Why we should defund Planned Parenthood

I have to admit, I didn't know that the federal government (aka me, and other taxpayers) were providing funding for Planned Parenthood.  I don't really care about the videos supposedly showing how Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue, other than it drew my attention to yet another way my tax dollars are being spent on something that I don't approve of, and, to my recollection, I was never asked for my opinion about either.  I still haven't been asked for my opinion, but here it is anyway.

I am against public funding of Planned Parenthood.  Our congressmen should defund the organization, regardless of the legality of what Planned Parenthood does.  Regardless of how the federal funds are actually spent.  And regardless of how little of Planned Parenthood's activities are actually related to abortion.

These are the things that liberals seem to think are the important points in this discussion.  It's legal.  Abortion is such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does.  No federal money goes to fund abortion.  I don't care.

I don't care about whether federal money goes directly to abortion because money is fungible.  Does anyone really think that it matters whether that money goes into some magic separate account, never to be used to fund abortion?  I don't.  It's all the same.  Give me some money and tell me I can't use THAT money to, say, buy beer, and I'll just use that money to pay my rent, leaving me more of my other money to buy beer, if I'm so inclined.  It's a fallacy to say that federal funds aren't funding abortion.

I don't care if it's only a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, either.  To me. that's like saying out of the thousands of people I've met throughout my life, I only killed one.  Being such a small number, it shouldn't matter.  Somehow, I don't think this defense would work for me, and it shouldn't for Planned Parenthood either.

And, I don't care if it's legal, either.  As a taxpayer, I shouldn't have to fund everything simply because it's legal.

And there's more to it than just those things.  Under Obamacare, I have to have health insurance, and last I checked, so do women.  So, I don't really see that funding Planned Parenthood is any sort of attack on women's ability to get health care.  That's what insurance is for, and you're required, as am I, to have health insurance coverage.  And yes, there are insurance policies that cover elective abortion.  Of course, those may have limitations, such as only one elective abortion a year.  How many elective abortions do women need to maintain their health?  And, if I have one of those health insurance policies, then I'm already funding something that I don't agree with, so, just how often do people think I should be paying for things I don't even think should be happening?

Planned Parenthood also claims that they didn't profit from the sale of fetal tissue, another thing that is actually illegal.  First, I don't care if they did.  Second, though, I wonder whether that's actually true given that Planned Parenthood showed an "excess of revenue over expenses" (aka profit) of over $100 million last year (see page 22 for the relevant line).  The previous year showed a smaller, but still substantial, excess.

So, that leads me to these headlines:

Republicans double down on Planned Parenthood probe

It should be clear to people that I'm in complete agreement with the Republicans on the need to further investigate Planned Parenthood  Unfortunately, liberals will try to make the Republican effort into some sort of witch hunt because, possibly, those videos that brought this all up in the first place may be fraudulent.  But, this isn't really about the videos, at least it shouldn't be, unless someone is considering criminal charges.  I'm just talking here about how my tax dollars get spent.

Speaking about Planned Parenthood's announcement that the organization would stop accepting compensation for fetal tissue:

 Planned Parenthood officials said they aren’t expecting the policy change to silence its critics — only to force them to change the conversation, Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens said in an interview Tuesday.

Curious maneuver, if you ask me.  It would seem that Planned Parenthood wouldn't really want to change the conversation, unless, of course, there really is something to the idea that the organization was profiting from selling fetal tissue.  But, okay, in my book there's plenty more to talk about than that.

The question of the legality of what Planned Parenthood does is something for someone else to determine.  The question of how my tax money gets spent is something for me to determine, and, frankly, I have no interest in funding an organization that participates in, and even promotes, something that I see as immoral.  Liberal can, being that they are so concerned about the effects of defunding Planned Parenthood, go to the Planned Parenthood website, and click the "donate" button.  In this way, you'll get to deduct the donation from your taxes, which, indirectly means the rest of us will still be partially funding Planned Parenthood, but at this point, I'm really okay with that.  I don't actually think most liberals feel so strongly about it that they'll open up their own wallets to support Planned Parenthood.

How to misinterpret data

Obamacare Signups Near 10 Million in Midyear Report

This is a great lesson in misinterpretation.  This quote is from the end of the article:

""Consumers from coast to coast are continuing to show how important health coverage is to their families," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a statement. The figures released Tuesday cover the period through June 30."

Let me see here.  We pass a law that says everyone HAS to do something.  Then, some people abide by the law, and voilà, we have proven how important health coverage is to people.  Well, it might be important to people, I don't know, but the fact that people are signing up certainly doesn't show any such thing.  It only shows that people are signing up because otherwise they face a fine, and, according to this article, 84 percent of those that signed up are eligible for tax subsidies.  So, yeah, it's probably better to sign up and get free, or at least reduced cost coverage, than to not sign up and pay a fine, which is scheduled to increase substantially this year from last.  So, what this really shows is that people would rather spend money and get something than spend money and get nothing.  Yawn.  Unfortunately, this law will only lead to increasing healthcare expenditures, while hiding the true cost of healthcare from consumers.  In the meantime we can just go about pretending it's all good.

Treason!

Senate Republican Tom Cotton Commits Treason Against America For The Second Time

I always thought that treason was doing stuff like aiding and abetting the enemy, so I couldn't resist when I saw the headline.  Turns out, it's worse than I thought.

Apparently, the left thinks that treason consists of disagreeing with the President, at least so long as the President is also on the left.  Or maybe they think it's okay to disagree so long as you don't actually say you disagree, and certainly so long as you don't actually take any action based on that disagreement.  Action meaning doing stuff like voting to block the President from making a deal, or lobbying your colleagues in the Senate to vote with you.  After all, our government isn't meant to have actual checks and balances; it's only meant to have the appearance of checks and balances.  That way, we can have a dictator while maintaining the appearance of having a democracy.  Cuz, you know, appearances are everything.

So, this article claims that Cotton "[swore] a pledge of allegiance" to Israel.  Um, no.  He did promise to stand by our ally, which, call me silly but this is something that I think we should do, otherwise we're not allies.  At any rate, here is the quote that apparently constitutes a "pledge of allegiance" to the left:

“Today’s meeting only reaffirms my opposition to this deal,” Cotton said in a statement after the meeting. “I will stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and work with my colleagues in Congress to stop this deal and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself against Iran and its terrorist surrogates.”

I suppose that technically you could, in fact, call this a "pledge of allegiance," but the linked article only used those words to put a spin on the actual words, to make it sound as if Cotton were just about denouncing his U.S. citizenship.  Instead, though, he was promising to use the power of his office to work to stand by our ally.  Hardly what I would call treason, but then, I'm not exactly a progressive.

Well, this article is full of nonsense, like this:

"[T]his is an executive agreement and not technically a treaty"

That quote actually links to this article, which explains what the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty is.  I'll save you the click; there is no difference except in the name.  The term executive agreement was devised to come up with a way for the President to not have to get Senate approval for a treaty, by calling it something else.  So, um, technically, it is a treaty.  A treaty by any other name... well, you know.  Except here in the U.S. of course.

Given the foolishness demonstrated by the author of the linked article, it isn't surprising that the comments are even more foolish.  For example:

"Arrest and try the Idiot for treason. Iam sick of our elected officials giving aid to foreign countries."

 Apparently, this individual thinks that any kind of foreign aid is treason.  I may not really like how much foreign aid we give, but I wouldn't call it treason.  If it were, then every one of our government officials is probably guilty of treason.  Hmm, maybe that guy is on to something...

Here's another good one:

"Mr. Cotton and his "cohorts" in congress should be charged with treason no matter what. This is a huge embarrassment to the USA. Its high time we charge people with treason..... Our forefathers would have done it already."

They should be charged with treason no matter what.  That's an interesting thought: charge them regardless of whether they committed actual treason.  Cuz, you know, they embarrassed us.  Okay, they didn't embarrass me, but it looks like they embarrassed some people.  Clearly treasonous.  But if embarrassment is truly equivalent to treason, then perhaps Obama, and those that chose to elect him twice, are equally guilty of treason.  That last part of the quote is particularly interesting in that our forefathers were also guilty of treason.  It's also interesting that someone that probably doesn't know much about the history of our country deigns to know what our forefathers would have done.  Worse than that, this is probably also a person that insists that it isn't important what our forefathers would have done, since this is definitely a different world than the one our forefathers lived in.

And then, there's actually a comment that questions the validity of the claim that Cotton actually committed treason.  Unfortunately the poster hasn't yet learned that you won't get a good response to that kind of question in the comments section.  Here is the response:

"Was he or was he not in that country? Did he and a few other senators invite Him to our country to disgrace our president?"

Sounds like a lawyer wannabe.  Last I heard, visiting Israel (that country) doesn't constitute treason.  And, did inviting the leader of one of our allies to speak to Congress actually disgrace our President?  Nope.  I actually doubt that disgracing the President was the intended outcome.  Personally, I think our President does a pretty fine job of disgracing himself.  Again, maybe we should lock him up, if we're going to be locking anyone up.  Making a case to support an opinion that differs from the President's opinion does not constitute treason.

This isn't rocket science here.  This isn't treason either.  For the record, so long as we as a country insist that we don't negotiate with terrorists, I think we shouldn't negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism either.  So, it follows that I am against the deal with Iran.  And while I don't necessarily know enough about Israel to form an opinion as to whether we should be allies with them, I do know that since we are allies with them we should be committed to that relationship and promise to aid them should they need it.  Otherwise, what exactly is an ally?

The cost of stupid

For a while, I was considering actually determining how much stupidity costs.  Then, I decided that actually attempting to do that would be, well, stupid, so I didn't.  I don't think it really needs to be figured.  It is, for all practical purposes, equal to GDP, which helps to explain why we run federal deficits regularly here in the U.S.

So, here are some examples of how stupidity costs us.  I know of one employer that has a facility to employs over 1,000 people, all of whom have the job of dealing with customer stupidity.  A rough estimate of the cost of this single facility is $50 million annually.  Don't ask who it is.

A road near my home was dug up last year to do some utility work.  When the crew ran into some underground utilities that weren't where they were supposed to be, they decided to postpone the work until this year and repaved over the whole thing.  This year, the road was dug up again, and it looks like they completed the work, since they have repaved the road again.  Painted some nice white lines on it.  Looked really good, until they then decided to chip seal it.  Maybe that's a new thing, to chip seal new asphalt, but I don't really see the point, and I especially don't see the point of painting lines first, since now, they'll need to repaint the lines.

We've spent billions launching air strikes against ISIS, never doing enough to win, or even to take back meaningful areas of land.  Stupid.  Either set about winning, or GTFO of that whole mess.  My choice is the latter.

Most, if not all, automobile accidents are the result of stupidity.  The list goes on.  In saying this, I'm not saying that everyone else is stupid and I'm not; I am, after all, human and being stupid is part of that.  But, really, a lot of the stupid that goes on in the world is, in fact, avoidable.  Unfortunately, most don't want to be bothered with avoiding it, or worse, most think that they are, in fact, not stupid, which, in turn, makes them the stupidest of all.

So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, here's a look at some of the recent news.

Mt. McKinley to Denali: How A Mountain's Renaming Got Tied Up in Politics

Yeah, I don't really care how it got tied up in politics.  I don't know what all the hubbub is about.  It's a name, a label.  People are too hung up on labels these days.  To me, there's actually a simple solution to the problem anyway.  Name the mountain Denali, but name the national park McKinley.  I'm sure someone would be offended by that, but who cares, really.  People are spending way too much time looking for things to be offended by.  Another example of the cost of stupid.

Challenged on Left and Right, the Fed Faces a Decision on Rates

"[T]he Fed plans to raise its benchmark interest rate one-quarter of one percentage point, a mathematically minor move that has become a very big deal."

Um, no.  When the rate is changed from 0% to 0.25%, it's actually not a mathematically minor move.  It's friggin' huge, mathematically speaking.  But, in the real world, it won't change much, so it really is a kind of minor thing.  I don't think it's really the rate that's all that important.  It's more about the signalling.  If the Fed raises rates, it signals that they think the recovery is strong.  It also gives them room to lower the rate when we enter the inevitable coming recession.  What do I think?  I don't think it much matters what the Fed does.  The next recession, which isn't far off in the future, is going to be bad whether the Fed has any room to lower rates or not.  It's going to kill a lot of people's retirement plans, including mine.  To get a little more specific, without going into a lot of detail, I think the next recession is going to be long and marked by high inflation, which shouldn't happen but will in this artificial economy our government has created in order to make it look like they're doing something.

We have drug violence all wrong: Prohibition is the root cause  

Yes and no.  Legalizing drugs may actually reduce drug violence, but at the same time, I suspect that violence would increase elsewhere.  But, I'm all for legalizing drugs.  I'm also all for legalizing prostitution.  I don't even think driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs should be an actual crime.  Drug laws don't stop people from doing drugs.  DUI laws don't stop people from driving under the influence, and prostitution laws don't stop people from going to prostitutes.  Perhaps in some cases it does deter those things, I don't really know.  Really, though, I don't feel like having those laws makes anything safer.  And I don't expect to see a big decline in violence if those things are ever legalized.  We'll still find reasons to kill or hurt each other, because that's the way we are.

Inside Ben Carson's quiet surge

So, it looks like Ben Carson deserves another look.  In an earlier post, I really pretty much dismissed him since I didn't know who the heck he was, actually.  But, the more I see, the more I like, mostly anyway.

"He told CNN earlier this year that some people become gay in prison, indicating homosexuality is a choice -- a comment for which he later apologized."

I just wish he hadn't apologized there.  I don't know if there's a genetic "cause" of homosexuality or not.  In the end, though, the behavior is a choice.  And I don't think that anyone that has an opinion like that needs to apologize for having that opinion, nor do they need to keep their opinion to themselves.  It is, perhaps, the one thing that I actually admire about Donald Trump.  I don't think I've ever heard him apologize for his opinion.

Obama to Call for More Icebreakers in Arctic as U.S. Seeks Foothold

I hear a lot of people on the right saying that Obama is executing a plan to destroy the U.S.  I don't think Obama is smart enough to have a plan.  I think he's doing it, as my kids used to say, "on accident."  But, if he does have a plan, this particular part is absolutely brilliant, I must say.  Let's just assume for a moment that the human contribution to climate change is real, and substantial.  First, Obama throws billions of taxpayer dollars into decreasing carbon emissions, which is already not economically viable hence the need for the government to spend that money.  Then we'll spend more making sure oil companies can produce ever increasing amounts of oil, making "clean" alternatives ever less economically viable as the increasing supply of oil pushes the price ever lower.  Presumably, the next logical step is to spend even more on reducing carbon emissions, in order to counteract the effect of cheaper oil.  At least that way, nobody will really know exactly how much they're spending on energy.  We'll all just smile appreciatively at Obama cuz, you know, gas is so, darn cheap, and it's all because of HIM.  Kind of like health care, which is now more unaffordable than ever, yet most think it's more affordable than ever.

I have one question though, and I know it's not original, but I still need to ask.  How much carbon did Obama release into the atmosphere on his flight to Alaska to "highlight the challenge of climate change and call for a worldwide effort to address its root causes?"

Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying Court

I just have to say one thing to that clerk.  If you don't want to do your job, get a different job.  That's why they invented those (different jobs, that is).

The Daily 202: Six unclassified nuggets in newly released Hillary e-mails

"IT folks at State did not know about the Clintons’ e-mail setup" 

Of course they didn't.  It was on a need-to-know basis.  And how was she supposed to know that someone would have a problem emailing her and ask the IT folks at State?  So, from her perspective, they didn't need to know.

"Sidney Blumenthal e-mailed HRC that incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) “is louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle.”" 

I think Boehner deserves an apology.

“The incompetence is mind numbing.”

 As it is around the world, Chelsea.  Fortunately, your parents fit right in.

"In related news, ICE announced that a four-day sweep led to the arrest of 240 undocumented immigrants with criminal records in Southern California. The feds said most of those 240 had at least one felony conviction on their record. “It was the most successful four-day sweep of its kind in the region,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “But an ICE spokeswoman cautioned against concluding that crime involving immigrants is up.”"

Why in the world would I conclude anything other than there were 240 undocumented workers with felony records arrested?  I can't stand it when a bureaucrat  tells me not to jump to a conclusion that is nonsensical.  Does she think I'm stupid?  All I can say is good job, now get them out of here.  Of course, I also won't be jumping to the conclusion that that will actually happen.

"Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) has called parents to apologize over comments he made to their second- and third-graders during an elementary school visit. “Do you know that there are schools that train children your age to be suicide bombers?” the lawmaker told the children."

Well, yeah, cuz we don't want kids to know the truth about the world.  Unless it's not true, of course.

There are more gems in that last link, but alas, my time is limited.  Unfortunately, I have to think about getting ready to go to my job, which, according to some, I owe to the stupid people of the world that can't follow relatively simple instructions.  Without them, I'd be unemployed.  At least, that's what people think, although I prefer to think that without them, I'd have a way better job.

More stuff that has nothing to do with overpopulation

Extreme weather poses risk of more food shortages, civil unrest - UK/US report

Of course it does.  And overpopulation doesn't.  So, let's spend more billions ineffectively, and watch as carbon emissions continue to climb despite spending billions to stop it.  And while we're at it, let's make everyone pay so that others can have sex without worrying about having babies, and then have everyone pay so that they can afford have babies whenever they feel like it, give them unlimited time off after having a baby, you know, to bond and awesome stuff like that, and finally, let's give them a tax break for having babies cuz nobody should actually have to bear the cost of their own actions.  Sounds good.  Especially since scientists have found that the universe is dying, so we may as well just party like it's 1989, or something.  And nothing really gets the party going better than having a baby!

How Humans Used Up a Year of Natural Resources In Under 9 Months

This isn't an overpopulation problem either.  That said, with sarcasm in case it didn't show, it could also be helped by decreasing consumption.  But, who the heck wants to do that?  Especially with the big universe dying party to plan for.

Of course, when those brats get a little older, their not going to be quite as cute as when they're newborns.  But, have no fear, cuz the FDA has approved OxyContin for kids!  And you thought I was kidding about babies being great for parties.

Get out of my house

Rand Paul: Get Government Out of Marriage

Yeah, I think so too.  But this article actually goes further than the headline would suggest by telling us what other GOP candidates think about the whole gay marriage thing.  And although this isn't one of my personal big issues for the 2016 election, it's a good a place as any to start looking at the candidates.

So, here's Rand Paul's reasoning in a nutshell:

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres,” he noted, “but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.”

Right on.  I don't think anybody can really argue that the federal government is not becoming increasingly involved in all of our personal lives, and I for one don't like it and think we need to reverse the trend.

Of course, Rand Paul isn't the only candidate that is disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling.  Some candidates think that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is a proper response.  I have two problems with this.  The first is actually a broader restatement of what Mr. Paul stated in the above quote, that government won't now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt convictions of others.  Whether my "sincerely felt convictions" are of a religious nature or not, the government should not presume to tell me how I should believe.  And I believe that individuals have a right to contract.  I don't believe they have the right to contract for the purpose of gaining additional rights at the expense of others who are not parties to the contract, and I don't think the government should have the power to force me to be a party to a contract that really has no effect on me otherwise.

The second problem I have with the constitutional amendment response is that it won't pass.  I'm not sure why anyone thinks it might pass, given that the majority of states have already legalized gay marriage.  The fact that it won't pass makes it nothing more than a talking point designed to get the votes of those people who truly believe that their religious convictions should be forced on others, and that somehow, they are entitled to special rights and privileges because of their religious convictions.

And then there's this gem:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal went as far as to say, “[L]et’s just get rid of the court.” 

Um, no.

It appears that Ted Cruz and Scott Walker also would support a constitutional amendment, meaning that they don't really have a response that will accomplish anything but want to make it clear that they don't support gay marriage.

Finally, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson all came out with a more or less "Oh well, what are you gonna do?  It's the law," kind of response.  Telling me that none of them really wants to take a stand.

So, there it is, and at this point, although this isn't really a major issue for me, Rand Paul has come out on top.  He's the one guy that actually has a real reason, other than his feelings, for not supporting gay marriage.  Yeah, get government out of my house!

Elitist ideas and more

Obama signs trade, worker assistance bills; measures advance administration's economic agenda

This way, we can buy cheap imports, and the government will pay to retrain us to do whatever is left over.  Yay!  Take it from me, though, if you're, say, 50 or older, that retraining won't likely do you a whole lot of good.  But what does Obama have to say about it?

But he said they will ultimately be good for American workers and for American business.

Okay, so, American business, I get because you can't beat cheap foreign labor.  And, it's also good for American workers, cuz, you know, we can all retrain at government expense into something awesome like Medieval  Dance, or flipping burgers at McDonald's.

AAP: Docs Have Role in Preventing Childhood Obesity

No, there's nothing really interesting in the above link, other than some smarty pantses did a study and arrived at some obvious conclusions, like kids should eat lots of vegetables, and not a lot of junk.  Nah, can't be right.  I think we need another study to make sure.

What Is Cryptosporidium, and Should You Be Concerned?

And in more health news, the only thing really surprising here is that people still swim in public swimming pools after all the publicity about it.  Apparently, some people still don't get that using a public pool as a toilet is just, well, rude.  And then there are some that don't see anything wrong with swimming in someone else's toilet.  So, sounds like a win-win for at least those people.  I think I'll take a pass on public swimming pools, though.

Supreme Court quashes clean air rule, says cost must be considered

It's been about 40 years since the Ford Pinto case caused national outrage that a company would actually do a cost-benefit analysis when considering whether to take an action that might save a few lives.  Now, it appears that the Supreme Court is saying that this is exactly what the EPA should do when considering environmental rules.  But, here's a comment that's truly troubling, made by Mike Duncan, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry group:

“Elitist ideas usually carry lofty price tags.”

Since when is clean air an "elitist idea?"

U.S. Healthcare Spending On Track To Hit $10,000 Per Person This Year 

This is from back in January, but so long as people keep yakking about how much Obamacare is saving us, I'll keep pointing out how much it's costing us.  It will only get worse.  $10,000 per year, per person.  That's a staggering number to me, and should be to everyone.  I know that I can actually live on less than that, and pretty soon, I'll probably have to, since, well, I have to spend on health care every year now, thanks to Obamacare.  Some people will say I've been lucky, and maybe I have been, but I've never come close to spending that much on health care in my entire life.  And yes, I get the whole idea that some people have health problems and so, their costs are much higher than mine.  But $10,000 per year per person is, well, mind-blowing.  Especially when you consider that this doesn't even include the administrative costs associated with Obamacare, like that disastrous website.

Out of touch

So, here's what I'm concerned about:

What's Killing the Babies of Vernal, Utah?

But the rest of the world appears to be more concerned with gay marriage.  Yawn.  I can honestly say I just don't care what other people do so long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.  What I do care about is the fact that certain people are apparently afforded special rights solely because of their marital status, and I don't think that's the way it should be.  I don't understand why people want to turn this into an argument about religion, or constitutional rights.  If people want to get married, I say, let them.  But don't confer special rights on them simply because they have agreed to have sex with only one person for a while.  Why shouldn't I, as a single person, be afforded those same rights?  And what can my sexual preferences possibly have to do with any of those rights?

But, here we are, with some people claiming that gay marriage goes against their religion, and so, shouldn't be allowed.  And some people saying that if you're against gay marriage, you're homophobic.  I'm neither for nor against it, which to some people means I won't take a stance in the discussion.  But I say, my stance is just the third position that no one cares about: the position of single people who are not afforded the same rights because they have chosen to not make a particular sexual relationship "permanent."  Because, shocking as this may be to some, most of those relationships are anything but permanent, and many of them are not even exclusive.

It seems to me that there are two fundamental problems with this whole discussion, besides the fact that there is a third side that no one talks about, that being the side of single people.  The first is that you can't legislate morals.  I thought people were beginning to figure that out back in the seventies, give or take a decade, but apparently I was wrong.  It hasn't worked, and it won't work.  While it may very well be that there is one "true" moral code, it is too much to think that over 7 billion people can ever possibly agree what the moral code is, which means someone is going to feel like their rights are being infringed on by the laws that are meant to enforce those moral beliefs.  The second thing is that it doesn't work to try to legislate guarantees of rights that are already guaranteed to everyone under the Constitution.  As soon as you pass a law saying that certain groups are specially protected, you necessarily infringe on the rights of others not in that group.  It seems that the only way to force equality for some is to step on someone else's toes.

The sad thing is that equality should come naturally.  We're supposed to be some sort of "advanced" civilization and yet we can't just treat other humans with the dignity and respect they deserve simply by virtue of their being human.  We should embrace our differences instead of arguing about who is right.  We used to say that the world would be a dull place if we were all the same, but now, we have to behave as if we are all the same, otherwise we're bigots, or we're stupid, or, well, fill in the blank.

Don't get me wrong.  There are stupid people.  There are bigots.  And unfortunately, that won't change because most of them don't think they are those things.  In order to not be stupid, you first have to acknowledge that you are stupid, and that's something not many people will do.  It's just like what they tell you in Alcoholics Anonymous.  The first step in getting better is to acknowledge that you have a problem.

So, let's see if I can guess what names for me are going through your heads.  I'm stupid, that's a given.  I'm a bigot, which is likely because I'm not "for gay marriage" and I am caught up in my own white privilege.  Of course, I'm a male, and I believe that women deserve special treatment, but I don't think they are so weak as to require special rules to make life easier for them.  I believe they are quite capable of competing in this world.  So, I'm probably a chauvinist.  I'm a dinosaur that needs to "get with the times."  Unfortunately, I don't really have a desire to get with the times.  I think I'll just stay out of touch with the world.

As some of you may have noted, I'm not really addressing the linked article.  That's because no one cares.  It's probably just some statistical anomaly, and we need to study the situation for years before we can possibly determine what, exactly, is killing those babies.  Certainly, it doesn't have a thing to do with fracking, but if it does, you can be sure we'll get to the bottom of it in due course.  In the meantime, why don't you just pack up the family and go for a drive, cuz, you know, gas is cheap, so take advantage while you can.

How our legislators are earning their paychecks

New seat belt law now in effect draws mixed reaction from Utah motorists

I haven't driven, or ridden, in a car without wearing a seat belt in years, so it seems like this law should be a non-issue for me, but, well, it isn't.  So, let me start at the beginning.

When this law first came into effect, I was actually unaware that it had passed.  I had heard something about it a  while back, but it didn't make much of an impression on me at the time.  So, I was a bit confused when I saw an informational sign along the highway saying that the "Primary seat belt law" was in effect.  I didn't know what that meant, and I wondered just what the secondary law was, and why the primary law was now in effect.

Of course, that was just my own ignorance, and eventually, I found that it meant that you could be pulled over for not wearing your seat belt.  I thought it was a bit silly because the police could probably pull about 90 percent (or more) of the drivers over for some other, more obvious offense.  For example, I counted 3 cars with burned out headlights in the space of a few miles, and while I was driving at the speed limit during that time, I was passed by at least 10 cars, all of which must have been speeding.  There were two occurrences of what I would call reckless driving, and one person who drove for miles with their turn signal on.  Personally, I don't care much about any of those things as long as they don't involve me in some way.  But the point is, there are plenty of reasons to pull drivers over already, and this law just seems to be an excuse to pull just about anyone over.

So, when I read the above linked headline, I really couldn't understand how there could be "mixed reactions" to a needless, and easily abused law.  Unfortunately, that's because I pretty consistently underestimate the stupidity of people.  So, here are some quotes from the story.

“I think the seat belt law is great. I think it promotes safety and unfortunately I wasn’t wearing mine, so kind of stupidity on my part. I think seat belts save lives.”

Huh?  You think seat belts save lives, but you weren't wearing yours?  It was already the law, and you weren't wearing your seat belt, but this new law is great because it will promote safety?  Why didn't the old law promote safety?  And really, if you're not concerned about your own safety, why should I be?  This traffic stop didn't even generate revenue for the state; it just cost money because the first offense is simply a warning.  And I'm willing to bet that plenty of people will soon revert to not wearing a seat belt after getting their warning.

“I think it’s just big government trying to be a nanny.” 

I suppose it could be that, but I actually think the government has no real interest in being a nanny.  I think it's more about being able to pull people over at will, and that's what bothers me about the law.  I don't think it's really possible to tell from a distance whether I'm wearing my seat belt or not.  And I suspect that even if I am, and I'm pulled over because the officer thought I wasn't, but then sees that I am wearing it, then I'll still have to produce a driver license, registration, and proof of insurance, all of which I have, but should I have to produce it because someone thought something?

Palmer argues the law won’t change his driving habits.

And I'm sure there are plenty of "Palmers" out there.  One thing's for sure: the new law won't change my driving habits, except for keeping my license, registration, and proof of insurance readily available.  Well, either that or my phone so I can make the awesome "Am I being detained?" video for YouTube.

The first time someone is stopped for violated [sic] the new law, they get a warning. The second time, motorists could face a $45 fine, which can be waived by taking a 30-minute online safety course.

As I said earlier in this post, this law will just be a drain on state revenues.  I wonder how much that online safety course costs us so that second time offenders can have a real opportunity to learn that "seat belts save lives."

I dunno, maybe the legislators here graduated from school after the schools around here started with the "two warning" rule.  When a kid acted up in school, he or she was given two warnings before any action would actually be taken.  The unfortunate, and not unexpected, result was that kids knew they could do whatever they wanted twice, and get caught twice, before there would be any real repercussions.  And the expectation of two warnings doesn't just disappear when a kid turns 18.

Perhaps, the worst thing of all is that this is just one of 389 awesome new laws that either have, or shortly will, go into effect in Utah,  Yay!

Nah, it's greed

Okay, so I admit being sucked into the abyss by some progressive click-bait headlines, and this time is no exception.  And usually, I just laugh at the foolishness and move on, but sometimes, I just can't, and this is one of those times.  It's not just the progressive foolishness that has me going this time; it's the entire argument.  Both sides are idiots, and do nothing but fan the flames of racism.

TEXAS REPUBLICAN PLAYS THE VICTIM CARD WHEN HE POSTS RACIST FACEBOOK POST

First of all, let me say that I didn't see anything racist about the Facebook posts, but then, I'm reading them from a position of "white privilege" at least according to most progressives, cuz, you know, I'm white and stuff.  At the same time, though, that post also shows what I think the real problem is, and how it is that the argument over racism does nothing more than fan the flames of racism.

It's true that having a "white pride" parade or "white history" month would be seen as racist, while "black pride" parades or "black history" month are not seen the same way, at least not by most people.  I have a problem, though, with any "race pride" parade, or for that matter, any "gay pride" parade, or when it comes down to it, a "white pride" parade.  All these things do is create a division between people, when what most people appear to want is to be inclusive and included.  And when it comes to things to take pride in, couldn't we find something else to take pride in?  I mean, race is something to be proud about?  Why?  Being gay is something to be proud of?  Why?  I'm not saying people should be ashamed of these things.  I'm saying they are an improper source of pride.  Gay people have made a significant argument saying they didn't choose to be gay, that they were born that way, and I don't think anyone has ever argued that black people (or any other race) made the choice to be that race.  So, I don't see how these things can be the source of pride.

And, it's my contention that they shouldn't be the source of pride, nor should they be the source of shame.  We are what we are, at least when it comes to race, and if you believe the gay argument, sexual preference.  I'm not sure about the gay argument, but it isn't really relevant to this, other than to raise the question, "Why do people insist on being proud of something they have no control over?"

Maybe this phenomenon has gotten to be such a big deal recently because people don't have anything else about themselves to take pride in.  I mean, awards and praise are handed out so often that they lose any real meaning.  Most people are too hung up on finding the easy way, and if there isn't an easy way, it's too hard.  Nobody wants to work hard to make a real achievement.

But, as usual, I'm digressing a bit.  In the above linked article, the author states that she "counter to each and every one of his points."  So, here are her counters to his arguments, and my counters to her arguments:

"There are also Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans but only one type of American was brought here en masse and by force. The rest came voluntarily."

This may be a true statement, but, what's the relevance?  The people brought here by force are not the ones living today, and I fail to see how the enslavement of someone's ancestors makes for a great source of pride.  As a white person, I take no pride in being white, and at the same time, I'm not ashamed of it either.  Any pride or shame I feel is the result of my own actions, as it should be.

"Poverty leads to crime. White poor people commit crimes as well. Of course, the biggest crimes are perpetrated by white men wearing suits. A poor black man might take a car or a TV but rich white men take homes, jobs and entire livelihoods."

I'm good with the first two statements here.  And yes, this actually was a response to a question that was asked in the original Facebook post: "Why are the ghettos are the most dangerous places to live?"  Any rational person could actually answer that question.  Poverty, duh.  But then, the author goes off the rails with the rest of that comment.  Apparently, the author thinks that it's a crime to repossess a house that is mortgaged when the owner doesn't pay for it.  And, apparently, she thinks firing, or laying workers off because business is bad, is also a crime.  And, apparently, she thinks that all white collar crime is committed by white people.  No, the people aren't all white, just the collars.  Besides, it's really debatable whether any of what she's referring to was, or is, an actual crime.  But, yeah, rich white people do those things, and so do rich black people.  It almost makes me want to get a mortgage from a black banker, and then default just to see if he will foreclose on my home.  Not really, because I know he would.  And if I have that part all wrong, then maybe someone can explain how it is that "rich white men take homes, jobs and entire livelihoods," but not rich black men.

"As for the this day this organization, every day throughout history has been for white people. Almost all the history taught in school is white history. Nearly every organization throughout America’s history has been white. It’s relatively recent that black people have been allowed to go to college or enter Miss America pageants."

I suppose the above statement depends on where you live.  I'll bet Japanese history isn't White history, for example.  Even so, if the majority of people in a given country are a certain race, then it shouldn't really be surprising that the majority of historic figures are of the same race.  The main problem with history, though, is that it is extremely subjective and open to interpretation.  And a lot of the interpretation has probably been done by white people.  So, if black people are concerned about it, then black people should write their own interpretations of history.  I, for one, would be interested, and it seems to me that this would accomplish much more than having a whole month to celebrate your own special history, of which, no one is much aware, apparently.  I can say, unequivocally, that I haven't become more aware of black history because someone decided that we should have a whole month devoted to it.  And finally, we need to talk about the specific meaning of "relatively recent."  It was more than 40 years ago that the first black woman made it to the Miss America pageant.  And all I can really say about that is that it's an indication of how far we've come, in a relatively short time.  The first black person to graduate from an American college, though, was nearly 200 years ago.  That is hardly "relatively recent" in terms of the age of our republic, but in terms of the history of the world, I guess it is.  For further research, I suggest checking out this list of African-American Firsts.

Finally, the author offers a list of black men who died at the hands of police officers in 2014.  It is tragic, to be sure.  But, the list ignores everyone else who died at the hands of police officers.  This isn't something that only happens to black men.  It happens too often to too many different people.

So, everyone, listen up.  Take control of your own destinies, do some hard work, accomplish something difficult, and don't put too much weight on what other people think.  Take pride in your accomplishments, not your race.  And, perhaps most importantly, pay no heed to the left and right wing alarmists out there.  If we do that, we may find that race relations here in America are a whole lot better than those people would like us to think.  After all, stirring up hatred and outrage generates clicks, which in turn generates ad revenue, so we can rest assured that those type of headlines will never stop, cuz, you know, greed.

We're saved!

Tesla's Elon Musk Unveils Solar Batteries for Homes and Small Businesses

So, it looks as if Elon Musk has yet another plan to save us, while, of course, enriching himself.  He wants to sell us batteries that, coupled with solar panels, will provide round the clock electrical power for our homes.  He says that solar panels could provide enough energy, but of course, we would need to store the excess power that's produced during the day, and that's where his batteries come in.  Sounds good, right?

Not so fast.  First of all, the batteries themselves will cost as much as 3 years of electrical usage, at least for me.  Then, there's the cost of the solar panels, which I'm not going to look up.  I don't know how long this stuff is supposed to last, and I don't really care.  Let's just assume that this system can produce as much electricity as we currently use, and that the cost over time is the same as if we just continued buying from the electric company, making the economics on a personal level equal, even though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be.

Next, let's forget about what happens to all those old batteries and solar panels when they need to be replaced.  We'll just go ahead and assume that they are 100 percent recyclable; again, something I'm pretty sure wouldn't be true.

Now it sounds super-duper good, right?  Not really, and here's why.

The chart below shows total electricity usage in the U.S. since 1949.  Not surprisingly, it's been a pretty steady upward trend over the years, even during those years when technology was creating more and more efficient electrical devices.

There were a couple of short periods wherein electrical usage actually decreased, but those don't actually represent a solution to the problem of increasing usage; those are most likely due to recessions.  Still, recently, it looks as if usage has flattened out some, and this while the number of end-users has increased.  The assumption, though, that this is the result of technological advances is, well, a bit of a stretch, and in fact, I think has little at all to do with technology or energy efficiency.  Because, what I haven't mentioned yet is the cost to electricity consumers.  As it turns out, between 2003 and 2013, the average price of electricity has risen about 35 percent, which I believe has had the greatest impact on constraining electricity consumption over the last few years.

It's not like there aren't other examples of this phenomenon.  When gasoline prices plummeted over the last months, there was a lot of speculation about what people would spend their extra cash on.  Not terribly surprising is that a fair amount of the savings was spent on, you guessed it, more gasoline.  Price does indeed affect consumption, just like they teach in Economics 101.  So, yeah, even if this new solar/battery home electrical system were to drop the price of electricity to nothing for your current usage, the likelihood is that you'll just use more electricity, until the cost gets to around about what you're already used to spending.

Of course, this system won't drop the price of electricity to nothing.  You'll need to install the solar panels and batteries, a significant up front cost, and then hope that it all lasts long enough to recover the cost before you need to replace the stuff.  And, you'll have to keep reminding yourself that you only have so much electricity that you can use, otherwise you'll either have to purchase more electricity from the utility company (which, if everyone were to convert to this new system might not actually exist any more), or you'll have to purchase more panels and batteries.  And that cost is "chunky" meaning that you can't just spend a few extra dollars a month to plug in that new big screen television; instead, you'll need to invest a considerable amount up front to cover your future increased need.  It makes that new television a significantly larger investment.

Not to fear, though, because I'm sure someone (like possibly our government) will find a way to hide the true cost of converting, likely through tax credits, because people forget that that tax money came from, well, them.  And some of those tax credits, you can bet on this, will end up in Elon Musk's pocket, and unless you read the annual reports for his companies, you'll never hear much about it.

And then, perhaps my biggest concern, even though I said "forget about it" earlier is, what happens to all those old batteries?  I don't believe that they will be 100 percent recyclable, and even if they are, what happens when some new technology makes those old batteries obsolete?  I guess we will find something to use them for, or if not, there's always the bottom of the ocean.  That's always a good place to store stuff you don't want anymore.

So, generalizing here, technological "advances" have nearly always, if not always, resulted in increased consumption, not less.  And anytime someone makes the claim that THIS technology will really, really, save us, it just isn't true.  Anybody out there remember the "paperless office?"  And yet, global paper usage has increased by about half over the last 30 or so years.

Now, some of you may be thinking that I'm just jealous, and, I am jealous.  I wish I had come up with the idea of scamming the taxpayers in order to enrich myself all the while making it look as if I'm doing them a favor, and having the masses sing my praises while I'm doing it.  But, I didn't.  Elon Musk did.

Incidentally, the data I used in this article came from the EIA website, which I'm assuming is relatively reliable, although I can't say for sure, being that it is the government.

Minimum wage revisited

A while back, I wrote a post wherein I said that, despite being against a federal minimum wage, I supported the federal government raising the minimum wage.  I still say that, at the time, it was what needed to be done.  However, as time passes, circumstances change, and, sometimes, people need to see what needs to be done now, rather than think that what may have been a good idea in the past will forever be a good idea.  This is, I think, one of those times.

First, let me go back a bit.  When I wrote earlier, I complained that places like Walmart and McDonald's were benefiting from government subsidization of the low wages they were paying.  Of course, in the end, that government money has to come from somewhere, so the result is higher taxes and nobody is better off.  But businesses (and rational people) tend to be risk-averse, and the idea of changing the low pay philosophy to one in which businesses compete for better workers, in part by paying more, may have seemed too risky.  The status quo appeared to be working.  I can't say for sure whether that was the thought process, but it seems logical.  In the meantime, these companies experience high turnover rates, which costs them more, even if the job isn't rocket science and therefore doesn't require a lot of training, as some people have said.  And paying higher wages is money out of pocket now, in the hope that things work out better in the future, a risky proposition.

Well, over the months since I wrote that, I started looking around at people, and it became clear that a lot of people who have jobs aren't actually doing work that is worth $7.50 an hour, and I began to question my original idea that raising the minimum wage was a good idea.  Still, from an economic perspective, I did feel like it might help boost the economy in the short term, but it would also depend on the government cutting welfare spending and subsequently cutting taxes, which, sadly, doesn't really happen much in real life.

But then, a surprising thing happened.  These companies gradually started upping their pay scales, despite not actually being required to by law.  To me, this is a sign that these companies are beginning to realize that they may need to compete in the labor market.  Of course, it may also be that there is some public pressure on these companies to raise wages for the workers, even if it means having to pay slightly higher prices.  Whatever the reason, I think it's a good sign, and perhaps the government doesn't need to raise the minimum wage now.  However, I do think the government still needs to look at welfare reform, as that is part of the total equation.

One area of our welfare system that deserves a closer look is Social Security Disability.  Since 1986, the population of the U.S. has increased by approximately 30 percent, while the number of people on current pay status for disability has more than tripled.  At the same time, the average benefit amount also tripled.  (For some context on that benefit increase, the CPI a little more than doubled over the same period.)  I think that's significant, and an unsustainable trend.  But what do I know, right?

I guess the final straw for me, though, was seeing the response of at least some of the workers affected by the wage increases offered by these companies.  Apparently, they don't feel like it's enough.  And all I can say to, not all, but many of them is, "Earn more."  Take your bigger paycheck and get the skills to get a better job.  But don't just think that anyone owes you more for flipping burgers. It isn't rocket science, and someone else that can do it just as well as you will walk in the door, and maybe they'll do it for less than you.

And another thing to those workers that think that they deserve more.  I know that I can live on $7.50 an hour.  In fact, I can live on less than that, but fortunately, I work hard and my employer thinks I'm worth more than that.  I developed skills over my life.  I've also been in the position where I didn't have a choice but to work for minimum wage.  But, I worked to get out of that situation, and thankfully, now I'm in a better place.  So, here's some advice.  If you are working for minimum wage, don't have that baby that you really, really want to have.  Don't spend your money on booze or drugs, or big screen televisions, or iPhones.  Spend your time improving yourself.  Get some skills.  You can pretty much get a college degree without paying a penny out of pocket, so do it.  It's really up to you, and it really isn't up to your employer to make life good for you.

Do atheists believe in free will?

So, I'm having a tough time keeping up with the volume of stupid thinking in the world today, which is why I haven't posted here in quite a while.  By the time I have time to write about any foolishness in the world, a whole new batch of idiocy is making headlines.  Still, part of the rampant "stupid problem" is that so many people are in a rush to move on to the next big thing, allowing just enough time to demonstrate their ignorance first, apparently in an effort to move on before their ignorance becomes plain even to themselves.  So, with that said, here are a few observations from the last few months.

Obama apparently thinks that apologizing amounts to accepting full responsibility for killing innocent people.  Not surprisingly, though, that thinking only applies to him.  Most of us regular folk could expect to be put to death.

On the day that Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President, there was a spike in searches for Tom Cruise on Google.  Do I need to say more?

After the U.S. government announced a deal with Iran, Iran made the statement that there was no deal, only a framework for a deal.  And apparently, while making a speech, the Ayatollah responded to chants of "Death to Americans" with something like "Yes, yes, of course, death to Americans."  Well, perhaps I'm just taking this all out of context, or maybe, something got lost in the translation.

I seem to be seeing a growing number of people that think that a declining birth rate is something to be worried about, and yet, I don't really see any good reasons why that's a bad thing.  So, I'm asking you.  What is bad about a declining birth rate?  Honestly, I can't think of one major problem that reducing the population of the world wouldn't at least help fix.

And while I'm asking questions, here's one for the atheists out there.  I know you're out there.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking your disbelief, I'm just trying to understand it.  I probably wouldn't even care except that I recently read "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins , in which he apparently labeled me as an atheist.  Of course, not me specifically by name, but by the way in which I think about God.  At any rate, the question is pretty straight forward: Do atheists believe we have free will?

I truly don't see how they can, other than the way that most people end up believing they have free will, which is by the appearance that we exercise free will all the time.  Some would say that as I write this, I'm clearly exercising free will, but of course, it isn't really clear that I could have done anything other than write this, since this is what I'm doing, and I can't go back and see if I could have done anything else.

So, the dilemma arises from the idea that we are nothing more than a mass of chemicals all reacting with each other.  In order for me to exercise free will, I would need to be able to control the outcome of those chemical reactions, but as yet, I've never found that I actually have that kind of control of chemical reactions.  They happen, or they don't, and my will has nothing to do with the outcome.

Of course, the previous paragraph is referring to chemical reactions outside myself, which might be a totally different thing.  But, when I think about chemical reactions inside myself, it gets worse.  Because, if I'm just a mass of chemical activity, then, what exactly is my will?  Where does it come from?  Is it really possible that a chemical reaction has a will of its own?  This doesn't seem to be the case since I can create a situation in which certain chemicals always react in a particular way, whether or not those chemicals want that reaction to happen.

In short, I'm just having a problem understanding how a chain of chemical reactions can be controlled by my will, and further, how a chain of chemical reactions can, in fact, have a will.  I'm sure there is an simple answer to the question, and I just haven't happened on it yet.  So, if you don't want to comment here, drop me an email at quasisane@comcast.net.  I know, I really shouldn't put that here, but I already get so much spam that I don't think it matters much.

Speaking of spam,  a while back I started to sign up for Obamacare, because, you know, it's all awesome and stuff, and besides, it's yet another thing the government says I have to do.  Anyway, for a while there, that action was the source of the majority of spam I as getting.  It was nonstop.  The truly funny thing about it was that I had forgotten my password, and tried several times to use the "I forgot my password" option on the website.  Each time, I was informed that I would receive an email, but I never got one.  I did, however, get other emails from healthcare.gov including one to remind me to file my income taxes.  I still don't know what my password is, but luckily, I got insurance elsewhere.  And before Obama gets overly excited, it actually had nothing to do with Obamacare, so no, Barrack, you cannot take credit for saving me.

Okay!  That's about all I have time for.  I'd love to hear from you, so feel free to comment (I think I have an antispam thing activated so you'll have to do the annoying "type the characters in the picture" thing), follow @quasisane on Twitter, find me on Facebook, or email me at the previously mentioned address.  It's all good.

The Kelly Effect

Scientists Have Discovered Why You Can't Remember Being a Baby

This kind of headline nearly always gets my attention.  Perhaps it's strange, but one of my hobbies is to try to learn something new every day, so new discoveries are particularly interesting to me.  Besides, whenever anyone says that science has discovered anything at all, I can't help thinking science hasn't really ever discovered much of anything.  In fact, the only thing more entertaining than scientific discovery is scientific proof.

Unfortunately, this isn't a really new "discovery" at all.  It might be a new hypothesis, but it doesn't even really seem to be that.  I read through the abstract of the original paper, and while it was full of all kinds of really big words that made it sound all technical and stuff, here's what it said, in my kind of words:

New brain cells are continuously formed throughout life, and this action tends causes the normal pathways in our brains to change, making some of our memories fade.  We tested the effect of increasing brain cell generation in mice after they had a memory and found that mice forgot things faster when we did that.  Alternatively, we slowed the process down after the mice had a memory, and found they remembered stuff longer.

Yeah, I dunno... That doesn't sound so smart in plain English but I suppose it might make sense.  If memories are stored in groups of adjacent brain cells, and some new cells appear amongst those cells, then some of the connections that make the memory may be lost, resulting in a lost memory.  It might make sense, but then again, what seems to make sense is not always true.

At any rate, I'm somewhat skeptical of the results of this study, mostly because I'm not sure how the scientists determined that the mice had any memories to remember, nor am I sure how they determined that the mice forgot things faster or slower.  But I'm not really going to get that far into the actual study; I'm too cheap to pay to read the thing.  Besides, I think that true "scientific knowledge" belongs in the public domain, and not behind some pay wall.  I'm more interested in what the above-linked article had to say about it.  Here is the author's summation:

"So the reason you remember your best friend's wedding day but can't seem to recall the time you decorated your hair with mashed potatoes is because making new memories destroys the older snapshots."

Yeah, I'm not so sure how that interpretation even came about, but okay, we'll go with it.  Apparently, according to this interpretation of the study results, forgetting stuff comes about because we have limited space in our brains, and so new stuff we experience, or learn, crowds out the old stuff, something that I've chosen to dub "The Kelly Effect."

For those of you who haven't yet figured it out, Kelly was Christina Applegate's  character in the sitcom Married With Children.  In one particularly memorable episode, we find that Kelly is actually a kind of genius: she can remember things as if she has a photographic memory, but if she learns something new, she forgets something else, because of the limited space in her brain, being that it's a finite space and all.  I won't relate the whole thing, but the series is available from Amazon.com here:

Married... with Children: The Complete Series.

So, it turns out that this interpretation of the study isn't really new.  This phenomenon was "discovered" by some sitcom writers years ago.  Perhaps the person that once said to me that "It isn't really worth thinking too much about stuff, because pretty much everything has already been thought of" was right, well, if you want to put your faith in sitcom writers.  I won't divulge the source of that bit of brilliance.

What I really don't like about this particular interpretation is that it gives people an excuse to not learn more.  I mean, if I think I already know a lot of important stuff, then if I learn something new, I might forget some other important stuff that I already know.  That kind of thing.  To be a little trite here, I think we should never stop learning, and that somehow, even though the space in our brains is finite, we'll somehow find some space to put a little more stuff in.

I also have another problem with the Kelly Effect: why does it selectively choose only the older memories to destroy?  I mean, there's some pretty unimportant stuff from yesterday that I could easily just forget.  Of course, it may be a statistical thing.  The older memories have more time to be erased by new stuff, and thus are more likely just by virtue of repeated chance to be eliminated, but, no, I think there's something more to this, and here's my theory.

First: Even though we can't consciously remember things from our infancy, I think the memories are in there somewhere; we just can't figure out where they're hidden, at least not consciously.  Even if we could find them, they may seem nonsensical to us, since these are things that we experienced before we understood what we were experiencing.  When you're born, you don't magically know that these people are your parents, or who the doctors and nurses are.  You likely don't even know what they are.  I would say it's extremely likely you don't even know what you are.  You learn that stuff from experience, of which you have none at the time of birth, and don't really get a lot of since you can't really do much of anything.

Second: Think about how your perception of time has changed over your life.  As you get older, time seems to go by faster even though it really is moving along at the same speed as always.  Now, I'm no expert, except for the fact that I've experienced this myself.  When I was young, say five or so, time crawled by.  Five minutes seemed like forever.  Now that I'm approaching sixty years old, it feels like the sum total of my spare time is five minutes in a day.  So, when I look back to when I was very young, memories seem to be like a movie that's running at a faster than normal pace.  And I imagine that looking back to the time when I was a baby, the effect is magnified to the point where it is mostly nonsensical.  I believe this effect comes about because a minute after you're born, that minute is your entire conscious life, and so at the time, seems like forever.

Third: Take a look at some babies sometime, and pay particular attention to what they do.  Not much.  So, there isn't really all that much to remember anyway.  I mean, out of all the dumps you've taken over the course of your life, how many do you remember the details of?  I going to guess not many.  But as a baby, those are pretty major happenings in your life.

Fourth:  I'm going to bet that while people may know that they've done some pretty embarrassing things in their lives they don't necessarily remember all those things.  Why?  Because it's normal to want to forget unpleasant things.  We have built-in biases.  We like to look in the mirror and believe that we are not foolish, and never were.  I think that those memories are still there, because we want to avoid making the same mistakes, but those memories are stuffed into our subconscious memory, where we're unlikely to relive the embarrassment of the past, and still use the lesson to avoid the same embarrassment in the future.

So again we see that the world is not anywhere nearly as factual as it appears.  Science doesn't "prove" much, nor does it really "discover" much.  Still, that isn't a reason to not pursue greater understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, even at the risk that we might find that what we once thought to be true is, in fact, not true at all.

Proof

So, here's an interesting comment:

Common knowledge doesn't need "proof".

Um, yes it does, at least when that "common knowledge" is anything but common knowledge.  Unfortunately, too many people think that the things they believe are common knowledge, and so, common knowledge does require proof.  Whomever made that comment probably had no business going to college.  I say this because in college, or even high school for that matter, one is not required to provide sources for common knowledge.  For example, I might say that according to Einstein, E=MC^2.  I don't need to provide a source for that, as it is considered common knowledge that this is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  However, if I were to simply state that E=MC^2, it actually would be okay for someone to ask for proof.  And, no, in this case, saying that Einstein said so isn't sufficient proof.  It's not even a good argument.

And yes, I take this as at least additional evidence that some people don't belong in college, although I have to admit, it isn't proof.