Llamabutchers takes a typical NRA tactic in this post. Doctors, you see, cause more accidental deaths than guns, so we ought to ban doctors instead. The Foreign Minister made a similar argument about cars. The intent is to discredit all the statistics about accidental victims of guns. I have said before that there are solid arguments against gun control re: efficacy. But these silly little statistic arguments actually make the argument for common sense “well-regulation” of guns. We license drivers AND doctors in order to minimize accidental harm to society. I don’t think anyone objects to the restrictions our government places on people who want to practice medicine. If any libertarians out there support deregulating doctors, I’ll be glad to serve as your personal physician based on my extensive experience with calves.

Ace of Spades has a pop-quiz on eigthies culture. I am particularly pleased that he included a Big Trouble In little China question for the Foreign Minister and your humble Smallholder.

Via Doonesbury, here is a REPUBLICAN congressman’s take on the war in Iraq.

Kilgore gives the smackdown to economists who say one shouldn’t ote.

And here is a new science article that will have the Maximum Leader singing “La, la, la!”

That is all.

Return to your appointed tasks.
____________________________________________________

Update from your Maximum Leader: Did the Smallholder acutally bother to read the article to which he linked? Did he just read the headline? Or did he just willfully ignore such key phrases as: “Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”. Emphasis added by your Maximum Leader. A quick perusal of the article finds wonderful keywords as: “tend to;” “as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men..”

In case minions are wondering about why this seems to be a topic of discussion… Your Maximum Leader, unlike the Smallholder, is not yet convinced of the genetic disposition towards homosexuality. Your Maximum Leader has read many scientific articles on the subject, but feels that no conclusive determinations have yet been made. The Smallholder on the other hand is willing to take as scientific proof a collection of theories concerning the genetic disposition toward homosexuality with which he happens to agree. The Smallholder likes to take cheap-shots at your Maximum Leader by thus saying that your Maximum Leader likes to deny scientific evidence with which he does not agree. Whereas your Maximum Leader feels that he would like to continue to keep an open mind and allow trained scientists to research the field of human genetics and come to generally accepted and testable facts - as opposed to just theories.

You see, when discussing the matter human genetics your Maximum Leader feels that we have only in the past few years started to really understand the human genome. It may be decades before we actually have scientifically verifiable facts concerning which genes may be responsible for which human character traits.

And just to add one more thing… Discovery of genes that might be related to character traits does not begin to address the many issues related to the nature/nurture argument. As your Maximum Leader stated in a previous post, if one could prove that a person was genetically predisposed to violence would that be a sufficient cause to excuse that behaviour?

Anyhow… Your Maximum Leaders is certainly not singing “la, la, la.” Perhaps the only one singing plainsong is the Smallholder who refuses to accept that there is uncertainty about those things which he feels should be accepted as certain.

Carry on.

Update II: From the Smallholder

Once again my opponent is trying to adjust the world into a black and white resolution. If my esteemed leader was conversant with scientific principles and inquiry, he would know that NOTHING is ever 100% certain in science. The article I linked to is yet one more piece of the complex puzzle of sexual orientation.

The Maximum Leader keeps focusing on the single gene issue, a position I have never held. Diabetes isn’t a single-gene issue either. But we don’t advocate discrimination against diabetes sufferers. Depression isn’t a single-gene issue but we acknowledge that there is a genetic component at the heart of many people’s struggle with theis mental illness. What shocks, yes shocks, the Smallholder is the intensity with which people will deny emerging scientific consensus in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and the necessity of rethinking predertermined positions.

To return to depression, scientists have found that depression “tends to” run in families and may be a result of a cluster of genes impacting brain chemistry. We don’t understand the whole mechanism as yet. Genetic research is in its infancy. But no one seriously disputes that there is indeed a genetic cmponent. The same applies to a host of other issues and diseases. Single-gene causation like sickle-cell is the exception to the rule.

And yet our Maximum Leader continues to refuse to accept the same type of research that is finding exactly the same type of genetic links to sexual orientation. Why do you suppose he applies this double standard? Hmmmmm.

My favorite part, however, is when he poses as a critical skeptic of research. It is interesting that the skeptic part ONLY applies to science that undermines his political position.

Of course, I suppose all of us have points on which we are intellectually inflexible. But isn’t this the age of Enlightenment? Shouldn’t people of good will be willing to change their positions based on new evidence?