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?

Ron Paul Lives In “A Whole Other Country”

Ron Paul has introduced legislation designed to limit the powers of the federal courts in matters of discrimination, sexuality, and religion. The poorly named “We the People Act” reads in part:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

• (1) shall not adjudicate–

• • (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

• • (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

• • (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)

Like the so-called “Nuclear Option” proposed by Republicans a while back that would have barred filibuster during confirmation hearings for Federal judge appointments, this legislation is astoundingly short-sighted and should be anathema to conservatives and liberals alike.  The intent here is to keep the federal courts making making decisions that Paul disagrees with by disallowing the court from making decisions at all on controversial topics.  On its face, it is an anti-constitutional bill in spirit if not in law.  The reason the federal courts have jurisdiction on such cases is that the law is not always clear, and even when it is, it is not always consistent with the Constitution.

Sometimes the Executive and Legislative branches disagree with the findings of the Judicial.  This is healthy and foreseen. There is already a system of checks and balances in place that keeps the Judiciary from running amok.  If a law is not sufficiently clear and the courts misinterpret it (in the minds of those who crafted the legislation, passed it, and/or signed it into law) it should be simple enough to pass a newer, clearer law.  In instances where law is found to be unconstitutional, a process in place to amend the Constitution, thus nullifying the basis of the court decision.

Paul does not seem to think that the existing system is sufficient to protect the interests of his branch of government.  He is attempting to make an actual power grab for the legislative branch, asserting its role above all others.  We have seen similar grabs in the past. Whether it is Bill Clinton fighting off an investigation into his sex life or George W. Bush opposing oversight into intelligence and defense decisions, the Executive Branch does not like it when Congress fulfills its Constitutional responsibility to We the People.  Presidents would no doubt just as soon bypass Congress when it comes to Cabinet appointments.

Judges cannot do without Congress, as without laws, there is nothing to interpret.  Nonetheless, bad law makes for bad cases.  Judges would not have to make controversial decisions if the laws were as clear or constitutional as their authors claim. This legislation is a prime example of bad law.  No doubt the intent is to keep the ACLU from suing over a Christmas Tree on public land and to keep the Supreme Court from deciding on gay marriage under Equal Protection.  Unfortunately for conservatives such as Paul, the legislation could equally backfire.  Should a state adopt an official religion that operated to the exclusion of Christianity, citizens would be powerless to challenge it. There could be no recourse if a state government went out of its way to exclusively appoint homosexuals and minorities to all public positions. Had such legislation been adopted sooner, interracial couples would probably still be barred from marrying in parts of this country.

Mr. Paul’s state advertising itself as being “like a whole other country.”  Some officials there have advocated seceding from the union altogether.  It is clear that Paul wants to live in a country very different from the one our Founders intended to build. Texas and all of America deserve better legislation than this. If Paul wants to run for office in another country, he is welcome to do so.  If he wants to remain an elected representative in this one, I suggest he think the consequences of such legislation through a little more thoroughly first.

Costly Rhetoric

Yesterday morning, in a quiet Lutheran church in Kansas, a respected usher was murdered while handing out church bulletins to congregants as they entered for Sunday morning worship.  Scott Roeder, the suspected shooter, who appears to have had been arrested previously on charges involving criminal use of explosives , turned his gun toward and threatened other church members before driving away in a Ford with a Jesus bumper sticker.  Murder is, of course, by definition too common.  If one person is murdered every several years, it is still too common. Nonetheless, random acts of violence happen regularly enough that we barely notice unless there are a number of victims or they are young or we know the victim personally.  Dr. George Tiller was not young nor was he exactly a household name but seemingly everyone noticed his murder.

You see, Dr. Tiller was the victim of more than a single fatal gunshot wound.  Remarkably, he had been shot on a previous occasion.  His medical practice was also bombed.  One may begin to wonder aloud what his patients must think.  Had he engaged in frequent malpractice? Did he have the kind of bedside manner that induced patients’ families to rage?  To the contrary, Tillman had perhaps some of the most satisfied patients of any doctor in the Midwest, yet he was loathed by too many for too long until something boiled over and an gunman went for the chest rather than the arms this time.

By profession, Dr. George Tiller was an OB/GYN.  He has picked up the unfortunate label in headlines as an “abortionist” or “abortion doctor.”  He had a reputation for performing late-term abortions.  He was the sort of doctor that inspires red-herring legislation like so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Bans. What kind of monster aborts late-term, viable babies, anyway?  Citizens of his state asked this very question passed laws and petitions designed to bring him to court on criminal charges.  He was ultimately charged but was never found guilty of breaking any laws.   In the court of private opinion, Dr. Tiller was a man with the utmost respect and sensitivity for his patients.  Many women that came to him were heartbroken, having been looking forward to a new baby for months before an ultrasound yielded the unthinkably tragic–babies with malformed hearts or brains or skulls or hearts or kidneys–defects so severe that the developing fetus could not possibly survive outside of the womb. Tiller understood the heartbreak these expectant parents were going through.  He knew they were faced with decisions that were impossibly difficult–actively end the pregnancy now and recover or continue carrying at great medical risk only to have the same end result.  The good doctor understood that in many of these mothers’ minds, it was a person that was dying–a baby with a name, a face, perhaps a nursery prepared.  He offered counselling and arranged religious services for the deceased.

In the court of much public opinion, Tiller was something else.  Operation Rescue’s website described him as “America’s Doctor of Death,” a description that remained, even on the very same page as the organization’s statement condemning his death.  No doubt the people driving the trucks plastered with tasteless pictures encircling Notre Dame University a few weeks ago thought the same.  Tiller was the victim of more than an assassin’s bullet or a bomb or constant picketing and harassment–he was the victim of needlessly elevated rhetoric that could be predicted to send someone over the proverbial edge. It is not insignificant that the last spate of abortion clinic bombings and murders of doctors occurred under President Clinton. Despite there being no real-world change law or practice from president to president, some Pro-Life groups find it necessary to trot out the most graphic images, the most incendiary rhetoric and the most obstructive practices when the occupant of the White House is publicly Pro-Choice.

As the cliche goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  Statistically, abortions rose steadily under Reagan and peaked under G. H.W. Bush.  The practice declined steadily under Clinton.  But this was not the message of the talk shows or the moral crusaders then nor is it now.  In the minds of too many organizations, pro-choice in White House results in more abortions, statistics be damned.  Hell, my own Facebook wall and inbox received comments from a person who ws “relieved that he died before taking the lives of any more precious babies.”  Does it not occur to people that Tiller thought the babies were precious, too?  Apparently, the did the citizens that cried to have Tiller convicted or something–anything in court did not think so. I say it’s time to start caring about the truth. I am not the least bit interested in being around people who claim to be Pro-Life while being “relieved” at the death of human they happen to disagree with.  I am not at all interested in worshiping the god of people who would sooner lie or remain in ignorance than to find out that they were wrong.  If this is your idea “Pro-Life,”  if this is “Christianity,”  if these are our “Moral Values” or our “Heritage”–count me out.  I’d rather go to hell.  I’ll keep your seat warm, if you like.

Gallop Poll: Majority Pro-Life

Via Yahoo via Snopes.

A rather curious poll was released today, in which the majority of Americans self-identified as Pro-Life for the first time in fifteen years of polling.  Before either side get too excited about the ramifications, I’ll note that only 23% of respondents stated that abortion should always be illegal and only 22% stated that it should be legal in all circumstances.  This leaves a middle ground so wide as to make the “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” designations statistically meaningless.

What is needed is a poll more along the lines of “Do you agree or disagree that in except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother,  abortion should be illegal in the United States?”  A majority “agree” response would be telling politically. Related questions regarding federal funding and support for a constitutional amendment would also be interesting.

For now, I am inclined to think that views as a percentage have changed very little over the past 15 years. Some people ask how I can be a democrat and call myself Pro-Life. To that I would say that everyone wants fewer abortions but not everyone agrees on the best way to achieve that end.  Many who are opposed to federal funds being used for abortions are in no hurry to use federal funds for prevention or even adoption.

The shift shown in this poll is probably matter of “framing the issue.” Does the repeated use of terms like “radical” to describe Obama’s positions cause some fence-sitters to self-identify on the “Pro-Life” issue now that would be “Pro-Choice” under another president?  Would Obama’s statements even be considered “radical” if attributed to someone generally considered to be a moderate? If you ask me, one could as easily interpret Obama as preserving the legal status-quo rather than signifying a shift in policy.   Yes, some funding has been provided to groups that would not have gotten it before, but not even Planned Parenthood has abortion as a primary mission.

The most important thing to realize for all parties is that all the debate and opinion in the world is not going to overturn Supreme Court precedent.  Only a constitutional amendment or SCOTUS reversal can affect the legality in general terms and I would not expect either to change in the next several millenia.   To overturn Roe v. Wade, one would need nearly universal public support for the Pro-Life position.  I would argue that a population comprised of such individuals would have no need to overturn Roe v. Wade–no one would be having abortions in the first place! Like tavern owners who legend says shuttered their doors during The Welsh Revivals, doctors who provided abortions would presumably go out of business, either due to lack of demand or economic boycott.

If there are more Pro-Lifers now than there were a year ago, I would encourage them to adopt a realist strategy based on practical, rather than political solutions.  Instead of spending money lobbying congress pass legislation that will never survive court challenge, how about giving it to the local crisis pregnancy center?  Instead of protesting outside the local women’s clinic, how about helping with the common ground of reducing unwanted pregnancies? Or if you do not want the clinic to get business, how about paying for a PAP for a young woman who lacks insurance and cannot afford to get one herself?  Or just support efforts to get her affordable health care in the first place?

Somehow I have a feeling that these will be  actions that separate the proverbial sheep from the goats.   Talk is cheap and action expensive.  It is time for those who are serious about their Pro-Life stance to put up or shut up.  We do not need voters’ guides telling us to vote for a pro-life dog catcher and city councilperson–we need people willing to make a difference.

Dobson: More Pathetic by the Day

Via Pharyngula and US News Blog.

I am not sure that I’ll give Dr. James Dobson much more press.  As Nerjal reader Tina from Hillsideslide  has pointed out in previous comments, the man is becoming irrelevant in the political world, even if his ministry remains a force in the conservative Evangelical world.   What is sad is that his in the process of recognizing this fate, he cannot help but sound like a the very sort of whining child that he councils parents to discipline with corporal punishment in books like “The Strong-Willed Child.” Most recently, he is lashing out because, horror of horrors, congress thinks maybe people should not be able to assault homosexuals because they are homosexuals.   Whether hate crimes legislation makes any sense (is not assault already a crime) is a matter for another day.  For now, we’ll focus on Dobson’s reaction:

I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.

I’ve been on the air for 32 years and I’ve never seen a time quite like this. It just illustrates what happens when we don’t have what the Founding Fathers referred to as checks and balances, where the excesses of one party or one branch of government limit the reach of power hungry and self-serving people and keeps them form doing things that are harmful to the country. That’s the way the system was designed. We have 2 major political parties in this country, not one. . . .the radical left controls the executive branch through the president, and the Congress… and the Judiciary through the courts… now they control it all, including every department of government. As a result, the legislation that should shock the nation, if people were paying attention, is being rushed into law.

The first and obvious point is that he is right about the letter writing and call-in campaigns when it comes to some of the issues he holds dear.  You see, many in Congress right now won landslide elections campaigning on issues that Dobson does not support.  As elected representatives, they are wise to go with what their constituents expect and support.  It is not as if Democrats could expect to accomplish much by writing to conservative Republicans after the 1994 landslide in their favor. As the saying goes, you gotta dance with the one who brung ya.

Dobson is wrong to state that there is nothing his side can do but sit back and pray.  Not that I’m particularly interested in helping him or his pals, but there are these things called elections and we have them with astonishing frequency.  In fact, there will be one next year.   You can win a majority in the House of Representatives simply by convincing Americans to embrace your ideals over those of the Democrats currently in office–a form of political evangelism, if you will.  Just get out and “save” those poor “lost souls” that are unknowingly serving the devil through the sin committed at the ballot box.  I do not think it is lost on many that you are clearly favoring a political party, not just an ideology, which puts your ministry in severe danger of losing its tax-exempt status.  However, since the party you favor is in decline, your efforts are better spent building up that party than tearing down the one in power.

As for the latter part of the rant about Founding Fathers this, two parties that–well, let’s examine the facts.  By my reckoning, nearly 78% of the current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.  I am having a harder time tracking down the stats on all federal judges, but with Republican presidents having been in office for 20 of the last 28 years, it is safe to assume that the majority are also Republican appointees.  So unless the definition of “liberal” is stretched to mean “anyone with whom Dobson has ever disagreed on any issue,” the courts can be ruled out as a bastion of liberal power.

It is hard to imagine that Dobson cannot think of a time in the last 32 years when one party had control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches or was full of powerful, self-serving people.   I do not recall any outrage when self-serving people tried to use the so-called “nuclear option” so to clear procedural hurdles for judges that Dobson liked.  I do not recall any opposition to the charade that was the Schiavo case, when all the “sanctitiy of marriage” defenders chose to abuse state and federal powers to stop a husband from carrying out his wife’s wishes.  I do not recall a need for bipartisanship when promising stem-cell research (using embryos already slated for destruction) was cut-off from federal funding for no logical reason.  Heck, I still haven’t heard a peep opposing the torture from an organization that is supposed to be promoting a “culture of life.”

I’m all for bi-partisanship so long as it is proportional to the opinions and interests of the general population, but one wonders how much influence the social Conservative wing of the party expects to have when they lack the support of the nation at large.   Conservative Evangelicals do not constitute a majority in this country.  They do not even constitute a major of Christians.   Their candidates did not make it out of the Primaries.  Even a Republican landslide would not give them the power they held for most of this decade.      You see, it is ultimately impossible to win a “culture war” when culture itself is collective. You can either choose to become a part of the culture and steer it in a direction you believe is beneficial, or you rail from outside and throw these childish fits about how the other kids don’t want to play with you any more.  I would hope a child psychologist could demonstrate a little more maturity.