FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com

PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, encounters Christian bloggers who write about the chance meeting. Myers responds with a critique: they pat themselves on the back for politeness. He points out that politeness is a low bar. That may be a little unfair. The self-applause is implicit at most, and politeness is a beginning of mutual respect.

Infidel 753 attends a workshop on evolution and the genome and determines that science and Christianity are incompatible. It will break my heart tomorrow to tell our pastor the bad news. And on Easter, yet. With respect (always), I believe Infidel makes a classic, and understandable, error. Christianity is often seen as monolithic, defined as through the lens of the 1925 Scopes Trial in Tennessee.

Why do we have to do this, Sir? relates the suffering and despair of the Crucifixion of Jesus. What is often missed is the hopelessness at the time. Nowhere in the Gospels is anyone at the time predicting any positive possibilities beyond survival.

Vincent of A wayfarer's notes has a problem with science and Christianity: one for self-definition as Science rather than a science, the other for thinking itself as the Truth rather than a truth.

Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot takes us into video from under the ocean with a twist of sorts on technology. Human adventurism is a kind of rebellion against evolutionary limitations.

Nancy Hanks at The Hankster promotes a strategy session for independent voters.

Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger, has an angry piece at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST reprising French history pointing to a modern US conservative coup. Jack is a republican, with a small r. He makes the case that contemporary conservatives are Republicans, but not republicans or democrats.

Michael John Scott, first citizen of Mad Mike's America, watches as Mitt Romney yells at his mirror and pretends it's President Obama. This time it's about Obama's Harvard background. Uh, Mitt spent more time at that very same university than did Barack Obama.

James Wigderson explains why he didn't vote in this week's Wisconsin primary. Has to do with not having a preference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, since either has an equal chance of defeating President Obama in November. We can hope that is true.

Vixen Strangely at Rumproast deconstructs the unusual Republican formulation of Women's rights, comparing women with caterpillars. Actually the real message is that measures like contraception, vaginal probing, and medical care, are trivial issues conjured up by leftist Democrats. Women are much more concerned by real issues like the federal deficit. Meanwhile, polls indicate Mitt Romney suffering a deficit of his own, an 18 percent gap among women in swing states, and a gap of 34% among caterpillars.

The Heathen Republican provides a good conservative analysis of the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause essentially says that whatever actions are necessary are allowed to fulfill other measures that the Constitution does allow. My analogy is here. If I give you permission to drive my car, I can't object to the fact that you turned the ignition key, even though I didn't explicitly mention that. Heathen seems explicitly to embrace something very close to that, then says he disagrees with any interpretation that would "justify federal actions beyond the scope of the enumerated powers." The purpose of the Clause is to do exactly that, in support of other measures allowed by the Constitution. I suspect he means something different than my literalist mind casts on his words.

Ryan at Secular Ethics reviews an important aspect of the legal argument over Obamacare. Is the mandate a tax? It's an important question. If it is, the court has to postpone consideration until the tax, or a fine, is applied, sometime in 2014. However, if the fines are issued under the Constitution's taxing authority, an argument made by the administration before the Supreme Court, the decision is automatic. It has to be Constitutional. Ryan offers a good analysis. Sadly, at least two Justices seem to unconcerned with actual legalities. Two more seem to be dependable partisans, and another is openly skeptical of the mandate. I'm guessing the issue on taxes is moot.

The new politically correct definition of racist is anyone who points out actual racism. Tyler Perry alleges racial profiling. Chuck Thinks Right rolls his eyes, and just knows it must be bogus. His evidence is Perry's tinted windows. If he reads the story to which he links, he might learn that what Perry believes was profiling came after, not before, a legitimate traffic stop. I don't know that Perry is right. But Chuck knows for a fact Perry is wrong. Which tends to validate, not discredit, Tyler Perry's larger point.