How can any rational person rely on the commentary of another on a book not read? Forget left or right. Forget whether the person is is an expert in the subject matter or not. Forget whether one’s boddy of work is known or not. Forget the CV (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT) is ignored.

I posit the following: one who has not read the book ought not opine. Tommy didn’t read it. He does not offer a conclusion. That one makes a bald conclusion on the basis of one book (amongst many publications in about a book not read (leta lone all the works) is absurd.

I would rather look at Scientific America than Moe Lane, who never read the book at all. He read a blog post. WTF?

As for tax deductions, if you want to do that okay, but then do not demand I pay taxes for public schooling when either I do not have children, or my children are in college. I still have to pay taxes for the school district I live in whether I have kids in the schools, or not. This really makes no sense to pay taxes on something you do not benefit from specifically, or directly.

Some feel there should be a limit on the number of children people have because of the amount of children can equal the amount of welfare one might receive. I still think the government interfering with a personal decision on how you live your life is wrong. Here is an example to ponder. A local family had three children. The two older kids played club soccer with my kids. On the way to school last year, the two older kids were killed in a car wreck. If this family had been limited to only having two kids, they would have no more children because ALL of their kid would have been killed in one car wreck.

Lastly, the amount of money we get back for our two yutes as a tax deduction does not even come close in paying for a farthing of what we spend on the monkeys. We are still trying to figure out how we are going to finish meeting their financial obligations in sending them off to college this fall. They are twins, have some scholarships, and will play college soccer, but it is not enough for two. Lucky us we are not at poverty level to qualify for Pell Grants! LOL! So have no fear redstripe, the amount of tax monies coming back to us for the tax deductions does not even come close to what these two costs. LOL! And they share a cell phone, and vehicle! Much to their angst.

Physicists aren’t lawyers and they probably should ask one to fact check them before they start writing about what legal documents do or don’t say. I’m not a lawyer either – and if anyone is, feel free to correct me – but even I can tell this is incorrect.

“Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.”

Well, let’s quote the actual Constitution. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

He’s right that the Constitution doesn’t mention the right to reproduce, but his conclusion is wrong. The fact that it is not mentioned means that we *do* have that right.

Next…

“In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy”

That right to privacy also is not enumerated, just like the right to reproduce isn’t. But the Supreme Court says it’s there nevertheless.

Not only was he wrong about these two things, he managed to contradict himself in a way that proves he was wrong.

If this guy is the new Science “Czar”, then I hope he doesn’t mangle science the way he mangled constitutional law.

The whole czar aspect to this makes me uneasy, in the sense that they do not answer to anyone, but the President, cannot be held accountable by Congress, they oversee close to a trillion dollars of our money, and these czars make in general Democrats look like me when it comes to ideologies. Yeah, I am worried about this guy. FYI, I did not approve of Reagan, or Bush having czars either. You have to admit 32-35 czars is a bit much. Does anyone know where Rattner spends his days? I mean the dude is like Dracula in that no one sees the man, and he will not give any interviews to Neil Cavuto.

What most do not understand about our objection to people like this is that they interfere with everyone’s rights. The law of the land currently is in favor of pro-choice. A woman has the right to choose, and that should not be violated by an entity, or person like this. No one person, or group of peoples should ever have the right to tell you how to live your private life. That would include a person’s choice in being a homosexual, the right to decide what to do with your body, and how many yutes you choose to have, or not have. This is dancing awfully close the eugenics, and the era of Hitler for me.

You know, stuff like this makes me long for the days of Clinton. As Conservative as I am, at this juncture, I think I would vote for him in order to not have this type of radical ideology running amuck in Washington. Hell, I even miss TIp O’Neil! I miss sane Democrats of any stripe. I hope Palin does campaign for some rational Democrats. You know, the ones who would never even think about 30 czars, or selecting some dude like this.

But thanks Tommy for being an open minded guy in looking at this as a possible not so good idea. At least you are questioning this which is more than I can say about the MSM types.