Irony is President Bush vetoing legislation that would allow embryonic research while surrounded by so-called "snowflake families", whose children - implanted as embryos into surrogate mothers - wouldn't exist without...substantial...uh...embryonic research. Does he think in-vitro fertilization came about without federally-funded research, including many millions of destroyed "humans"? Does he think the technology was handed down to scientists by God? Hmm...I'm not certain how rhetorical that question actually is...

I understand that Bush didn't authorize the funding for the research that led to in-vitro fertilization. Possibly he would have, given the chance, vetoed the legislation which authorized that research as well. But if using embryos for scientific research is "murder", isn't it hypocritical to use as his "poster children" (literally) kids whose very existence owes to similar "murders" in the past? If he actually had some sort of deep-set belief on the issue, he would at most acknowledge that the beautiful children around him were a blessing, but the manner in which they were conceived was based on a history of embryonic genocide. I'd completely disagree with him, but at least he'd be intellectually honest with himself and the public (something I'm convinced he's incapable of).

Here's a thought experiment: an in-vitro fertilization clinic is on fire. In the freezer there are 10,000 embryos, and in the lobby there is a small child. You have limited time, so you must choose to either save the embryos and allow the girl to perish, or save the girl and sacrifice the embryos. Which do you choose?

Give the girl leukemia, or spina bifida, or MS, and that's exactly the choice that has been made. Congress (and the majority of the US population) chose the girl, President Bush chose the embryos.

This post is just a rant brought about by a personal experience from this weekend, so I apologize in advance. I had a good evening turn sour due to the mouthing-off of a couple of mathematically-challenged gamblers; I just need to get this off my chest.

If you honestly believe that the cards any person at a blackjack table takes or doesn't take has any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the dealer's hand, you probably shouldn't be gambling. Or at least not playing blackjack. Try slots or roulette, where the odds are as simple as your understanding of basic probability.

Convinced that if "third base" (the last player before the dealer) draws a face card that might bust the dealer he's "ruining" it for the table? Here's a thought experiment that might open your eyes: imagine if the dealer dealt the hand normally with one exception: she deals herself two down cards instead of only one. The second down card would become her first "draw" card, if she needed one. Does putting that first dealer draw card out there first magically prevent third base from so drastically affecting the game? Or could it be that the ordering of cards and the odds of a dealer bust are completely random and not affected by player decisions?

Another experiment: imagine if you were allowed to put a cut card into the deck (or 4 or 6 decks, as most casinos use) for every draw, with the card immediately behind the cut card being your draw card. (If the neat ordering of the cards in the shoe is too hard to ignore, imagine all the cards are in a big black bag and you just reach in and choose one.) Complete random selection out of the deck for each player and the dealer. Does this change the odds of the game in any way? Clearly not. But suddenly third base can't "steal" the card that would bust the dealer. It should be obvious that he never could.

Incidentally, the idiots mouthing off to me (for drawing to a hard 12 against a dealer 2, which is good basic strategy) this weekend failed to notice the time when I drew to a 13 (again, against a 2), pulled an 8 (yay), and the dealer subsequently pulled a King. "Saved" the entire table <rolleyes>, but nobody patted me on the back.

I make no claims to agreement or disagreement with the owner of the following website on matters of religion and its relationship to the state. I haven't read enough of his writings to know if I agree with him or think he's a kook.

I am, however, strongly opinioned on the need for the absolute neutrality of our government with regard to religion, and I find interesting Article 11 of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written not long after our country was founded, while many of the founding fathers were in the senate (and joined in unanimous approval of the treaty). I don't think the intent of the founding fathers - and my own personal view - can be stated more clearly.

Give it a read.