About this site -- This site is a place to keep and share
the somewhat random musings, rants, and observations which otherwise clutter my brain. I hate clutter.
Comments Policy -- Comments will never be censored based on political or ideological point of view. However, comments will be deleted that are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include ad hominem attacks. Comments are pre-moderated, meaning they will not be posted immediately.
If you're like most of us, you recognize that the current financial crisis is way complicated, and becoming way too politicized. Follow the link to a pretty lucid explanation of the situation and the implications of the bailout plan. The blog post doesn't have a political agenda. It just seems to explain what is and isn't going on. Well worth the read.
Last night's Presidential Debate was remarkable mostly in that it was unremarkable. Still, the reality of American politics is that what was actually said is not nearly as important as how people feel about the event the morning after.
In reviewing the reactions, one point kept striking me. Several people remarked that Obama seemed all doom and gloom, saying we needed to fix all these things in order to succeed. Meanwhile, McCain seemed to feel that this was the greatest country on Earth, and his policies would just make it even better.
What was most striking is that this analysis was leveled as a criticism of Obama. This, despite the fact that some 80% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong path. Isn't the first step toward any recovery admitting that you have a problem? There seems to be some troubling cognitive dissonance here. To my mind, I want a leader who recognizes that we have problems. Who wants to do more than tweak the system for incremental improvment. We are not merely in need of a course correction.
Maybe the issue is that while many Americans recognize we are on the wrong path, they are scared to deviate much from the path as they are comfortable with it. Change brings uncertainty, and that can be scary. This seems to be the core philosophy of the Conservatives. Change is bad. Let's stick with what we know. If things get ugly, we'll just do those same old things harder and faster. But those are the policies that got us where we are. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That doesn't mean that insanity is not a comfortable place, but it doesn't make it a desireable one.
I don't know what it means, but it made me chuckle. In these days of imminent financial doom with a frosting of political posturing on top, we can all use a little chuckle... and maybe a little duct tape.
I was trying to briefly convey the point at dinner last night that America needs to get over it's pride and come to terms with the reality that as a country we are no longer on the ascendancy. Our time in the barrel has passed. Granted, we've been in this position pretty much since World War II, but prior to that were very much just another country on the map. We seem to have forgotten that. And we seem to feel that if we aren't on top, then we're nothing. I don't believe that. I don't believe that not being the rising star suddenly means you're a global embarrassment. We had our day in the sun. For awhile at least, it will be China and India's turn, much as it was England and France's turn before us. We even have the opportunity to make it our turn again. But that requires work we're not yet prepared to do because we can't yet cope with the reality of our current position.
David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign
Ok, so canceling a Letterman appearance is understandable, but why lie about it? Especially if your lie is able to be revealed because you're on a different stage at the same damn network?
Ahhh... another confounding dinner at home with the boys. It started with a reference to the ubiquity of computers and Doug noted that you probably couldt go into any house in America and find computers. Maybe not a PC, but the kind embedded into TVs, microwaves, cars, cell phones, and digital watches. He quickly amended, "except for Amish houses."
This led to a discussion of whether or not the Amish would remain computer free forever. After all, they have adopted some technology over the years. For example, they use small engines, and while those engines are typically older and computer-free for now, it's likely they'll have some form of digital control circuitry in years to come.
Which naturally leads to a question about how the Amish decide what's legal and what's not. I explained that from my understanding, each sect has a council of elders who decide for their group how much tech is too much, and different sects make different decisions. But it wasn't at all clear to me if the goal was to just keep a certain pace behind the mainstream or if they were trying to cling to the 19th century forever. I can't help but wonder if they'd be allowed to use an OLPC Laptop since it is powered by a hand crank. Maybe it would be okay if it only ran DOS?
And speaking of groups with indecipherable rules, the topic quickly jumped to vegans. Okay, we get that they don't eat meat, nor will they consume cheese or eggs or wear leather or fur. But what about oil? That comes from animals--ancient ones, but animals. And if oil is out that takes out plastics, transportation, motors, engines, and electricity. Being Amish is starting to look pretty good.
Further, bees are animals, and they pollinate plants, so is it okay to eat by-products of their work? What about manure for fertilizer? That's an animal by-product. Although it was suggested that human and/or plant waste would work as well, and fortunately for us all dinner was just about over by that point. This whole discussion was degrading quickly into a circle-of-life thing where it was all too clear that you can't step outside the circle and still call it life.
Dinner being over provided an opportunity for a bit of research. Consulting the Vegan Society we found the vegan philosophy in their Articles of Association:
...the word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
Well there's enough wiggle room in that definition to satisfy the folks at Jello. The big hole being the statement, "as far as is possible and practical." What's practical could be having a steak because that's what's for dinner and it would be rude not to. So you can rationalize pretty much any behavior with that caveat alone.
But the one that strikes me more is the statement about exploitation and cruelty. First, there's all the issues about what defines cruelty, and is that to the individual animal or the species as a whole? I rather like my dad's take on this. It would be cruel to livestock to not eat them because they've been bred to be domestic and couldn't survive in the wild if we just set them all free. He has a point.
It's also clear to me from that definition that it should be okay to eat animals that weren't killed for the purpose of eating them. In other words, if you hit a deer with your car, then it's venison for dinner. You can't be cruel to or exploit something that's already dead. But I somehow suspect that "roadkill" won't be on the menu anytime soon at your local vegan eatery.
This concludes the meal... you may now resume your normal conversation already in progress.
I'll bet McCain is wishing he'd never said this: (page 3, top of right column)
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
Yes... that's exactly what we need... a health insurance industry that performs more like our banking industry.
Government regulation, like most things, is a matter of having just enough. It's a careful balancing act. It's not a black and white issue. Don't we need leaders intelligent enough to understand the nuance of this?
ABC News has put up a quiz to see which candidate better aligns with you. (Thanks to Mom for sending it in.) It's kind of interesting. They have specifically chosen quotes from each candidate that are not in stark contrast. The result is that the choices are far from obvious. I suspect that if you're not a political news junkie you'll be hard pressed to identify the speaker from the quote. Also, there's the spin interpretation that's hard to figure out when these texts are taken out of context. For example, it means different things when one talks about "middle class tax cuts" than when the other does. You can't really translate the code if you don't know which cipher to use.
In my case, the choice was still blindingly clear. I'm curious though, for people who maybe aren't addicted to news, were your results surprising?? Feel free to share your results and impressions in the comments.
It's almost September 19th again. Be warmin' up yer pirate-speak ya scurvy dog. And in case yer one-a dem landlubbers intent on spoiling the fun... well, then click here if ya must. But don't be comin' back or we'll make ya walk da plank... or keel haul ya... or say mean things about you in the comments section.
But they aren't dumb. They have voices, and they take them to school board meetings. The residents of Brunswick County, North Carolina must be so proud that their school board is investigating whether or not to teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution. It's tempting to yet again eviscerate the underlying case for Creationism as a scientific theory like a disoriented moose wandering through the Palin's backyard, but the scary part of this story goes beyond the narrow scope of teaching mythology as science.
Key quote:
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
Is this really the bar to set for appropriate educational topics? Let's not teach anything the community hasn't observed first hand. After all, I can't count to a billion. How do we really know numbers go that high?
Mr. Fanti also wasn't here 2 thousand years ago. If Christian mythology is so real, why don't we see any miracles happening now?
Richard Cohen has historically been a huge fan of John McCain. But not anymore. Key quote:
McCain was going to fix all that. He was going to look the American people in the eyes and say, not me. I will not lie to you. I am John McCain, son and grandson of admirals. I tell the truth.
But Joy Behar knew better. And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.
It's hard to say where the turning point was, but somewhere over the last decade the GOP has shifted from well worn and expected political tactics of truth stretching and spin doctoring to unapologetically propagating bold faced lies. Whether directly or indirectly, the lies just keep on coming. Obama is a Muslim. The Democrats are proposing to raise everyone's taxes, Palin sold a plane on eBay or saved us money by rejecting the bridge to nowhere. It just goes on.
Paul Krugman speculates that this started back in the 2000 campaign with subtly bad math used to justify the Bush tax cuts. (Curiously, those same bad math lies are being used to justify the "change" McCain's plan will bring us, so the classics never die.) But I think the succeess of things like selling the Iraq War and the Swift Boating of John Kerry have emboldened the GOP strategists.
From a certain perspective, it's hard not to just be in awe. They play the press and public masterfully. They create their own truths through repitition and exposure, molding their own reality from mud and straw... and it works. 1 in 10 of us believe Obama is a Muslim. About a third of us still think Iraq had WMDs, and over a half still cling to the notion that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Spend some time listening to AM talk radio and listen to the people calling in. The things they believe are jarring. Despite conservatives being in charge of the government for most of the last decade, they still act as if they are trying to pry themselves out from under the mantle of reckless liberalism. Further, they manufacture insult and feign injury at the slightest provocation. Witness the recent lipstick on a pig fury. (Even Bill O'Reilly came out and said this was hogwash, but the train just keeps on a rollin'.) Curiously, the GOP has adopted the simultaneous position of aggressor and victim, and they garner sympathetic coverage on both fronts.
It leaves the Democrats in a precarious position. One option is to simply get down in the mud and play the game with the Republicans. But this would bring the campaign process from farce to comic tragedy. And those of us who are thinking about what we hear don't want to be left choosing between who can manipulate the witless with more skill. The alternative is to be left constantly on the defensive, trying to explain and expose the truth. But the reality of perception is that people who are always on the defensive tend to look guilty, whether they are or not. So they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. And the GOP knows this.
The Democrats are trying to take the high road here, assuming that saner heads will prevail in the long run. I applaud their ethics and moral courage, but I fear they are horribly wrong.
If you missed the first installment of the Sarah Palin interviews on ABC like I did, you can catch up with the transcripts from ABC News. It would be interesting to hear the intonations and see the body language on this whole interview. There are a couple video clips available which help to lend context to the words.
The interview starts with questions about her experience. Does she have the chops for the job? The reality is we don't and won't know. She doesn't know either. Clearly she doesn't have a resume that screams she's been preparing a lifetime for this job. But how many do? Government and the private sector are both rife with examples of ideal candidates failing miserably, and people who, based on their history, shouldn't be able to find the coffee pot as being stellar performers. One this is clear though. She does not lack for self confidence, and that's unarguably a leadership trait. She's also a quick study. I can't say how much she understands or whether or not she can apply the knowledge, but her brain has to feel like 10 pounds of hockey equipment stuffed in a 5 pound bag. She also exhibits poise and charisma on camera. All of these are to her credit.
Then they moved on to the religion topic. She danced the fence well. I personally think she's rationalizing her words and trying to tame them into something less scary to the populace. Is that lying? Minimally, that's politics. I do wonder how, in her own mind, she reconciles her faith's God-first world view with her backpedaling explanations that could be viewed as disingenuous to her Pentecostal philosophy. But there's no way to really get to that. It's just a curiosity. What is in evidence from the video, and more than a little interesting, is that when they are questioning her about her statement on the war being a "task from God" she's almost glowing with energy. I'll be curious to see if that same passion ignites when she speaks on non-religious topics.
I would really like someone to ask her if hypothetically she could support a proposal which had majority support in the population and yet went against her beliefs. The root question being, is democracy above her faith? Do the people really have self determination, or does God's law always prevail? And if the latter, what is God's law, and who interprets that? And no, I don't seriously think anyone will get to ask that, and if they did, I'm sure there would not be a useful answer.
But I digress. Meanwhile, back at the interview, the topic moved to national security and international relations. I thought this was the most telling, and to me the scariest part of what she had to say. Sure, there were comical moments like when she trotted out the Rose and Orange Revolutions like she was giving an oral essay in her social studies final, but she used them correctly, so kudos to her coach.
Take a look back at the discussion on Georgia, Russia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and terrorists. Over and over she draws clean bright lines between good and evil, friends and enemies. Russia is the aggressor, Georgia is the victim. She dances around her willingness to back a war with Russia, but her desire to get Georgia under NATO's protection with the reasonable possibility that would lead to war with Russia is pointed out to her, and she seems to find that an acceptable risk because it's the right thing to do. Iran is bad. Israel is a friend. We will support Israel in whatever they want to do. We will go after terrorists wherever they are, sovereign borders be damned. She wouldn't explicitly endorse the Bush Doctrine (nor did she know what it was; bet she gets assigned an essay on that tonight). However, in the end she did basically endorse the idea of preemption.
There are a couple of important points here. First and foremost, the world political arena is a really complicated place. Very little is black and white. Most of GW's failings in foreign policy are a direct result of this simplistic world view that Sarah Palin shares. Successful negotiators are able to see both sides from many angles and cope with this complexity and nuance. She gave no indication she even recognizes this, much less is capable of it. As a simple and illustrative question, I'd like to know why Russia is so clearly in the wrong for invading Georgia, but we are not wrong for invading Iraq on a premise that has been widely debunked.
Secondly, I'd like to know what the limits of her concept of preemption are. It's apparently okay to invade a nation if you can make a compelling case that they are building up the capability to do you harm (Iraq or Iran in the interview discussion). What if the harm is not violent? If we had irrefutable evidence the Chinese were developing computer viruses capable of controlling our financial markets. What then? What if we had evidence the Mexican government planned to support illegal emigration to the US as a way of diverting wealth to their own country and depressing American wages? Is the bar set at capability or is the intent to use it required? What is the appropriate response? Is it always in kind, or could we bomb the Chinese "Silicon Valley" as a response to above scenario? And is there a slippery slope to domestic law? Is capacity to commit or planning to commit a crime itself a crime?
I doubt that she, or any politician, has direct and succinct answers to the above. But I do think the way in which they answer is telling about their world views and their decision making processes. Do they understand the implications of their actions? Do they comprehend or at least respect the degree of complexity and interrelatedness of the world? Are they thinkers, or do they play from the gut?
Sarah's answers so far indicate she's a rule book toting gut player. McCain has a similar bent. If that's what you want in a leader, then I think you've found your ticket.
It has been seven years since the occurrence of the most horrific attack on American soil in our lifetime. It is a time to remember, a time to reflect. Many people are speaking today, worried that somehow we'll forget what happened on 9/11/01. Our grandchildren may look at this as merely a date in history class, but there's no chance any of us who experienced that day will ever forget--ever.
I'd like to reflect on President Bush's inspirational words on November 8, 2001, in the wake of this disaster. There are several quotes from this speech that should still resonate with us today:
We are a different country than we were on September the 10th -- sadder and less innocent; stronger and more united; and in the face of ongoing threats, determined and courageous. (Applause.)
This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.
A terrorism alert is not a signal to stop your life. It is a call to be vigilant -- to know that your government is on high alert, and to add your eyes and ears to our efforts to find and stop those who want to do us harm.
I recently received a letter from a 4th-grade girl that seemed to say it all: "I don't know how to feel," she said, "sad, mad, angry. It has been different lately. I know the people in New York are scared because of the World Trade Center and all, but if we're scared, we are giving the terrorists all the power." In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. (Applause.) Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination. We have refused to live in a state of panic -- or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated -- and this great nation will never be intimidated. (Applause.)
People are going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshiping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball games. (Laughter and applause.) Life in America is going forward -- and as the 4th-grader who wrote me knew, that is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism. (Applause.)
And something even more profound is happening across our country. The enormity of this tragedy has caused many Americans to focus on the things that have not changed -- the things that matter most in life: our faith, our love for family and friends, our commitment to our country and to our freedoms and to our principles.
I recently received a letter from a 4th-grade girl that seemed to say it all: "I don't know how to feel," she said, "sad, mad, angry. It has been different lately. I know the people in New York are scared because of the World Trade Center and all, but if we're scared, we are giving the terrorists all the power." In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. (Applause.) Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination. We have refused to live in a state of panic -- or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated -- and this great nation will never be intimidated. (Applause.)
People are going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshiping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball games. (Laughter and applause.) Life in America is going forward -- and as the 4th-grader who wrote me knew, that is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism. (Applause.)
And something even more profound is happening across our country. The enormity of this tragedy has caused many Americans to focus on the things that have not changed -- the things that matter most in life: our faith, our love for family and friends, our commitment to our country and to our freedoms and to our principles.
The message was clear, we need to learn from the tragedy. We may not be as trusting anymore, and our senses are heightened to threats and risks. But the thing which most thwarts the terrorists is to move on and live our lives as a productive, peaceful, and principled people. This is ultimately what the terrorists sought to destroy, not our lives, but our way of life.
No one has ever denied us as individuals or as a nation to experience and deal with our grief. But grief is a process. There are seven accepted stages of coping with grief:
Shock & Denial
Pain & Guilt
Anger & Bargaining
Depression, Reflection, and Loneliness
The Upward Turn
Reconstruction & Working Through
Acceptance & Hope
As a nation, where are we? Stuck at stage 3. Try as we might, it is impossible to move beyond the collective anger and fear when the wound is constantly reopened by those whose power is contingent on propagating that culture of fear. If someone you cared about were still fearful and angry seven years after a loss, you'd be trying to get them into some sort of counseling to help them regain a healthy mental state. But as a nation, there is no such caring and objective friend we would trust to help us cope. We need to heal ourselves.
We have sacrificed over 4000 men and women and over a half-trillion dollars as a direct response to 9/11. Less stunning, but perhaps more important, is that we have allowed our political focus for seven years to be almost entirely terror focused. Meanwhile, our economy, domestic jobs outlook, trade imbalance, infrastructure, schools, energy policy, and much other work we need our government to attend to in order to preserve our way of life has been largely neglected. We have done to ourselves what no terrorist could have accomplished. We have sacrificed our freedoms and our future to appease our anger and our sense of justice. In this sense, the terrorists have won, or at least we have lost.
In the last stage of grief it is said:
You will start to look forward and actually plan things for the future. Eventually, you will be able to think about your lost loved one without pain; sadness, yes, but the wrenching pain will be gone. You will once again anticipate some good times to come, and yes, even find joy again in the experience of living.
We need to find our national joy again. We need to plan for our future, and our children's future. This doesn't mean we've forgotten the past. It doesn't dishonor those who've sacrificed. Quite the opposite. The greatest monument to the sacrifice of the past is the success of the future.
We're hearing a lot about energy policy in the current political debate, but most of it is focused in areas that are nearly irrelevant. Both candidates support (at least with words) the idea of energy independence, use of renewable or non polluting energy sources, and increased domestic oil production. The major difference being that the GOP position is best summed up by the title of Newt Gingrich's new book, "Drill Here, Drill Now." While the Democrats (along with most every geologist and economist in the country) seem to think that drilling everywhere domestically is a short-sighted strategy with only minor long term effect. But there is also wide agreement that oil companies prefer the GOP strategy and there is a feel-good political aspect to it that resonates well with people who have the political attention spans of... well... most Americans.
But few people, and fewer politicians are talking about the real long term energy strategy needed and what that means to America far outside the realm of gas prices. Energy technology is the next economic wave. Not oil, not natural resources, but the technology associated with clean efficient energy production, distribution, and consumption of all forms of energy. Post WWII, we developed an industrial manufacturing base unrivaled in the world. In the 1960's, we began an electronics revolution that wove the computer and the Internet into the very fabric of modern life. But those waves are have passed. The next wave is most likely energy technology (ET).
When we think about ET, we tend to think only in terms of reducing foreign oil dependency. While that's important, it is far too short sighted. Yes, we need to reach a point where the Mid-East does not have a disproportionate influence on our foreign policy. But close on the heels of the Mid-East, we have a looming trade deficit with China and a credit issue with Russia and other countries on the ascendancy that won't need to win a war with us, they can simply foreclose. More than cheap gas, we need an exportable product of our own. Something that will carry us well into the century as the economic power we've come to enjoy being. And remember, it is that sustained economic power that enables us to be the political and military Goliath that we have come to take such pride in being. It is also that economic prowess that will provide jobs, rebuild our domestic infrastructure, educate our children, provide universal health care, shore up Social Security, and raise our standard of living. It all hinges on us finding a way to fuel economic growth, not our SUVs.
Both candidates recognize that economic growth is key. They differ over how to get there in the next four years, but honestly neither of them has yet illuminated a vision for what achieves growth over the coming decades. The answer is ET. We are, for the time being, the most innovative country on the planet. We possess the capability to find technical solutions for economically producing, storing, distributing, and efficiently using energy in multiple forms. In the short term this solves our domestic energy consumption and pollution problems. But while we're doing that, countries like China, India, and Russia are polluting themselves into oblivion (have you seen the "mist" in Beijing?), and increasing their own dependency on an oil resource which, over the next few decades, will be globally in short supply. And guess who'll have the answer, and be willing to sell it to them at a tidy profit? That's right, the good 'ol US of A.
Gee, you're thinking, that sounds swell. But how do we get there? Well "my friends" (sorry, just trying to appeal to any Republicans out there) the answer is government sponsorship.
I know, I know, you're thinking that the government can't possibly be the answer to anything, but let's look at history. During WWII, FDR incented and challenged industry to build up its manufacturing capability to support the war. The post war result was an unparalleled manufacturing infrastructure repurposed for domestic production. That boom created the new American middle class and decades of "happy days". In the 1960s, JFK challenged America to beat the Russians to the moon. The money that was poured into the fundamental research required to get us into space fueled the high tech industries which made our modern life possible. Those achievements would never have been made without government sponsorship and inspiration. The free market alone would never have driven innovation at that rate.
Something similar is required now. There are two key ingredients to make it happen. One is an external focal point. We have spent seven years now fixated on Islamic terrorism. It's time to let that go. They are an unworthy enemy, and in the greater scheme they are unimportant. Once we achieve our ET goal, we won't have reason to meddle in the affairs of the Mid-East, and they will move on and hate someone else. Will we get a bloody nose or two in the meantime? Probably, and we need to do what we can to minimize that. But we can't let it paralyze us. The real threat, the real enemy, is China. And no, I don't mean enemy in the sense that they are evil and want us all to burn. (Quite the opposite, they want us to thrive, to a degree. We are funding their ascendancy.) But they are the "enemy" in the sense that the Yankees view the Red Sox as an enemy. They are competition, and increasingly, damn formidable competition.
Europe passed into an economic downslide post WWII and is only now beginning to pull out of that nosedive. Prior to that, they were the cultural and economic center of the planet, a role we hold now. China is rising and will supplant us as the next cultural and economic superpower unless we prevent that. They need to be our external focus. They are a worthy opponent.
Second, we need an inspirational leader. One who will rally people to a cause, make them believe in their future and in their children's future. One who will commit government resources to incent the innovation and fund the research. One who can create a societal commitment that will transcend his term of office. I don't know if Obama is up to that task, but my friends, John McCain and the GOP are not.
Let's be clear. Science is not about belief. Asserting students get to decide whether or not they believe in evolution makes no more sense than saying they get to decide whether they believe 2+2=4, or that they believe the Civil War started in 1861. The veracity of evolution is no more a debate in science than plate tectonics, the atomic structure of matter, gravity, or genetics. To be fair, not all scientific theories are verified. String theory is a perfect example of a very well developed scientific theory on which there is great debate. It may well turn out that strings go the way of recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) and get relegated to the dust bin--or not. But evolution has 150 years of data and observation verifying it. There is no debate among scientists.
Yes, debate skills are useful, critical thinking skills are essential, and discussion is healthy in an educational environment. Debating the merits of the philosophies of Kant vs. Marx is healthy. Students should get to hear both sides and decide for themselves if Johnson made the right decision to lead the U.S. into Vietnam. Getting information to come to their own opinions on when human life legally begins is a topic worthy of discussion. I would personally like to see students get balanced views of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva contrasted with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To learn about the Jesus of the Qur'an as well as the Jesus of the Bible. But I suspect the people who are all about "teaching the controversy" in evolution (where no controversy exists) would not be so keen on teaching the controversy on religion where the world is rife with it.
The point being, "debating" evolution is actually counter to the goal of developing critical thinking skills. One of the key elements in the critical analysis of anything is sorting out the facts from the assumptions. Teaching students that 150 years of verifiable and repeatable data collection is merely an assumption is the basis for the sort of reasoning that produces Holocaust deniers, not scholars. To take this to it's logical conclusion, students should not accept anything they are taught as fact. And no one is seriously advocating that.
Why am I talking about this now? Because the GOP is. Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin have both stated they support teaching evolution and Creationism in science class and letting children makes decisions about what they believe. (To their credit, at least they are talking explicitly about Creationism and not trying to couch it as Intelligent Design.) John McCain has said he believes in evolution, but he can see the handiwork of God whenever he hikes the Grand Canyon. This makes him sound more reasonable than his wife and running mate, but doesn't clearly illuminate his position on whether or not Creationism should be recognized as science. More troubling, it asserts that he finds evolution to be a matter of belief. Yet I recognize (as does he) that he cannot come out and say Creationism has no place in science class without alienating the base he just energized with his Palin pick.
Why does this matter? Because I think it's essential that our leaders possess unparalleled critical thinking skills. That includes being able to separate facts from assertions. It also includes being smart enough to be aware of what you don't know, and wise enough to know who to trust to provide that expertise. By asserting that evolution is a matter of belief, they are demonstrating neither talent. And that concerns me.
Today, I have a couple of firsts in my life. The first one is that I'm not going to "comment" on a blog, I'm actually going to write one.
The second is that, yes "for the first time in my life", I'm actually ashamed to be a woman that might get attached to last night's disgusting display at the Republican National Convention. I, like everyone else, started a path of trying to get to know who Sarah Palin was when she was the surprising pick by John McCain for the VP of the United States. Immediately, my reaction was, "He picked a women and it was a ploy to get Hillary voters." Having thought that, I was still willing to give her a chance to show why he picked her. Unfortunately, I still haven't figured that part out yet. I, like many others, am willing to leave everything personally about her pregnant teenage daughter out of my mind, as kids are off limits (and I'm not dumb enough to think it couldn't happen in my family). But the mother's policy making ideals and judgments, even about her raising her family, are not off the table. They will determine what policies she goes after if elected.
From what we've learned, she doesn't believe in birth control, sex-education, pro-choice, etc. If she had believed in the first two of those things, we wouldn't really have to discuss the third one or her views on it quite yet. But since we do have to discuss it in America far too often, isn't the Pro-Life movement about more than just abortion? Shouldn't it also be about the choices you make for ALL lives? If so, then why personally, did she choose to put her baby Trig's life in potential jeopardy while in labor with him and get on a plane, fly as long as she did, pass by very reputable hospitals, just to get home? This, after all, was a high risk pregnancy for a couple of reasons... first, she knew it was a challenged baby, and second, her age alone puts her in that category. That decision does speak to judgment in my point of view, and one that should be on the table for debate. And then, politically, pro-life should also be about the death penalty as well. After all, even President Bush said that he would always come out on the side of life (well, with that one exception of the death penalty law).
On top of that, we've learned that both her pregnant daughter and her soon-to-be husband have both dropped out of school. Now I know that Sarah being the mother of a 17 year old, can't tell her not to drop out (any more than she could tell her to not have sex). But, wouldn't she try to counsel her that it would be in the baby's best interest to have parents that are at least high school graduates.
All this could be left aside if it wasn't for the fact that John McCain brought her on to the national stage and introduced her as a great mother with great judgment and practically the second coming of Jesus (if you listen to the extreme Christian right of the party). And that brings me to why I am so ashamed and embarrassed at the thought of being lumped with a woman like I saw on TV last night. She spent much of her speech being that "pit bull in lipstick" that she referred to as the hockey moms. She was demeaning, sarcastic and downright nasty with so many personal attacks to the opposite side, that I almost had to turn it off. The hypocrisy of the Republican party based on good Christians values was repulsive. Isn't that the same group that is supposed to love everyone and treat people as they want to be treated? Aren't they supposed to be the party that is based on What Would Jesus Do? Well, I know as a real Christian, that Jesus wouldn't have done what she or any of the other speakers did last night. It was personal for them last night. I wish everyone watching those speeches last night, would also watch the fact-check sessions today to hear the real facts about the very few discussion points about policy that came out. But not to worry.. there weren't many of those. The whole evening was devoted to slams. On the plus side for her... she wasn't the only one I was disappointed in. You see, I once thought Mitt Romney would be the best choice the Republicans had to win, but even his own party decided he wasn't good enough. I decided that last night for myself as well. Huckabee... another slamming Christian that got rousing applause each and every time he slammed. And as for Rudy... I can't even go there. He was just not even worth my typing ability.
At any rate, there is one thing I can say the Republicans did well last night... even masterfully. Their strategy in this speech made a pit bull out of Sarah, and it played perfectly to their notion that no matter what any Democrat says about her today... they can scream sexism. And yes... it's already happened. It happened immediately after when Harry Reid said her speech was "shrill and sarcastic". The women commentators even said as woman that was a bad word to use. However, as a woman who won't vote for someone simply because they are one too, he was spot on in that assessment. Of course you couldn't call a man's speech shrill, but that was what it sounded like to me too. I'm just not the kind of dumb woman that they were hoping would fall for this speech.
I happen to think that after last night, it's a sad day for women... not a good one. If any other woman, in any aspect of her life, acted as our potential VP did last night, she'd be called far worse than shrill and sarcastic... and has been many times. So if she can act like this, why can't we say the same about her?
When this campaign season started, I was actually saying that if McCain got in the race, I could almost see me voting for him. That was before he did a complete 180 so that he could play to the base. I was a bit lukewarm on Obama, but knew I would vote for him over McCain. Now, after having watched both party's conventions (and even before watching McCain tonight), I'm way more aligned with the Obama camp. He tried to inspire people, while the RNC just tried to tear him down. I've had enough of the hypocrisy.
Palin Photo Timeline - Time to Rest the Rumor Mill
Okay, I'm becoming more convinced that baby Trig really is Sarah Palin's child. Look at the following photos. They require you to accept that Palin was not visibly pregnant until around 7 months, which coincides with when she actually did announce she was pregnant.
Here's Palin on Feb. 6th, near the end of her second trimester. Note the very skinny hands and unswollen fingers.
Here she is on March 14th, a week after she announced her pregnancy, and a month before the birth.
And finally, here she is on April 13th, just days before attending the Texas RGA luncheon and going into labor.
On April 18th, she gave birth to a 1 month premature Trig Palin, who weighed in at 6 pounds and change. There's no reason to suspect any of the photos are fakes, and the time line seems consistent. Still, it's unusual for a woman to wait 7 months to announce a pregnancy, especially one in the public eye. It's unusual for a woman to show less on her fifth pregnancy than on her first (see below).
It's unusual for a 5th pregnancy to be leisurely enough to travel thousands of miles to a hospital. (But apparently it's not unusual for Palin to gestate for only 8 months, since her son Track was born just 8 months after she eloped. ) It's also curious that the flight crew on Palin's return trip from Texas noted, "...her stage of pregnancy was not apparent by observation as she didn’t show any signs of distress." But maybe they meant that she just didn't seem to be in labor, and by all accounts, she's a pretty tough cookie. Tough enough, in fact, to return to work 3 days after giving birth.
While many of the circumstances seem fantastically unlikely, they are not impossible. And the only "evidence" supporting the claim that Trig is not Sarah's are those same fantastic circumstances. Therefore, I'm choosing to accept that the official story is the truth. And I will continue to assert that her daughter Bristol's pregnancy is of no importance. Yet even so, the official story should give conservatives pause with regard to the judgement she exhibited and where the priority of politics relative to her family seem be based on her actions. Curiously, this should resonate loudest with the Christian Right. Yet they are the one group that seems to think Palin was a great pick for VP. Time will tell.
This may be the actual truth, but it still seems suspicious, maybe entirely because it's so convenient. It's about the only story which ends the debate on Trig. The math of the story obviously doesn't work for Trig to be Bristol's. And no one can, or should, start digging through Bristol's life to determine how genuine the pregnancy is. She's just a kid, and either she is really pregnant or she just was 4 months ago. Either way, she has way more than enough going on in her life. Leave the kid alone. Besides, sometime right after the election we'll know the truth based on whether or not she actually has a baby. But I'm not the only one who will be less than surprised if she somehow "loses" the baby along about the second week of November give or take.
In the mean time though, Sarah is fair game. Let's accept her statements as fact. We still have issues with a woman who's judgment we are supposed to trust, who's values are unassailable, and who values the sanctity of all life. This woman, already in labor, boarded a plane for a 13 hour flight. This was against airline rules and certainly against the advice of any competent doctor. Further, this champion of the family now has a home with a 4-month old special needs baby and a pregnant teen daughter planning a wedding. In the midst of this, she's going to run an aggressive campaign schedule which allows precious little time for family. All of this to hopefully win an office which will require her to move over 5000 miles away. Will Bristol and her new hubby and grandson move as well? Whether they do or not, the new baby will be separated from at least half it's extended family. Further, couples that young with a new baby will more than have their hands full. They will require a lot of family support. But Sarah really doesn't have time for that even if everyone moves to DC.
There's no way to look at this and rationalize that she has her family priorities straight. She's supposed to appeal to Christian conservatives and women, and both those demographics are heavily about family. Something Sarah Palin has clearly relegated to the back seat.
As I said before, the real loser here is John McCain. But this unarguably is his own doing.
