Truth for a Lie

The most charitable attitude one can take upon hearing a statement that is demonstrably false is that the person speaking is genuinely mistaken. However, if the person persists after having been shown that they are in error, the goodwill does and should vanish, as it is no longer a mistake, but a lie. The thing about telling lies is that whether they are to yourself or to others, the lies have nasty habit of finding you out. Especially heinous are lies about or in the name of God, as one claiming to represent absolute Truth should be especially careful about his claims and quick to correct himself should the truth become available.

Now, when speaking of truth and lies, it is important to distinguish between a fact and an opinion, as much discourse seems to revolve around the conflation of these distinct concepts. An opinion is subjective and open to interpretation. For example, I could say that the West Virginia University Mountaineer Football team is not playing to its full potential this year. The key to the opinion is its vagueness. How does one define “potential” when the games have already been played? On the other hand, it is a fact that the Mountaineers cannot win the Big East title this year. It is mathematically impossible. Fans who continue to shout “We’re Number One” after a loss mean well, but objectively they are misguided at best.

What concerns me lately is the number of demonstrable falsehoods that have been stated emphatically by certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists of late. After all, one can only say so many things that are plainly and provably incorrect before he begins to lose credibility in all he believes and stands for. You will have to forgive me if fail to take your opinion seriously if you claim, with a straight face, that it is raining outside while standing in front of a window that reveals bright sunshine pouring through.

Getting down to business, let us examine a few key falsehoods that I encounter on a regular basis:

First up,The majority of Christendom rejects the Theory of Evolution. One would need a particular peculiar definition of Christianity and Christendom for this to be the case. Biblical literalism in the form of Young Earth Creationism is virtually unknown outside of the U.S. Evangelical community and its missionary offshoots, and it is not even a majority position in the U.S. Fully half of the Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, and the RCC officially accept Evolution as fact, as does the Anglican Communion and a substantial portion of the Mainline Protestant denominations, as well as many moderate Evangelicals. I suppose one could claim that more than two-thirds of the professed and practicing Christians at home at abroad do not actually belong to their own religion, but I think they would beg to differ.

Next is an oldy but goody, The United States is (or was founded as) a Christian Nation. I’m afraid not. There are substantial differences between a nation whose citizenry is predominately Christian and a Christian nation. If you do not understand the difference, think of it this way, if most people listened to The Beatles every week, would the United States be a “Beatles Nation?” A “Christian Nation” is one that has an official church or official government position on matters of religion. England and Denmark are Christian Nations, even if the majority of their populations do not attend church services regularly. The United States is a secular country, even if a substantial portion of the population is devout in its belief and practice. The difference is not merely academic; it has far-reaching consequences in matters of law and government policy. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the status, and given that the Freedom of Speech is tied in with the Establishment Clause, one would be on very dangerous ground in proposing such a thing and a long way from any philosophy that could be considered remotely conservative. If you are still in doubt as to the Founder’s intent or think this is merely an opinion, I ask you to consider the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797, passed unanimously by both Houses of Congress, and which literally states that “ the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Last but not least, Proposed healthcare reforms include provisions for “Death Panels.” It really takes a special kind of hatred for the President and Congress to believe that either is interested in indirectly offing its own constituency. It is hard to imagine that anyone who utters such a thing could be taken seriously about much anything, but there they are—guests and hosts of talk shows, authors, politicians and certain celebrities, claiming this is so, without a hint of proof. The proposed bills have provisions mandating coverage for end of life counseling. The counseling is offered so that the patient’s own wishes can be codified, which helps to avoid legal confusion (a la Schiavo) and potentially wrenching decisions by those closest to the patient. Anyone who has been admitted to a hospital in the past several years has almost certainly been asked whether or not he has an advance directive and if not, if he is interested in information. Few would disagree that it is preferable that such plans and wishes be made clear by a calm person of sound mind than by a soon-to-be grieving relative. All these proposals due is guarantee insurance coverage for the legal and ethical counseling that goes into such decisions. This sort of coverage has been part of Medicare for many years and probably most private insurance policies as well. Think about it, is the AARP really going endorse a policy that contains even the faintest hint of anything that could even potentially lead to something as nefarious as a “death panel?” To turn a cliché, if it seems too bad to be true, it probably is. How anyone who says such things could be held in high regard escapes me.

These are but a few of the seemingly countless examples that will be dealt with on the blog in the coming weeks, months and years. For some reason, the subjects of science, religion, history and politics are especially prone to distortions, misunderstandings and outright falsehoods. If you catch me saying something that is demonstrably, factually incorrect, please do correct me. I am ever interested in uncovering and spreading truth in all its forms. I hope this is a value that we can all share.

Origins

Exactly one hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published what he called an “abstract” entitled On the Origin of the Species, which explained what would became known as the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Darwin anticipated that his findings would spark controversy, and he had made provisions to have his work published posthumously so that he would not have to deal with the fallout. Only after Alfred Russel Wallace reached the same conclusions did Darwin dare publish a work that Darwin viewed incomplete and somewhat rushed, even at about 400 pages. Darwin could scarcely predict that his “abstract” would go through six editions in his lifetime and become so foundational that future biologists would struggle to imagine working in their field without Darwin’s contribution.
In observance of the 150th anniversary, I took the occasion to skim through my paperback reprint of his first edition. Even to a layperson, it is easy to see why the book sold so well. Darwin’s prose is accessible but detailed and he displays an infectious passion for his work. More striking, though, is the notion then and now that anything in here could be remotely controversial. It seems strange that a work so well reasoned could be easily misrepresented and misinterpreted.
Few sane people with argue with any of Darwin’s basic premises, as they are pretty self-evident. First, there is variation within a species. This is plainly obvious to anyone who has seen more than one animal of the same species. Children are not clones of their parents and any litter of puppies shows variance in markings, size, strength and disposition. Next, there is a struggle for life, especially in the wild. Not every creature born will have the fortune to reach adulthood or to reproduce. Some will fall to disease, others to predators and some to accident and others to starvation before reaching maturity. Were this not the case, the planet would be overrun by rabbits in a few decades, leaving little room for anything or anyone else. Additionally, the planet has multiple environments, many of which are subject to change over time. This is also self-evident. It is why so many people groups have been nomads. Sometimes rivers flood or change their paths, sometimes there are droughts or natural disasters that permanently alter the landscape. I don’t think anyone would argue with these points any sooner than they would deny that 1+1=2.
Darwin’s primary observation was that these factors combine into a selective pressure wherein some offspring are statistically more likely to reach maturity than others. A fast cheetah is more likely to eat and a slow gazelle more likely to be eaten. Since some cheetahs are faster than others and some gazelles slower, it stands to reason that some cheetahs will starve and some gazelles will live long and happy lives. Darwin also reasoned that the pairing two fast cheetahs would increase the likelihood of fast offspring. He may not have understood genetics like we do now, but he noticed that characteristics were shaped by domestic breeders and that these characteristics tended to pile up over time, leading to unique breeds of dogs and flowers. It seemed likely that nature would also select attributes that increase the likelihood of survival. This, while not being self-evident, does make sense and provokes little misunderstanding or disagreement. After all, people groups who are native to areas near the equator tend to have darker skin than those who live farther North.
Darwin further reasoned a changing environment might cause a trait that was once neutral and rare to lead to a distinct advantage. For example, a predator with white fur might have an advantage over one with brown fur should its habitat see in permanent increase in snowfall. The predators with white fur would continue to interbreed while those with brown fur more be more likely to starve. Eventually, the brown variety would be rare to nonexistent. This of course follows from the first several points and provokes little disagreement.
Next we come to the notion of Descent with Modification. This is basically the notion that occasionally, a mutation will develop that brings about a trait that has not been seen before. Most of these will be very slight and most will be neutral or detrimental, but occasionally one will lead to a slight but distinct advantage. Perhaps a particular bird’s will hatch with a beak will take on a slightly different shape than any of its predecessors. Perhaps this shape is more suited to digging out insects or worms in this particular environment. While slight, the variation gives just enough advantage that survival and reproduction is more likely, and thus as with the white fur, the trait will become increasingly common in the population until the previously common variety of beak is rarely, if ever seen. Meanwhile, a neighboring population that subsists on a slightly different diet may also see a slight mutation that gives a slight, but definite statistical advantage. Eventually, one slight mutation here and another there will lead to populations distinct enough that the two are recognized as different species, which is to say that they no longer reproduce with one another. It is a very gradual process, something not normally observed in a human lifetime or perhaps even in a nation’s existence, but it does happen.
This is really all there is to Darwin’s theory of evolution. There is no expectation that there will be a one-generation leap from one species to another. There is no expectation of a crockoduck, no prediction that an ape will give birth to a human or vice-versa, only that every small changes will accumulate over time. Most people have no problem seeing how this works going forward in time. They understand that next year’s influenza will be of a slightly different variety than this year’s and that there are new varieties of bacteria that subsist on diets that could not have possibly existed in the past, e.g. those that digest synthetic material like Nylon.
What people don’t like, and what got Darwin into trouble, is the implication that the processes that are plainly seen going forward also work when going backward through time. Every population and species of life can be traced in principle to a previous variety that looks and behaves in ways increasingly distant from the ones presently observed. Tracing one’s own ancestry, he eventually finds a predecessor that is no longer recognizably human. This seems to be too much to take for some people, but logically, accepting that evolution runs forward but not backward is a bit like accepting that 2*5=10 but that 10/5 does not equal 2. It does not make sense to deny that a process we observe every day does not apply to us.
In Darwin’s day, as is the case today, some suggest that there is some type of distinction between micro and macro-evolution. That perhaps God created certain archetypal “kinds” and let evolution proceed from there. That might be easier to accept, but it is not what the evidence tells us. DNA shows current species converging back on common ancestors. Fossil evidence has universally supported the gradual adaption of traits and groups over long periods of time.

Despite millions of man-hours spent gathering and collecting data by scientists both supportive and critical of Darwin’s ideas, no piece of evidence has served to discredit his suggestions and all, repeat all data and specimens have supported Evolution by means of Natural Selection. It is simply time to move on. There is no controversy. There has not been a serious controversy for decades. Evolution is a fact of life. It’s not a hypothesis, a conjecture, a hunch, a guess or a supposition. The pieces to this puzzle were there all along. Had Darwin not discovered evolution, someone else would have by now.
I for one find Darwin’s findings to be inspirational and fascinating. Evolution means that every single life form on this planet is related to every other life form on this planet. We share not only a planet, but an ancestor. I think our society can only benefit from this knowledge. It is at once empowering and humbling, this notion that despite nearly insurmountable odds, our species and we as individuals have arisen to study ourselves and the world while yet being very much a part of it. To the degree that we respect nature, we respect ourselves, and to the degree that we wander at it, will we understand ourselves and our purpose.

Happy Holidays

For as long as anyone alive today can remember, the period from mid-November through early January has been know as the “Holiday Season.” On its face, the reason for the moniker is obvious: there are several holidays of significance observed by substantial portions of the population during this time, including celebrations by the major monotheistic religions, including, Christmas and Advent, Chanukah, Eid al-Adha and (sometimes) Ramadan, as well as the more secular Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, cultural celebrations such as Kwanzaa and even pagan celebrations such as Saturnalia or the Winter Solstice.

Most educated people understand why so many significant cultural celebrations coincide during these six weeks or so. In the Northern Hemisphere, this is the time of year when the days grow shorter and the temperature plummets, when, in agrarian cultures, the harvest would have been complete and for there to be little left to do but to hunker down with friends and family and enjoy the fruits of the collective labor. Some of these holidays clearly share the same roots, while others have arisen independently, but the season is celebrated throughout much of the world for similar reasons. More succinctly, Jesus is not the (only) ”Reason for the Season.” The “Season” was here before he was born and it is still there in places that have never heard of him. Christians largely co-opted elements of several existing pagan celebrations, including the time of year to form a new holiday focused on Jesus’ birth.

Curiously, rather than take hear the biblical admonition to “rejoice with those who rejoice” (Romans 12:15), as our Christian predecessors did when forming the Christmas holiday in the first place, a significant number of Christians have begun to voice opposition to, and even fear of, the notion that different people are celebrating different events of their own cultural importance during this time. The American Family Association has gone so far as to maintain a “nice” and “naughty” list of retail companies, declaring those who specifically (and apparently exclusively) mention “Christmas” as being “nice” and those who choose a more inclusive “Happy Holidays” to be “naughty.” Those who mention Christmas in some, but not all advertising are accused of “marginalizing Christmas.”

Judging the morality of companies based on the frequency with which a retailer mentions a particular holiday not only smacks of xenophobia, it also leads to some obvious and glaring contradictions. For example, AFA lists Bed, Bath and Beyond as “FOR Christmas” and Victoria’s Secret as “AGAINST Christmas” (capitalization theirs.) However, these two outlets are merely different iterations of the same parent company. Are we to honestly believe that the same management is simultaneously “for” and “against” a federally recognized holiday? What exactly constitutes being “against” Christmas anyway? Are the stores not closed, do they not give their employees a paid day off? Would it not make more sense to rate companies on charitable giving, social responsibility or treatment of employees and customers?

Meanwhile, Best Buy and the Gap are taking all sorts of flack for attempting to acknowledge what the population at large has no trouble handling, namely that there are many specific holidays during this time of year. In Best Buy’s case, they have decided to eschew the generic “Happy Holidays” for specific, named holidays as they occur. Thus, this week’s circular wishes a Happy Thanksgiving and acknowledges the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which takes place on November 27th this year. This should hardly be viewed as an affront to American or Christian values but rather opportunity. When Jesus encountered at Samaritan woman at the well, he did not focus on their differences, even when she brought attention to their divergent places of worship and practices. He focused on her as a person. Culturally, it is important to recognize that while estimates as to the exact number vary, it is undeniable that there are a substantial number of Muslims in the U.S.– certainly more than a million and possibly as many as eight million. Even splitting the difference at 4 million or so, that is as many Muslims in this country as Presbyterians! The parallels between Samaritans of Jesus’ day and Muslims of ours should not be dismissed. More practically, a corporation the size of Best Buy likely has hundreds of Muslim employees and thousands of Muslim customers. Does it really make in business or moral sense to ignore such a group?

Meanwhile, The Gap is taking heat for its light-hearted Old Navy ad that contains a “cheer” that dares mention Kwanza, Solstice and Hanukkah “celebrate whatever holiday you wanukkah!” This ad, according the AFA, warrants a full boycott by their members. To the “War on Christmas” crowd, this is an affront to their values, which apparently involve the exclusion of millions of people from the holiday season so that they can have their own holiday all to themselves.

Perhaps the wiser stance is to recognize that companies do not celebrate holidays, people do. Companies celebrate profit. It is not in there to exclude groups of potential customers on the basis narrow-minded groups. As people, we need to recognize that we are not only celebrating events of religious, historical or cultural significance but also each other. You can wish me a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukah, Festivus, Solstice or Saturnalia, and I will return the favor and the sentiment. This is what the spirit of the holiday season has been about for millennia and I do not intend to have it wrecked by a group that is so insecure as to feel threatened by neighbors with different beliefs. Instead of decrying the Muslim holiday in the Best Buy curricular, why not find a Muslim family in real life or on the Internet and ask them about it? You might learn something. And maybe, just maybe, they will learn something to. A healthy dialogue never hurts anybody.

Empathy

For those of you that are or have been married, recall for a moment the feeling you had when you first got engaged to be married. How your heart fluttered as you popped the question or received the ring. The jubilant announcements to friends, family, even strangers in diners were apt to hear about your love. You literally wanted the whole world to know. The excitement barely wore off as you made the wedding plans. The church or hall was booked, along with a caterer, a DJ or band, invitations ordered and addressed. You poured your life into the relationship and the event that would codify it publically.
Now, imagine that when you went to pick up the marriage certificate, you found that the county government had been infiltrated by a celibate cult, whose members hold marriage to be immoral. You move from office to office but it seems everyone is in on it. You can have the ceremony if you want to, but it will not be codified. Not in this county, anyway. How would you react? Who are these people, and why are the foisting their esoteric beliefs onto you? Certainly they have a right to practice the religion of their choice as they see fit, but not at your expense.

Forget the wedding for a moment. Imagine that a “Christian” extremist group carries out violent attacks across the country relentlessly for years. The military and civilian justice system seem powerless to stop them. The group becomes large enough and powerful enough that a full civil war breaks out. The next thing you know, the members of OPEC are sending troops, uninvited, to save us from ourselves. After all, we consume an enormous amount of their oil. An unstable superpower is bad for everyone, especially for those who are “different.” They assure us that they are only here to help. But while they’re here, they insist that alcohol consumption and R Rated movies be prohibited. Signs in Arabic may go up from place to place to help off-duty soldiers find their way. Since the terrorists attend church regularly, the OPEC army suspects and harasses everyone goes to church.

Which would bother you more, the terrorists that hijack your religion or the occupying army that views all of you with suspicion? Which is worse, the violent faction that you do not understand or the peacekeepers that do not understand you? Would the safety and security be worth the price? How long would you tolerate the foreign army before joining the militants who terrorized you before? At least they are from here. At least the speak English and wear Western clothes. Surely it would be easier to negotiate with people of a similar background than to rely on a third party that does not understand the culture at all.
These are the kinds of questions that we ask every kindergartner, yet we apply a different standard to ourselves as adults. When a child takes a toy without asking, every parent instinctively asks “how would you feel if he took your toy.” Most children understand the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated. Grown-ups sometimes miss the corollary–do not treat others in ways that you would not want to be treated. When a child takes an action that does nothing to benefit himself but that does demonstrably harm another, we call that bullying. We would not let any child justify said bullying by appealing to an authority, (“Tommy told me to”,) the wisdom of crowds (“EVERYONE picks on Billy”), or tradition (“second graders have always picked on first graders.”) No. We call it what it is and we punish accordingly, knowing that society cannot function if kids grow up treating other people that way.

Surely we as adult can hold ourselves to the standard we expect of kindergartners. The world is complicated, but it is not THAT complicated. Kids pick this stuff up. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard, like actually studying for that test. Sometimes the right thing is doing nothing at all, life refusing to pick on the fat kid to avoid being picked on. Sometimes doing the right thing involves compromises we would rather not make, like sharing a cherished toy with a kid that is sometimes mean in attempt to show compassion.

Nobody remembers the bullies of their childhood fondly. I submit that history is no more fond of grown- up bullies. Slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation laws—all horrific, and all were justified at the time by people appealing to tradition, crowds or religion. Wars have been waged more for the reason to be right than to provide a strategic defense. The folly is always obvious in retrospect. Do we really want to go down these roads again? Would it not be nice to be remembered as the generation that got it right the first time?

ASU Origins Forum: Science and Culture Panel

This is part of an ongoing summary of lectures and discussions held during the Arizona State University Origins Forum on April 6, 2009.

I am not sure how I managed to neglect this series for so long. That first Monday in April feels like an eternity ago. Though there were some lectures and discussions earlier in the day, I will skip ahead for the time being to a panel discussion that, in retrospect, has had more of an effect on his life and choices that any sermon, service or seminar that I have attended in some time. It was during this seminar that the seeds were sewn that would serve to turn me from being a casual student of science in the “neat to read about sense” to someone who would consider devoting his life to being a teacher of and evangelist for scientific truth. I have submitted my application to the local university and I fully expect to be on track to becoming a science teacher as the next year dawns.

As the sun met the mountains to the West, a large crowd, disappointed but yet undeterred by the absence of Stephen Hawking, gathered to hear a panel discussion by some of the rarest creatures in modern culture–celebrity scientists. Hosted by Roger Bingham, founder of The Science Network, the panel included such recognizable names and faces as Neil deGrasse Tyson (NOVA scienceNOW), Ann Druyan (Cosmos), Lucy Hawking (children’s author and daughter of the legendary Stephen Hawking) , Claudia Dreifus (New York Times), and, much to my surprise, Hugh Downs–(20/20, The Today Show, The Tonight Show, Concentration –need I go on?)

I am working from notes, not a transcript, so I will summarize the answers of the panel as a whole, rather than note individual responses.

After introducing the panel, Roger Bingham comes strong out of the gate with the very first question:

Is the alarm sounding? Is science losing ground in the U.S.?

The panel seems to feel that there is an anti-intellectual ethos taking shape in America. While religious fundamentalism plays a strong part, there seem to also be non-religious political and cultural organizations that seem to thrive on tearing down the very fields that have contributed to this country’s economic and technological superiority. Druyan, in particular is emphatic that we must move away from what she calls “faith-based” politics. By this, she does not mean politics by religious people or organizations but the sort of emotional stump speeches and talking-head rants that have no basis in fact.

There is also concern that some significant research is not being covered. For example, the recently-launched Kepler Mission, an effort by NASA to but habitable planets, received one line on a cable news network ticker at the bottom of the screen and no accompanying story. The point is made that in addition to potential failure in Public Education (teaching children proper science at school), there are also failures in educating the public–letting the public know what is being done in the scientific community, how it being done and why it is important.

At this point, Neil deGrasse Tyson jumps in and points out that all is not lost. He says that there was once a time when one could go months without finding in science-related programming on television at all. Now, there are entire networks dedicated to it. For him, the problem is not coverage, but public understanding.

In contract to deGrasse Tyson’s optimism, other members of the panel paint a bleak picture. CNN had recently shut down its entire science reporting division. The New York Times has historical had an award-winning science team, but over half of its reporters in that division had recently been let go. The panel states that these actions do not bode well, as scientists themselves are often poor communicators when it comes to addressing the general public, so the loss of science reporters will predictably result in a loss of public understanding. Science has good stories to tell, but someone needs to be able to tell them effectively.

The panel members express their considerable dismay at Sarah Palin’s literal political stumping against scientific research. In their view, Palin represents and personifies an extreme and dangerous anti-intellectualism. She does not seem to have a principled problem with any particular study, but rather an expressed disdain for research. Palin does not seem to be interested in the reason for or the potential benefits of funding a project. It is all government waste to her.

Bingham moves on to the next question:

What about children? How can scientists communicate more effectively with them?

The panelists agree that interest among young children is innately high. Hawking says kids like to do shows, to put on skits about various topics, including science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is optimistic, as usual. He says that “nerds” are no longer vilified, that jocks now recognized that the geeks are the ones who make it fix those cool gadgets, provide tech support, found new industries and, in some cases, become some of the richest people in the world! Druyan seems to wonder off point, making some strange analogy that concludes that girls may want to become scientists because Obama got elected (something to the effect that children will aspire to heights and professions they would not have considered before–if a black man can be president, surely a girl can be a physicist.)

The panel puts the train back on the track, stating that science education is absolutely crucial. It cannot be, in deGrasse Tyson’s words “45 minutes of compartmentalized boredom in school, taught three times a week by a Physical Education teacher.” Science has to taught not merely as a subject, but as a way of seeing the world. Others note that when kids come to a planetarium or any type of museum, they leave wanting to know more.

Downs thinks the press is just following the public’s lead–poor science education leads to a disinterested public which in turn leads to low interest in science-related topics. Science has a tendency to use arcane language, even when describing exciting events. He says that scientists actually possess an “overwhelming humility.” They do not think that the public would be directly interested in what they are working on. Sometimes, they even turn on members of their own community who attempt to engage the public–Sagan doing Cosmos was scandalous in some academic circles.

Next Question: If science were a company, what topics would the Board of Directors need to address?

Tyson states that it is crucial that the public understands that technology helps the economy, and technology is inextricably linked with science. Others point out some disturbing trends: The number of Physicists in the U.S. has dropped by 22% in recent years. Some 80% of graduate students in scientific fields in U.S. universities are not from the U.S. . The Xenophobia in some political circles has caused those students to return to their home countries after gaining their degree. The flight of talent will lead to “grave economic consequences.” Only 8 of the 535 members of Congress have a scientific background by trade. They do not seem to understand that aspect of the economy, and neither do their constituents.

Next Question: Can top-down government action help?

Tyson says that the cause of scientists is to understand, but the cause of government is to control budgets. The people as a whole do not seem to associate the work scientists are doing with the economic benefits that come from that work. He says maybe Congress should rename research grants, called them the “I Don’t Want To Die Fund.” Physics can lead to medical devices that save lives, just as chemistry can lead to live-saving medication and biology can lead to treatments. With a name like, “I Don’t Want To Die,” funding will be less likely to be cut.

There is a brief audience Q & A. One member asks the panel how one should go about encouraging students to pursue science as a career, rather than a hobby or interest. Tyson point out that there are virtually no unemployed scientists in this country. Even during an economic downtown, we tend to import them. It is not only an engaging career, it is also safe.

Pundit Poker

Somewhere in a smoke-filled room, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are playing a friendly game of poker. Rather than wager money, they wager statements. “I’ll see your ‘black president is actually a nazi’ and raise you a ‘repeal of the Second Amendment’ and a “death panel for seniors’.” The loser has to make the whole pot worth of statements with a straight face on the air.

Next door at CNN, things are not getting any better. Rather than statements, the hosts are trading in manufactured controversy. “Ill see your ‘lead in toys, is it really that bad?’ and raise you a ‘Stab wounds: painful and dangerous, or a great way to gain a new perspective on life? Our experts hash it out, right after this.’”

At MSNBC, they trade in disdain. Chris Matthews says to Mr. Olbermann, “I’ll see your ‘Bush supporters: Should they be committed to an institution?’ and raise you a ‘Fox News, is it for idiots? Or imbeciles? Visit msnbc dot msn dot com right now to cast your vote!”

At the end of the day, all the hosts meet in the same bar and have a great laugh at our expense. They have the nerve to call it “The News.” We’re supposed to believe that we’re more informed, but we know less about what is actually going with 24 hour coverage than we did when a half-hour nightly coverage was the norm. The game goes on and we’re the only real losers.

I for one have had enough. Tell us what happened, we’ll decide what we should think about it. Meanwhile, I’ll just watch Comedy Central. It is a sad day when comedy is less absurd than the “legitimate” news.

Sarah Palin and Leadership

Today I saw a poll on Facebook asking respondents whether or not they would vote for Sarah Palin. I did not respond and I do not know how the poll has turned out nor do I care, as the methodology of Facebook polls is deficient to an extreme. I will spare the trouble of stating why a properly constructed poll with a small sampling size, say 1,000 people, is more accurate than an Internet poll with tens to hundreds of thousands of responses.

Since Palin has not announced any sort of candidacy, there is little point in stating whether or not one should or would vote for her. I can say in the most emphatic sense possible that I will not be voting for Sarah Palin in any election, but not for the reasons that many might think. While my liberal leanings and support for Obama are no secret, I am one to make up his mind about anything so far in advance. Like most Americans, I can be persuaded by the right candidate at the right time. I voted for Bush in 2000, as his “compassionate conservative” campaign rhetoric seemed more responsible than Gore’s “we can fix everything that is now or has ever been wrong” message. If there is no plan to bring the deficits under control after the economy recovers, or the recession deepens and unemployment rises, or there is another war, or health care reform turns into the sort of debacle that talking heads predict, I could be persuaded to vote for a principled conservative in 2012, if he or she had proven leadership qualities. In the Republican primaries, McCain, Romney and Giuliani showed signs of the sort of leadership and courage that the office of President of the United States demands. Let us examine the qualities that I think we should look for in a candidate.

A leader should be articulate. I do not necessarily mean that a leader has to have the kind of rhetorical eloquence that one gets from listening to recordings of Martin Luther King, Jr., but simply an ability to clearly communicate goals, plans, objectives and reasoning. All of the Presidents of my lifetime have been able to do this. It may be fun to compile lists of “Bushims,” but even when he misspoke and asked “Is our children learning?” it will still apparent to a reasonable observer that Bush wanted to reform public education. He had a plan for doing it, too. I disagreed with him much of the time, but it was not hard to understand Bush’s position on stem cell research, interrogation techniques, tax cuts or the War in Iraq. I can say the same for Clinton, Bush Sr. and certainly Reagan. You can disagree with where they are coming from, but you know what they are trying to do and why.

Palin has not done this. Not in interviews, not in stump speeches, not even in written postings on Facebook. There is simply no substance there. She moves from one emotion-laden term to the next, sometimes in the same sentence, without ever really completing the thought. One has to be predisposed to pick up on a certain message in order to find it. The actual sentences are examples of cognitive slippage. She’s talking about troops, pro-life, the Second Amendment, Socialism, “real” America, the media–all without ever finishing the thought or supporting her assertions with facts. It is impossible to know where she is coming from. It is bumper-sticker jingoism with no plan attached. She can whip a crowd into a frenzy, but what would she do with their support once elected?

A leader should have an internal locus of control. A genuine leader should believe that he or she can control any situation, or at the very least take responsibility for anything that goes wrong on his or her watch. It may come across as self-aggrandizing at times, but I do not think there is any question that Obama believes that he can and will bring change to America through his policies. The line between confidence and arrogance is often more thin than we would like to think. With a super-majority in the Senate, Obama should be implement most of his agenda, from taxes to health care to Defense to foreign policy. Supporters and opponents alike will be awaiting the outcome of those reforms or changes. Whether the policies succeed or fail, Obama will be on the hook. I believe he is a “buck stops here” kind of person. I expect him to take responsibility for his failures as well as his successes. Anything less, and he may not have my vote in 2012.

Palin, so far as I can tell, has an external locus of control. Everything is the fault of someone or something else. She sounds more like Jesse Jackson than Ronald Reagan. Her poor performance in an interview is portrayed as an attack by a liberal media elite machine. The unspecified “they” will never understand that resigning is somehow about Country. “They” filed too many ethics probes. “They” talked to Vanity Fair, balked at the price tag for her clothing, and brought family into it. Palin seems to be incapable of understanding that McCain’s staff found her abrasive or that she brought her family into the campaign from day one, first by making a Pro-Life case out of her youngest child and then by parading her pregnant teenage daughter and the daughter’s boyfriend before the nation at the Republican National Convention. If there were to be a crisis on her watch, you can bet that she would pass the buck to Congress or her Cabinet.

Finally, A leader should be curious. An effective CEO will understand the management models of all types of businesses and organizations large and small, both inside and outside of his or her industry. She will know not just what the competition does, but why they do it. An effective General will be well educated in military strategy throughout history, domestic and foreign. An effective President should understand the motivations and reasoning behind the positions of the not just the opposing party, but of allies and enemies throughout the world. I have seen no indication that Palin even desires to care what Obama or Pelosi think or why, much less Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, or Bin Laden. Facts are of no use to her if they do not support a position she already holds. It has to matter that states with abstinence-only sex education have high rates of teen pregnancy, that there is nearly universal scientific consensus on the reality and causes of global warning, that Europeans actually rate their health care quite highly and outperform us on every conceivable metric in that regard. It matters some who would seek to do us harm are motivated by economic or social factors that go beyond being “the enemy” or being evil.

There is a reason that Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are media personalities and not politicians. These men and women know what they think before the facts are in, and they overtly filter the facts to meet their preconceived notions. A president cannot do this. A president has to deal with the real world, one that has millions of shades of gray and with rare instances of black and white. Lindsay Graham understands this. John McCain understands this. Ronald Reagan understood this. Palin does not only fails to understand this, she does not understand why anyone would care to understand. That is not leadership, it is stubbornness.

Palin is no President. The American people understand that. Should she decide to run in 2012, she will probably not make it out of the first couple of primaries. She has no appeal to independents. Obama might screw this up. We may well have a Republican in the White House in 2012. Under the right circumstances, I can vote or even campaign for that Republican. But it will not be Palin. Her candidacy would be a gift to the left.

Global Warming: Pascal’s Wager Edition

When it comes to global warming and what to do about it, the political and ideological opposition tends to come from a few predictable notions. There are those who recognize that the climate is changing and those who believe it is not. Among the former group, some believe it is human-caused and that immediate action should be taken by the government in the form of so-called “Cap and Trade” of certain types of emissions, those who believe it is human caused, but that the U.S. has little to do with it and that some other governments need to take the lead or at least agree to the same standards at the same time, and those who believe that we as humans have nothing to do with the change. The latter group can be divided into those who think the data is incomplete and in need of further study, or that the anthropogenic global warming advocates are genuinely mistaken and those who believe there is some type of nefarious agenda at work–a deliberate misinformation campaign to advance some other unnamed liberal agenda.

The final group’s arguments seem to be based on the notion that since a prominent figure such as Al Gore is a Democrat, any cause he espouses is somehow designed to help to the Democratic Party in some way. This is a bizarre notion, some akin to the idea the McCain’s advocacy for campaign finance reform is somehow intended to benefit his party when in fact it would harm or benefit both parties equally. It is difficult to see how the Left would benefit from Cap and Trade any more than the the Right would, as green industry is industry and green jobs are still jobs. In fact, McCain/Palin advocated for Cap and Trade in their campaign literature in a form nearly identical to that espoused by Obama or Clinton (granted, Palin does not seem to have been on board with McCain in retrospect).

The penultimate group is one I respect, though, as like Evolution, I believe many are laboring under the notion that there is more controversy in the scientific community than actually exists. If a million scientists are studying a topic and 95% agree, that still leaves 50,000 who do not. A cable news network wanted to appear “balanced” will pick one expert from each side, giving the impression that the scientific community is equally divided. In the case of Evolution, the Discovery Institute will put forth a list of “thousands” of scientists who do not accept Evolution, ignoring the millions who do. So-called “Project Steve,” which is a list solely of scientists named “Steve” who accept Evolution and that far outnumbers the names on the Discovery Institute list, is intended to show the folly of such reasoning. Politicians and Press love controversy, but reality and nature do not. It may well turn at that the majority were wrong in these cases, but it is simply disingenuous to state that there is significant division or doubt among the experts in these fields.

That brings us to the group who accepts that something is in fact changing but who disagree about what, if anything, can or should be done about it. Many friends that I admire and respect have put forth the notion that it is simply arrogant to believe that we could possibly have an affect on something so great as the global climate. I reject this notion on the evidence that we have demonstrably altered various ecosystems, as evidenced by erosion, pollution, acid rain, extinctions of various species–etc. I don’t know how much damage one person can do, but billions of people doing things that no creature has done in the past is apt to change something. It’s like saying a termite can’t possibly damage a house on account of its size while failing to consider what billions could and will do if left unchecked.

That brings us to whether something should be done, and who should lead the way. I commonly hear that it will do us no good to cut back emissions ourselves if China does not do likewise, therefore we should wait until China commits before doing anything ourselves. That does not strike me as a particularly patriotic or American way of thinking. Since when did we wait for China to take the lead in anything that has moral or environmental considerations? Do we really want to make China the standard by which our industries operate? Their track record on human rights and workplace safety is not something I am particularly interested in emulating, nor are their policies on speech, economics or population control. Pollution is not like weapons in war. We do not put ourselves in mortal danger by backing down from producing it before they do.

That brings us to the notion of whether we can do anything about it, even if we wanted to. To that, and to every other objection, I simply ask, what is the harm in trying? So far as I can tell, the fossil fuels that are causing global warming are a finite resource. We are going to run out of them, probably in our lifetime, whether we do anything about it now or not. Why not force the issue a bit and find greener technologies now? Surely that would only serve to increase our economic standing in world. Even if it didn’t, would reduced pollution and smog really be such a bad thing? Cap and Trade programs are not designed to punish polluters, they are supposed to increase and reward innovation. It is no different than the targeted tax credits that are already given to various types of business in various industries already.

Pascal argued, perhaps in jest, that a betting man would be wise to believe in God. If it turns out that God does not exist, the fellowship with other believers and tangential benefits of religion would still surely outweigh the consequence of failing to believe and going to hell. So I want to know, what is the real downside to proceeding as if global warming were real, anthropogenic, and preventable? If the AGW folks are wrong, we still get cleaner water and air, and perhaps a technological edge. If they are right, we could potentially save the lives of billions of people and animals alike. It seems like an easy enough decision to me.

Healthcare: We’re Number One?

At any sporting event at any level, one can expect to find fans chanting the familiar “We’re Number One! We’re Number One!” As a matter of city pride or school spirit, such sentiment is admirable. However, at some point only a fool would fail to concede that a team finishing near the bottom of the standings is number one in any sense other than the hearts of the die-hard fans. Perhaps the team really was number one in the past, but a coach that failed to realize that other teams were playing better today would have no hope of improving his own team, and so they would continue to languish at the bottom, perhaps even cheery with misguided pride, but languishing nonetheless. Is such a coach really doing his team any favors? If the opposing coaches simply call better plays, would it not be wise to study the film and make the necessary adjustments, perhaps even “borrow” some of the best ideas? Does a state championship in 1950 really mean anything to the players on the field today? Maybe that football team did not pass the ball but a few times a game, but is that the bast strategy today?

So it is with health care in the U.S. Not a day goes by when I do not hear some talking head prattling on that the U.S. has the best heath care system, the envy of the world, they say, with the implication that any attempt whatsoever to make it better would necessarily make it worse. I do not know where they get their figures, if one claims to be the best, he better have some objective measure to back up his claims. Otherwise, he is just a cheerleader. If we are the best, prove it! Right now it does not look that way in any of the key stats:

Value: We spend two to three times as much per capita and as a percentage of GDP as our closest allies.

Life Expectancy: According to the CIA Factbook, we are 50th, well behind comparably developed countries such as Canada (8th) France (9th), Israel (13th), Italy (19th) the UK (36th).

Infant Mortality: Again, according to the CIA, we are trailing France, Canada, the UK and the EU as a whole.

Mental Health: We have a higher suicide rate per capita than most of our allies.

I could go on, but it really does not matter. I am hard pressed to find a statistic in which the U.S. is leading. Sure some people do travel here for services they can’t get elsewhere, but there is no shortage of Americans seeking health care overseas either. It is hardly a one-way street. The only way one can claim to have the best health care in the world is to a.) be honestly ignorant of where we stand or b.) be able to afford a level of care inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Americans. In what they like to call “real” America, people can and do go bankrupt over health care, even if they have insurance. In “real” America, one can lose coverage for life because of a pre-existing condition after losing employment due to no fault of their own. Whatever their reasoning, the talking heads do not have the best interests of their average listeners at heart.

If we really have the best model, why does every single comparably developed country do it differently? They not only claim to have found a better way, they have the stats to back it up. What kind of misguided patriotism says it is the best because it is the way we do it? True patriotism should be about ensuring that we really are the best, even if it means taking a few pointers from our friends. It’s what we do in sports. It’s what we should do in life. Next time someone tells you the system is is fine the way it is, picture your favorite football team taking the field with leather helmets and calling the same run-up-the-middle play every first and second down. Can you honestly say such a team really is number one anywhere other than in their own minds?

It is true, the government has screwed up a lot of things. The government has also done some things very, very well. Why is it that the folks that are the first to point out that we have the best trained, best equipped and most powerful military in the world are equally convinced that Uncle Sam will destroy anything he puts his hand to? The Internet Highway system seems to be working out okay. NASA got us to the moon. I’d put our FBI and U.S. Marshals up against any law enforcement body in the world. There are things that our government literally does better than anyone. There are also things that it does relatively poorly. It really comes down to what we as taxpayers tolerate. We arethe government. And we should demand better from ourselves.

One need not resign to the notion that the government will fail in this. Instead, demand that they do it, but that they do it right. To the Democrats, that means putting the brakes on this thing until you have a solution that actually works rather than simply ramming it through in a panic. To the Republicans, it means demanding real fiscal responsibility, not just from the opposing party, but from yourselves.

Reagan v Obama part 1 – The Economy

When Ronald Reagan took office, the economy was in a tailspin. Not surprisingly, the DOW continued to fall through much of his first term. At the six month mark, it was down 7 points from Inauguration Day. Unemployment continued to rise through the first year, topping 10 percent by 1982. Deficit spending, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP was up sharply.

Like Reagan, Obama gained office due to a lagging economy and has likewise taken to deficit spending in an attempt to put the economy on track. So far, he is tracking similarly to Reagan, arguably better in some categories, and worse in others, but statistically, it’s pretty much a tie.

In the first six months under Obama, the DOW has gained over 800 points, or about ten percent. Unemployment continues to be a problem and the deficit is growing, just as it did from 1981 to 1983. It was only after employment numbers improved that the deficits could be brought under control. Even then, there was never a surplus and deficits and debt continued to rise, literally for many, many years.

This is something talking heads from need to recognize. These turnarounds take time. It seems fair to ask, if it took the economy two full years to recover under Reagan, should not Obama be given the same benefit before his policies are declared to be a disaster by the opposition?

It has become fashionable for the opposing party to speak of the deficit in absolute terms, which, like box office returns for movies, is bound by inflation to be higher, in many deceiving ways. I do not like deficits anymore than the next guy, but it seems disingenuous to speak of scare quote “Trillion Dollars” without considering that we have been here before, and it has turned around before.

So, Reaganites, what so you? Why is Obama is miserable, socialist failure for performance nearly identical at this point to one of the most popular Republican presidents in a generation?