Another salient image from Election 2012

Figure 1. Voters in Miami waiting in line

The single image that encapsulated Election 2012

I endorse President Obama

The issue I am most passionate about is affordable healthcare. There are more important issues in the long-run (i.e. Global Warming), and there are more important short-term issues for the political process (i.e. Campaign Finance reform), but I believe that affordable healthcare is the fundamental right of all members of our society, which is quite wealthy by any measure (e.g. GDP per capita http://goo.gl/G5MR). It is one reason why I am a biologist.

Mitt Romney and the republican members of congress would repeal Obamacare, would replace Medicare with a voucher system, and would gut Medicaid. This is wrong. We can afford a Universal Healthcare system; all industrialized nations except the U.S. have such a system in place using appropriate guidelines to limit the cost of healthcare as part of the program, rather than imposing the burden solely on the overstrapped Middle Class to either pay more or receive less healthcare.

It is important to note that affordable healthcare is not some discretionary item like a bunch of broccoli (and to make the comparison is asinine); it is essential for life. You should not have to go to the ER to get treated for a metastasizing breast cancer tumor.

The Economist put it best in their endorsement of President Obama: "The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal."

The bottom line is that the Tea Partier motorcyclist protesting the mandatory state helmet law who hits a bump in the road and cracks his bare, unhelmeted head on the pavement should receive immediate medical attention by paramedics instead of bleeding to death on the road while they rifle through his pockets to make sure he has health insurance. Tragically this person did die despite the best efforts of the paramedics and ER personnel.

Forward (not backward)

Fairness

The ability to understand the concept of fairness is not limited to humans.

Creating a third party

I wish Mayor Bloomberg would create a new independent party after the Fall elections this year. The republican party has fallen off a cliff over the past few years taken over by the Tea Party and their increasingly radical pronouncements. Moderates like Richard Lugar, John McCain, Jeb Bush, etc. have been marginalized and effectively driven from the party. In their place, we have the anti-abortion, anti-immigration, creationist, global warming denying, zero-tax increase, gun-loving, ALEC-mouthpiece, superpac-loving nonsense dominating the republican airwaves. To make progress, we need to have a rational discussion, and given that there are only two parties at the table, one of which seems capable of only bombastic sloganeering, we are not going to make progress on the fundamental issues of the day. In this three-party scenario, the republican party would morph into one of the national-front type groups in Europe, best known for their racist policies.

Figure 1. Mayor Michael Bloomberg

1 + 1 does not equal 3

I have read a lot of grumbling about the dysfunctionality of Congress and the two-party political system as a whole; many pundits want to be "fair" and place blame equally on the Democrats and the Republicans, ignoring the fact that on many issues the experts have reached a consensus and have concluded that one side is basically talking nonsense.

For example, this past Spring, Tennessee passed legislation sponsored by the Tea Party that makes it permissible to teach creationism in schools alongside of Evolution as part of the science curriculum. Are we still living in the 1920's? This is simply crazy. Evolution is not some speculative hypothesis that needs to be tested. It is a theory that has been proven over and over again beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is the same theory that we use to design modern medicines that saves lives; it is the same theory that we use to convict criminals and sentence them to death. There is as much scientific evidence for creationism as there is for the existence of Santa Claus.

So, on one side we have those who say that 1 + 1 = 2;  on the other, we have those who loudly clamor that no you're wrong: 1 + 1  = 1000000. Hey, they shout, you are the extreme ones, look at how far away you are from us.

Then there are those in the middle who want to be "fair". Let's compromise, we know that the "Party of 2" is much more likely to be correct and so let's say that 1 + 1 = 3, which is almost 2.

No, I am sorry, but that will not do. A plane that thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 will crash. A building that thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 will collapse. A computer that thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 is useless.

A revenue-neutral tax plan that reduces taxes on the wealthy without raising taxes on the middle class and poor is a nonsensical fallacy.

This country faces a number of challenges including spiraling healthcare costs, persistent unemployment, and Global Warming. We cannot begin to make progress on these complex issues until we all agree that 1 + 1 = 2, not 3, not 1000000. Those who cannot agree must excuse themselves from the discussion.

Figure 1. The tandem bicycle on the right was designed by an engineer who thinks that 1 + 1 = 3.

Put up or shut up

Mitt Romney has called out Senator Harry Reid for insinuating that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years. "Put up or shut up", he says. 

Others have compared the speculation on whether or not Romney has paid taxes to the speculation during the "birther" controversy.

This is like comparing the purchase of broccoli to the purchase of healthcare insurance.

Presidential candidates since the beginning of time have released their tax returns (including Romney's father who ran for President) for good reason. If you don't release your taxes then you are going against long precedent and should offer a good reason. If you don't offer a good reason, then people have the right to speculate on what your tax returns might look like and why they are not being released. 

Releasing your birth certificate is not a rite of passage in the Presidential race. No one has done it before because it is stupid; we know that the candidates were born in the U.S. Perhaps the "birthers" will next ask President Obama to "prove" that he is older than 35. 

So Mitt, since you are bucking a longstanding tradition of all Presidential candidates, it is incumbent upon you to "put up or shut up." Otherwise, the rest of us have the right (even the obligation) to speculate and ponder on what you might be hiding.

No Mitt, you put up or shut up