doesn’t reject only the federal government; he rejects history.

Bundy decided this week to tell us all what he knows “about the Negro.”

Mr. Bundy was quoted by The New York Times as saying:

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

In an attempt to clarify his comments, Bundy was on “The Peter Schiff Show,” and he made matters worse: “I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, when they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and a garden, and the people had something to do?”

The Mount Kilimanjaro-size amounts of ignorance and offense packed into those two statements boggles the mind.

Photo

Soon after Bundy’s views on slavery and “the Negro” came to light, the conservative supporters he had accrued began to scurry and others pounced.

But I refuse to let Bundy’s fantasies about slavery and projections about “Negroes” be given over to predictable political squabbling. The legacy of slavery must be liberated from political commentary.

Casual, careless and incorrect references to slavery, much like blithe references to Nazi Germany, do violence to the memory of those who endured it, or were lost to it, and to their descendants.

There is no modern-day comparison in this country to the horrors of slavery. None! Leave it alone. Remember, honor and respect. That’s all.

How could slaves have been “happier,” when more than 12 million were put in shackles, loaded like logs into the bowels of ships and sailed toward shores unknown, away from their world and into their hell?

How could they have been “happier” to be greased up and sold off, mother from child, with no one registering their anguish?

Sojourner Truth, in her “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech, delivered in 1851 at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, lamented: “I have borne 13 children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me!”

The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History estimates that nearly two-thirds of slaves lived in nuclear households. However, those families could be broken up on a whim, and many slaves were bred like animals, were raped at will and could marry only if allowed.

How could they have been “happier” to meet the lash, to feel the flaying of flesh, to have it heal in dreadful scars only to be ripped open again until one had, as Sethe, the main character in Toni Morrison’s “Beloved,” put it, a tree on one’s back?

It was not only the lash but also the noose and being chased down and ripped apart by dogs, and all manner of terrors. When the human imagination sets itself on cruelty there are no limits to its designs.

Continue reading the main story

Americans have been trying to justify slavery since its inception, to make the most wrong of wrongs right, to no avail.

Robert E. Lee wrote in 1856: “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.”

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Others used religion as a justification, quoting verses and patting themselves on the back for saving the souls of the so-called savage.

But as Frederick Douglass pointed out, “The slave auctioneer’s bell and the churchgoing bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heartbroken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master.”

Religion didn’t elevate enslavers; trying to justify slavery reduced religion.

“Happier”? How, Mr. Bundy, could you even utter such absurdity?

The very soil of this country cries out for us to never forget what happened here, for the irreducible record of the horrors of slavery to never be reduced.

Romantic revisionism of this most ghastly enterprise cannot stand. It must be met, vigilantly and unequivocally, with the strongest rebuttal. Slaves dishonored in life must not have their memories disfigured by revisionist history.

America committed this great sin, its original sin, and there will be no absolution by alteration. America must live with the memory of what its forefathers — even its founding fathers — did. It must sit with this history, the unvarnished truth of it, until it has reconciled with it.

Leader fired for political views

Not sure what happened to freedom of speech in this country. It seems there are a few sacred cows you can't speak out against. Mozilla's chief executive was fired because he donated $1,000 to support proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.

Brendan Eich didn't ask his employees to vote with him, didn't discrimiate against homosexuals at Mozilla and he was supported by gay employees as an executive. He just donated money to support his own beliefs. When asked by gay groups to repudiate his donation he stood by his beliefs. And for that he was hounded out of his position.

It's a little sickening that the world has come to this but I take solace in the statements from a few gay rights leaders who are also offended by this behavior. According to a recent Times article: Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer and an early, influential proponent of making same-sex marriage legal, expressed outrage over Mr. Eich’s departure on his popular blog, saying the Mozilla chief had been “scalped by some gay activists.”

“If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else — then count me out,” Mr. Sullivan wrote.

A number of gay rights advocates pointed out that their organizations did not seek Mr. Eich’s resignation. Evan Wolfson, a leading gay marriage advocate, said that this was a case of “a company deciding who best represents them and their values. There is no monolithic gay rights movement that called for this.” 

McCain challenges Obama on Russia's invasion of Ukraine

For those are curious what John McCain would have been like as president rather than Barack Obama, here's a chance to see what the old war hawk would do in today's Crimean crisis.

In a recent Op-Ed, McCain criticizes Obama in his lead up to and handling of the crisis. He says Obama lacked resolve in Afghanistan and Iraq and allowed Bashar-al-Assad to cross his 'Red Line' without repercussions. He claims that Putin sees this lack of resolve as weakness to exploit.

McCain doesn't recommend military action other than NATO exercises, but he strongly insists on sanctions, removing Russia from the G8 and refusing Russian oligarchs places in the West to "park their ill-gotten proceeds."

It's a rare occasion to see how two leaders would deal with a crisis. Let's see what Obama does.

India's efficient space program

India has a space program with project budgets less than the movie 'Gravity.' They have successfully launched a spaceship that arrives in Mars orbit this September. Cost? $75 Million! Wow!

How do they keep costs down? 

Although costs for engineers are $1000 a month, that alone cannot reduce the costs to the level they need. So they use a lot of typical Indian cost savings:

• Repurposing old technology into new. Rather than starting from scratch, they refine 1970's propellant technology to work today. 
• Modularity. Everything fits together like lego blocks across all their projects.
• Less testing. (Yikes!)
• Younger engineers
• Unpaid overtime due to a motivated workforce

The projects seem to be working and I believe there is a lot we can learn from this program.

Americans should obey Russian rules while visiting.

The opening ceremonies in the Sochi Olympics held a few entertaining moments. The German team came attired in rainbow colored uniforms to protest the anti-gay rules imposed in Russia. And the Olympic rings failed to open completely, leaving the ring that is traditionally red unopened. Was this a failure of Red communism or the failure of pink to bloom in Russia.

All this hoopla about the no gay-propaganda during these olympics demonstrate a basic difference between Russian and American culture. Americans culturally are individualistic while Russians are collective. While both countries have minorities, Americans believe that anyone can become whatever they want so there is a feeeling that everyone should be given a fair shake. Members of minority groups can protest and be awarded equal rights in this country. From religious freedom to the civil rights movement to the current gay marriage question, the majority has yielded to the minority and granted equality.

Not so in Russia. There the culture is that the majority is paramount and that minorities can be quashed. Gay rights marches are met with protestors who feel free to disrupt the demonstrations with support from the police, government and church. Putin stands behind this policy that the majority shall not be bullied by the 'obnoxious minority.' That is the Russian way.

Is this right? Not from an American perspective. We all believe in equal rights for all. But we are not Russians. They look at our system and scoff that we should cave our feelings to the minorites that are 'destroying our culture.' It all depends on one's perspective.

It is not our place to criticize other people's cultures, just as we bristle when other people criticize ours.

But what happens when an international event like the Olympics takes place in a country where rules differ from those at the visiting country? I believe the host country should make concessions to the visiting countries' tastes such as providing food and lodgings acceptable to them but they shouldn't to change their way of life completely. Part of the allure of traveling is to experience different cultures.

While traveling I try not to be the ugly American. I take off my shoes in Japanese restaurants and businesses. I refrain from drinking alcohol in Muslim countries. I'm respectful in other religions' temples. I don't stick my thumb up when hitch-hiking in Italy.

The American athletes are guests in a country with certain rules. While they shouldn't actively discriminate against gays, I believe they should respect the rules in Russia and not actively propagandize for gay rights during the two weeks they are being hosted by a country with that rule.

It is fine to send Billy Jean King as a representative to Sochi, but if she starts raising banners and encouraging homosexual behavior, she is breaking the local laws and being that ugly American. Just behave. We don't allow Russians to drink in public when they come here, we should obey their laws while in their country.

Christie and the Bridge

Politics in New Jersey is fun! Here we see reprisals where a governor's staff will close access to a bridge from a town that refuses to endorse him. If Christie was responsible, he should admit it and laugh. The state would mostly laugh with him and forgive him. What do we care about a few Fort Lee people whining about their George Washington bridge access when we have to line up for miles to get to it while they have three whole lanes to themselves right at the bridge. As far as I'm concerned they should make that pattern the normal flow from now on.

But during a Jan 9th news conference, Christie denied knowledge of the event vociferously for about two hours. As usual, it's a matter of the cover-up being worse than the crime. If it turns out he knew about it, he's a political corpse. Lie to the public and get caught, you're dead. Let's wait and see if the facts emerge that he lied or told the truth.

Spain reneges on Solar Power guarantees

Spain was once one of the bright spots (pun intended) in the solar power generating world. Generous guarantees by the goverment brought it close to 20% reliance on renewable energy. Investors big and small poured money into solar power projects. Only one thing was missing: the money to pay for all this.

When the federal goverment guaranteed men like Justo Rodriguez that it would buy the electricity he generated at a fixed price for the next 25 years, he mortgaged two houses and his workshop to buy the equipment. He, in turn, guaranteed his banks that he would return the money they lent him.

Justo Cruz Rodríguez faces ruin after investing in solar power in the Spanish town of Águilas. Samuel Aranda for The New York Time

Abruptly, the Spanish govenment told him that they would not pay anywhere near as much for the power he generates and, to add insult to injury, wants to charge him for the power he generates and uses himself.

Countries must operate on a rule of law and gurantees made by the government cannot be withdrawn when people are investing based on those guarantees. This is just one more step into anarchy that the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) countries are falling into.

Read the details in this article.