Consolidating Blogs

I have consolidated this blog into my other blog and all previous posts are now available at:

aconsideredlife.blogspot.com

The Frayed Social Safety Net

For some, the recent election is indicative of the confusion many Americans feel about government. On one hand, Americans who voted were most concerned about jobs and the economy. On the other, the big gains for Republicans are unlikely to lead to policy changes that would either stimulate the economy or help those in most need of assistance due to their continued joblessness.

Repairing the U.S. Social Safety Net by Martha Burt and Demetra Nightingale does an excellent job highlighting the current state of U.S. social safety net policy, as well as its origins. It also does a nice job highlighting that, despite complaints about how large it is, the U.S. social safety net is woefully inadequate when it comes to supporting the American people. The authors note that in comparison to other countries, U.S. social indicators (such a infant mortality rate, poverty rates, and housing needs) are much worse, in large part due to our weak social safety net.

The book is an approachable and engaging discussion of key issues of public policy and well worth a read.

No Better Time Than the Present

The surprising release of Aung San Suu Kyi reminded me of a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice

At times I am skeptical of the idea expressed in this quote. However, moments like this make you at least hopeful that it could be true. We also recently watched Burma VJ, a great documentary about the 2007 protests against the military junta in Burma. The documentary focused on a small group of journalists that continually risked their lives to capture and share photos and videos of what was going on in Burma. Their struggle to tell the story of the Burmese people highlighted the importance of an engaged citizenry. The excitement in their voices as mass crowds turned out to support the marching Buddhist monks was infectious.

Such moments are rare in U.S. politics and it can be easy to become apathetic and cynical about democracy and our place in it. However, we need to recognize that, around the world, billions of people are struggling for their right to representation. Democracy cannot function well without constant support and engagement with the people. Even small steps, like voting, help ensure the accountability of your government. And if you feel like your vote doesn't count, think back to the constant struggles throughout U.S. history to extend the vote to different groups. If everyone who thought their vote didn't matter actually voted...well, lets just say it would count.

The Social Determinants of Health

I am nearly finished reading Successful Societies: How Institutions and Culture Affect Health and couldn't be happier with the state of research on the social determinants of health. While my work focuses more on health care, I am pleased to see this field progressing so quickly. Public policy which references the social determinants of health is likely years away in the U.S. (though it is beginning to gain traction in some European countries). However, I am definitely beginning to see it filter through discussions of health care policy. Most people recognize that the recent health reform law signed into law by President Obama is really more of a health insurance reform. The law creates a system where more Americans will be insured but it doesn't constrain the excesses of the insurance industry other than to prevent them from doing particularly deplorable things, like refusing to pay for cancer treatment because someone underestimated their weight when they first applied for coverage.

A recent post highlights the continuing danger the insurance industry poses as the law begins to be implemented. Not surprisingly, insurance companies are working to purchase legislators who will be favorable to their profiteering. This was one of the reasons that many people felt that any health reform should further limit the power of these insurers. In some other high-income countries you still have insurance companies through which care is rendered. Such a system can work as it has in the Netherlands and Germany. However, when these companies are singularly focused on profit and not on providing the best care for their clients, it is difficult to not wish for further regulations.

Also, the Commonwealth Fund recently released a fascinating (if not surprising) report which highlights how the U.S. health and health care system is doing in relation to other high income countries for which comparable data is available. The results are not good. The U.S. is in the bottom 2-3 (out of 7 countries) for nearly all of the measures and only on two does it make the top 4. All of this despite the U.S. having the most expensive health care system in the world. However, the authors of the report are optimistic that some of the measures in the recent health reform bill may give the U.S. better results over time.

Only in Theory

A recent editorial in the WSJ lays out the overly simplistic rhetoric that some economists use to criticize those with a more complex world-view.

The piece claims to highlight that "liberals" and "progressives" are woefully ignorant of basic economic principles. The article highlights the eight measures used in the survey:

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree). 8) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable (unenlightened answer: disagree)

What the author clearly fails to understand is how overly simplistic these examples are. His use of the term "unenlightened" further shows the author's inability to comprehend that someone may not simply agree with these supposed truisms from Economics 101. However, the true story behind many of these statements is more come complex when you look at them empirically (as opposed to pretending that theoretical understanding plays out perfectly in the real world). Those familiar with the actual empirical literature on minimum wages know that the simple assertion of #7 is simply unfounded. Unemployment is a complex issue and to pretend that it is so largely affected by one factor just highlights how out of touch many in the field of economics are with reality.

Also, anyone familiar with survey methodology can identify poor question design and vague wording in many of the suppositions posed to the interviewees. The question don't ask whether these assertions are "correct according to economic theory." Were that the case, it is likely that many would answer differently (I know I would); and then you could only say that progressives and liberals didn't understand economic theory (something very different from economic reality). The survey questions also make widely unfounded suppositions -- for example, that there is something called "free trade" that exists outside of the minds of economists.

Finally, the questions fail to highlight that the benefits of many of these measures outweigh the theoretical negatives highlighted in the statements. Were it always true that mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services, then such an increase is a minor problem in comparison to having various unlicensed pseudo-professionals posing as actual professionals in a given field. To claim that simply disagreeing with such a simplistic statement in any way impugns the intervieweree is absurd to say the least.

A Modern Day Jim Crow

The recent noxious immigration law in Arizona highlights many of the problems of the immigration debate. The measure, as has been the case for measures like it, will not serve to reduce crime or improve living conditions in Arizona. It will simply serve to further marginalize undocumented workers, making it even easier for coyotes and unethical companies to exploit them.

Further, by requiring ALL immigrants to carry around their papers, it strikes an eerily similar tone to precursors to violence in other countries which have marked certain populations as dangerous and attempted to create a parallel system for their treatment. Police are emboldened to stop anyone perceived as being an undocumented immigrant and demanding to see their paperwork. As you can imagine, there are clear racial and ethical undertones in such a law.

A more sane and just approach to immigration is needed, and the Obama administration must be pushed into taking the lead. It is a positive development that the Justice Department has promised to be vigilant as this law begins to be enforced over the next few months.

Anyone interested in the causes of this controversy and workable solutions would be advised to check out one or all of the following:

"They Take Our Jobs!" and 20 Other Myths About Immigration by Aviva Chomsky

Ex-Mex: From Migrants to Immigrants by Jorge Casteñeda

The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border by David Bacon

Next Up: Immigration Reform

With health reform all but passed, many are now advocating that Obama and Congress turn to immigration reform. Immigration reform was something discussed under the previous administration mostly as a way to drum up fears among their xenophobic base. Little to no substantive action was taken, other than the ill-conceived border fence. As I have discussed previously on this blog, immigration reform is necessary and long past due. Until we have a more coherent and humane immigration policy, we will continue to have undocumented workers toil in the shadows, exploited and neglected. These estimated 11 million people do many jobs we could not live without. While none of the proposed solutions are perfect, weighing the pros and cons of each of them and carrying out the best available one should be our focus now. Some sort of amnesty program that sets a cut-off date in the past and provides documentation seems to be one of the most reasonable approaches. Critics argue that a problem with this approach is that it neglects those who tried to immigrate legally. However, this can be rectified by granting visas to these people as well.

In order to properly address immigration reform, trade reform also has to be discussed. Many of the forces driving undocumented workers to the U.S. are a result of trade practices that allow subsidized American industries to dump products on countries at prices that unsubsidized local industries cannot compete with. This hurts the importing country in the long run by making it impossible to keep up the infrastructure that is required to run these industries. Grievances filed by these countries with the WTO, even if won, are often ignored by the United States. Also, the series of bilateral trade agreements negotiated in the past two decades have put most of our smaller trading partners at a significant disadvantage. U.S. negotiators were able to impose their influence on smaller countries that lacked the ability to push for more fair provisions. Often specific industries were given special benefits, while the overall agreement hurt far more producers in that country.

The Paradox of Free-Market Paternalism

There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether Obama is doing a good job as president. The state of the economy ranks as a top concern for most. Economists note that the current recovery may be a jobless one, especially at the outset. This jobless recovery, coupled with the frayed social safety net, leaves many Americans in a desperate situation. A recent article highlights this problem as well. As criticism of Obama persists, many are failing to identify the underlying contradiction inherent in that criticism.

For many, this jobless recovery has served as a platform to claim Obama is not doing enough to help average Americans. However, most of those making these claims are the very same people who consistently state that the government is the problem, not the solution. In that sense, they are contradicting themselves. You cannot have it both ways, criticizing government for being not involved enough and also too involved. Clearly industries regulated only by their endless greed have created an economy where good careers are increasingly difficult to find and irregular, poorly-paid jobs are the norm. This has come at a time of decreased union presence and a general malaise on the part of American workers to make their interests heard.

Related to this is Americans' belief that "our system of government is broken." Despite this popular idea, government (at all levels) does more things well than it does poorly. It provides necessary services to Americans for prices no corporation could achieve. Privatization schemes for basic services in different parts of the country have led to worse services and weakened infrastructure. While a centrally planned economy is an inefficient and obtuse solution, government has a clear and important role to play in laying the groundwork in which creative ventures and new businesses can thrive. Government also must play a role in creating the rules, regulations, and taxation that allows people to have the capabilities to engage meaningfully both with the market as well as with civil society.

Global Democracy: Beginning of a New Era?

As a new decade dawns, many people are asking whether this is all there is. The notion that the world will always progress has been called into question by the latest world economic downturn. Stalled progress on a variety of health, security, and humanitarian measures highlights that our future is far from predetermined. The vacuum of democratic power at the international level has been recognized as a possible reason for this and other problems. National interests dominate at bodies like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. There is little sustained international collaboration, as each country seeks to protect its interests foremost, often at the expense of a global good. Conferences and international meetings can only do so much to highlight current problems. Most governments regard the reports generated by these meetings as merely information. They rarely are implemented into workable public policies.

There are currently efforts to create a more democratic and participatory United Nations. I applaud these efforts, though I fear they lack broad enough appeal to be implemented any time soon. It is certainly hard to imagine that countries would be willing to give up any substantive powers to these bodies. However, a more democratic international community would allow low- to middle-income countries to finally be able to apply the necessary pressure to get high-income countries to sufficiently open their markets to their goods. It would also allow the world to move toward an economic system where environmental, humanitarian, and social well-being can be included in the price of goods. Those goods made under regimes with lax environmental regulations, poor worker protections, and oppression would reflect these social negatives in their price. Only then would places like China be forced to interrupt the "race to the bottom" in terms of workers rights and environmental protections.

While I recognize that such substantive reforms are unlikely, at least in the short term, they are necessary for social justice. A socially just world is only possible when the people of the world can hold nations, international bodies, and corporations accountable for their actions.

You may say I'm a dreamer...

Information Culs-De-Sac

Many news agencies today are known more for their political leanings than their journalistic integrity. Journalism, for many people, has become simply another form of entertainment. This has led to increasingly polarized discussions of key issues, as not even the basic facts of a discussion can be agreed upon. When news outlets only serve to reinforce the biases of their consumers, they are failing in their fundamental duties. I certainly understand the need for specialized sources, and that many are serving a niche audience. However, in an age of intellectual laziness, where many people can't understand the difference between opinion and research, it is hard to justify such low standards are being continued.

However, it is hard to imagine a rapid improvement in the state of the mass media outlets. Particularly when Faux News had its best year ever, in terms of ratings. This is especially disheartening as repeated polls have shown that Fox News viewers are among the most poorly informed. Until these supposed 'news' agencies begin challenging the respective biases of their viewers, it is difficult to imagine coherent debates on important issues.

UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

A recent article highlights the stunning and tragic statistics on violence against women in the world. It is something that often goes unreported and is unknown. I am continually amazed at how unaware people are regarding these issues.

Issues of violence are often closely linked with issues of power. This is particularly true for violence against women. Women all over the world face systematic discrimination. This is most exemplified in many middle- and low-income countries where women produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food but only own around 1 percent of the land. This huge power differential creates a situation where women are not represented in society. Their marginal position opens them to violence of all types, much of which comes from a woman's family or acquaintances.

I hear solutions such as education pushed as panaceas to this problem. Even in countries with high education there are still fundamental inequities in pay and power which are experienced by women at all levels of society (e.g., pay disparity gaps, likelihood of experiencing poverty and hunger, etc.). Until women have the opportunity for substantive political representation, their situation will not change. Those countries where women have the largest political power (meaningful inclusion in ruling parties, civil society, and bureaucracies) are those with the lowest levels of violence against women. Some will ask what comes first, respect for women or women in positions of political power? I would say that they reinforce and sustain each other, but must be backed by all who would favor a more just world.

People rejoiced the overthrow of the Taliban, believing that the role of women in society would change in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. Many people falsely believe that women are in a substantively better position than they were under the Taliban. A recent article highlights that this has not been the case. Violence against women continues and under the lawlessness created by this war, it is hard to track. Women leaders in Afghanistan face serious risks of violence against them and their families. The central government is powerless to stop it, even within Kabul. And even if it had the power, it is unclear whether it would expend any of its resources to tackle this problem.

The adoption of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979 was a bold gesture which has not been sufficiently supported. The future is murky on women's rights. While progress has been made in these 30 years, the structures that created such discrimination then have not fundamentally changed. Until we take a serious look at what underlies women's marginalization, we stand to simply repeat the injustices of the past.

Google Waves of Grief

I recently received my invite to Google Wave and am finding it quite interesting. I have always considered myself an early adopter of new technologies and this is quite an interesting one. However, I continue to be troubled by the lengths to which companies such as Google will go to secure market share in China. Their willingness to censor links is deplorable and it is really difficult to understand how they could find such moves ethical.

The possibilities for international collaboration made possible through Google Wave simply highlights how contradictory censoring the internet for Chinese consumption is. What steps has and will Google take to censor users from China using Google Wave? At what point will Google and other companies like it realize that there is no market share worth fundamentally undermining the human rights of others? It is hard to imagine how these decisions were made, or how those who made them can continue to pretend they are doing no harm.

If silence is consent, then censoring under the direction of a totalitarian state is collusion. History never judges such treason lightly.

Funny and Seriously Troubling

I recently came across a website that I am now completely obsessed with. The website is called Ask an Astrobiologist and is a NASA page. At first glance the website doesn't seem like anything unusual until you start clicking through the questions that he receives. As questions are submitted via the internet, the questions are often baffling. The Astrobiologist answering them, David Morrison, does not suffer fools gladly, as the expression goes. He takes a very firm hand with the lunacy that pervades the internet and implores people to develop critical thinking and critical researching skills. With all the disaster movies that have been coming out, or will be coming out, he gets a lot of crazy questions asking if those things are true, or demanding to know why NASA is hiding this stuff from them. There are also heart-breaking questions from people clearly confused by the massive amount of misinformation they find online. I wish more people would speak this clearly with the American people on a whole host of issues. The lack of understanding of many of the questioners points to deeper failures in the education system. Some of my favorite excerpts from the site:

I saw an episode of "The Universe," on the history channel, that showed NASA landing a probe on the asteroid Eris, or Eros. A week later another episode explained that Eris, or Eros, was a dwarf planet in the Kiper Belt. (1) If Eris is a dwarf planet out past Pluto then how could NASA land a probe on it? (2) Is Eris a dwarf planet or an asteroid that NASA put a probe on?

You are confusing Eros (a near Earth asteroid) with Eris (the largest known dwarf planet). Eros and Eris are different just as Washington is not Wilmington, and Paris is not Paros, and in planetary science Titan is not Triton. Different words mean different things. If you do not make this distinction, you will misunderstand many things you read and see on TV. For more information on either Eris or Eros, try Wikipedia.

People are saying that a solar flare is going to hit the Earth in 2012 and "toast" us alive. What is this site http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/ all about? I even saw their commercial on tv! I just want to know the truth and be prepare if something is really going to happened. AND I recently saw a commercial on Discovery's History Channel where a lottery entry has begun to "save yourself" from the 2012 doomsday event; however, it was not specified what this event may be or how these winners would be saved. AND I found this website with very believable information. Is it really true ? http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/#/home. AND I saw this commercial on tv about the institute for humanity continuity and I am very scared.

About dozen people have written to me this week about ads for the Institute for Human Continuity. This is just part of the publicity for the science fiction film “2012” to be released in November. Let me be clear: (1) Nothing bad is predicted to happen in 2012. The 2012 doomsday is a hoax. (2) There is no Institute for Human Continuity. It is a fake website created to generate interest in the film. (3) Neither the film nor this website are based on science. This is fiction. (4) The creation of a fake website to publicize a film is called “viral marketing” by a analogy with a computer virus (look it up in Wikipedia). (5) It is important to learn to distinguish fiction from fact, and Hollywood film plots from reality. Here is what I wrote in this subject a few months ago in my “Twenty Questions” about 2012: The pseudoscientific claims about Nibiru and a doomsday in 2012, together with distrust of the government, are being amplified by publicity for the new film from Columbia Pictures titled “2012”, to be released in November 2009. The film publicity includes creation of a faux scientific website (www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/) for “The Institute for Human Continuity”, which is entirely fictitious. According to this website, the IHC is dedicated to scientific research and public preparedness. Its mission is the survival of mankind. The website explains that the Institute was founded 1978 by international leaders of government, business, and science. They say that in 2004, IHC scientists confirmed with 94% certainty that the world would be destroyed in 2012. This website encourages people to register for a lottery to select those who will be saved; a colleague submitted the name of her cat, which was accepted. I learned from Wikipedia that creating this sort of fake website is a new advertising technique called “Viral Marketing”, by analogy with computer viruses.

I'm really worried about supernovas and hypernovas. I'm specially worried about stars called Betelgeuse, Eta Carinae, Antares and WR 104, as there is a lot of conroversial information on the internet about these stars. I Know pretty well the situation about WR 104, as you have answered it also, but the rest of the stars i mentioned are still a mystery. This is really worrying me as i can't sleep when I worry about these things (yes I'm a worryer and a bit of a cosmophobic), so it would be very helpful if you could give me the information I need so I could go on with my life.

I can think of no reason why any of the stars you mention should be considered threats. I don’t know what specific information will calm your fears, but these are just ordinary stars going about their business like the other 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy...If you are finding many websites that claim controversy about these four stars, my advice is to stop using such misleading sources of information. The Internet is filled with misinformation and disinformation, most of which should simply be ignored. One of the most valuable aspects of Wikipedia is that it is up to date and reflects the knowledge of real scientists. If anyone thinks they are falling for the crazy ideas of cosmophobia or are having trouble sleeping because of fear of astronomy, please check out Wikipedia or other reputable sources (such as Sky & Telescope or Astronomy magazines) and forget the pseudoscience.

Why isn't there more media coverage of the 2012 doomsday? Explain to me what I am seeing in the video for HR 8791. Why did you guys finally decide to coordinate with other countries for the global space station or be in such a rush to find a planet that will support life. The biggest news today is the Health Care Reform but if you look at the words at the bottom on CNN they read that NASA has discovered a planet.

There is not more media coverage of the 2012 doomsday because the media realize it is a hoax. Fortunately most of the media prefer to write about real things, and they understand that 2012 is an Internet and UTube cult phenomenon without the slightest bit of evidence to support it. The only HR 8791 I know of is a Congressional Bill (HR stands for House Resolution) that has been the subject of a spoof by the satirical humor publication Onion. I hope you are not taking this spoof seriously. This sort of humor works only if readers can recognize the spoof...

Usually the astrologers use our planets to explain the present, past and the future life of we humans. Is there really any link between the planet alignment and its movement with the human's life or a person's zodiac sign?

No, there is no link — astrology is not science, or prediction, but an ancient religion that is unrelated to modern science...

There are certain people who believe that global warming may in fact be true, but at our current rate it is too late to do anything about it.... My question to you is, what do you think is the better solution for global warming. Invest billions into trying to find solutions to fix the problem. Or invest the billions of dollars of research into learning to live with global warming?I am surprised that you refer to “people who think global warming may be true”.

Global warming is about as sure as anything in science that deals with a complex system like Earth climate. We know the rapid increase in greenhouse gases is producing a rate of heating that overwhelms any of the much slower “natural” processes that influence global climate...

Taking Action - Getting Started, Getting Informed

Michael Moore's newest release, Capitalism: A Love Story, has stirred a lot of emotion and has been overwhelmingly well-received. The biggest criticism I hear is that he doesn't lay out where to go once you leave the theater. I find this very interesting given that the movie is about raising awareness and highlighting the problems and contradictions in the economic system in the U.S. and to a large extent globally.

The desire to have Moore not only lay out the problem, but also the solution, gets at one of the key reasons that this movie was made. Americans have let themselves be led around for too long, by media, by politicians, by their churches, etc. Only when people take a serious look at their lives and the lives of others will they really be able to say what they actually want. It is critical for Americans, and others, to get a better idea of how the norms of society inform both our individual goals and the appropriate means for attaining those goals.

This creates a situation in which many Americans have a difficult time imagining alternatives to the current system or even realizing the problems inherent within it. In our daily lives, the inadequacies of the current system can seem obtuse and distant. By taking a step back, we can begin to understand that there could be a different way, but this also will require action, not continued resignation. Engaging with history and the current realities in other countries can begin to show that what we take for granted is much more malleable than we realize. Systems change over time, often as the result of events that were seemingly minor at the time.

I am beginning to realize one of the biggest weaknesses of the American education system is teaching the ability to differentiate between good and bad sources of information. While not something that can be taught overnight, the key for me is to verify the expertise of the person or persons presenting the information, and whether their accounts are contextual. By contextual, I am referring to that they aren't simply stating a fact or facts as permanent or infinite. For example, you often hear a current belief expressed as timeless. For example, the idea that the U.S. is and always was a Christian nation. A simple historical review would dispel this notion; however, most people lack the skills to carry out such a review.

In many cases, media outlets underestimate their ability to educate as well as inform. An educated populace is complementary to an informed populace, but they can be very different. I see many people that are clearly informed, in that they are aware of current events, and have taken positions on key issues of the day. But often, these people lack sufficient education, to make their positions coherent. By education, I am not simply referring to schooling. I am also referring to a broader education, which requires engaging with history and taking a broader perspective than is found in most newspapers and textbooks. Similarly, I see many well-educated individuals, who clearly have grappled with difficult issues and are well-read in theory and/or history. However, many of them are unable to take the understanding and apply it in a coherent way to reality. In becoming so obsessed with the details of some historical period, or some theoretical perspective, they lose interest in the complexity of the everyday political and social issues.

I think it is critical for people to think about the deficiencies in their perspectives and try to get a better understanding of why they think what they do. It is important to come to terms with the biases and inadequacies of both our scholarly as well as contextual knowledge. This often requires seeking out new and varied sources, so that we are able to have a more coherent internal narrative. Key to this is identifying that just because you agree with an analysis or the conclusions, doesn't make the analysis accurate or coherent. Similarly, just because you disagree, it doesn't mean that you are missing something. Sometimes alternative perspectives or sources are just inaccurate or incomplete. By engaging with how they came to their conclusions is just as important as what conclusions they came to. Also important is to not fall into the trap that there are two sides to every problem or issue. Problems are much more complex than such a duality would allow. And the solution to any given problem doesn't lie between two expressed extremes. In all likelihood any given solution will favor some and infuriate others. Such are the complexities we face.

The Solution: Educating Yourself on the Basics

Upon seeing how many Americans and Britons don't understand evolution and even reject its existence, Richard Dawkins took it upon himself to write a book that would bring the discussion back to its foundation. In The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins strips the discussion to the basics and then shows what sorts of evidence would have to be present to show that evolution has taken place. From there he builds the indisputable case that evolution is a fact and that to deny otherwise requires a level of cognitive dissonance, not skepticism.

Dawkins would know about skepticism when it comes to evolution. He has been one of the central authors in changing the way the mechanisms of evolution have been understood. He, like many, identify that Darwin had a good start, but that Origin of Species is far from a complete accounting of the complexity that is evolution (nor was that Darwin's goals). At Utah State University, they offered a course in which you read Origin of Species and identified what things Darwin got right and other areas where he was off the mark.

Until people take the same intellectually curious approach that great scientists take to big issues, we will continue to have moral politics and biblical debates where policy discussions and mutual respect should be.

The Problem: Debating an Issue You Don't Understand

Kirk Cameron, the actor turned wacky evangelical, is back peddling his overstated and horribly confused wares. A recent video release by himself and Ray Comfort, author of one of the most poorly written books I have ever read, have teamed up again to take their version of evangelism to a whole new level of absurdity. The video itself is hilarious. Kirk sitting backwards in a chair (what is this a 90s PSA?) making absurd statements about how evolution is the antithesis of Christianity and that Darwin's ideas played a key role in Nazi crimes against humanity. Now I can fathom how evolution makes people who believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old uncomfortable, but to make such blatantly untrue and egregious statements is just irresponsible.

Their awesome plan is to take Darwin's original treatise on evolution (which is now part of public domain) and put in a 50 page "special introduction." It appears to be special in the same way people call their dog that can't stop running into walls, "special." They will then hand these out at campuses across the U.S. in an attempt to debunk the "myth of evolution." Now handing out a free copy of Origin of Species is all well and good, but to put in 50 pages of conservative evangelical babble serves no one. People that would even CONSIDER reading the 50 page special introduction would NEVER read Origin of Species, and vice-versa. Cameron's and Comfort's narrow, ignorant, and inaccurate understanding of reality indicates clearly that neither have read the original text that they will be giving away, nor have they read any modern works on evolution. Anyone looking at the evidence, religious or non-religious, with an appreciation of rules of evidence and the scientific method cannot but identify the facts of evolution and how it has given rise to our current biodiversity. To claim otherwise is to simply ignore the vast historical literature and on-going scientific work in any field related to biology.

Filibuster: Moderating Force or Minority Tyranny?

I recently ready an interesting article that argued that the Senate filibuster should be abolished. While not necessarily the most important issue on its own, the author linked it to wider issues of fairness and democracy (and to the current health care reform). While he didn't touch on numbers, it re-energized my concerns about about the massive power rural states have in the Senate. To me, reforming the filibuster would be one possible small step toward making the Senate more democratic. These rurual states would be amongst the first to fight such a measure.

In my undergrad, I grappled with the issue of the Senate being undemocratic in the sense that its votes are not proportional to state population (as the House is, though not completely). The filibuster increases this undemocratic leaning by allow 41 senators, which could represent a small minority of Americans, to block a vote on nearly any issue. In a country of 304,059,724 (estimated as of July 2008), Senators representing the twenty states with the lowest population plus one senator from the 21st lowest population state could conceivably hold nearly any bill from ever receiving a vote. Seven of these states have less than a million residents, eight have between one and two million residents, and the final five each have less than three million residents. The 21st state, Iowa, has just over three million residents. Combined, the population of these twenty states, plus half of Iowa, adds up to 32,637,771 or just over ten percent of the U.S. population. The fact that nearly 90 percent of the population can be outvoted by this small minority clearly indicates that at the very least dissolution of the filibuster is something to consider, if not wider reform of the system for electing Senators.

Luckily, getting rid of the filibuster simply requires a majority vote, while any larger Senate reform would likely require amending the U.S. Constitution. Some will argue that the filibuster has been used in the past to moderate debate and force compromise. They will say that despite its undemocratic nature, it provides some protection from majority tyranny. While I accept that protection of the rights of the minority are fundamental under any legitimate democracy, requiring super-majorities to even be able to vote on a bill often hampers the policy-making process through allowing powerful lobbyists to influence the votes of a few against the will of the many.

Social Determinants of Ignorance

In a very disconcerting sign of the times, a recent poll found that nearly half of Americans were accepting the fear mongering and fallacious charges against health care reform. One of the most concerning findings was that forty-five percent of respondents thought that the current health care reform proposal would likely "allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly." While I am aware that this charge is out there, I assumed (wrongly, as usual) that any responsible person would try to verify this extreme and dangerous claim.

This got me thinking more broadly about how easily the public is misled and where this comes from. I have heard many people blame the individuals themselves for their ignorance on these issues; and I will admit I do have some sympathy for that view. However, taking a more sociological view, I am forced to look beyond the individual and examine the social nature of these misunderstandings. This brought me to some recent findings on beliefs about evolution.

The Pew Research Center recently released a study that contained some pretty depressing findings regarding the public's knowledge (or beliefs) regarding science. They found that eighty-seven percent of scientists agree with the statement that "Humans and other livinging things have evolved over time due to natural processes." For the general public this number dropped to a dismal thirty-two percent. In the study they also break down the findings demographically which provides some interesting insights and show clear social patterning across age, eductation, and religious beliefs or lack thereof. The social patterning and the clear lack of widespread scientific thinking amongst the majority of society speaks to something more structural than individual.

Part of the problem certainly lies within the education system, but clearly, many people who end up being scientists began in the same schools as those that will go on to believe Obama wants to kill your grandmother. Thus, improved education alone would likely only serve to close the gap somewhat. It would seem a more lasting solution would have to involve making scholarly and academic findings more approachable. Allowing people to be involved in education throughout their lives. Until Americans can tell the difference between a legitimate reliable source and the ramblings of conspiracy theorists, or fear mongers, we will continue facing these one-sided debates. Debates where the facts are on one side and anger, fear, and ignorance are on the other. I don't mean to belittle anyone's opposition to health care reform, as I have written previously about its inadequacies. However, a real, informed debate about health care simply isn't possible in the U.S. because the knowledge gap is so big. Providing people the tools to close that gap and setting up structures to do so would reap benefits far beyond the political sphere.

Health Care Reform Blues

With reform unlikely to happen before the August recess, the likelihood of reform becomes less clear. After swings in momentum both for and against reform over the past few months, it has been interesting to see how quickly some ideas have fallen away under pressure, and how others continue to be recycled and brought back to the fore. It seems likely that we will have some sort of "reform" at this point, in that a bill will likely be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by Obama. The question is will there be any actual valuable reform to a problematic and burdensome system or will it merely push off necessary reforms for another decade or so.

I think one of the most interesting developments has been that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate have decided to drop developing their own bill, after promising to do so since the beginning of the reform effort. While I can understand the desire to focus all of their attention on the current resolution being discussed, it seems that they are only falling into the trap of being the "party of 'no'" label which has been wielded against them expertly during the current Congress.

I also think it is dangerous for the Republicans to place so much hope on the Blue Dog Democrats. While allies on some issues, they are, at the end of the day, still Democrats. They know they can only push so far before they overstep their power and incur undesirable repercussions (such as the bill being moved to the floor without a committee vote). The Blue Dogs may claim that they are the beacon of fiscal conservatives and small business, but there are many ways to allay their fears and still have a bill that will be faced with obstructionism by Republicans.

I am often surprised that the current bill, even in its most liberal versions, is itself a comprise; not necessarily a good one. Many Americans, rightly in my view, favor an even more robust public system than is currently written into any of the House or Senate versions of the bill being floated around. The high costs of care (as I have discussed in previous posts) are not simply due to the high-cost treatments or expenditure disparities. They are in large part due to the cost of "doing business" under a for-profit system of health care. One of the key advantages of a single-payer system is the sense of solidarity that it brings amongst those involved. When people are all paying into the same system, there is an acknowledgement that while some are paying more, it is often for the greater good.

One final point about perceptions of U.S. health care. It is often stated, without any support, that America has the best health care in the world and that people from other countries flock here due to long wait times elsewhere. However, both these characterizations are false; but more importantly, they indicate that the debate is simply focused on the wrong sets of issues. Even if the U.S. had the best health care in the world and people did come for care unavailable in their homelands, simply stated, the U.S. health care system is unsustainable. Right now our costs continue to rise much faster than either the economy or costs of living. As health care continues to eat up revenue, we will be forced to cut other programs to pay for the bloated and overpriced care we provide, while still having worse health outcomes (and worse quality of care, in many cases) than countries with cheaper, more sustainable systems. To pretend that the problem is only quality and access fails to address that it is the costs that will become increasingly prohibitive and untenable.

Political Poetry

I have been becoming more interested in political poetry as of late. I never had much interest in poetry but had come across a few poems in my undergrad that I had really enjoyed but never really followed up on. Some of my favorite authors have poetry but I never really dug into it. Lately, I have found that poetry can tell of human suffering and crushing inequalities in a way regular writing just cannot. Here are some highlights.

The Nobodies by Eduardo Galeano

Fleas dream of buying themselves a dog, and nobodies dream
of escaping poverty: that one magical day good luck will
suddenly rain down on them- will rain down in buckets. But
good luck doesn't even fall in a fine drizzle, no matter
how hard the nobodies summon it, even if their left hand is
tickling, or if they begin the new day with their right foot, or
start the new year with a change of brooms.
The nobodies: nobody's children, owners of nothing. The
nobodies: the no ones, the nobodied, running like rabbits,
dying through life, screwed every which way.
Who don't speak languages, but dialects.
Who don't have religions, but superstitions.
Who don't create art, but handicrafts.
Who don't have culture, but folklore.
Who are not human beings, but human resources.
Who do not have names, but numbers.
Who do not appear in the history of the world, but in the
police blotter of the local paper.
The nobodies, who are not worth the bullet that kills them

Let American Be America Again by Langston Hughes

Let America be America again.

Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed-
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek-
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean-
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today-O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home-
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay-
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again-
The land that never has been yet-
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME-
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose-
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath-
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain-
All, all the stretch of these great green states-
And make America again!

United Fruit Co. by Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet blared everything

on earth was prepared
and Jehovah distributed the world
to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other entities:
United Fruit Inc.
reserved for itself the juiciest,
the central seaboard of my land,
America's sweet waist.
It rebaptized its lands
the "Banana Republics,"
and upon the slumbering corpses,
upon the restless heroes
who conquered renown,
freedom, and flags,
it established the comic opera:
it alienated self-destiny,
regaled Caesar's crowns,
unsheathed envy, drew
the dictatorship of flies:
Trujillo flies, Tacho flies,
Carías flies, Martínez flies,
Ubico flies, flies soaked
in humble blood and jam,
drunk flies that drone
over the common graves,
circus flies, clever flies
versed in tyranny.

Among the bloodthirsty flies
the Fruit Co. disembarks,
ravaging coffee and fruits
for its ships that spirit away
our submerged lands' treasures
like serving trays.

Meanwhile, in the seaports'
sugary abysses,
Indians collapsed, buried
in the morning mist:
a body rolls down, a nameless
thing, a fallen number,
a bunch of lifeless fruit
dumped into the rubbish heap.

(Translation by Jack Schmitt)

Militant by Langston Hughes

Let all who will
Eat quietly the bread of shame.
I cannot,
Without complaining loud and long.
Tasting its bitterness in my throat,
And feeling to my very soul
It's wrong.
For honest work
You proffer me poor pay,
for honest dreams
Your spit is in my face,
And so my fist is clenched
Today-
To strike your face.