Archive for

The Loyal Opposition: Off to a Typically Lame Start

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has a particular schtick. Every year he exposes gratuitously wasteful earmark spending by the federal government because, apparently, nickle-and-diming is the best way to balance and shrink the federal budget. In his 2008 report, he singles out the Fort Collins, Colorado bike library‘s receipt of a $66,000 federal grant. The bike library is an innovative program that allows residents and visitors to rent bikes free of charge as transportation around the city. The program is immensely popular with tourists, has won special commendations from environmental and cycling groups, reduces auto traffic, and has contributed to the city’s allure as one of the best places to live in the U.S. The city actively promotes bike travel on its official site, and the cycling culture is a unique feature of Fort Collins’ community.

There are plenty of other recipients of Coburn’s outrage, and certainly, some of the earmark spending sounds silly when taken out of context and stitched together in a provocative report from a “maverick” senator. (Yes, there’s that word again!) As a taxpayer, though, I personally don’t mind $200K going towards restoring Robert Frost’s farm in New Hampshire, especially after the property suffered gross vandalism this year. I also don’t mind $785K going towards community-college education in Kansas to create a casino-employee training program. Casino’s make a lot of money for communities, and providing job training to under- or unemployed citizens is a longtime priority for government spending. (Oklahoma received $334K in grants to fund “training and employment” services in 2008.)

Coburn wants to get rid of earmark spending and put the onus on local governments to find their own funding for this and that. It’s a tired Republican mantra.

Interestingly, none of the $82 million in earmark spending for projects in Oklahoma were singled out as wasteful by Coburn. Granted, Coburn, himself did not specifically sponsor any of the earmark requests. He left that job to senior senator, James Inhofe, and assorted representatives. With a 2007 population of about 3.6 million, Oklahoma’s earmark spending works out to about $23 per person, more than the $22 per capita spending in Illinois. (Need I remind everyone of Republican attempts to make earmark spending in Illinois proof of Obama’s crazed liberal addiction to government waste.)

Coburn’s battles with the earmark windmills would be funny if he weren’t such a pain in the ass. He sports divisive and insane positions on homosexuality, and he doesn’t present the brightest light of intellect. When Coburn’s 15 minutes are up with respect to his annual pork repork, we can only hope the Republican Party puts a leash on the man.

The Conservative “Elevator Story”: Blame Liberals – Just Don’t Ask Me Why…

Christopher Chantrill has a story to tell: an “elevator story,” a succinct summation of a tale able to be told in the time it takes your Otis car to transcend from lobby to office. But this is no ordinary elevator story: it’s a twenty-second summation of why conservatism, somehow, deserves to win in the marketplace of ideas. You know, because that’s what everyone talks about in the elevator. Anywhere, here goes:

The current situation is intolerable. Liberals are to blame. The solution is to get government out of our lives and put people back in. And the future is glorious, just as Ronald Reagan promised.

So, what do you think? No, I didn’t like it either. Trite, immature, grossly oversimplified, and condescending: if someone told me this story in the elevator, I do believe I might find a way for my tea to conveniently spill on the relator’s shoes. Read the rest if you dare.

So what’s the problem with Chantrill’s tale of woe? Well, it breaks down at the second premise. Blaming the just-recently-in-power Democrats for problems that began at least five years ago is, at best, a hyper-partisan oversimplification, to the point of willful blindness, and at worst a case of outright mendacity. To take one brief example, if you have a problem laying the blame for the mismanagement of the Iraq War at Bush’s feet, you have a problem with reality.

Blissfully, the public ain’t buying what he’s selling. Earlier this month, 75% of the electorate recorded their joy at the prospect of Bush departing from 1600 Pennsylvania. That’s remarkable. In modern America, it’s hard to get 75% of the electorate to agree on anything more specific than that America should, in fact, continue to exist. Today, you might as well argue that water is not, in fact, wet, as deny conservatism’s share of the blame for America’s current problems. When 75% of the electorate is thinking the other way, Mr. Chantrill, it doesn’t even matter if you’re right – it’s still time to come up with a new elevator story.

There is only one way that an elevator story like Chantrill’s will ever carry the day again: and that is if Obama fails. Spectacularly. And given America’s current state of affairs, no-one should wish that on th country. For the GOP and for conservatism, of course, there is always hope. If the party abandons the notion that ideas are somehow elitist, progresses socially somewhere close to the late 20th century, realizes and respects that black people don’t like being called “negroes,” and discovers an issue beyond abortion, conservatism could see a sudden resurge in meaning. But ditching people like Chantrill will probably be the price of any such reformation.

2008 Weblog Awards: Beat The Confluence

The hosts of the 2008 Weblog Awards just announced the finalists in such categories as “best blog,” “best new blog,” “best liberal blog,” etc., and I’m not disappointed that the judges somehow left us off the list. Why, you ask? Well, for one, I just found out the awards exist… and, for two, the awards seem to be mostly reserved for high-authority, fancy, established blogs. We’re new, and proud of it. Some day. They’re running scared already.

What I am disappointed about is that the judges somehow neglected to eliminate Riverdaughter’s “The Confluence” from the competition: she and her brood are up for “best liberal blog.” This is wrong on multiple levels. First, “Confluence” is not a liberal blog. It long since progressed into a single-topic, narrow Obama-bashing blog, with glimmers of progressive politics interspersed in equal parts with strange, vaguely disconcerting love stories. And, when they occur, those glimmers of liberalism have long suffered from the Confluence writers’ unflinching commitment to put the cart of policy before the horse of politics: you can’t whine about Obama not being pro-choice enough, and honestly put up Sarah Palin as a feminist alternative. At least, you can’t do it respectably.

Second, I have a real problem with saying that formulaic whining is the best of anything at all – except, of course, formulaic whining, in which the Confluence clearly takes the cake. And, third, I’m not entirely sure Riverdaughter’s private MySpace network counts as a blog.

As I’ve said, I’m NOT bitter. But for the sake of the adjective “liberal,” when voting starts on Jan. 5, 2009, vote Confluence down by voting for anyone else in the category (may we suggest Wonkette?).

If By Intelligent Design …

It looks so simple!

One means man using his intelligence to design a cleaner, healthier world with efficient use of resources and a reliance on scientific inquiry and experiment to effect it, then count me in: I am an ID convert.

Earlier this month J. Craig Venter, the biologist who, with his private (former) company, mapped the human genome separate from and more quickly than the publicly-funded project, published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, announcing a major development in his research team’s efforts to synthesize life … from scratch … inserting pieces of DNA into yeast to reassemble them into complete strands … using these complete strands of DNA to provide the bare minimum “chassis” of a bacterium. The next step of the project is to determine if, after all 600,000 base pairs of DNA are assembled, the bacterium actually lives, what Venter calls “booted up.”

The idea is to take the stock model (of bacterium) and add all sorts of options (not leather bucket seats, mind you) that will transform the organism into a tool, for instance, to create biofuels or consume greenhouse gases. Synthetic bacteria promise flexibility and large-scale applicability. Of course, nothing comes free: This science must consider waste and other environmental consequences that might arise from introducing new life into the ecosystem. Of course, nefarious applications are always a (distant) possibility, but Venter et al. have worked to theorize and address specific concerns along with (more immediate) bioethical issues. If we are going to exploit all available tools, like offshore oil drilling, we must give attention to our ability to create life, specifically designed to meet our needs.

And what to do about GOD, T-H-E Intelligent Designer? The miracle of life is not that some unknowable being freed six days from his calendar to create a finite universe. The miracle is rather man’s infinite ability to imagine and question and experiment and know. I am as excited about Venter’s discoveries for their potential to lift an awful burden from God’s shoulders, that of being responsible for the creation of everything, as I am about the potential applications of synthetic life.

I am hopeful still scientists will find the Higgs Boson, further freeing God to mean love and peace, not limits and judgment.

Oh, if you are interested in learning more about the human genome project, check out Conservapedia’s exhaustive analysis. Want to know more about Venter? Conservapedia doesn’t. Venter’s name is nowhere to be found on the site … “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” …

Answers “Research” Journal: a Review of Two Articles

As you may recall, earlier this year “Answers in Genesis,” the brainchild of the bearded Australian wonder Ken Ham, chartered its very own “research journal,” “Answers Research Journal,” to plumb the mysteries of creation science. Despite presenting quite an enticing target, the ARJ has yet to be pranked – “Sokaled,” if you will, duped into accepting a phony article – although articles like this really do push the boundaries of Poe’s Law. As the Journal progresses, I imagine that it’s time to check in, evaluate what research “creation scientists” are doing these days, and see whether ARJ has yet come close to achieving its goal: that is, imitating a real peer reviewed publication in form, if not in function (the latter being an impossible goal).

Passing on their science articles – partially because they’re uniformly already-answered attempts to revise the historical record by either assuming the truth of flood geology, or handwaving to get out of carbon dating, and partially because I’m not a scientist (but, then again, neither are they) – ARJ’s articles are more than half philosophy, history, or poor theology. Let’s review two articles from the most recent issue.

“Microbes and the Days of Creation” is a shamefully shallow textual exegesis, of the kind that would make Augustine blush, dedicated to answering the narrow textual question of where bacteria would fit in the order of creation. What could be an opportunity to explore the limits of the biblical creation story – obviously no-one pre-1859 knew of bacteria, so its abscence from the document merits no explanation – instead becomes an attempt to shoehorn observed fact into an assumed paradigm. The article unsurprisingly starts from the premise that the creation story is literally correct and encapsulates the whole of pre-human natural history, and ends up concluding that, to fit within preordained assumptions, bacteria must have been created alongside symbiotic organisms, or originated in “the Fall.” Ditto for viruses.

The determination of virus origin is uncertain. It may be that viruses (as we classify them today) have multiple origins. Some may be degenerate parts from cells after the Curse; still others may have their origin during the days of creation.

Ho-hum: for this author, creation science is clearly a form of armchair philosophy, something more akin to pre-Enlightenment Aristotelian science than anything post-1700. Clearly a scientific subject (bacterial origins) does not a scientific paper make.

Although its use of the scholarly “Toward” in the title suggests otherwise, “Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review” is no better. The article’s limited goal is to ground intra-community peer review in biblical values, which (I concede) the authors do well. More revealing, though, is the authors’ assumption that “peer review” of creationist research must be conducted only within the community of creationists… with limited exceptions:

Second, the active creationist community (those regularly publishing) is vastly smaller than the conventional community. This influences the identification and recruitment of qualified reviewers. [. . . .] It should be noted, though, that seeking peer review outside of creationism might often benefit creationist theories and ideas.

This misses the point. Although the misunderstanding is common in creationist circles – as I’ve reported before – the goal of scientific peer review is not to reinforce existing paradigms, but to reveal and then patch cracks in existing paradigms, until this becomes untenable and a new paradigm is required (shut up, I like Thomas Kuhn, so sue me). By refusing to acknowledge the possibility that their existing paradigm may be wrong, and indeed making this refusal a working assumption of any discussion of creationism, creationist scholars are denying themselves the chance to be taken seriously and, God help them, make uncomfortable discoveries. ARJ’s first attempt to honestly discuss the meaning of peer review only proves why any such discussion is futile.

In short, things don’t look good for ARJ. To address a fundamental problem, why, you might ask, is a nominally peer reviewed science journal more than half-composed of bad theology and philosophy? I have several theories. Either (a) they have no idea what “peer review” means, (b) there’s not enough creationist “science research” to support ten articles per year, (c) even they recognize that creationism is theology, not science, or (d) all of the above. I’m betting on (d) but, unlike them, I’m willing to be disproven.

Sokal-ing this journal would be child’s play: if I only had the time…

After Sunday School Reading: Salvation by Works Trumps Faith

For centuries, Christianity has been one of those religions that insists upon ideological conformity for eternal reward: “No-one comes to the Father, but through me” (John 14:6). But the Bible also emphasizes good deeds as a key to salvation: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). Though wars have literally been fought over the question of which passage dominates – stop and think about that – the easiest way to reconcile the two is to suppose that, for strict Christians, good deeds are necessary, but not alone sufficient, to secure one’s place in Heaven. Tough luck for Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists.

But the times are changing:

Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them. And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.

What on earth does this mean?

One very plausible explanation is that Americans just want good things to come to good people, regardless of their faith. As Alan Segal, a professor of religion at Barnard College told me: “We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven.” He explained that in our society, we meet so many good people of different faiths that it’s hard for us to imagine God letting them go to hell.

This is the right result. Like it or not, in a stable, pluralistic society, where one must come face-to-face with the revolutionary realization that different people can be moral too, there is simply no place for a religion that insists it has a monopoly on Truth. In the modern world, the faith is worthless that does not provide a place for just dealings with non-believers. Fundamentalist religion can continue its century-long death, with periodic revivals, but at least it’s on its way out.

Sweet Caroline … Bahm-Bahm-Bahm …

Sit down. It ain’t your turn … DUN-dun-DUN-dun-DUN-doh …

A much better Hillary replacement. And I don't mean that in a creepy way.

I do not want Caroline Kennedy to be my senator, filling Hillary Clinton’s seat. I do not want Andrew Cuomo either, but I will take the latter over the former based on their substantive intellectual and professional contributions to political discourse. Kennedy and Cuomo are doing relatively well in opinion polls because theirs are names New Yorkers recognize. The short list of other contenders for the seat includes current, little known congressional representatives.

A very viable option is Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY 20). In 2006 she became the first democrat in over 25 years to represent (what is now) New York’s 20th Congressional District (adjacent to the 22nd district where I live). Gillibrand is a Blue Dog Democrat: She is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, with a few atypical stances like strong support of gun-ownership rights. Her voting records on the environment and business development are moderate. I do not agree with all of her positions, but I have confidence in her experience. Actively promoting the interests of veterans and small, independent farmers, Gillibrand is quite attentive to her constituents’ needs. The last point was a loud message in her recent reelection bid and arguably was important in her defeat of opponent Sandy Treadwell by 24 points. When Gillibrand was first elected in 2006, replacing John Sweeney (who was drowning in a sea of ethics issues), she made it a point to publicize her official calendar, revealing what she is doing and with whom she is meeting on the people’s behalf. She also releases information about earmarks she has requested.

Gillibrand is an up-and-comer. She is from Albany and therefore free of the “just another city liberal” taint. Her appointment would not appear clique-ish and would not inspire the visceral reactions big dynasty names like Cuomo, Clinton, or Kennedy draw, potentially alienating voters and jeopardizing a Democratic senate seat in two years. With her centrist fiscal views, Gillibrand could be valuable in building Democratic Party support in relatively Republican areas of the state (which, by the way, is just about every part of New York outside of the city’s five boroughs).

Nonetheless, Governor David Paterson is facing a lot of pressure from the Democratic Party establishment to appoint Caroline Kennedy. With an ailing Ted Kennedy, there is a chance that for the first time in 50 years, the Senate will be Kennedy-less in the near future. The Democratic Party is also interested in a replacement candidate who will garner headlines and, presumably, fundraising dollars. In fact, fundraising is something at which Caroline Kennedy excels, that and editing poetry compilations. These skills and great connections, though, are not enough to justify a senate seat.

This senate appointment is going to test Paterson’s independence. If he selects Kennedy, will he be able to spin the appointment as his own rather than as a foregone conclusion he rubber-stamped? Certainly, if he were to select Gillibrand for the post, he would send the message that substance is more important than image and that he understands there is a New York outside of the city, that can work in tandem with the city, with labor and natural resources critical for economic recovery and energy development.

Caroline Kennedy could withdraw her name from consideration with great aplomb and emerge with her thoughtful and gracious image intact and protected from the mudslinging of an aggressive campaign. She would be doing herself, the state, and the Democratic Party a huge service.

Requiem for Samuel P. Huntington

The Harvard scholar behind The Clash of Civilizations, a book that posited the likelihood of apocalyptic war between different broadly-defined civilizations, passed away yesterday. He’ll be missed, particularly because his work was significantly broader than this one book, but it’s a chance to revisit his theory… albeit briefly. Read at its highest level of abstraction, the “clash of civilizations” theory stands for the unsurprising proposition that people don’t like different people – shocker – but read for all it could be worth, it suggests the dangerous idea that such conflicts are inevitable. We should hope he’s wrong.

Surprisingly, the best refutation of the radically-defined theory comes in verse. It’s worth a read, and reprinted in full here (credit to Frederick Tipson):

We owe to Samuel Huntington a potent provocation,

A trenchant tract to counteract a clear exaggeration:

The notion that the West has won, its culture now supreme,

His book rejects–and then corrects–as wishful in extreme.

For, he insists, our world consists of cultural formations

Arising (and revising) out of eight great civilizations.

He sets our pulses pounding and our wisdom teeth to gnashing

With come-to-blows scenarios of different cultures clashing.

This is of course a tour de force, but somewhere in the tour,

Huntington has been undone by paradigm-amour.

For in his zeal to wheel and deal in fundamental frameworks,

He misses cues and misconstrues just how the global game works. Continue reading »

One Step Forward: Ad Council Strives to Eliminate “That’s So Gay” from Teen Lexicon

Ah, high school: dances in the gym, standardized tests, and the relentless mockery of difference. If your high school was anything like mine, sometime around seventh grade, the word “gay” entered the lexicon as an insult, a synonym for “bad,” “broken,” or “weird.” Like the pop quiz, the malfunctioning computer is “so gay.” It’s this kind of subtle homophobia that contributes to depression, marginalization, and alienation in gay teens coming to grips with their sexuality, while sowing the seeds of deeper homophobia in straight kids who just don’t know better. But for a decade now, like the pep rally, it’s been a fact of high school life.

Kudos to the Ad Council for fighting back, with a campaign it’s calling “Think B4 U Speak” (har har, it’s like a text message). The television spots are punchy and to the point, reminding viewers that using gay as an insult cuts to the core of gay teens’ identity:

I’ll add one point: no-one would dare refer to a bad situation by saying “that’s so black,” or, God help us, “that’s so n*****.” But for gay teenagers, the “that’s so gay” line is just as demeaning. It’s long past time for it to stop.

CNN interview with Hilary Duff on the subject, below the line: Continue reading »

Carnival of the Elitist Bastards: Stardate 62453.9

Captain’s log, supplemental, stardate 62453.9:

It’s been said that God protects fools, children, and ships named Enterprise – we might add to that list the American Republic, at least when she needs it most. It’s been two months, two sailings, since America chose to put Barack Obama at the helm, and amidst crisis there’s some space for cautious optimism. The President’s cabinet picks suggest that science and knowledge may be sexy again, although his choices for affairs of state continue to indicate the necessity of pandering to ignorance. And, while we mourn for our fallen comrades in California, we do not yet despair of hope in their quest for freedom. Most of this is good news for my crew. Though our ship is but recently launched – we left fleet yards in the spring of last year, with a skeleton crew – we’ve quickly grown weary of fighting what, at times, seemed like losing, rearguard actions in the Culture Wars. It’s nice to be returning to the Front, after some well-deserved shore leave, with hope of victory for elitism and knowledge. We’re currently coasting off the Neutral Zone: Sarah Palin and her hordes of ignorance have, thankfully, been exiled to the distant ice-world of Alaska, but rumblings reported by deep-space probes indicate the enemy is regrouping for a new offensive. As always, we stand ready: as I take intelligence reports from the crew, I’ve instructed the bridge to maintain yellow alert. Time to analyze the line of battle and dispatches from the field: Continue reading »