Religious Freedom and Homosexual Marriage

With the recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Affordable Care Act and Obergefell v.Hodges the legal landscape has evolved to where the Equal Protection and/or Commerce Clause and Free Exercise Clause are in conflict.  This writing attempts to define the boundaries of the competing clauses and establish where the Free Exercise Clause allows for relief from government action with a proposed test to determine if relief should be granted.

                                                    Boundaries of Regulation

The Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause constitute the backbone of the government’s ability to regulate commerce.   The Wickard Aggregation Principle and Heart of Atlanta cases establish the government’s ability to regulate.  The Affordable Care Act and Hobby Lobby cases impose limits on the ability to regulate.

Congress, through the Commerce Clause was given the authority to regulate interstate commerce.  This ability was challenged and ultimately defined in scope in Wickard v Filburn (317 U.S. 111) where the Supreme Court stated, “The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”

This regulatory power was combined with the Equal Protection clause to establish that otherwise permissible activity could be regulated to prevent discrimination. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, the Court stated, “Congress [is] not restricted by the fact that the particular obstruction to interstate commerce with which it [is] dealing [is] also deemed a moral and social wrong….Congress may -- as it has -- prohibit racial discrimination by motels serving travelers.”  The combination of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause continues to be used to prohibit different forms of discrimination leading to the recent Obergefell v.Hodges decision allowing homosexual marriages.

The seemingly near limitless power granted by Wickard has been scaled back by recent decisions.  Although the Affordable Care Act was upheld, the decision served to establish that Wickard has limits.  Despite allowing the Act to stand as a taxing power, in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (638 F. 3d 1235) the Court placed a limit on the ability to compel action stating, “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority….The commerce power [] does not authorize the mandate.”

With the power to regulate commerce limited in the ability to compel action, the Court established that the Free Exercise Clause is one such area where action potentially cannot be compelled. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) imposes a two prong burden on the government when dealing with the Free Exercise Clause.  The government must show the action (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. In order to compel action the government has to establish both prongs are satisfied.  Specifically, in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, 732 F. 3d 1114, the Court stated the government must show, “it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties.”

                                                                           Relief

With the Free Exercise Clause establishing a limit on the government’s right to compel action, the question becomes where does the limit of relief from compelled action lie. The answer would seem to be at the line of an action directly compromising a sincerely held religious belief. For example, a bakery can be compelled to sell a cake, unless the cake is a wedding cake for homosexual marriage ceremony.

 This raises the question of how to determine who can claim an exemption from compelled action?  First are the organizations where relief should flow as a matter of summary judgment. In Burwell, the government conceded nonprofit organizations are protected by RFRA.  It follows that if the organization would likely achieve tax exempt status on religious grounds should they apply, the exemption applies.  If an organization is tax exempt under a different section of the tax code and can establish they are a religiously affiliated organization, the Knights of Columbus as an example, the exemption should apply.

If a nonprofit or tax exempt status doesn’t exist and would not likely be granted, use the business structure to determine the burden of proof.  An organization that is closely held and/or under the control of a small number of individuals would need only show a preponderance of the evidence.  This holds true for Hobby Lobby as well as for a LLC or small partnership where a small number of individuals control the decision making process.

Next, would be business entities which are not set up in a manner where the business is severable from the personal identity of the owners.  An example would be a mom and pop shop doing operating in a doing business as structure.  These entities would need to show by clear and convincing evidence they have sincerely held religious beliefs in order for the exemption to apply. The last category is a business entity that is publically traded.  If individuals are free to purchase stock and cast votes or proxy votes the standard show to a deeply held religious belief would be high as individuals or organizations who believe counter to the attested to belief would be investing in and voting on the business operations or who conducts the operations.  However, if the entity could show beyond a reasonable doubt (for example, a store that sells only religious items) they hold a corporate philosophy that is based on sincerely held religious beliefs then the exemption applies.

 

Racism through the eyes of a (almost) middle aged white guy

Seventeen years ago I was a college senior studying communication.  As part of the coursework we were required to do practicum courses, and as a part of that I was pressed into being a guest on the student run talk show.  The topic of the day was race relations.  The reason I was pressed into service was given the topic I was unwilling to be a guest until told that I had to by the course instructor.  Why not willingly cooperate?  Because at the time, despite the tenor of the show being one of race relations are improving, dark clouds were on the horizon.  Today, the storm has arrived.  If you're easily offended, don't read on. FN 1

To begin with, what is racism? To answer that question we must first ask what is race? Race isn't a set of inalienable characteristics a person is born with.  The physical characteristics of a person are inalienable; they originally are a function of latitude and altitude with a strong absolute humidity gloss passed down via reproduction. Race is the group think beliefs and resultant thought patterns that have set in largely based along the underlying inalienable characteristics lines. FN 2

Seventeen years ago, I didn't know the name of the storm clouds, only could see them on the horizon.  They are the Frankenstein effect.  Not the primary definition as found in the Urban Dictionary, but the secondary definition, an example of which can be found here.  Although this usually refers to disability, it translates to other areas such as  entitlement, victimhood, and disparate impact - the three drivers of todays racial discord.  Just like Frankenstein, although ugly none of these three areas started out as a monster, and with a little care and concern can be remade back into an ugly harmless creation.

Before discussing the three areas here's a test to serve as a check for your own degree of racism. Take a look at the following two pictures, A  and B.  Are A, B, or A and B racist? Now that you have answered the question take a look at picture C.  If you answered A as not racist, writing it off as politics or discontent with Obama then you're part of the problem. If you answered B as racist, then you're part of the problem.  It's a dog taking a leak on a political yard sign, no different than C. 

Entitlement

Entitlement is a driver of racism both in hard measurable data and in soft slights that aren't recorded but exist on a significant scale.  Entitlement is seen both in actual forms and in perceived irrational forms.  Entitlement originally was an us positive factor.  Whether it's affirmative action giving minorities preferences or it's a white guy trying to give his keys to someone they think is a valet the actual action of entitlement is an empowering action - us positive.  The problem is the effect of entitlement.  For every artificial advantage given to someone there is a corresponding sense of victim by those who are actually harmed by the effect of the entitlement. 

Two candidates apply for random government job.  After resume scoring and interviewing candidate N is 3 points higher than candidate W.  The job would go to candidate N.  However, candidate W is a minority and therefore entitled to a 5 point bonus score based on race.  This leaves candidate W 2 points higher than candidate N so candidate W gets the job.  W is empowered and N is a victim.  Since negatives drive discord more than positives on our variable scale this is white us negative them positive. With low instances relative harmony ensued as the absolute volume wasn't high enough to create discord other than the actual victims. However, affirmative action has existed since 1964 (arguably 1961) and over the past 50 years the cumulative effect has caused the us negative them positive to become disproportionate leading to discord.

Government blessed racism in favor of minorities has a long legal history since the Civil Rights Act. Initially, quotas were acceptable. When this was deemed an equal rights violation a points system similar to what was set forth above was instituted.  This, too, eventually was declared an equal rights violation.  Race as a nebulous "factor" then became the mechanism of favoritism and is still allowed today, though as of 2013 is viewed through a strict scrutiny prism.

Entitlement also exists in other forms that have created a black us negative them positive output.  To paraphrase the President, what black male hasn't been mistaken for a valet?  This is a sense of entitlement that someone else can find my parking spot and care for my vehicle creating an effect of demeaning or second class citizen feeling towards the person mistaken as a valet. The same cumulative impact reasoning above applies leading to discord.

Recently though it seems like the Frankenstein effect has manifested in regards to entitlement.  Likely no one knew Trayvon Martin, Michel Brown, and Eric Gardner.  Yet, they have become celebrity causes for protests.  Not just protests, but students saying they are too busy protesting in the name of social justice and wanting their finals postponed.  It's led to patently illegal activity like stopping traffic.  This has resulted in a correspondingly sharp negative reaction. Now, you have listing of injustices by both races.  Blacks show on social media the alleged wrongs happening to them by the hands of law enforcement.  Whites show on social media the alleged wrongs blacks inflict on law enforcement and on whites.  Frankenstein is becoming a monster.  I fear we are on a critical mass trajectory if cooler heads don't prevail.

 

Victimhood

Victimhood is the most passionate of the three drivers. While entitlement had a them positive us negative reading, victimhood is more of a us negative with no corresponding counterbalancing positive.  To begin with, let's look at some facts/figures dealing with hard data on victimhood.  The Census Bureau estimates 316 million population, 78% white and 13% black (in round figures.) An individual is more likely to be murdered by a person of their own race..  Murder is horrible, no two ways about it. Murder is also rare. In 2013 there were only 409 whites murdered by blacks and only 189 blacks murdered by whites.  As horrible as murder is, an objective look shows that murder, especially interracial murder, is the extreme margin of societal ills. 

Just like with entitlement victimhood has both hard data and soft but nonetheless real instances.  Hard data is hate crimes.  This shows that although on the margin in absolute values anti-black bias accounts for a majority of racially motivated hate crime.  However, the data also shows that compared to relative  proportion of the population, blacks are more likely to commit a hate crime than whites are.  (Blacks 13% of population, but 15.7% of hate crimes, whites 77% of population 42.7% of hate crimes.)  This leads to both races having a us negative reading as blacks suffer the brunt of racially motivated hate crimes, but also commit a disproportionately high amount of racially motivated hate crimes leading to a white feeling of victimhood.

Then there's the no data victimhood that has set off the current spate of increased racial discord.  Law enforcement justifiable homicides are tracked by number, but not by race (which is most unfortunate as it does not allow for usable data.)  However, Mother Jones has created a chart using CDC data showing the number of deaths per million by gun from law enforcement. This chart is helpful to establish that blacks are killed at a higher rate than whites by law enforcement, but also shows a marked decrease in instances of black deaths from the 1970-2010 time period that is tracked (7.9 per million down to 1.8 per million.)  White deaths in the same time period have trended slightly higher (0.9 per million to 1.0 per million.) Also noticeable is the vast variation in the number of blacks killed per year - a sine wave pattern - versus the relative straightness of the whites killed per year.  This suggests that some outside element is in play regarding black deaths by law enforcement.

Taking a closer look at the data, propublica looked at law enforcement deaths between 1980 and 2012.  The study showed that young black males were far more likely to be involved in an officer involved deaths (21x higher), but when looking at all officer involved deaths whites account for 44% of the deaths.  What this doesn't answer is how much of the force was necessary and how much was excessive.  And the lack of hard data regarding necessary versus excessive has let the Frankenstein effect run wild.

Whether a fear is rational or irrational it is valid.  However, it's important to assess the etiology of the fear to best deal with the fear.  The long held belief that blacks are being targeted by law enforcement and the consequential talks about how to act when interacting with law enforcement seems to be bearing fruit in the form of lower numbers of blacks killed by law enforcement (see the Mother Jones chart.)  However, whites accounting for 44% of law enforcement deaths (see propublica) suggests that if there is targeting it is not nearly as likely to result in death as is widely believed in the black community and is more of a Frankenstein effect. The problem is that the Frankenstein effect seems to have taken hold and is rapidly causing discord.

Looking at the grad jury evidence and autopsy report in Mike Brown case if you didn't know the race of the officer and victim you have the following scenario.  The decedent recently robbed a store taking cigarillos.  He was high (THC in the blood per toxicology report), and had marijuana on him. Witness testimony is contradictory as to what initiated the altercation. The officer claims he was attacked in the patrol car while others say the officer initiated the physical nature of the altercation.  The officer has bruises to his face.  The decedent is shot and blood from the decedent is found on the exterior of the officer's car, on the interior of the officer's car, and on the pants of the officer.  The decedent runs and then turns to run at the officer.  The decedent is shot again and fatally wounded.  The entry and angle of the gun shot wounds indicate the wounds to the arm of the decedent were fired at an upward angle  The wounds to the head and chest of the decedent were at a downward angle.

Reasonable minds conclude that the cigarillos were likely stolen to be used to create more joints with the marijuana in the possession of the decedent.  The blood and bruises suggest the officer was telling the truth regarding an attack in the patrol car as he is injured and the gun shot wounds are at an upward angle suggesting the officer had been knocked down.  The blood on the interior of the patrol car and the officer's trousers suggest the decedent's arm was in the patrol car and above the officer at some point while injured.  This would seem like a case of the officer using reasonable force to protect himself from an attack by an intoxicated criminal.

Yet this set of facts lead to riots and burning parts of Ferguson down.  This set of facts is the casus belli that lead to the ongoing rapid deterioration in race relations.  Frankenstein effect.  This absolutely has led to racism as whites see this as a case of blacks playing the race and victim card and using that to justify illegal activity (rioting, arson, theft, blocking traffic, etc.) Blacks see themselves as victims in this scenario.  All the subsequent die in's and protests and the like do is further reinforce the two positions widening the wedge in between the two sides.

What's worse is the effect of the Frankenstein effect in the playing of the victim card. Now, some blacks will cry racism when they are asked to modify behavior (as in this example.) The passenger would have been asked to refrain from the loud music regardless of race.  However, it was irrationally perceived as racism, and the feeling of racism appears to be real (not feigned) as the passenger became upset and crying and concerned the flight crew enough to divert the flight.  Not only do faux victimhood claims detract from the actual instances of victimhood the effects are now having an impact where the normal orderly flow of life is being significantly interrupted by a perceived racist action. 

Worse, the legal system is being impacted as witnesses both pro Darren Wilson and pro Mike Brown had no qualms committing perjury to the grand jury investigating the case.  That's not just an interruption in orderly life, that's a threat to the very system of law and order.  Cooler more rational heads on both sides need to prevail.  All those who perjured themselves, white or black, should be held accountable for their actions as they make the legal system unreliable and fundamentally unjust.

Disparate Impact

Entitlement and victimhood are the drivers behind the current state of race relations, but disparate impact is the underlying current which feeds the fire and doesn't allow a return to relative harmony.  This is the belief that race neutral activity is really a carefully crafted ploy to oppress.  The current law of the land recognizes disparate impact as racist (using strict scrutiny as the standard of review), but the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue.  The actual examples of disparate impact are unimportant to the point being made here.  Disparate impact serves as a validity measure to the underlying victimhood feelings.  So on our scale it would be us negative, them negative just like victimhood.  Disparate impact true both for whites and blacks.  Whether it's law enforcement targeting or the disproportionate incidence of race motivated hate crimes, both races have ample supply of disparate impact to validate their underlying victimhood status.

One last point to make.  White privilege.  Look at what is alleged to be white privilege.  Many of the statements are elitist or simply not true.  Many hold equally true in reverse for blacks.  Any claim, statement, argumentation or justification based on/of white privilege is racism in it's purest form.  It is unwise to make references to this abstract concept because not only can many of the same alleged privileges be found to be present for blacks, but a list of alleged privileges that black skin confers could be created and it would be
equally damaging to the effort to return race relations to relative harmony.

Oh, if any think this is the ramblings of a lily white dude who has no idea of how things really are I'm married to an Asian.  Check your prejudice at the door and read this again, this time for the merits of what's being said.  If you have any different thoughts on what was said you're part of the problem.

This is meant to be blunt, but not offensive.  Hopefully it will lead to calm, rational reflection on the current state of discord in race relations and set the table for reasonable discussions.  The problem isn't going to go away.  Tensions have been simmering and pressure building.  The release valve needs to be opened, and constructive dialogue and honest assessment of the issues will serve to set the stage to reduce the discord.  At the least an honest self reflection and understanding of both sides of the issue serves to create a pause and move the needle to a more neutral position.
Footnotes:
FN 1 Although racism holds for all races since white/black race relations are the main source of racial discord in the country right now that is the focus and not other races.
FN 2 This statement differs from the social science concept that biology plays no part in racism and it is wholly cultural.  Biology sets the inalienable
characteristics that are used to define the different races, but the emergence of "race" beyond the physical differences are a social/cultural construct.

Abortion: Life versus Ensoulment

The public's opinion regarding abortion has been fairly stable over time.  This leads to argumentation being aimed at two distinct groups.  First, is the young who are forming their opinions on the subject, and second, those who have a divided opinion (legal only under certain circumstances.)  This latter group constitutes a majority of the population, but also tends to move in the opposite direction of the abortion legal at all times group (ie, the only certain circumstances group moves in and out of the at all times group.)

This leaves the right to life movement in a bind.  The arguments being put forth are keeping the "base" happy, and helping to keep public opinion relatively static, but are not winning the hearts and minds of the persuadable population.

Simply arguing that the baby is "life" and therefore shouldn't be aborted is a facially flawed argument.  Anyone who has had a bacterial infection knows that a single cell constitutes life.  It's good to kill bacteria if it is causing an infection.  Even a variation of the argument that life has value and shouldn't be killed is likewise easily batted away.  We can kill a pig for bacon with no moral reservation (assuming the slaughter method is humane.) 

This leaves the argument that we shouldn't allow abortion because it is "human life."  This is true, and from the moment of conception the baby is human.  That's also self evident in that nothing is added or taken away from the fertilized ova, so it may be rudimentary and not viable, but it's still human.

What then can be argued that would start to persuade the persuadable under certain circumstances crowd?  Presumably, the under certain circumstances crowd is so aligned because of two main reasons.  Either they believe abortion should be allowed until viability (or some other defined point) or they want exceptions for rape/incest/life of the mother.

Since the humanness of the baby isn't enough of an argument to persuade on abortion beyond levels already present a focus on the warrant is the next most logical place to adapt argumentation.  Often times the argumentation on the humanness of the baby fails to persuade because the warrant isn't defined.  Solution: define the warrant.  For this I would suggest ensoulment as the underlying warrant as to why the humanness of the baby is what should prevent abortion. 

Although the moment of ensoulmet has never been established - and likely cannot be established as science is incapable of testing for a soul in the womb - the metaphysical writings generally accept ensoulment at a very early stage of development and since the publication of Paulo Zacchia's Quaestiones Medico-Legales, question 9.1 ensoulment upon fertilization is the prevailing viewpoint.  After all, something that can be added can be taken away and the soul is not viewed as separable form the body so long as the body lives.      

While arguing ensoulment will not persuade the baseline quarter of the population that believes in abortion under any circumstance, they are not the target audience.  The majority who believes in limited abortion is the audience since they already at least partially accept limitation of abortion.

What the GOP Should do in 2015

Now that the new Congress is sworn in here are some things the GOP needs to do in order to be viable in 2016.
Both parties poll badly on favorability ratings, so start with the proposition that the vote was more of an antiObama vote rather than an endorsement of the GOP. Not all of the ideas here will be popular, but this is about 2016 not whipping up the ideological base.
1) Pass legislation and send it to Obama.  He either signs it or vetos it, but it shows that there is a path forward and the GOP is trying to move the country beyond the inactivity of the past few years.
2) Offer a plan on immigration.  Ideally the plan will be the same as what Reagan and the dems worked out, but in reverse order.  Give each illegal immigrant an "L" number (for lottery) and a 3 month window to register for the L number.  If no L number, no chance for amnesty.  As the border is secured and benchmarks are met there is a lottery to decide which L numbers become lawful permanent residents.  If an L number holder commits a crime, they are deported and the L number is forfeited.
This removes immigration from the table.  With that moderate Hispanics are more likely to vote with the GOP based on shared social values since the issue of immigration has been nullified.
3) Tie the minimum wage to the Social Security COLA adjustment.
This takes the issue off the table and also keeps the minimum wage in line with what the government has calculated is necessary to keep up with inflation.
4) Work on an omnibus energy security bill.  This will include both carbon based and renewable resources.
This blunts the environmental argument since renewable sources of energy are involved and helps to insulate the country against the whims of the Middle East.  It will also likely create jobs as fracking and the Keystone pipeline will doubtless be a part of the plan.
5) Enter into trade agreements with Africa.
This will create an alternate to China as a source of production thereby insulating the country from ill effects of a trade crisis as well as overall weaken the Chinese economy and reduce their ability to be a superpower.
6) Earmarks.  Hear me out on this one.  Use earmarks creatively to restrict the budget Obama is able to use.  For example as part of the budget earmark some for expanding the strategic oil reserve.  This would be in tranches with date certain releases.  If the date arrives and there is no activity towards expanding the strategic oil reserve then the budget bill dictates the amount to be released in the tranche is to be evenly split between servicing foreign owned debt and supplementing the Social Security trust fund.
This allows for the ability to compromise with Obama (knowing he will not act on earmarked portions he disagrees with) while at the same time reducing the national debt (thereby lowering future interest payments) as well as helping to fund Social Security.

Why Carbon Dioxide isn't the Source of Global Warming

   

 

A bit of background, I graduated from Mississippi State with a M.S. Geoscience, and briefly worked for the Environmental Protection Agency.  This background information is given solely to lay the predicate to the analysis below. 

 

 The idea that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming has it's support in the “greenhouse effect.” Mechanically the greenhouse effect works as follows: greenhouse gasses trap heat in the troposphere and prevent it from radiating out to space. Energy from the sun is shortwave radiation.  This shortwave radiation is absorbed by the surface of the Earth (or objects thereupon) and transformed into longwave radiation.  The longwave radiation is in turn radiated out to space.  The greenhouse gasses absorb longwave radiation on the way back to space and reradiate the energy back down to the surface which then transforms it back into long wave radiation which warms the atmosphere from the bottom up. If you measure temperature with height you see temperature drop with height.  The greenhouse effect theory states that the air temperature will increase until the greenhouse gasses layer and then temperatures will decrease above the greenhouse layer. In more simple terms the troposphere will warm and the  stratosphere will cool under the greenhouse theory.

 

In order for Carbon Dioxide to be causing global warming as explained by the greenhouse effect, four elements must be met:

1) The surface temperature must be above normal
2) The surface temperature must be continuing to warm
3) Stratospheric temperature must be below normal
4) Stratospheric temperature must be continuing to cool

I.  The surface temperature must be above normal

This is an area that is not in serious dispute.  Although over long periods the surface temperature has been both higher and lower, in general surface temperatures are higher than they were 50 and 100 years ago.  Using the 1961-1990 mean temperature as “normal”, the mean global temperature became above normal in 1977 and has been above normal for all but three years since then.  (source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html)

II. The surface temperature must be continuing to warm

 

If the greenhouse effect is to blame for the current global warming, then the temperature at the surface should continue to rise as greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continue to accumulate.  Although greenhouse gas emissions have declined since 1990, they have been increasing since approximately 1999. (Sources: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=from-bad-to-worse-with-greenhouse-gas-emissions , http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image/gif/trends_excluding_2008.gif )What we see is global temperature reached its maximum anomaly in 1998, and has been unsteadily dropping since then.  (source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html)

 

If the greenhouse effect theory was the source of the global temperature change, there would have been temperature decreases in the late 1990s when the emissions dropped and they would be rising now as emissions are increasing.  In the alternative, if the change in global temperature was caused by accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then we would continue to see temperature increasing as increased greenhouse gas emissions cause a continuing rise in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere.  Under either scenario, we would not be seeing a temperature drop that we are now seeing.

 

IIII and IV Stratospheric Temperature Must be Below Normal and Continuing to Cool

 

If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, the greenhouse gases that are warming the surface are causing the stratosphere to cool.  The atmosphere is heated from below via longwave radiation.  The greenhouse gasses in theory absorb longwave radiation and reradiate it out in all directions.  This reduces the amount of longwave radiation reaching the stratosphere, and the stratosphere cools.  In general, this is not happening (source: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/Fig_15.gif ) 

 

A good way to determine if the stratosphere is warming or cooling is to look at the amount of ozone destruction occurring.  Ozone is an unstable form of oxygen. Breathable oxygen is diatomic, while ozone is triatomic. Triatomic oxygen is unstable and readily breaks down. Ozone forms when ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by oxygen. Ozone is formed in the tropics, above the rainforests, and gradually rises and spreads pole ward via Brewer-Dobson circulation. At its most basic level this circulation is isentropic upglide and isentropic downglide.

 

In general, an isentrope is a line of equal entropy, in meteorology an isentrope is a line of equal equivalent potential temperature. Although isentropes are found at altitude, if you were to mathematically follow one to its end it would eventually run into the ground. As a result isentropic movement can be upward or downward depending on the direction of the prevailing wind. So ozone forms above the rainforests and then is pushed upward and pole ward by the prevailing winds in the Brewer-Dobson circulation. The circulation works well to transport ozone until winter comes. In the winter the polar jet increases speed and seals off the polar air form the rest of the atmosphere. This means that new ozone cannot replace any ozone destroyed.

 

Ozone is destroyed when another chemical comes in and bonds with the oxygen. The reaction surface for this chemical reaction is a Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC.) These  clouds don't look like a cloud like we are used to seeing. These clouds are colorful because they are not made out of liquid water.

 

Sometimes clouds are made out of ice crystals, for example a cirrus cloud, and will give different coloration such as a cirrus cloud crystals making a fire rainbow.   Other times the clouds are made out of liquids that are not water. When the temperature drops to -78 degrees gasses in the atmosphere can condense and become liquid. These liquids then become clouds just like water vapor condensing into liquid water to form a cloud like we see. These liquid droplets then refract the sun’s rays leading to coloration like a water droplet does to lead to white clouds.

 

Because of the long atmospheric life of ozone destroying chemicals (ODCs) in the air the amount of ozone destruction is controlled by the amount of PSCs that form rather than the amount of ODCs in the air. The amount of PSCs that form is controlled by the amount of time the temperature is at or below -78 degrees. In short stratospheric temperature is what controls ozone destruction. The colder it gets, and the longer it stays cold, the more ozone destruction will occur. Once the polar jet slows in the spring the Brewer-Dobson circulation brings in fresh ozone and ozone  levels return to normal. As a result we get finite amounts of ozone destruction every year. Rather than seeing ever increasing amounts of ozone destruction, the amount of ozone destruction is declining.  (Sources: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/Fig_7.gif , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/nh_05-06/figure_03.gif )

 

In short, because of the disconnect between surface temperatures and ozone destruction and greenhouse gas accumulations it seems that the greenhouse effect theory is not the mechanism that is causing global warming.  Something is causing the warming, but to focus our time and resources on carbon dioxide reduction only lets the problem progress without heading towards solution.

 

The Misadventures of Country Bumpkin in the Big City Episode 1

On the lighter side, occasionally I'll write some flash fiction.  Serious, juvenile, mocking sophistication.  Without further ado...

The Misadventures of Country Bumpkin in the Big City

 

Episode 1 - The High Flatulent Beer

Scene 1

Winston and Sophie are getting ready to go out for date night when there's a knock on the door.
Winston: Who could that be?
Winston walks to the door.  In the background
Sophie: Remember it's date night.
Winston looks out the peephole to see Bubba eating a large bag of Cheetos.  Winston opens the door. Bubba walks in uninvited.
Bubba: Heya buddy, I was in the neighborhood so dropped by.  You got any of that high flatulent beer around?
Bubba wipes the orange Cheeto residue from his hands on his shirt.
Sophie: That's disgusting.
Winston: Why don't you use a napkin for that?  There's one in the kitchen by the wine.  We have time for one drink then Sophie and I have plans.
Sophie glares at Bubba and Winston and walks out onto the balcony.
Winston: You get the wine and I'll go talk with her.
Winston walks out to the balcony and Bubba goes to the kitchen.

Scene two

Bubba grabs a rag left out and wipes this hands and mouth leaving orange residue visible on the rag.  He then grabs a bottle of moderately expensive wine and pulls the cork out.  He takes a shot straight from the bottle and frowns.
Bubba: This tastes rotten.
Bubba then pours wine into a carafe and pours some brown sugar into the wine.  He grabs a spatula out of the sink and starts stirring the mixture and exclaims
Bubba (in a Kool Aid Man voice): Oh yeah!
(Background) Winston: You coming Bubba?
Bubba: Yeah, just a second.
Bubba places the orange stained rag over the carafe and walks out to the balcony.

Scene three

Bubba brings the carafe out to the balcony.  Sophie sees the rag.
Sophie: Bubba, that's disgusting!
Bubba: What is?
Winston: Never mind.  We only have time for one drink.
Bubba tosses the rag on the ground and starts to pour glasses of wine, knocking one over.
Bubba: I'm sorry, I'm a klutz.
Winston: No worries.
Winston takes the carafe and pours the remaining glass.
Winston: What should we drink to?
Sophie: To date night.
All: To date night.
Sophie takes a sip.
Sophie: This doesn't taste right.
Winston takes a sip.
Winston: No it doesn't.  What did you do Bubba?
Bubba: Added some brown sugar to the high flatulent beer.
Sophie: No! It has glutens now! I can't have any glutens!
Bubba leans over and looks at girlfriend's buttocks.
Bubba: Yeah, that's not a good idea, your glutes are getting big.
Sophie throws her glass of wine on Bubba.
Bubba sucks some wine from his shirt.
Bubba: Tastes good now.
End.

Labor Force Participation Rate and Social Security

Social Security is in trouble.  We've been hearing that for years and the data suggests that the problem is no where close to being solved.  This is a problem that can be resolved, but the question is how can it be fixed without a major overhaul to the program?

The problem is simple, the projected income in to the program is expected to become insufficient to cover the expected obligations because the number of individuals collecting is going to exceed the capacity of workers paying into the system.  This is also a problem that is finite; as the baby boom generation dies off (yes this is blunt) the number of collectors will drop off and the system will return to solvency because the capacity of payers will once again exceed the number of collecting.

So in the long run, this is a problem where we can kick the can down the road if the management of the system is done smartly.  The issue is how to increase collections before the system becomes insolvent.  The core of the problem is the drop in labor force participation.

The current labor force participation rate is 62.7%.  This is on a downward trajectory.  What's scary is the downward trend isn't because of more retirees.  The number of people 62 and over (and therefore eligible for early retirement from Social Security) participating in the workforce is increasing.  This means the participation rate for the normal working age population is decreasing.  Reversing this trend is necessary to the future solvency of Social Security.

However, this doesn't excuse Congress and the President from taking steps now that will help to extend the solvency of the system.  Remember, the problem is finite and will end up resolving itself with time.

While the majority of people who pay into the system receive benefits, sadly there's a significant number of people who never receive or receive less than they paid into the system because of early death.  This number will only rise as the retirement age increases.  Right now the retirement age is in a phased in increase from 65 to 67.  One simple way to help extend the solvency of the program is to allow individuals who are not able to retire at 65 because of the increased retirement age to pay in extra in order to be able to retire at 65 with full benefits.  For that matter, the system could be to where workers are allowed to pay extra in order to have full retirement at 62 rather than have early retirement with the penalty. 

As long as the increased payments were sufficient to fully fund the extra 2 (or in the case of early retirement 5) years worth outlays the system is not running any extra deficit.  This increases the solvency of the system because not only is there an immediate cash inflow which pushes back the insolvency date but the system ends up ahead as contributors have early demises and the system pays out no benefits.

The collection system is already in place, all that's needed is for the government to allow this to be a possibility.  Once a worker makes the election for extra contributions they would automatically be collected out of paychecks along with the current collections for benefits.