I wonder what Bruce Schneier will say about the recent claimed discovery of md5 collisions in human meaningful postscript documents.[1] I also wonder when the academic paper version of this will come out, not that I would be likely to read it, but because it will make it more official.

[1] http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/

In the news today is something that really ought not to surprise, but yet qualifies as “news.” Apparently scientists, human as we all are, have been fudging their results.[1] Sometimes to fit their instincts, sometimes to match past work, sometimes to please those who provide the funding. Yahoo News, apparently quoting a Washington Post article, is careful to call these falsifications “minor,” and to say that they do not qualify as “outright misconduct.” I, however, ask the question: how often did the modifications of the experiment design or results cause the overall result to change? How often was global warming predicted because contradictory data was thrown out? How often was it predicted by an experiment that “they knew would not give accurate results?” How often do we see 10 studies “proving” something because the authors published the same data twice? These lapses are admitted to by four to fifteen percent of scientists (depending on which exact offense you are looking at), which to me makes the problem seem fairly widespread for a process that we are supposed to trust implicitly.

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&e=3&u=/washpost/many_scientists_admit_to_misconduct

Apparently the marijuana users did argue that there was no interstate commerce involved here.[1] They grew their own. Thus there was no commerce at all here. However, under an unnamed Supreme Court ruling 63 years ago (I really need to learn when the Warren court was, but if I did, I would just forget it, I am bad with dates), the commerce power extends beyond the true interstate commerce because “the cumulative effect of even minor and local economic activities can have interstate consequences.”[1] While I understand the logic here, I am not sure that I agree with its necessity, and I am fairly certain that I dislike its consequences. It certainly moves the current decision from being questionable to being certain. All told, I think Justice Thomas’ words sum things up well: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything” thus “the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”[1]

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050608.shtml

Taking morphine is addictive, but we proscribe it for the dieing to ease their pain. This is good. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are both practices in which we do things that kill all cells because they happen to kill cancer cells faster. We use these treatments on patients every day, we have nothing better, and sometimes they work. So I am very sympathetic with those who have been prescribed marijuana as a pain killer by a competent doctor. The doctor may be right, the cost of not taking it may be higher than the cost of the addictiveness and side effects.

But it is illegal. And everyone knows it is illegal, and so it is highly irresponsible for these doctors to be prescribing it anyway. And Mr. William F. Buckley is correct, it is laudable for the Supreme Court to refuse to legislate from the bench.[1] While I might question the constitutionality of the illegal drug laws themselves, I do not think I would win even with courts benched by constitutionalists. And given that, it was the right decision, it seems to me that a strong case can be made that this is interstate trade. Of course, if it were not universally illegal, perhaps it could be grown in California for use in California pharmacies, but that argument was not made here, or at least in the report of it I see.[1]

But Mr. Buckley does make one rhetorical error. He criticizes Mr. John P. Walters, President Bush’s drug czar, for “dogmatic positions.” I infer from this wording that Mr. Buckley thinks the positions are not backed by fact. That dogma is necessarily somehow less than science. An utterly bogus line of reasoning. Perhaps Mr. Walters’ statements are dogmatic. Perhaps he is wrong, but he is not wrong because his statements are dogmatic.

Mr. Buckley then goes on to state that because you can find some people helped by marijuana, statements that it has not been “medically established that marijuana uniquely grants such relief as is being touted” must be inaccurate. I wonder if Mr. Buckley is familiar with the use of placebos in medical research. I wonder if he is aware that we do so because some people will experience relief simply because they think they should. The relief is no less real, it is not hallucination. It is simply evidence that the mind, the will, can act in ways science cannot explain. Mr. Buckley should also take a look at the current FDA rules and regulations, and how hard it is to get a new drug approved, before he criticizes the drug czar’s statements in this manner. He should perhaps be talking about reforming FDA instead.

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20050607.shtml

The Attorney General of Nebraska is defending his state’s Constitutional amendment banning homosexual “marriages.”[1] This was supported by seventy percent of the state’s population, but was struck down by the courts. I am not really sure how a ban on homosexual “marriages” or prohibiting such couples from enjoying other legal protections denies them “participation in the political process,” which was the logic used by the federal judge who struck it down. It seems to me they have equal access to the ballot box still, and equal access to run for office, how exactly are they being denied participation?

[1] http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/06-09-2005/1c420008bcdc86b2.html

Since when do doctors get to decide what qualifies as a religion whose beliefs they must respect‽ That is at the heart of a Texas case in which the state is attempting to take custody of a 12 year old girl whose parents are opposed to the treatments being used for her Hodgkin’s disease.[1][2] One of the articles says they are utterly opposed, the other says they merely have unanswered questions. Either way, it is unacceptable that the state is interfering in this way. I am always against state or federal interference with religious devotion because the same logic that is used against members of any other faith could one day be used against Catholics.

[1] http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/06-09-2005/5e1b0013bd1f55a4.html
[2] http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hscanc104298117jun10,0,1664755.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

So apparently,[1] “household” means a married family still in Florida. Normally that would please me, but this is just bizarre. How is that a marriage license is required to limit payments from an insurance company, when we are seeking to have benefits extend to those that are merely living together in a so called “committed relationship?” I worry that this will be used by homosexual “rights” activists to further the push for homosexual “marriages.” That being said, the other two judges are exactly right: if you are not related by blood, adoption, or marriage, you cannot really be part of the same household. I am all for extended families, but including a live-in boyfriend as part of the family is further than I would be willing to go.

[1] http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1118307913363

Was the Lemon test from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 a decision of the Warren court? “Waiting on the Ten Commandments: High Court Shift or Attorney Strategy?”[1] provides more details on the 10 Commandments case than I had previously heard. It also talks about some speculation that the Lemon test will be overturned. The speculation really is guesswork, so not too note worthy, but it did make me stop and thing, hence the question.

[1] http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1118307911206

I am pleased to see that some 18 countries are possibly going to be forgiven their debt.[1] I worry some that we (the US taxpayer) will have to pay it off for them, but we would eventually end up doing so anyway. I also wonder under what terms this will happen, and what all it will entail. I see from the article that the countries will have to prove a reduction in corruption and “improve governing,” a phrase that seems awfully ambiguous to me. Also somewhat disturbing is the blatant expectation that this simply means these countries will borrow more. That, I think, is the last thing they need to be doing.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/10debt.html?ei=< ?php print(htmlentities(”5088&en=3799916b98058869&ex=1276056000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print”)); ?>