Apparently there's a debate occurring tonight between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. The topic of debate is creationism vs. evolution. I wish Bill Nye weren't attending. The reason isn't because I think Bill Nye will lose the debate. By attending, Nye lends credibility to Ham. Ham doesn't need to win people over to his side to win. Ham wins by convincing people that a debate exists.
There are certain scientific principles so well established that there is no room for debate on those issues. The earth is round (not necessarily spherical, but round). It rotates on its axis as it orbits the Sun. Evolution is how human life came to be on earth. There are arguments against all three, but those arguments aren't scientific. Most of those arguments say primitive humans who hadn't developed the scientific method came up with stories to explain the world they saw and we should, too.
I understand that some people may think this is harsh. But that's what "The Bible says" means in English. I don't say this as an atheist. I say this as a Jew, one of the Jews who understands that the Bible (at least the Old Testament, which is the source of the creation mythology) was assembled from stories, many passed down as oral history. The first collection of those stories into a coherent single collection wasn't until after the death of Christ, when the Jews wanted to distinguish between themselves and their beliefs, and the splinter faction that revered Yoshua ibn Joseph (now known as Jesus Christ), which would, several centuries later, assemble its own holy book based partially on the collection of those Jews.
"Creation Scientists," so called despite paying no attention to science, have created a literature, following, and hedge industry in claiming that religion is science and pointing out missing pieces of evidence in the scientific record. This method requires one to conflate "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence." This method also requires stubbornly refusing to acknowledge evidence supported by others, and claiming that willingness to acknowledge evidence as weakness. It is also incredibly expensive, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by various political and economic interests to build this movement.
So, when you hear someone say that "Creation science is just religion in a cheap suit," they're wrong, it's religion in an incredibly expensive suit. Despite the millions spent, however, the "Creation Science" movement hasn't actually swayed a single scientist, and is accomplishing nothing in the field of science. It has, however, convinced a number of educators to "teach the controversy," and convinced people that a controversy in science vs. creation exists.
It doesn't. Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that evolution was right. The single largest Christian Church in the world says that there's no scientific controversy. The pope continued to suggest that religion answers a set of emotional questions and science answers factual ones. At no point did he suggest that science was wrong. Other religious groups, including most Jews, and the majority of Christians in Europe, have no difficulty with this dichotomy. But, American Christian Conservatives looking to gain political ground do. And they've spent hundreds of millions building a false movement with false museums and false science. And all they want, is to convince the public that there's a debate.
Bill Nye, despite his charisma and good intentions, has provided them with more evidence that there is a a debate. He's done this by agreeing to go public in a national forum and debate an issue that is established. Would he debate with a member of the flat earth society? Probably not. Would he debate with a geocentrist who claims the earth doesn't rotate and the heavens spin around it? Of course not. But he's agreed to debate evolution, despite no real controversy, because he thinks he can convince people not to mislead their own children.
It's a noble thought, but a doomed one. And, it only serves the goals of a movement desperate to convince Americans that there is a scientific controversy about Evolution. It builds that because nothing suggests a debate so much as two people both of whom seem educated and informed discussing two sides of an issue. Bill Nye would have accomplished more by refusing. Because nothing suggests the presence of a debate less than one man standing alone on a stage.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Monday, December 16, 2013
What We're Really Talking About When We Talk About Whether Santa is White.
Talking heads on Fox News established that Santa is White recently. I find this tremendously interesting because last I checked, Santa was a mytho-religious figure who represented the embodiment of all the positive feelings connected to Christmas. Figures like that tend to look like whomever is telling their story. That's why Jesus looks so white in a lot of churches, but looks black in other ones. The idea that one culture can claim, exclusively, one of these figures seems, frankly, outlandish.
Of course, the internet backlash that has sprung up over the issue is even more outlandish. There are a series of blogs, internet posts, and letters to the editor talking about what Santa Claus is. Someone even suggested that Santa should be a penguin. If he were a penguin, he'd be on the wrong pole, but, that's not the issue. The issue is the number of people who, probably thinking that they mean well have pointed out that Santa Claus was based on Saint Nicholas, who was White, specifically, these folks like to point out, St. Nicholas was Greek.
There's a lot to unpack in a statement like that.
Firstly, while St. Nicholas may have been an inspiration for Santa Claus, a description of the two men couldn't sound much less similar. Saint Nicholas is depicted almost exclusively as a skinny man, with a brown or sometimes grey beard. He's balding. He wears the robes of a bishop, came from Turkey, and there is no discussion of what his ride is. Santa is a fat man with a white beard, furry red and white suit, surrounded by elves and rides a sled pulled by elk. Insofar as the one inspired the other, clearly, St. Nicholas's appearance has nothing to do with Mr. Claus's.
Secondly, St. Nicholas was born and died in Turkey. He may have been of Greek descent, but he wasn't from Greece. Further he was a fourth century figure, rebranded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Those dates matter, because, in 1823, when the poem A Visit from St. Nicholas was penned, Greeks weren't really considered white.
There's this awkward thing about history. It gets more offensive the further away you get from it. In America, we've invented multiple mythologies to conceal the fact that we're a nation founded on slave labor and genocide. For most of our history we were a xenophobic collection of insular communities, only truly united after the civil war, and then only decades later. If you looked at the midwest during the great rail wars, you'd have seen a group calling itself white who oppressed Blacks, Chinese, Irish, "Swede" (often from nowhere near Sweden), and myriad other groups, none of whom were considered white.
The idea that any of those "white" people would have considered a Turkish-born Greek Catholic, "white" would have been offensive. It would have likely been considered fighting words, and may have gotten you shot. But, years later, we don't acknowledge any of those issues. Now, "whiteness" is a more clear issue. It's like a friend of mine once said, that Jews in America aren't really a minority anymore.
I think he's wrong, and if you don't believe me consider the fact that, while we may have elected our first Black President (second by some folks who reserve that title for Bill Clinton), and rumblings certainly suggest that 2016 could the year we elect our first woman President, both the Black(s?) and the Woman will at least pretend to believe in Jesus. The fact Obama still, to this day receives attacks based on him being Muslim, a "fact" that even if it were true would be irrelevant is all you need to know about this country and its insistence that Christianity is our official religion.
Really, the racial identity of Santa Claus is irrelevant. But the discussion isn't about that. It's about racial privilege. It's about the ability to look around and see people who look and think like you. There exists in America, right now, a generation that was raised believing that America is fundamentally white. They weren't intentionally taught that. But they saw it in all their elected officials. They saw it in their neighbors. They saw it in the children with whom they attended school. They saw it in the stores where they shopped, the restaurants where they ate, and the busses that they rode.
And that generation looks around right now and doesn't see that anymore. They see an encroaching number of faces of different colors. They increasingly see their children date people who don't look like that America. They see politicians who aren't part of that America. They see faces of every color in every restaurant, shopping in every store. For some of that generation, the ones who once knew they didn't belong, this America is hopeful, it's something of which we should be proud. But, for another group, this America is frightening. "White" Americans are no longer the majority of the population of the country. In two generations, they may cease to be the plurality. I think we're getting closer to them not being the majorities in Congress and political office.
And while there are those among us who find that hopeful, there are those among us who find that terrifying. This who find it terrifying know that they can't just rail against having to share their lunch tables with these other faces. So, instead, they talk about Santa Claus. But unlike the Joyous Elf who represents the best in us. They represent the worst.
Of course, the internet backlash that has sprung up over the issue is even more outlandish. There are a series of blogs, internet posts, and letters to the editor talking about what Santa Claus is. Someone even suggested that Santa should be a penguin. If he were a penguin, he'd be on the wrong pole, but, that's not the issue. The issue is the number of people who, probably thinking that they mean well have pointed out that Santa Claus was based on Saint Nicholas, who was White, specifically, these folks like to point out, St. Nicholas was Greek.
There's a lot to unpack in a statement like that.
Firstly, while St. Nicholas may have been an inspiration for Santa Claus, a description of the two men couldn't sound much less similar. Saint Nicholas is depicted almost exclusively as a skinny man, with a brown or sometimes grey beard. He's balding. He wears the robes of a bishop, came from Turkey, and there is no discussion of what his ride is. Santa is a fat man with a white beard, furry red and white suit, surrounded by elves and rides a sled pulled by elk. Insofar as the one inspired the other, clearly, St. Nicholas's appearance has nothing to do with Mr. Claus's.
Secondly, St. Nicholas was born and died in Turkey. He may have been of Greek descent, but he wasn't from Greece. Further he was a fourth century figure, rebranded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Those dates matter, because, in 1823, when the poem A Visit from St. Nicholas was penned, Greeks weren't really considered white.
There's this awkward thing about history. It gets more offensive the further away you get from it. In America, we've invented multiple mythologies to conceal the fact that we're a nation founded on slave labor and genocide. For most of our history we were a xenophobic collection of insular communities, only truly united after the civil war, and then only decades later. If you looked at the midwest during the great rail wars, you'd have seen a group calling itself white who oppressed Blacks, Chinese, Irish, "Swede" (often from nowhere near Sweden), and myriad other groups, none of whom were considered white.
The idea that any of those "white" people would have considered a Turkish-born Greek Catholic, "white" would have been offensive. It would have likely been considered fighting words, and may have gotten you shot. But, years later, we don't acknowledge any of those issues. Now, "whiteness" is a more clear issue. It's like a friend of mine once said, that Jews in America aren't really a minority anymore.
I think he's wrong, and if you don't believe me consider the fact that, while we may have elected our first Black President (second by some folks who reserve that title for Bill Clinton), and rumblings certainly suggest that 2016 could the year we elect our first woman President, both the Black(s?) and the Woman will at least pretend to believe in Jesus. The fact Obama still, to this day receives attacks based on him being Muslim, a "fact" that even if it were true would be irrelevant is all you need to know about this country and its insistence that Christianity is our official religion.
Really, the racial identity of Santa Claus is irrelevant. But the discussion isn't about that. It's about racial privilege. It's about the ability to look around and see people who look and think like you. There exists in America, right now, a generation that was raised believing that America is fundamentally white. They weren't intentionally taught that. But they saw it in all their elected officials. They saw it in their neighbors. They saw it in the children with whom they attended school. They saw it in the stores where they shopped, the restaurants where they ate, and the busses that they rode.
And that generation looks around right now and doesn't see that anymore. They see an encroaching number of faces of different colors. They increasingly see their children date people who don't look like that America. They see politicians who aren't part of that America. They see faces of every color in every restaurant, shopping in every store. For some of that generation, the ones who once knew they didn't belong, this America is hopeful, it's something of which we should be proud. But, for another group, this America is frightening. "White" Americans are no longer the majority of the population of the country. In two generations, they may cease to be the plurality. I think we're getting closer to them not being the majorities in Congress and political office.
And while there are those among us who find that hopeful, there are those among us who find that terrifying. This who find it terrifying know that they can't just rail against having to share their lunch tables with these other faces. So, instead, they talk about Santa Claus. But unlike the Joyous Elf who represents the best in us. They represent the worst.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Gee, Oh Pee! What the Modern Republican Party is Really all About.
People used to joke about the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and, in fairness, they still do. But, the joke when I was young focused on the fact that Dems had no real unifying policy, whereas, Republicans voted the party line something like 90% of the time. It's no great surprise: The Democratic Party is a coalition party, whereas, for decades the GOP has been a platform party.
Feel free to look at that sentence again. I know that I used the present tense for the Democratic Party and the past perfect tense for the GOP, that's very much intentional. We are watching the end of the GOP platform. That's a good thing; let me explain why.
The GOP isn't a single group of identical people with mostly unified policies. They're a coalition of interests, each unique and discrete. Other media divide them into moderates, religious conservatives, and tea-partiers, but that's not the real coalition. The real coalition is vastly more multifaceted. The real groups are: Plutocrats; pro-business moderate economic conservatives; Libertarians; Neo-Confederates; Christian extremists; white xenophobes; and political pawns. My descriptions sound insulting, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.
Plutocrats have been running the party for the last three decades. Plutocrats are the reason that income taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been since World War I. Plutocrats have money, and they want to keep as much of it as possible. They want policies that are good for the rich. They claim that they want these policies because it is good for everyone; the rising tide lifts all boats, but those claims are untrue. The economic realities of the last three decades have proven that trickle down economics don't. Plutocrats are against increases in minimum wage. They hate the Affordable Care Act. Plutocrats favor regressive tax policies. Plutocrats don't like regulations that make any business more expensive for them in the short term.
Pro Business Moderates believe that there are economic policies and government regulations that stifle growth and are against those, but, they tend to favor smaller businesses and are willing to support laws that might increase business costs if those costs ultimately benefit small businesses. These Moderates tend to be members of the Chamber of Commerce. They want policies that control health care costs. They're in favor of infrastructure projects and know that the US Postal Service is good.
Libertarians believe that the government that governs least governs best. They apply this theory to both social and economic policies. Libertarians want low taxes that only support projects the market can't solve: Police, Military, major infrastructure projects, etc. Libertarians favor permissive social policies, so they don't want to ban abortion or similar. Reasonable Libertarians may argue as to where the lines lie. They also may split on issues like public schools and how much funding they should receive. A lot of people call themselves Libertarians these days who actually aren't. Ron and Rand Paul's insistence on state's rights to prohibit abortion or gay marriage is at odds with a true libertarian policy.
But that's because Ron and Rand Paul are really Neo-Confederates. Neo-Confederates don't want there to be a strong central government. They want to return to a pre-civil-war strong state weak federal government. Neo Confederates claim that the founders intended for the federal goverment to be weak. Neo-Confederates hate the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and any other policy that might make people like federal Government.
Christian Extremists are often also called the Religious Right. Once upon a time, the Religious Right focused on certain religious issues, like prohibiting abortion, which they believe is murder. Unfortunately, this group has gone off the rails. Right now, this group is insisting that "religious freedom" means, not "the right to believe and practice as you see fit," but instead, "the right to force others to act in accordance with your religion." The Christian Extremists are against gay marriage. They also don't like that other people can use health insurance for abortion or birth control.
White xenophobes are an important sub group within the party. White xenophobes remember a time when being white in America meant something. They look around the world right now and they see that it means a lot less. In many instances, being white is less important because being rich is more important. But there is also the very real fact that Caucasian is no longer a majority in the US, merely a plurality. This group wants to protect privilege, whether that privilege occurs at the cost to blacks, illegal immigrants, women, or homosexuals. This group doesn't want "amnesty laws". This group also opposes gay marriage. Birthers tend to fall into this group. A lot of members of this group are also Christian Extremists, Neo-Confederates, or both. Sarah Palin is a white xenophobe, as is Michelle Bachmann.
The political pawns are an interesting case. For decades, the plutocrats have run the party. They've lied about funding the federal government. They've lied about economics. They've lied about the environment. The political pawns believed the story. Five years or so ago, with money spent by plutocrats, the pawns created the tea-party. And now they've started dominating primary elections. Political pawns are the reason why Republicans shut down the government. Political pawns are the reason why we've almost failed to raise the debt ceiling, twice. Political pawns taking over terrifies the moderates, and frightens the plutocrats. Political Pawns tend to hate everything that they understand government does which doesn't benefit them personally. Political pawns are the source of statements like "keep government out of my medicare."
The party has to become more split and more of a coalition or it will stop winning national elections. Look at the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. They guy who reaches across the aisle and gets things done wins. The hard-liner who wants government to lose fails. But further, the guy who says, I believe a bunch of things, but I'm willing to work with people who don't and I'm willing to make policy deals I don't like 100% of did better than the guy who said the the GOP means that you're anti-background checks; anti-ACA; anti-gay; anti-abortion; and anti woman.
Unless you're an extremist, the modern GOP doesn't want you.
Don't feel bad, it wouldn't want William F. Buckley Jr., either. Hell, the modern GOP doesn't want actual Ronald Reagan.
Feel free to look at that sentence again. I know that I used the present tense for the Democratic Party and the past perfect tense for the GOP, that's very much intentional. We are watching the end of the GOP platform. That's a good thing; let me explain why.
The GOP isn't a single group of identical people with mostly unified policies. They're a coalition of interests, each unique and discrete. Other media divide them into moderates, religious conservatives, and tea-partiers, but that's not the real coalition. The real coalition is vastly more multifaceted. The real groups are: Plutocrats; pro-business moderate economic conservatives; Libertarians; Neo-Confederates; Christian extremists; white xenophobes; and political pawns. My descriptions sound insulting, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.
Plutocrats have been running the party for the last three decades. Plutocrats are the reason that income taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been since World War I. Plutocrats have money, and they want to keep as much of it as possible. They want policies that are good for the rich. They claim that they want these policies because it is good for everyone; the rising tide lifts all boats, but those claims are untrue. The economic realities of the last three decades have proven that trickle down economics don't. Plutocrats are against increases in minimum wage. They hate the Affordable Care Act. Plutocrats favor regressive tax policies. Plutocrats don't like regulations that make any business more expensive for them in the short term.
Pro Business Moderates believe that there are economic policies and government regulations that stifle growth and are against those, but, they tend to favor smaller businesses and are willing to support laws that might increase business costs if those costs ultimately benefit small businesses. These Moderates tend to be members of the Chamber of Commerce. They want policies that control health care costs. They're in favor of infrastructure projects and know that the US Postal Service is good.
Libertarians believe that the government that governs least governs best. They apply this theory to both social and economic policies. Libertarians want low taxes that only support projects the market can't solve: Police, Military, major infrastructure projects, etc. Libertarians favor permissive social policies, so they don't want to ban abortion or similar. Reasonable Libertarians may argue as to where the lines lie. They also may split on issues like public schools and how much funding they should receive. A lot of people call themselves Libertarians these days who actually aren't. Ron and Rand Paul's insistence on state's rights to prohibit abortion or gay marriage is at odds with a true libertarian policy.
But that's because Ron and Rand Paul are really Neo-Confederates. Neo-Confederates don't want there to be a strong central government. They want to return to a pre-civil-war strong state weak federal government. Neo Confederates claim that the founders intended for the federal goverment to be weak. Neo-Confederates hate the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and any other policy that might make people like federal Government.
Christian Extremists are often also called the Religious Right. Once upon a time, the Religious Right focused on certain religious issues, like prohibiting abortion, which they believe is murder. Unfortunately, this group has gone off the rails. Right now, this group is insisting that "religious freedom" means, not "the right to believe and practice as you see fit," but instead, "the right to force others to act in accordance with your religion." The Christian Extremists are against gay marriage. They also don't like that other people can use health insurance for abortion or birth control.
White xenophobes are an important sub group within the party. White xenophobes remember a time when being white in America meant something. They look around the world right now and they see that it means a lot less. In many instances, being white is less important because being rich is more important. But there is also the very real fact that Caucasian is no longer a majority in the US, merely a plurality. This group wants to protect privilege, whether that privilege occurs at the cost to blacks, illegal immigrants, women, or homosexuals. This group doesn't want "amnesty laws". This group also opposes gay marriage. Birthers tend to fall into this group. A lot of members of this group are also Christian Extremists, Neo-Confederates, or both. Sarah Palin is a white xenophobe, as is Michelle Bachmann.
The political pawns are an interesting case. For decades, the plutocrats have run the party. They've lied about funding the federal government. They've lied about economics. They've lied about the environment. The political pawns believed the story. Five years or so ago, with money spent by plutocrats, the pawns created the tea-party. And now they've started dominating primary elections. Political pawns are the reason why Republicans shut down the government. Political pawns are the reason why we've almost failed to raise the debt ceiling, twice. Political pawns taking over terrifies the moderates, and frightens the plutocrats. Political Pawns tend to hate everything that they understand government does which doesn't benefit them personally. Political pawns are the source of statements like "keep government out of my medicare."
The party has to become more split and more of a coalition or it will stop winning national elections. Look at the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. They guy who reaches across the aisle and gets things done wins. The hard-liner who wants government to lose fails. But further, the guy who says, I believe a bunch of things, but I'm willing to work with people who don't and I'm willing to make policy deals I don't like 100% of did better than the guy who said the the GOP means that you're anti-background checks; anti-ACA; anti-gay; anti-abortion; and anti woman.
Unless you're an extremist, the modern GOP doesn't want you.
Don't feel bad, it wouldn't want William F. Buckley Jr., either. Hell, the modern GOP doesn't want actual Ronald Reagan.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Bully(ing) for You
When I was a kid, I got in a lot of fights in school. Partially because, in a small town in Maine, that was kind of what you did, and partially because that was how I was taught to react to bullies. In fairness, I may have misinterpreted what "stand up to" means and not understood the subtle conflict between "stand up to" and "choke until he turns blue." I think it's a toe-may-toe/to-mah-toe sort of thing.
In the constant quest for civilization, and the effort to minimize the number of school shootings, we, as a society have moved away from the self-help against bullying strategies and, instead, moved towards passing laws that prohibit bullying. Laws often inclued rules against cyber-bullying, bullying students regarding race, gender, and sexual preference issues, or any other number of subjects. Some of these laws even make such behavior a potential criminal offense. These laws work a lot like harsh sentences against sex offenders, they target behavior everyone hates, they are incredibly popular, they do nothing at all to change behavior, they ruin lives, they're based on misinformation, and they make other societal problems worse. In short, they're bad policy.
Anti-bullying statutes are bad policy precisely because of their popularity. I understand that in a Democracy, one often thinks that popular policies must be good policies. Vox populus vox dieux, the popular voice is the voice of G-d. But, the reality is that huge groups of people often make as bad or worse decisions than any one of them, and that policies supported by "common sense" often lack any sense at all.
I did a bunch of policy work when I worked for the DA's office and did work with bullying statutes. One of the things I most hated was that they were all painfully vague. Part of the reason, I suspect is because bullying is a lot like pornography, difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. Try, right now to come up with a real definition of bullying that is both specific and comprehensive; you'll find it almost impossible, and if you do come up with a good one, you should call the Governor's office immediately, because he could use it. Almost inevitably, bullying statutes include some prohibition against insulting people for belonging to a protected class, in some states that just includes race, religion, and national origin, but in California it includes almost everything.
One problem with such prohibitions is that simply insulting someone is free speech and probably protected. And, while lives can be destroyed by mere insults, the actual behavior in question is more difficult and the facts more nuanced, generally, than can be easily summed up by legislators.
Another problem with such laws is that they criminalize behavior that should be a disciplinary issue. The difference between disciplinary and criminal actions are serious. Disciplinary actions are dealt with by school authorities, on school grounds, and create school records. Criminal actions are dealt with by court authorities, in courts of law and create criminal records. Criminal actions are far more likely to result in expulsion or suspension. Criminal actions have a profoundly negative impact of graduation rates, and, criminal records can affect whether students get accepted to universities or hired for jobs far more easily than disciplinary ones.
Additionally, most of these bullying laws are reactions not to actual trends but to perceived trends. We hear a lot of stories about the horrors of bullying on the news, and one group did a survey that suggests that one-in-six students in the US are so afraid of bullies that they've skipped school in the last thirty day. The first of these in anecdotal, and not actual indicative of meaningful trends. The second of these is because such studies are deeply flawed, in that they simply presume student honesty. There are different ways to collect data which permits corrections for accuracy, but that isn't how we study bullying in this country.
If people seem interested, I'll do a future policy bite on the data collection issue, but the key point is that such studies presume that children give more accurate answers if surveys are anonymous, and a couple studies suggest that A) they don't and B) if you know the student's name you can check their school records to see if the the things they say are factual.
But, Anti-Bullying laws can get around all these problems because they're popular. A lot of popular policies are bad. But those policies can afford to be, because there's the will to pass them even if they are bad. If they were good policies that actually stopped bullying, we'd pass less of them and they'd become less popular. It's a vicious circle.
In the constant quest for civilization, and the effort to minimize the number of school shootings, we, as a society have moved away from the self-help against bullying strategies and, instead, moved towards passing laws that prohibit bullying. Laws often inclued rules against cyber-bullying, bullying students regarding race, gender, and sexual preference issues, or any other number of subjects. Some of these laws even make such behavior a potential criminal offense. These laws work a lot like harsh sentences against sex offenders, they target behavior everyone hates, they are incredibly popular, they do nothing at all to change behavior, they ruin lives, they're based on misinformation, and they make other societal problems worse. In short, they're bad policy.
Anti-bullying statutes are bad policy precisely because of their popularity. I understand that in a Democracy, one often thinks that popular policies must be good policies. Vox populus vox dieux, the popular voice is the voice of G-d. But, the reality is that huge groups of people often make as bad or worse decisions than any one of them, and that policies supported by "common sense" often lack any sense at all.
I did a bunch of policy work when I worked for the DA's office and did work with bullying statutes. One of the things I most hated was that they were all painfully vague. Part of the reason, I suspect is because bullying is a lot like pornography, difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. Try, right now to come up with a real definition of bullying that is both specific and comprehensive; you'll find it almost impossible, and if you do come up with a good one, you should call the Governor's office immediately, because he could use it. Almost inevitably, bullying statutes include some prohibition against insulting people for belonging to a protected class, in some states that just includes race, religion, and national origin, but in California it includes almost everything.
One problem with such prohibitions is that simply insulting someone is free speech and probably protected. And, while lives can be destroyed by mere insults, the actual behavior in question is more difficult and the facts more nuanced, generally, than can be easily summed up by legislators.
Another problem with such laws is that they criminalize behavior that should be a disciplinary issue. The difference between disciplinary and criminal actions are serious. Disciplinary actions are dealt with by school authorities, on school grounds, and create school records. Criminal actions are dealt with by court authorities, in courts of law and create criminal records. Criminal actions are far more likely to result in expulsion or suspension. Criminal actions have a profoundly negative impact of graduation rates, and, criminal records can affect whether students get accepted to universities or hired for jobs far more easily than disciplinary ones.
Additionally, most of these bullying laws are reactions not to actual trends but to perceived trends. We hear a lot of stories about the horrors of bullying on the news, and one group did a survey that suggests that one-in-six students in the US are so afraid of bullies that they've skipped school in the last thirty day. The first of these in anecdotal, and not actual indicative of meaningful trends. The second of these is because such studies are deeply flawed, in that they simply presume student honesty. There are different ways to collect data which permits corrections for accuracy, but that isn't how we study bullying in this country.
If people seem interested, I'll do a future policy bite on the data collection issue, but the key point is that such studies presume that children give more accurate answers if surveys are anonymous, and a couple studies suggest that A) they don't and B) if you know the student's name you can check their school records to see if the the things they say are factual.
But, Anti-Bullying laws can get around all these problems because they're popular. A lot of popular policies are bad. But those policies can afford to be, because there's the will to pass them even if they are bad. If they were good policies that actually stopped bullying, we'd pass less of them and they'd become less popular. It's a vicious circle.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Scary Palin
Sarah Palin scares me. I mean that. I find her honestly frightening. The fact someone that deranged, misguided, and phony could get as close as she did to being the Vice President of the United States gives me nightmares. According to the book Game Change, it's likely that she actually hurt John McCain's chances of being elected more than she helped. Apparently, there were people who believed that Obama was a Communist Kenyan Muslim who still didn't vote for McCain because they were so concerned about the possibility of this bubblehead being able to Nuke Canada.
But her ignorance isn't what scares me, nor is her near complete political uselessness as a flag-waver. By far, the thing I find creepiest about Sarah Palin, is the fact that people insist on taking her seriously, on any scale and for any reason.
I understand there are people who think she nutter-butter, but pay attention to her because she "leads" a group, but, the reality is that she only leads the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party in the same way that the fastest lemming leads the pack*. If she substantially changed tack or course in such a way where she ceased to sound like she understood foreign, monetary, or legislative policy, she'd be tossed aside like the drivel-spewing geyser of stupid that she is.
I understand that tea-partiers tend to vote for the people whom she endorses and that people watch her on Fox News, but to think either of those is about her influence is to invert cause and effect. Tea-partiers vote with her because she's good at selecting for whom those folks vote; Fox News spends a lot of money for her appearances because she says exactly what Fox watchers want to hear.
*Yes, I understand lemmings don't really charge off of cliffs, but I'm speaking about metaphorical lemmings** here.
**Appologies to any lemmings offended by this parallel
But her ignorance isn't what scares me, nor is her near complete political uselessness as a flag-waver. By far, the thing I find creepiest about Sarah Palin, is the fact that people insist on taking her seriously, on any scale and for any reason.
I understand there are people who think she nutter-butter, but pay attention to her because she "leads" a group, but, the reality is that she only leads the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party in the same way that the fastest lemming leads the pack*. If she substantially changed tack or course in such a way where she ceased to sound like she understood foreign, monetary, or legislative policy, she'd be tossed aside like the drivel-spewing geyser of stupid that she is.
I understand that tea-partiers tend to vote for the people whom she endorses and that people watch her on Fox News, but to think either of those is about her influence is to invert cause and effect. Tea-partiers vote with her because she's good at selecting for whom those folks vote; Fox News spends a lot of money for her appearances because she says exactly what Fox watchers want to hear.
*Yes, I understand lemmings don't really charge off of cliffs, but I'm speaking about metaphorical lemmings** here.
**Appologies to any lemmings offended by this parallel
Thursday, October 17, 2013
The Inevitable Entangling of G-d and Man: Why Religion Will Always Influence Politics
According to The New American Center in Esquire, a USA Today-esque blur of infographics about what the majority of Americans believe, the center feels that religion should have no role in public life. Of course, the poll question is in nearly absolute terms, so, it's difficult to answer or say where you lie if you believe in a more nuanced version than yes or no, but, I digress.
Let's begin by dismissing entirely that this country is, or was ever meant to be a Christian country. There were settlements by religious groups on this continent which would later become states, and some of those were founded by members of particular religions, such as the Puritans and the Quakers. However, to say that those individuals define the intent of the founders when creating the nation that followed them is like saying that Samuel Morse's intentions when inventing the telegraph is the best way to look at the intended uses for the internet.
I understand that John Adams was very much a Christian, and he wrote some of the Federalist Papers. But I also understand that Thomas Jefferson was a diest, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Things get even more awkward when you consider that Thomas Paine, who never held public office in the US greatly affected the founders and their philosophies. Paine was an atheist. He believed there was no G-d. Some letters between Paine and Jefferson suggest Jefferson may have been an atheist also, but he may have just been trying to influence his friend through empathy.
Additionally, one of the first treaties ever passed by this country after the ratification of the Constitution was an overture to a group of Muslim Pirates, and began with "Whereas the United States is, in no way, a Christian nation." I also understand that, at this point in history, several states had official religions, and they did, but not all of them did, and none of them required actually attending services or similar. And, even if they did, the intentions of one or some members of a group of thirteen groups isn't really indicative of the intentions of all of them.
But I digress. The Religious Right in this country, and some portion of the Gospel Left, feel that we have lost our way. They feel that religion should have a greater role in public life. I use the language above because the Religious Right is a group defined by a particular ideology, whereas the Gospel Left is more of a philosophy that plays out in practice very differently from place to place. But, what I will say, is that in both groups, Churches are very political places.
I don't mean that Priests and Ministers in both groups tell people whom to vote for or discuss ballot measures from the pulpit, but, there is a huge difference between not endorsing a candidate and not talking about religion, there is also a lot of time spent at churches in both groups that isn't listening to the sermon.
Firstly, Churches are important to these groups because church is where the entire community gets together, meets up, and talks about life. If politics is a tool we use to solve our problems, church is one of the tools those groups use to define their problems. Further, politics is tied up in complicated ideals, big words with capital letters like "Justice," "Freedom," "Truth," and "Morality." For a lot of people, those words are deeply tied to religious concepts. Religion both gives us a sense of what those words mean and define our takeaways.
Let me provide an example: Most everyone knows the story of Sodom and Gammorrah, two cities that G-d decided were awful places. Because G-d (hereinafter G) hated the two cities he told Abraham (hereinafter Abe) that he wanted to destroy them. Abe then challenged G to prove that there weren't ten good men between the two cities, and that, if G did, he had to save the cities. G admitted that he may have jumped to judgment, and he'd give them a test.
G sends to angels (hereinafter Bill and Ted) disguised as men to visit the cities. Sodom has a law prohibiting taking in strangers, which seems pretty intense to me, but G doesn't smite whole cities for nothing. Bill and Ted go to Sodom where Lot offers them a place to crash with his family. Bill and Ted go to Lot's house and then all the men in the city besides Lot come banging on the door demanding Bill and Ted perform sexual favors upon them. Lot says, don't take my houseguests, take my teenaged daughters instead, which also seems pretty messed up to me, but, maybe there was something else going on. The crowd demands Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted invoke divine power to destroy the city.
Lot, his daughters, and his wife flee the city but are told they can never look back. Lot's wife does, dies in a biblically horrific manner, and no one else is caught thinking about the good times they had at some point in their homes. Lot's daughters then decide on their own that Lot should have sons because he's such a badass, so they rape their own father and become pregnant.
The takeaways from this story are myriad and varied. A friend of mine once said the only moral lesson he understood was "the oldest gets to ride daddy first." There is a large portion of American Christianity who believes the story is an admonition against homosexuality. When I studied the Torah, we discussed the idea that the story stands for the importance of standing against law to serve justice. The first thing you read isn't about Lot or Sodom, it's Abe and Big G and Abe telling the creator of all things, and eternal badass that he's being a dick, and then Big G says, "you might be right." So there's a lesson there, that even G-d can make mistakes, and it's isn't wrong to make them, but it's wrong to stand by them when you know they're wrong.
The story of Lot, Bill and Ted, his daughters, and a big stack of dead neighbors is, in Torah study, usually seen as a story about hospitality, there's a numerical equivalence that's significant as well, but very boring to explain. Some Jews say that Lot was wrong to put his own daughters in harm's way to save two strangers, maybe there's a lesson on hospitality there, or maybe that just justifies his own daughters raping him.
But, again, I digress, the point being that this one story, told badly and in three paragraphs is a potential repository dozens of possible interpretations, and we haven't even discussed Lot's wife yet. But, whether you believe it's a lesson about civil disobedience, homosexuality, or that G-d is a total dick will probably affect where you stand regarding a demonstration by homosexuals demanding their right to be married and recieve all the tax benefits of that. So, I'm not convinced you can meaningfully divorce religion entirely from politcs, because religion will always enlighten politics.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that there's a prayer that opens every day of congress, thought, I really dig the chaplain who used that opportunity to admonish the right wingers who refused to fund government. I'm a little uncomfortable that most federal swearings-in involve a bible. I'm tired of the Religious Right going off on the war against the most popular holiday of the year, the amount of talking heads who feel that G-d has a place in the legislature, or that religious freedom means the right to impose you will on someone else's internal plumbing.
But, I still feel that all those statements are different than, "I don't think religion has any place in American Public Life."
Let's begin by dismissing entirely that this country is, or was ever meant to be a Christian country. There were settlements by religious groups on this continent which would later become states, and some of those were founded by members of particular religions, such as the Puritans and the Quakers. However, to say that those individuals define the intent of the founders when creating the nation that followed them is like saying that Samuel Morse's intentions when inventing the telegraph is the best way to look at the intended uses for the internet.
I understand that John Adams was very much a Christian, and he wrote some of the Federalist Papers. But I also understand that Thomas Jefferson was a diest, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Things get even more awkward when you consider that Thomas Paine, who never held public office in the US greatly affected the founders and their philosophies. Paine was an atheist. He believed there was no G-d. Some letters between Paine and Jefferson suggest Jefferson may have been an atheist also, but he may have just been trying to influence his friend through empathy.
Additionally, one of the first treaties ever passed by this country after the ratification of the Constitution was an overture to a group of Muslim Pirates, and began with "Whereas the United States is, in no way, a Christian nation." I also understand that, at this point in history, several states had official religions, and they did, but not all of them did, and none of them required actually attending services or similar. And, even if they did, the intentions of one or some members of a group of thirteen groups isn't really indicative of the intentions of all of them.
But I digress. The Religious Right in this country, and some portion of the Gospel Left, feel that we have lost our way. They feel that religion should have a greater role in public life. I use the language above because the Religious Right is a group defined by a particular ideology, whereas the Gospel Left is more of a philosophy that plays out in practice very differently from place to place. But, what I will say, is that in both groups, Churches are very political places.
I don't mean that Priests and Ministers in both groups tell people whom to vote for or discuss ballot measures from the pulpit, but, there is a huge difference between not endorsing a candidate and not talking about religion, there is also a lot of time spent at churches in both groups that isn't listening to the sermon.
Firstly, Churches are important to these groups because church is where the entire community gets together, meets up, and talks about life. If politics is a tool we use to solve our problems, church is one of the tools those groups use to define their problems. Further, politics is tied up in complicated ideals, big words with capital letters like "Justice," "Freedom," "Truth," and "Morality." For a lot of people, those words are deeply tied to religious concepts. Religion both gives us a sense of what those words mean and define our takeaways.
Let me provide an example: Most everyone knows the story of Sodom and Gammorrah, two cities that G-d decided were awful places. Because G-d (hereinafter G) hated the two cities he told Abraham (hereinafter Abe) that he wanted to destroy them. Abe then challenged G to prove that there weren't ten good men between the two cities, and that, if G did, he had to save the cities. G admitted that he may have jumped to judgment, and he'd give them a test.
G sends to angels (hereinafter Bill and Ted) disguised as men to visit the cities. Sodom has a law prohibiting taking in strangers, which seems pretty intense to me, but G doesn't smite whole cities for nothing. Bill and Ted go to Sodom where Lot offers them a place to crash with his family. Bill and Ted go to Lot's house and then all the men in the city besides Lot come banging on the door demanding Bill and Ted perform sexual favors upon them. Lot says, don't take my houseguests, take my teenaged daughters instead, which also seems pretty messed up to me, but, maybe there was something else going on. The crowd demands Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted invoke divine power to destroy the city.
Lot, his daughters, and his wife flee the city but are told they can never look back. Lot's wife does, dies in a biblically horrific manner, and no one else is caught thinking about the good times they had at some point in their homes. Lot's daughters then decide on their own that Lot should have sons because he's such a badass, so they rape their own father and become pregnant.
The takeaways from this story are myriad and varied. A friend of mine once said the only moral lesson he understood was "the oldest gets to ride daddy first." There is a large portion of American Christianity who believes the story is an admonition against homosexuality. When I studied the Torah, we discussed the idea that the story stands for the importance of standing against law to serve justice. The first thing you read isn't about Lot or Sodom, it's Abe and Big G and Abe telling the creator of all things, and eternal badass that he's being a dick, and then Big G says, "you might be right." So there's a lesson there, that even G-d can make mistakes, and it's isn't wrong to make them, but it's wrong to stand by them when you know they're wrong.
The story of Lot, Bill and Ted, his daughters, and a big stack of dead neighbors is, in Torah study, usually seen as a story about hospitality, there's a numerical equivalence that's significant as well, but very boring to explain. Some Jews say that Lot was wrong to put his own daughters in harm's way to save two strangers, maybe there's a lesson on hospitality there, or maybe that just justifies his own daughters raping him.
But, again, I digress, the point being that this one story, told badly and in three paragraphs is a potential repository dozens of possible interpretations, and we haven't even discussed Lot's wife yet. But, whether you believe it's a lesson about civil disobedience, homosexuality, or that G-d is a total dick will probably affect where you stand regarding a demonstration by homosexuals demanding their right to be married and recieve all the tax benefits of that. So, I'm not convinced you can meaningfully divorce religion entirely from politcs, because religion will always enlighten politics.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that there's a prayer that opens every day of congress, thought, I really dig the chaplain who used that opportunity to admonish the right wingers who refused to fund government. I'm a little uncomfortable that most federal swearings-in involve a bible. I'm tired of the Religious Right going off on the war against the most popular holiday of the year, the amount of talking heads who feel that G-d has a place in the legislature, or that religious freedom means the right to impose you will on someone else's internal plumbing.
But, I still feel that all those statements are different than, "I don't think religion has any place in American Public Life."
Friday, October 11, 2013
One of these things is not like the other: The Limitations of Personal Liberty.
There's a popular conceit that laws restricting gun ownership, drug use, and gay marriage are all similar intrusions on personal liberty. It's a popular conceit, and the idea seems attractive. It also has the beauty of combining the interests of people from both ends of the political spectrum. On the other hand, there's a fundamental problem with the conceit: The reasons to restrict gun ownership, drug use, and gay marriage aren't the same.
Gay Marriage is the ultimate personal issue, two people decide they want to get married, and society may object. Objections are based on antiquated ideas of religion, cultural normalcy, or personal morality. Previously, there have been laws prohibiting interracial marriage (to prevent "mongrelization of the white race"). Certain cultures don't permit interreligious marriage (to prevent the children from being raised [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE]). But, the reality is that all of these are about imposing society's judgment on what is fundamentally a personal decision.
There are two justifications for criminalizing drug use: the harms to the user, and the collateral harms of others caused by users. I'm not convinced that the harms inflicted on users of drugs is a valid basis for a law. If adulthood doesn't mean the right to make bad decisions, then we're a nation of children. The reality is that a person can suffer permanent injury boxing, doing gymnastics, skydiving, or skiing, but none of those are illegal. I realize that drugs are immediately harmful, but so are cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods, but there is no law prohibiting or restricting the right to smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey, or grab a double double with animal fries.
The more compelling justification for criminalizing drug use is the collateral harms. Junkies can neglect children due to drug use. The secondary criminal impacts of drugs are about the violence related to the illegal drug trade, crimes committed by junkies to pay for drugs, or other such issues. The problem with the collateral issues theory, is that all of those behaviors we don't like are already illegal. Further, many of these issues are actually amplified by the criminalization of drugs. The most obvious example is violence.
There's an interesting thing about illegalizing a consumer good. Consumer good prices are set by intersections of supply and demand. Criminalization does nothing to affect demand, but artificially sets supply at zero. When supply is insufficient to fill demand, there is either a shortage (which increases price), people find substitute products (unless it is an inelastic market), or a black market fills the gap. The nature of addiction reduces the availability of meaningful substitutions. This keeps prices artificially high, and means that a black market will supply the demand.
The drug trade isn't violent by nature. It's violent because people will use violence to protect money and power. Further, the criminalization of drugs makes it more difficult for junkies to get treatment. The criminalization of behavior creates a cultural taboo around that behavior. It makes people less likely to have discussions with their kids. It makes people less likely to admit to their problems. It makes kids less likely to get help when a friend is having an overdose. It means that people who have substance abuse problems can end up being criminally prosecuted for their medical problem. So I'm not a big fan of the collateral damage justification for the criminalization of drug use. Mostly, because the harms of criminalization seem as bad or worse than harms of drug use.
Laws regulating, restricting, an otherwise addressing firearms, be they by requiring registration, criminalizing ownership or sale of certain firearms, or requiring background checks by purchasers of firearms are about the collateral consequences of firearms. Advocates for gun rights argue that the collateral issues of guns and drugs are the same. I think there's a difference, however, and here's why: The very intended purpose of a firearm is to kill. The use of a firearm for its intended purpose will be fatal to something. Further, fully legal ownership of a firearm can hurt or kill someone without the owner having committed any separately criminal act.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. But you have every right to punch yourself if you want to.
There are other issues with gun control, questions regarding what laws there should be, what the goals should be of such laws, and what laws are most effective at containing the dangers of firearms from hurting innocents. But, when you're simply discussing the underlying reasons: Gun ownership is very different from other personal liberties.
Gay Marriage is the ultimate personal issue, two people decide they want to get married, and society may object. Objections are based on antiquated ideas of religion, cultural normalcy, or personal morality. Previously, there have been laws prohibiting interracial marriage (to prevent "mongrelization of the white race"). Certain cultures don't permit interreligious marriage (to prevent the children from being raised [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE]). But, the reality is that all of these are about imposing society's judgment on what is fundamentally a personal decision.
There are two justifications for criminalizing drug use: the harms to the user, and the collateral harms of others caused by users. I'm not convinced that the harms inflicted on users of drugs is a valid basis for a law. If adulthood doesn't mean the right to make bad decisions, then we're a nation of children. The reality is that a person can suffer permanent injury boxing, doing gymnastics, skydiving, or skiing, but none of those are illegal. I realize that drugs are immediately harmful, but so are cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods, but there is no law prohibiting or restricting the right to smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey, or grab a double double with animal fries.
The more compelling justification for criminalizing drug use is the collateral harms. Junkies can neglect children due to drug use. The secondary criminal impacts of drugs are about the violence related to the illegal drug trade, crimes committed by junkies to pay for drugs, or other such issues. The problem with the collateral issues theory, is that all of those behaviors we don't like are already illegal. Further, many of these issues are actually amplified by the criminalization of drugs. The most obvious example is violence.
There's an interesting thing about illegalizing a consumer good. Consumer good prices are set by intersections of supply and demand. Criminalization does nothing to affect demand, but artificially sets supply at zero. When supply is insufficient to fill demand, there is either a shortage (which increases price), people find substitute products (unless it is an inelastic market), or a black market fills the gap. The nature of addiction reduces the availability of meaningful substitutions. This keeps prices artificially high, and means that a black market will supply the demand.
The drug trade isn't violent by nature. It's violent because people will use violence to protect money and power. Further, the criminalization of drugs makes it more difficult for junkies to get treatment. The criminalization of behavior creates a cultural taboo around that behavior. It makes people less likely to have discussions with their kids. It makes people less likely to admit to their problems. It makes kids less likely to get help when a friend is having an overdose. It means that people who have substance abuse problems can end up being criminally prosecuted for their medical problem. So I'm not a big fan of the collateral damage justification for the criminalization of drug use. Mostly, because the harms of criminalization seem as bad or worse than harms of drug use.
Laws regulating, restricting, an otherwise addressing firearms, be they by requiring registration, criminalizing ownership or sale of certain firearms, or requiring background checks by purchasers of firearms are about the collateral consequences of firearms. Advocates for gun rights argue that the collateral issues of guns and drugs are the same. I think there's a difference, however, and here's why: The very intended purpose of a firearm is to kill. The use of a firearm for its intended purpose will be fatal to something. Further, fully legal ownership of a firearm can hurt or kill someone without the owner having committed any separately criminal act.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. But you have every right to punch yourself if you want to.
There are other issues with gun control, questions regarding what laws there should be, what the goals should be of such laws, and what laws are most effective at containing the dangers of firearms from hurting innocents. But, when you're simply discussing the underlying reasons: Gun ownership is very different from other personal liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)