This column by William Saleton in Slate is an absolute must-read...

In the column Saleton discusses a new study which suggests yet again that homosexuality is not a learned behavior nor a choice, but rather a predisposition. This isn't exactly news, as past studies have supported the same conclusion. No, what is new here is that this study also shows that genetics are also not the cause of homosexuality--at least not in lesbians.

Rather, it says that hormonal influences in the womb are likely the cause.

Saleton argues that science's debunking of the "homosexuality is a choice" argument has logically led to increased political rights and equality for gays in the world. California's Supreme Court ruling against that state's gay marriage ban rested in part on the position that homosexuality is a physical trait and not a choice.

However, Saleton also points out that this same scientific understanding is leading towards research into chemical methods to eliminate the womb conditions leading to homosexuality, and perhaps to a near-eradication of homosexuality in the populace.

Think about that for a few moments. Consider the possible ethical implications.

For those who consider homosexuality a moral, physical, or merely practical disorder, using this chemical approach might seem like a no-brainer. And don't let yourself think that only bigots would be those in support of this. I have heard several gays themselves say that if they could have been born straight, they wish they would have been. Being gay isn't easy.

But therein lies the great danger. From a scientific standpoint I see risk in altering the composition of humanity--in reducing its diversity. The law of unintended consequences certainly counsels caution.

From a moral perspective, I also have significant reservations. Will Christians be so eager to "play God" by using these chemical methods? If so, will they also be so keen to use science to eliminate other human characteristics they find undesirable?

Homosexuality is more than a mere physical trait. If it were just that, it could easily be classified along with other physical traits such as alcoholism or genetic diseases. No, sexuality--hetero or homo--defines a person's identity and personality. It helps shape the social fabric of our civilization.

But if you're an expecting mother or her husband, and you're told that if you don't "fix" the chemical balance in your womb that your kid will be gay, will you be able to consider these vague philosophical, moral, and scientific concerns that I've raised?

By now you've likely heard about the Supreme Court's recent decision in the D.C. v. Heller case: the Court struck the District's outright ban on possessing handguns.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court stated that the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant an individual a right to carry arms.

Check out this great post by Mike O'Shea, which spells out the legal significance and scope of the decision. Here's my extremely brief cliff-notes version:

• Decision interprets 2nd Amendment to protect an individual's right to possess a firearm, not merely some right of a state to arm a "militia";

• Right of possession is limited to guns commonly in use for personal protection; thus very likely does not cover automatic machine guns;

• Decision only applies to the Federal government and did not determine whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right of possession to apply against the states. A lawsuit has already been filed against Chicago's strict gun law and that case will likely reach the Court within a couple years to address this incorporation question.

This reminds me of an old David Letterman skit where he ate cereal while the Mission Impossible theme was dubbed over the video. Shows you that with the right music, anything can be dramatic!

The problem is that we're not having it. Not really.

This is a sad example of an issue that is being overrun by political hot air (no pun intended), rather than be treated to a rational and scientific discussion in public.

Right now we have two sides screaming past each other rather than engage in a productive dialogue. The result is confusion among the public. Take a look at this intriguing Pew poll:



Unsurprisingly, Democrats on average believe in human-caused global warming more than Republicans. But here's the kicker: a college education makes Republicans less likely to believe in global warming and it makes Democrats more likely.

Here's my conclusion. If the case for global warming were being made sufficiently, then a college education would dramatically increase belief in global warming among both groups. The fact that more-educated Republicans are more skeptical suggests a significant failing in the global warming crowd to make their scientific case.

The digital world continues to present challenges to the balancing act between fair-use and copyright protection over intellectual property. The next battleground is television, as this Slashdot post points out. Unfortunately it looks like the television and movie industries' wish to protect their property could lead to a much-diminished user experience for the consumer.

If that does indeed happen, look for the industries to lose ground overall, as consumers go to the internet and uncontrolled sources of media. You can take my word on this one.

So far I think McCain is getting the best of Obama on the energy issue, though not in every respect.

McCain recently called for the building of 45 new nuclear reactors. This is a no-brainer, even supported by many environmentalists who see greenhouse gases as a bigger threat to the earth. Obama's stance on nuclear energy? Well, he says that he supports it but that we need to 'get the safety aspects figured out first.' Who's out of touch now? Under Obama nuclear power would be stalled by stifling and irrational regulation just as it is now.

As far as gas prices go, McCain is mistaken in his call to have a gas tax holiday. It's a silly idea in many respects. First of all, any holiday would be temporary and just increase the pain of higher taxes once the holiday is concluded. Second, it's a short-term "fix" that obscures and delays long-term solutions.

Obama is right on that aspect of the issue, but he completely eradicates his credibility when he calls for a tax on the oil company profits. In fact, that's one of the dumbest positions taken in the campaign by any candidate. First, the government already earns vastly more off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do. Second, the government shouldn't be meddling in the profit incentive of any company; how much more does fundamental market capitalism have to prove itself? Third, the oil companies would likely raise their prices to compensate at least in part for the increased tax. Fourth, much of the oil companies' profits goes into the pension plans of millions of hard-working Americans. The government would be, in essence, robbing from their retirements.