Another 5-4 decision, and one that I think should have been a 9-0 decision involved the University of California’s Hastings College of Law–a public institution–and a student group called the Christian Legal Society (CLS).  The first part of the Court’s decision explains the issue quite well:

Hastings College of the Law (Hastings), a school within the University of California public-school system, extends official recognition to student groups through its “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) program. Several benefits attend this school-approved status, including the use of school funds, facilities, and channels of communication, as well as Hastings’ name and logo. In exchange for recognition, RSOs must abide by certain conditions. Critical here, all RSOs must comply with the school’s Nondiscrimination Policy, which tracks state law barring discrimination on a number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation. Hastings interprets this policy, as it relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all comers: RSOs must allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of her status or beliefs.

CLS requires that all members and employees, as a condition of their employment or membership, acknowledge in writing a Statement of Faith that, in part, forbids “participation in or acceptance of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” which is defined as sex outside of a heterosexual marriage.  Such a condition is obviously at odds with the non discrimination policy of Hastings College.

CLS tries to argue that Hastings’ restrictions on RSOs violate the CLS members’ rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.  That’s silly.  Hastings has not attempted to change the CLS policies.  It has simply withheld recognition of a group that does not abide by the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

I’m flabbergasted that four Supreme Court justices came down on the other side of this issue.  I haven’t yet read their dissenting opinions–something I really have to do.  This decision seems so obvious that I can’t imagine what rational reason a judge could have for ruling that Hastings should recognize the group.  But we’ll see.

I’m a bit surprised at the public reaction to this incident.  A large number of people have expressed their shock and outrage at the parents for allowing their 16-year-old daughter to embark on such a voyage.  “Sixteen is too young,” they say, “teenagers don’t have the same ability as adults to evaluate risk and do the right thing.”  Then they go on to regurgitate the oft-reported statistics about teenagers and automobile accidents.

It is true, by the way, that teenagers are involved in a disproportionate number of auto accidents when compared to the rest of the population.  And it’s pretty well known why:  teenage drivers tend to understimate hazardous driving situations and are less able than older drivers to recognize potentially dangerous situations.

It’s not age, but experience that matters.  When I was a teenager, I had a friend whose dad was a race car driver.  Ron, too, raced cars on the track.  He was an incredibly safe driver on the road.  He knew better than most drivers–regardless of age–how to evaluate a situation and react accordingly.  I also know drivers in their 40s and 50s who I will not ride with again, ever, because they have shown a shocking inability to anticipate other drivers’ actions and see a dangerous situation developing.

Abby Sunderland has been sailing with her family all her life.  She’s reported to be an excellent sailor and over the years has proven her ability to handle a boat in all manner of situations.  She’s likely a much better and more experienced sailor than most sailors twice her age.  Her parents, by all reports, are responsible people who encourage their children to follow their dreams, but also make sure that the children are well prepared before attempting anything too wild.

I, for one, fully support parents who encourage their children to create and achieve far-reaching goals.  In doing so, the children are learning perhaps the most important lesson that all too many parents fail to teach:  the ability to take a dream from inception to completion.  They learn to develop a plan, gain the knowledge and skill to accomplish their goal, and then do it.  People talk about building self confidence in children, but too many parents balk when it comes to actually giving the kids the opportunity to rely on themselves.

I suspect that in the year or more since she started preparing for her trip, and especially in the six months she spent alone at sea in a 40-foot boat, Abby learned more about herself and how to achieve goals than most people learn in a lifetime.  That she survived the storm that destroyed her boat–a storm that would likely have killed an inexperienced sailor–shows me that she was able to identify and react properly to the dangerous situation.  A big wave broke the mast, true, but experienced sailors will tell you that such a thing can happen to anybody.  30-foot seas are a challenge for anybody in a small craft.

Kids don’t learn anything worthwhile if you coddle them.  They learn by pushing their limits:  often trying things that others view as dangerous.  My friends who have achieved the most in life are those who did “dangerous” things as teenagers:  bull riding, skydiving, auto racing, motorcycle racing, playing with old radios (think about the dangers of high voltage power transformers), etc.  In almost all cases the parents were involved in making sure that the kids were prepared for whatever they were doing:  guiding, not preventing.

Conversely, my friends who were coddled as teenagers and forbidden from doing “dangerous” things (other than driving–for reasons I can’t understand, parents let their kids drive even when the kids show a shocking lack of ability to manage risk) either had a very difficult time learning to take risk as they got older, or are now coddling themselves and their own kids and not accomplishing anything.

Why risk it?  Because there is no advancement without risk.  The key is managing the risk:  building the knowledge and skill to identify and react to hazardous situations, but making plans to avoid those situations as much as possible.  In the specific case of Abby Sunderland, she had the skill and knowledge, and as much as possible she avoided the risks.  But, as she said, “you don’t sail through the Indian Ocean without getting in at least one storm.”  It’s part of the journey.  It’s just unfortunate that this particular storm wrecked her boat.

Congratulations, Abby, on your attempt.  You didn’t make it around the world, but you accomplished a great deal in trying.

To Mr. and Mrs. Sunderland, thank you for allowing your daughter (and your son, last year) to show us what young people can accomplish given the opportunity, guidance, and encouragement.  I hope that other parents will learn from your example.

In one such discussion recently, somebody mentioned putting black pepper on a cut to stop the bleeding.  I had never heard of that one, but there’s eHow article: How to Treat Cuts with Black Pepper.  eHow is hardly a reliable source for medical information, and I don’t place much faith in the countless alternative medicine sites that have similar content about the use of black pepper on cuts.  Still, I wonder.

It turns out that black pepper is only one of many such home remedies.  I’ve also seen recommendations of flour, cayenne pepper powder, ground coffee, and corn starch.  This leads me to believe that it’s not the particular substance but rather that the substance is powdered.  The powder clots the blood on the surface, which would be enough to stop the bleeding on a minor cut.

Some sites also claim medicinal benefits to some of these remedies–especially the black pepper and cayenne pepper.  I have not been able to find any reliable information about that.

Anybody else hear of these remedies?  Do they work simply by clotting the blood at the surface, or are there some astringent or antihemorrhaghic properties to these recommended substances?

Since at least 1994, the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University has issued predictions on the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season.  They issue three predictions each year:

1. In December, they publish their predictions for the upcoming season.
2. In April, they publish an updated prediction for the season that will start on June 1.
3. In August, they publish yet another update.

You might wonder why they publish an update in the middle of the season.  The answer can be found in their FAQ:

Although the Atlantic basin hurricane season starts on June 1, more than 90 percent of all tropical cyclone activity and 95 percent of major hurricane activity occurs after August 1 in an average season. In general, our seasonal forecasts issued on August 1 show the greatest skill.

The TMP also publishes an annual report that summarizes the most recent hurricane season and compares their predictions with the actual activity.  Their forecasts page has links to the most recent forecasts, and a way to select previous forecasts.

Whereas the forecasts make for interesting reading, I was especially impressed with the summaries.  The authors are very up front about how they derive the numbers for their forecasts, and the summaries accurately present their successes and their failures.  Everything is out in the open.  They don’t appear to be pushing a particular agenda, but rather reporting the results of their observations and using the observed data to try to understand and predict future behavior.  This is what I was taught science is about.

One thing I’ve wondered for the past several years is what caused the recent increase in tropical cyclone activity.  That there has been an increase is no secret, as I pointed out last year in Tracking Hurricanes.  A common cry is, “Global warming is causing more hurricanes.”  TMP’s 2009 Summary addresses that, starting on page 39.  The entire section is well worth reading.  A few quotes are particularly relevant:

Despite the global warming of the sea surface that has taken place between the mid 1970s to late 1990s and the general warming of the last century, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic since 1995 (Klotzbach 2006).

Although global surface temperatures have increased over the last century and over the last 30 years, there is no reliable data available to indicate increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe’s other tropical cyclone basins.

In other words, if an increase in sea surface temperature caused an increase in hurricane activity, one would expect the increased activity everywhere, not just in the Atlantic.

So, what’s the cause?

This large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global sea surface temperatures or CO2 increases. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism.

Interesting.  Changes in the salt content of the water, which is a localized phenomenon.

The report then gives a detailed counter to the global warming argument, showing that in two recent 25-year periods (1945-1969, during a weak cooling trend; and 1970-1994, a general warming trend), the warmer period had only 48% as many hurricanes as the cooler period.  Looked at in isolation, you would conclude that cooler temperatures caused more hurricanes.  That’s obviously not the case, though, when you look at all the data.  So you have to conclude that the increase in hurricane activity is due to something else.

If you haven’t yet caught on, I’m impressed with the way the TMP presents their research.  I encourage you to give it a look.

1. What should a compassionate society do?
2. Should a compassionate society feed the hungry and house the homeless?
3. Should we provide health care as a human right?
4. Can we do something about ever increasing costs while maintaining or bettering actual care?

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers.  I do have some ideas, though, about what we should do, and why.  But first I need to lay some background.

A society is nothing more than a group of people who voluntarily pool their efforts in support of shared goals and values.  The members of society acknowledge that when they act as a group, each individual is stronger and more secure than if they acted individually.  Typically, they agree to a common code of conduct and commit to contributing some resources (effort, or the product of their effort) to the group.  Note that they don’t commit all of their resources.  Each member voluntarily contributes to the group, and does so as long as he recognizes the value of doing so.  What he considers value can be ego (the pride of knowing that he contributed), the gratitude of others, recognition of the strength to be had in numbers, love, or in order to benefit from the contributions of others, etc.

That’s an admittedly brief and incomplete definition of society, but it will serve.  The primary point is that it’s a voluntary contract among individuals.

As long as the voluntarily contributed pool of resources meets or exceeds the combined consumption, the society works and compassion is a non-issue.  Every member of society is cared for.  Only when consumption exceeds contributions (i.e. there is a deficit) does the question of compassion come in.  At that point, the society must ask for more from those who can contribute.  But when the society demands more, and uses force to obtain it, the society has become corrupt.

You see, societies cannot be compassionate.  Only people can be compassionate.  In order for a society to be “compassionate,” it must have the power to take, under threat of force, from its members.  Forcefully taking somebody else’s life or property is an immoral act, regardless of how that property is then distributed or how “noble” the cause.  Any society that condones or initiates such an act is corrupt.  The end does not justify the means.

I want to expand a bit on my use of “life,” above.  One can debate the morality of war, self defense, and capital punishment, but other than that the taking of a human life is generally regarded as an immoral act.  But depriving me of the product of my life is also an immoral act.  If you steal from me a tool that I spent a day fashioning from a stick, you have stolen a day of my life.  Theft of property is theft of life.  When society demands the product of my effort, it is demanding that I give up part of my life for the good of society.

Government is a construct created by society to protect that society from internal and external threats.  Society limits the government’s powers, cedes to it the exclusive right to initiate force, and tightly controls the exercise of those powers.  Recent history has shown time and again that Locke was right:  governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.  When government begins dictating to society, then the society has ceased to function and the people are at the whim of an entity that has ultimate power and no moral restraint.

Now, to the questions I mentioned at the beginning of this post.  The first two can be combined:  “Should we as a society provide food, shelter, and health care to those who are unable to provide for themselves?”  The simple answer is yes, with limitations.  The real question is how we should go about it, and that is the subject of the next post.  That post might also cover the final question of controlling costs and improving care.

The author of the third question, “Should we provide health care as a human right?” might have meant the question I just asked above, but his use of the term “human right” raises other issues that I want to cover in a separate post on the nature of human rights.

The pilot’s name is Joseph (Joe) Stack.  He was a software engineer from Austin.  The airplane, a Piper Dakota tail number N2889D, was registered in his name.  He posted a suicide note on his web site at about 9:15, drove to the Georgetown airport and took off about 9:40.  He crashed into the office building shortly thereafter.

The ISP that hosted his web site took the site offline in response to a request by the FBI.  Thanks to the Internet, his suicide note (some are calling it a “manifesto”) will live on.

As of 4:30 PM, there are two reported injured and one still unaccounted for.  I don’t know if that unaccounted-for person is the pilot himself, or somebody who was supposed to be in the building.

My original report:

Around 10:00 this morning, I heard a report on the radio of “something happening” near a major highway intersection here in Austin.  I soon learned that a small plane had hit a building.

The crash started a very big fire, and the building is engulfed in flames.  One report I saw said that the building is likely to be completely destroyed.

It’s been about two hours since the incident.  The NTSB is investigating the it as an intentional act.  Early reports indicate that the pilot set fire to his own house, then stole an airplane and intentionally flew it into the building.  I haven’t yet seen any reports of a motive, and there’s still a lot of speculation.

One person from the building is still unaccounted for.  There are reports of two people being transported to the hospital, the extent of their injuries unknown.  There are no deaths reported.

The conspiracy theorists have already jumped on it.  I’ve seen several posts questioning whether “a little plane” could start such a large fire and cause so much damage to the building.  Another bunch of posters are accusing the Obama administration of leaning on authorities and media to prevent the incident from being described as terrorism.   I’d laugh, but it scares me that there are those who take these guys seriously.

First, the manufacturer of WD-40 recommends against putting their product on your skin.  In addition, WD-40 does not contain fish oil, as you can see by reading their Material Safety Data Sheet.  It’s mostly petroleum distillates, and I certainly wouldn’t want those passing through my skin and into the joints.  Now there’s a thought.  Can they?  We’ll get back to that.

So what about fish oil, anyway?  It turns out that there is some evidence that fish oil can reduce the swelling associated with rheumatoid arthritis.  That is, fish oil that’s taken as a dietary supplement.  There is no evidence that rubbing fish oil on your skin will have any measurable effect other than that provided by the act of massaging.  The fish oil can’t pass through the skin in sufficient quantity to have any effect.

Along the same lines, there are countless sites pushing “natural” skin care products that warn of the dangers your cosmetics pose.  A popular myth seems to be that a woman will absorb between 5 and 20 pounds of skin care chemicals through her skin per year.  If you believe those claims, a woman’s body is a veritable toxic waste dump.  That claim is more absurd than the colon cleansing sites’ claim that I have 5 to 20 pounds of stuff stuck to my colon, “like spackle or paste.”  But I digress.

Back to the point.  Is it even possible for WD-40 to pass through the skin?

There are some chemicals that do pass through the skin very easily.  Probably the best known is DMSO.  Although not toxic itself, DMSO is a very powerful solvent that can carry through the skin the things that it dissolves.  Unfortunately, I’ve not found a list of other chemicals that are as easily absorbed.

The primary ingredients in WD-40 are petroleum distillates, specifically alphatic hydrocarbons and petroleum based oil.  Everything I’ve been able to find shows that the danger of absorbing these chemicals through the skin is very low, provided you don’t have any cuts or open sores.  I suppose if you bathed in it for an hour every day you might get some under the skin.  It’s unlikely, however, that the effects would be good.  It almost certainly wouldn’t relieve the aching joints.

I’ve found it rather difficult to find good information about the permeability of skin to different substances.  What I’d really like to see is a list of chemicals (including common names, where applicable) that gives an indication of the danger of skin absorption.  It’d be difficult to do that in a single list, though.  Some chemicals will pass through the skin readily, but pose no real health hazard.  Others might have more difficulty passing through the skin, but pose an extreme hazard if they get into the bloodstream.

 I did run across a couple of interesting links having to do with the dangers of absorbing jet fuel and gasoline.  The article Assessment of Skin Absorption and Penetration of JP-8 Jet Fuel and Its Components, published in Toxicology Sciences, says in its abstract:

These results suggest: (1) that JP-8 penetration will not cause systemic toxicity because of low fluxes of all the components; and (2) the absorption of aliphatic components into the skin may be a cause of skin irritation.

In other words, you might absorb a bit of it and it might irritate your skin, but it’s unlikely to cause major problems.

According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety’s Health Effects of Gasoline:

When gasoline is NOT trapped against the skin and can freely evaporate, it is probably only mildly irritating or not irritating. However, case reports indicate that when gasoline is trapped against the skin (clothing is soaked in gasoline, skin is in contact with a puddle) for a long period (probably more than 30 minutes), serious burns and skin loss may occur. Absorption through the skin occurs, but is normally not significant.

All the research I’ve found about the dangers of gasoline and diesel indicates that the real dangers are in inhaling, ingesting, or getting it into the body through a tear in the skin.  I wouldn’t soak my hand in gasoline, but I wouldn’t worry too much about a few splashes on the skin.

Some friends who work in auto repair report sometimes using brake fluid as a hand cleaner.  This is probably a bad idea, but not disastrous.  Most brake fluids are glycol-ether based.  I’m not certain, but it looks like all of these solvents are quite toxic if ingested.  There is some evidence of skin absorption through lesions, but I wasn’t able to find any solid information on absorption through intact skin.  Again, I doubt that there’s much danger if you’re not soaking in it.

An interesting resource for the more technically minded is the Skin Permeation Calculator available from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  You’ll need to know the CAS Number  for a particular chemical, or have its molecular weight and a number called the LOGKOW.  Given those two numbers, the calculator will give you some numbers that indicate how easily the chemical will pass through the skin.  I don’t yet know enough to make good use of that information, though.

You can find the CAS Number for lots of different chemicals from the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Unfortunately, the Skin Permeation Calculator doesn’t recognize all of the CAS Numbers and the NIOSH data lists the molecular weight, but not the log K_OW.  So you end up having to find the CAS and use it to search the LOGKOW database.

I’d be interested in hearing about any list like the one I described above:  substances listed by danger of absorbing them through the skin.  Anybody have a link?  I’d hate to have to download those databases and run the numbers myself.

I’m also happy to see that Democrats have decided not to do something rash like try to jam the health care bill through before the new Senator can be seated.  I doubt that they’d have the votes to do it, but just trying would almost certainly lead to a huge defeat for incumbent Democrats in this November’s election, giving Republicans total control of both houses:  another bad thing.  We’re much safer when neither party has an overwhelming majority in Congress.  We’re safest, of course, when Congress is out of session, but if we must have them mucking things up it’s best if we make it difficult for them.

Congress very often makes what amount to irrevocable decisions.  They’re not technically irrevocable, but they’re usually hard enough to change as to be permanent.  Such things should be done judiciously, not primarily to fit the controlling party’s agenda or to garner votes or to show the public that Congress is “Doing Something”, but rather because in the considered opinion of our Senators and Representatives, it’s the right thing to do for the good of the country.  I see very little of that rationality in Washington, and even less when one of the two major parties has a virtual stranglehold on the lawmaking process.

Unfortunately, I fear that both parties will misinterpret the results of yesterday’s election.  Republicans will call it a “mandate for change” (how often have I heard that one?) or a repudiation of the President’s and the Democrats’ agenda.  Democrats will call it reactionary, blame the tea party movement for hijacking the election, or think that the problem is that they haven’t done enough soon enough.

I think the message is quite a bit simpler:  large numbers of people who normally don’t vote are fed up.  They want want smaller and less intrusive government.  This is their first step in making their voices heard.  They’re neither Democrat nor Republican, but rather people who are tired of “business as usual.”  I’d like to think that others will make their voices heard come November, but if incumbents have any brains (and I’ve never accused them of being stupid), they’ll lay low and not make any waves so that 10 months from now people will have forgotten and won’t have anything recent to complain about.

Actually, I do rake the leaves.  I cleaned the yard last weekend, but a couple of the oak trees hadn’t yet dropped all their leaves.  They dropped over the week, and Thursday’s cold and high winds put them into the pool.  I spent a cold 30 minutes on Thursday evening cleaning them out.

Debra and I went to an early showing of the movie Avatar yesterday.  I was seriously impressed.  It was somewhat predictable, but other than that I loved it.  Some people I know complained that it was a heavy-handed “tree hugger” movie, but I didn’t see it that way.  I can see where one could make that argument, but then you can make that argument about a large number of movies made over the last 50 years or more.  It’s an underdog movie.  In any event, it’s very well done.  I loved that hammerhead rhino.

While I’m on the subject of Avatar…  The MPAA rating is PG-13 “intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.”  There are indeed “intense epic battle sequences and warfare.’  There is vanishingly little sensuality and even less “language.”  Whatever.  But smoking?  What is that all about?  We have to warn parents ’cause their kids might see somebody smoking?

Christmas was relaxing.  Other than going to the movie, Debra and I stayed at home, took Charlie for a walk, and generally just enjoyed time together.  A wonderful way to spend a day off.

Mike and Kristi bought the place–50 acres–in the summer of 2007 as a weekend getaway, a hunting area, and with the idea of eventually moving up there.  They’ve been slowly improving the property.  The first year we visited, we slept in a pop-up camp trailer.  Now they have a 400 square foot cabin complete with a toilet and “almost running” water:  you fill a bucket from the rain barrel and pour the water into the tank.  Believe me, that’s much better than going out behind the cabin when it’s 40 degrees (or colder) outside.

The primary goal of the long weekend was to relax.  But with four days to kill, I couldn’t spend all that time just carving by the campfire.  Mike’s been slowly removing a lot of the underbrush and dead trees near the front of the property, chopping firewood, and taking the smaller stuff to the burn pile.  So I grabbed a chainsaw and joined in.  We had a grand old time on Friday and Saturday, and by the time we left the view to the south had been much improved.

While Debra and Kristi were cooking on Thanksgiving day, I decided to try my hand at something I’ve been wanting to do:  carve a sweet potato.  The photo at left is “Yaman” (yam man).  The sweet potato carves very easily, but it’s important to have a sharp knife or you’ll end up breaking the potato.  This isn’t the best face I’ve ever carved, but I’m betting it’ll be okay.  Now I just have to wait six weeks or so for the thing to dry before I can paint highlights.  The drying process will introduce wrinkles, and it will turn brown.  I’ll update here when it’s sufficiently dried.

I didn’t do as much carving as I had envisioned, but I did manage to complete a few projects:  another little dog, this one from a piece of cherry wood that a friend gave me, a small bowl for Debra, carved from a piece of ashe juniper (what they call cedar around here), and a little drink stir stick from a piece of oak whiskey barrel.  The last has a wizard face on the top and a finger at the other end.  I wish I had a picture of that thing, because I’m pretty happy with the wizard face carved in a piece of oak that’s about an inch tall and 1/4″ square.

I also learned of a new art form:  beer bottle art.  I idly wondered whether I could melt a beer bottle by throwing it in the fire, and Mike assured me that it’s possible.  So I put a few bottles in the coals (after consuming the bottles’ contents, of course), and left them overnight.  Of the half dozen bottles we put in the fire, only these two survived mostly intact.

They give some idea of what’s possible, but they’re flawed because they have cracks and holes.  The key seems to be having the patience to let them cool very slowly.  I’m thinking that I’ll have to experiment with this art form.

Even with the hard work on Friday and Saturday, it was a very relaxing time up at the ranch.  The food was excellent, we very much enjoyed spending time with Mike and Kristi, and I really needed the time away to recharge.  It’s hard to worry about too much when you’re sitting in the sun whittling on a stick and laughing at the Guinea fowl running around.  Noisy dang birds, though.

Still, as relaxing as the time was, it was good to get home Sunday afternoon, take a hot shower, and sleep in our own bed.  Wouldn’t want too much of a good thing.