Shellenberger plagiarizes. Maui burns.

Michael Shellenberger, who I don't know from anyone until he signed up for the Elon Musk shill squad on the Twitter Files, is a hack journalist desperately trying not to appear as a hack. I haven't seen him not be a right-wing hack so far, so he seems to have picked his side. 

So he wrote about the high-fatality wildfire on Maui and headlined it this way:

Renewables Mania and Woke Dogma Behind Hawaii Fire, Not Climate Change

Of course it's a bunch of rubbish that he doesn't even support with citations. Plus he appears to be a denialist about climate change because it pays well. But it's funny how he plagiarizes in his tweet: 

"It is unambiguous that Hawaiian Electric’s grid experienced immense stress for a prolonged time," said one analyst. "There were dozens and dozens of major faults on the grid and any one of those could have been the ignition source for a fire."

..."I was already fighting with the electric company because they never maintain the lines," said a fifth-generation Hawaii resident who lives on a family farm.

Compare that to this unreferenced WaPo article:

"It is unambiguous that Hawaiian Electric's grid experienced immense stress for a prolonged time," Marshall said, comparing the fluctuating data to the grid's stable readings from weeks and months prior. "There were dozens and dozens of major faults on the grid and any one of those could have been the ignition source for a fire."

..."I was already fighting with the electric company because they never maintain the lines," said Rivers, a fifth-generation Hawaii resident who lives on her family’s 40-acre farm.

It's great when people confirm their lack of ethics.  

Shellenberger - Hack journalist for hire

Image:linkedin.com

Extras. Reporting on the delay in getting water. Elsewhere I've read that the common people are last in line for water while the hotels, resorts, golf courses, and farmers control the distribution. 

This is somewhat a story about climate change, but moreso a story of ignoring facts on the ground. A high risk of wildfire doesn't come out of nowhere. There are signs weeks in advance. However Maui didn't pay attention or didn't plan. The question is why. Local reports with comments> one, two, three.  

No natural law

I never studied  the concept of natural law, and was familiar with it mostly from conservative writings. Natural law justified discrimination against gay sex, and maybe many of the ideas against equal rights for women and against contraception. Ugh.

Recently, I read this fascinating article about natural law, ethics, and evolution. Finally, a clear explanation of the concept of natural law:

Step one: look at what happens ‘always or for the most part’ in nature to determine its laws. That investigation will reveal the natural and proper ‘functions’ of organs and activities: those that Nature, so to speak, ‘intended’. (If Nature is just another name for God, then the talk of ‘intent’ can even be taken literally.) Step two: use the resulting observations to determine what we ought to do – and especially what we ought not to do – according to whether it was found to be ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ in step one.

So natural law told us to look at nature, see what 'normal' was by function, and also identify what varied from 'normal.' Oh dear, it looks bad for gay sex.

However, the article moves along and points out that variation is not only normal in nature, it has also been instrumental in the evolution of all living things. Variation itself is not abnormal, but necessary and (can we say this) good:

If no abnormalities had occurred in the past 4 billion years, you and I would still be bacteria. 

That's pretty convincing, at least to me. I'm not a fan of ethical systems that demonize gay sex. I'm happy to see huge gaping holes shot into natural law. I'm not sure the rest of the article hangs together as well, but I definitely enjoyed the beating it gave to natural law. (Take that, Clarence Thomas!)

Image: heartcom.org

Who is the good American?

It looks like the speech by Khizr Khan at the Democratic national convention was a turning point in the presidential campaign. Here is my speculation as to why it was a turning point.

Trump likes to pretend he is the greatest at everything. Khan showed very specifically some ways in which Trump is a faker as a good American.

• Khan's son was so patriotic that he joined the military, put his life at risk, and in fact lost his life. Trump was a coddled rich boy with draft deferments. None of his children joined the military. Most children of liberals don't join the military either. So who is the good American?
• Khan had been married to the same woman, who has grown old and rather homely. She is a dedicated to her family, grieves for her son, and isn't vain, self-centered, and focused on her own appearance. In contrast, Trump is currently married to his third trophy wife, a former model who is over 20 years younger than him. So who is the good American?
• Khan credits this country for his success and the ability of their sons to follow their dreams. He declares: "that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings..." Contrast this with Donald Trump, who gives credit only to himself and his awesome abilities, and doesn't acknowledge the blessings that have come from others. So who is the good American?
• Khan lists the people/groups Donald Trumps smears and disrespects: women, Muslims, other minorities, judges, and even the GOP leadership. So who is the good American?
• Khan asks: "Have you even read the United States Constitution?" Trump, who doesn't acknowledge reading, but only watching TV. He probably doesn't carry a pocket copy of the Constitution in his expensive suits (and neither do most Americans, especially liberals). So who is the good American? 
• Khan asks "Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?" All faiths, genders, ethnicities are found there. Trump has made no sacrifices. Perhaps this was the most scathing of the accusations. But it rings so true. So who is the good American?

Did Khizr Khan finally gets stalling voters/undecideds to see that Trump has no clothes, and is an ugly, empty, grasping fake? Perhaps he did. 

So who is the good American?

Image: abcnews.go.com

Extra. Backstory on how the Clinton campaign learned about the Khan family.

IF--the unlikely upside if Hillary loses

Is it already too late to write about the possibility of Donald Trump winning the presidency? Trump has had some miserable weeks where he's said stupid shit for the whole country to hear and process. But before that happened, he and Hillary were nearly tied in the conglomerate poll average. At that time I started thinking about the benefits of a Trump presidency.

OK, I came up with one advantage. It would signal the end of the Clinton era. We wouldn't have to worry about Hillary running for another office, or listening to the infuriating reports of all the sleazy things she and Bill have done over the years. There has been a fair amount of sleaze. Off the top of my head, I can recall: cattle futures trading, travel office firings, Bill's sexual escapades, Bill lying about his sexual escapades, questionable pardons, private email server for personal secrecy reasons, and Clinton foundation payola.

Not too many other Democrats have a list that long. I started wondering whether I would have preferred Hillary to sit out this presidency race and instead go into a quiet retirement. Unfortunately, I still think she might have been the best candidate available this time. The likely alternative, if Hillary hadn't run, would have been Elizabeth Warren, who isn't exactly my favorite.

I'm still hoping that there are centrists in the Democratic Party and one of them will run for president at the next opportunity. But it isn't very likely. The centrists like Ron Wyden have been sidelined for so many years that few know about them. If anything, the party is split between progressives like Nancy Pelosi and even-further-left progressives like Bernie Sanders. Ugh. In a situation like this, Hillary is better, which a very sad commentary indeed.

Image: realclearpolitics.com

Caring to the bitter end

I just realized something that seems obvious in retrospect.

I already knew that I was more tenacious in arguments than many. I also knew that I more interested in using argument and inquiry to undercover truth. Of course, I also knew that most commenters on the internet have neither the vigor nor the fairness to follow through on the paths their arguments take. Yet knowing all this, for the first time I attacked another commenter for pivoting away from an argument, and called him to come back to it. This is what I wrote (minus the fake expletives):

Why won't you stay on the topic, thrash it out completely, and find out if you're right or wrong. It's so maddening to argue with some people. If you really care about the issue, stay to the end and really go into the argument, don't bail out.

This is what I really think. If you care about an issue, you go as deep as you can. You keep arguing, and keep listening to all the counterarguments, until you figure out what is strong and what is weak, what is right and what is wrong. The real answers are worth doing this for. If you don't want to go this far, and don't want to make the commitment to following where the arguments lead, you shouldn't be arguing at all.

If, on the other hand, you really care, then you do follow the argument to the end. And sometimes the end is painful. I find I've been wrong for years, or that the world can't be the way I wish it could be.

I know that some of this sounds like self-congratulations, but I think it's more than that. It's a commitment to rigorous thinking, rigorous inquiry, honesty, and acceptance of the truth that's discovered. That's a big commitment, but I mean every bit of it.

Image:edmontonsun.com

Last outpost of crazy: Ohio war

Just imagine that you're engaged in a guerrilla war. You can pick your side: a church or a strip club.

Usually, I'd pick the church, but not this time. They started the war:

... a nine-year battle that began when church members protested at the Foxhole on weekends, posting patrons' license plate numbers online and urging them to repent. [The owner] sued the church in federal court and lost in 2009.

So what's a good countermove in such a fight?  How about sending topless women to church services?

Now, guess which one wants protesters to stop getting on the property, intimidating visitors, and blocking entrances. Probably both.

Effective protest? Made you look? Made you think?

sbccfilmreviews.org

Extras. This has been going on a long time.

Painful realization: The Civil Rights Act of 1965

In light of the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the capital of South Carolina, I've been researching and reflecting on the process of securing civil rights. I was born in the late 1950's, so I witnessed some significant parts of the civil rights struggles with my own eyes.

Racial equality

I'm also lucky--I grew up believing in the equality of the races. I didn't have to overcome a nagging or latent belief in white superiority. In fact, the idea of white superiority makes me laugh. I've known too many white chumps to believe that whites are better.

Though I grew up believing in equality, I didn't know how widespread that belief was. When I wanted to date a black friend in high school, I worried how my parents would react. I didn't know if my parents (MY OWN PARENTS) would give me a hard time. Clearly they were OK with me having black friends, but would they draw the line at dating? I didn't know.

I was lucky there too. My parents had no trouble with my dates. They were happy for me in my budding relationship. (But love didn't bloom--we weren't going to be anything but friends.)

What does this have to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1965? I'll explain.

In 1965, how many Americans were inculcated with the belief that blacks were inferior? I wouldn't have been surprised if my own parents had believed that, or had been brought up learning that. Of course that's not what they taught me and my siblings. They were old-line liberals, believers in the New Deal, skeptical of red-baiting, open to all colors and creeds.

How many really believe?

But I didn't know the limits of their beliefs. Would they been like the girl's parents in the movie Guess Who's Coming for Dinner? Yes, they raised their daughter to respect everyone, but they didn't expect her to fall in love and want to marry a black man. My parents could have been like that, but weren't.

But many liberals perhaps were like that, which made the movie of interest. This movie was released just two years after the Civil Rights Act passed. How many white Americans sincerely believed that blacks and whites were equal then? Perhaps a majority of whites didn't believe it. That would be my guess.

But I'd be wrong. Researching this, I found this article citing polling about the Civil Rights Act. In 1965, 76% of Americans supported the act. How many of those people supported the act because that's what they honestly believed? How many supported the act because they agreed with the ideals, but didn't believe it in fact?

I had a surprise here, too. In my pessimism, I thought that that majority of whites didn't truly believe in equality. However, I found polling from 1964 showing that 70% of whites believed in the equality of intellect (National Opinion Research Center, p. 20). Of course, it's hard to know how accurate that polling was. Was the sample skewed toward the wealthier and better educated? Would beliefs be different by income level? It's hard to drill down into 50 year old data. (And the graphics are so primitive. Wow, have computers changed our world.)

Though I've been lucky to grow up without racism entrenched in me, I'm still disappointed by how slow the decline in racism has been. When I was young, I was more hopeful for the future, and even for the present. As I've gotten older, I've been become more pessimistic about achieving a country with no significant racism. Every year shows me that racism persists.

Racism surfaced in my dad as he got older. My daughter worries that it might surface in me. She's not wrong to worry, but I hope and pray that it's not hiding somewhere in my psyche. So far, though, even when I delve deep, my instincts are to believe in the essential equality of all people. I'm immensely grateful for that.

Image: thebestlittlefilmhouse.com

Extras. National Opinion Research Center, starting p. 104, expectations of racial troubles. And as with my other posts on race, I realize that discussions of racial superiority or inferiority are deeply painful and deeply insulting. I wish that it wasn't an active issue, but it has been during my lifetime.

Read about the fascinating Civil Rights Act of 1875, which mandated equal treatment in public accommodations. What happened to it? Guess who was the most likely to shoot it down, and you're probably right.

Conservative Christians picked the wrong fight

Conservative Christian values have been losing ground for my entire lifetime, so I'm probably not the best person to write about it. I don't know what's good about this set of values--I only know what's passable and what's hypocritical.

It seems to me that conservative Christians made their first mistake vilifying those who pushed for some latitude on sexual issues. Christians stuck to the maxim that "good girls don't" even in the face of a lot of good girls doing it. These good girls didn't turn into sluts, prostitutes, or broken people, and that was a clear, scientific repudiation of what the conservative Christians warned.

Did the conservative Christians admit they were wrong? No. For many, their belief in the inerrancy of the bible or of their catechism doesn't allow them to admit the scientific evidence, so they are completely stuck. Their rules have been shown to be incorrect, but they can't do anything about it. They can't amend the rules and they can't admit they're wrong. So maybe they're quiet about the case where good people don't follow the rules, and noisy about the next topic on the agenda.

What was next on the agenda? Maybe divorce, which they mischaracterized first as a moral failing and then as a whim. However, too many conservative Christians found themselves divorced at some point, so they let that slide too.

Being against homosexuality had and continues to have more staying power as an issue because it's less common than straight pre-marital sex or divorce. However, as more gay people come out to their religious parents or to neighbors or coworkers, the general public is finding it harder to see homosexuality as scary, evil deviance.

I remember Anita Bryant warning about the scourge of homosexual teachers in our schools. That worked for a while, until we found out that many sexual predators had a front as regular, married guys.

Ok, so maybe homosexuals weren't particularly predators, there was still the 'abomination' factor, where abomination is the biblical term for 'icky.' But restrictions based on ancient biblical rules don't fly when so much of society is modern and educated, not to mention the many who have tried sushi and realized that 'icky' doesn't always pan out. Just as sushi turns out not to be icky, other forms of sex often turn out not to be icky either.

So the biblical restrictions against pre-marital sex, divorce, and homosexuality fell apart in our modern era. Why do conservative Christians cling to their outdated viewpoint on homosexuality so much more tightly than they did to the biblical view of pre-marital sex or divorce? I really don't know why they keep fighting this one. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any close friends  who are religious and hold this view, so I have no one to ask this sincere question. I wonder whether it's the desperation from so many losses that makes them fight this one with all the energy they have left.

One odd thing--conservative Christians have had one moderately successful fight--the fight against abortion. Why is the abortion fight still going, while all these others are basically lost? Conservative Christians should be asking themselves that.

Scare Tactics

Image: anabaptistredux.com

What a relief!

Image: bibleexplainer.blogspot.com

Extras. Conservatives complaining the liberals were just pretending to care about marriage, but really they don't. Of course, in this view, all liberals are a single massive blob of wrongheadedness, not individuals, some of whom dislike marriage while others strongly support it. Me, I'm a big fan, in case you forgot.

Do you have to read the post after seeing this graphic? I did.

Image: biblicalgenderroles.com

The many enemies of Christianity

Somehow I managed to resist writing about how the death battle between same sex marriage and conservative Christians for twelve days, but that reprieve is over. I'm back to the topic again because of the hyperbole of Rod Dreher (the main conservative-religious writer whom I read).

Dreher has blamed the Reformation for this evil before. He's blamed the Founding Fathers and their political philosophy that guarantees the state wouldn't impose religion on the people. He's blamed Martin Luther. Now he's blaming nominalism, a philosophical theory that perfect, ideal things don't actually exist.

I think Dreher should just go all the way and proclaim that the problem is that too many people think, and their thoughts are too often sacrilegious because they end up questioning the dogmas of the church. Somehow, though, Dreher exempts himself. When he questions the church, as he did when he left Catholicism to become Eastern Orthodox, it wasn't a hateful, uppity, and sinful of him to do that.

However, when Martin Luther questioned the Catholic church, he unleashed an incredible amount of evil. All sorts of people started questioning church dogmas and finding alternative ideas. For example what is more likely to be correct: your priest or your conscience? Is the Church correct that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth? Somehow this questioning is the direct cause of Western civilization becoming decadent and materialistic, and forsaking the guiding principles of a religious life.

Does Dreher actually wish that he could shut down all of that thought, remove the free will of people, and force people to put unquestioning faith in whatever their church says? From what I've read, that is what Dreher would prefer, based on the number of column inches he's devoted to defending dogma ("what Christianity actually is") and decrying the wrongness of guys marrying guys.

Oh, the hubris of using your brain! (... if you might come to a different conclusion from that of the Church).

A moderate problem in Dreher's argument is that Jesus himself is an example of questioning orthodoxy. But Jesus is the Son of God, and inerrant, which no other human is. So it's not illogical if Jesus can question but the rest of us can't. An even bigger problem is that humans are questioning authorities all the time, especially when they aren't thrashed within an inch of their lives for doing so. Maybe European stock is somewhat worse in this behavior than others (how frequently did Indians question their caste system?), but it has been a persistent trait for as long as we have records.

People are going to use their minds, and what they think may change as a consequence. God can't stop it, and neither can Dreher. If it is to be labeled a sin, that tells us that Dreher or the Church or God can't deal with a major aspect of human nature. It also raises the question of whether Dreher believes that people deserve freedom, or whether instead they need the cossetting of an authoritarian system to avoid this worst of sins--thinking the wrong thoughts.

Of course, what is most likely is that Christianity wasn't threatened by Martin Luther, the Reformation, liberty-based government, or a metaphysical theory I hadn't even heard of (and me a philosophy major!). Only Dreher's mistaken and narrow definition of Christianity is threatened and only in his mind.

Image: wikipedia.org

Extras. Well, the threat's not quite "only in his mind." Traditionalists in some professions have been sued or fined for not working on same-sex weddings. There are also allegations of jobs lost or discriminatory work environments made by traditionalists.

Religious observance and religious identification are also becoming less common. Is that due to people choosing for themselves too? Most likely.

Finally, my conclusion. Marriage equality, yes. Conscience, yes.

I've wrestled with the issue of good religious people and their objection to same-sex marriage. Long ago I saw the essential equality of all marriages. I support the freedom to marry, without stigma, outside of the cultural norms (which are often cultural strait-jackets).

But I also understand and respect deep religious faith. Many of the most generous, loving people I've ever known have religious beliefs that would condemn me to hell for all eternity. These are the kind of people who would risk their own lives doing missionary work in unsafe areas of the world. How can I condemn people who are so much more generous and open-hearted than I am?

Eventually, I realized a formula. You don't have to support marriage equality, but don't deny it to other people. Don't set yourself up as the judge who decides which humans deserve which human rights.

Finally, I had to wrestle with the issue of whether people who are sincerely against same-sex marriage must be forced to provide services to those weddings. Does the florist have to provide flowers, does the baker have to provide a cake, does the photographer have to capture the moment of the grooms exchanging rings and kissing?

Anti-discrimination rules for public accommodations

Our country been through a similar issue before. If you run a public business, under civil rights laws, you can't discriminate against people of different races, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability status, etc. This was a correct decision. The rights of a business owner don't trump the rights of the public to go about their lives without discrimination in the public sphere. No one is forced to like whites, to privately socialize with people of a disfavored religion, to invite them into your home. But in the public sphere, who must treat them as you treat everyone else--with fairness.

Sexual orientation isn't currently on the list of characteristics that can't be discriminated against. I think it should be, and it is in many states. In general, public opinion reviles discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Most people support fairness for gays in all areas of life, including employment, housing, court, etc.

However, requiring fairness doesn't mean that we (the public) require everyone to view gay sexual choices as equal to other kinds of choices. I don't have to declare that I totally support all kinds of sexual freedom as good and wise, just like I don't have to declare that Tea Party political opinions are just correct as my opinions. I'm not just 'allowed' to disagree--I have the freedom to disagree.

So it is with business owners. They may have to operate as though they are fair and unbiased, but aren't required to adopt those beliefs.

Remember 'Live and Let Live?'

When support for gay rights was much less popular, some of the appeals were for understanding and tolerance of different viewpoints. These were good arguments. Why not live-and-let-live? Can't we give space to people to have different religions, different sexual interests, different languages, different political beliefs? Generally, we want to say 'yes' to this. We aren't required to all think and do the same.

So why doesn't this extend to the florist who is a devout Christian? Doesn't she get to live-and-let-live without being hauled into court for not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding?

Are there limits to how far live-and-let-live goes? Certainly. It's not a carte-blanche to loudly and obnoxiously tell people that you don't like their kind, and therefore you won't have anything to do with them. It doesn't undermine the right of others to expect fair treatment in employment.

I'd like to draw the line on live-and-let-live somewhere short of compelling people to take part in acts they profoundly disagree with. But they still don't get to be bigoted about it. Can I make a conscience-exception only for the sincere people, and not for the bigots? That's the question.

Image: pantheos.com

The high stakes of culture: Mississippi

I continue to see the effects of culture almost everywhere. I listen for cultural differences, and the effect of culture on values and the choices that people make.

So I thought this was a very striking observation by Jamelle Bouie, a black political columnist:

"White supremacy built a politics of racist antagonism. Blacks were substandard people & thus received substandard schools, services, & law. Anything public had to be kept separate from blacks, and if that wasn’t possible, it had to be degraded..."

Further down in the same post, the author links to a tragic story of what happened to ACA in Mississippi. It's a worthy of Shakespearean treatment. There are the heroes who try to step above the usual bitterness, and the banal villains who shred those attempts and congratulate themselves while doing it.

I'm a northerner and  hardly know about the south. But when I read these kinds of stories, and consider what I do know about the south and about Arizona (settled by southerners, and where my parents now live), I start to see the patterns that Bouie writes about. Why do northern states spend more on education than southern states? Entrenched racism and the resulting antipathy to public services could be the answer. What a sad answer that is. And is it just a 'neutral' cultural difference, or is it actually a inferior culture that should change? I can't be a fair advocate for southern culture, but I'll keep my ears open for such an advocate.

Image: blogslucianneloves.com

Creating his own religion

I'm reading the long set of responses to a question posted by Rod Dreher, an orthodox Christian. He wants to know how people have lost their faith, and he wants to hear the individual stories.

One of the responses was so full of human truth. The writer, as a young child, pretended to be saved so a crazy lady preacher wouldn't hurt him. Then Grandpa (a deacon) made sure the crazy lady never preached there again. Even for a deacon, some of it is tooooo crazy!

This writer has developed his own set of simple religious beliefs:

Only One God. Only One Humanity. Only One Rule ('do unto others…') Only One Time (NOW is our only point of contact with Eternity...) Only One Destiny (either Everybody goes to heaven – after healing – or Nobody does.)

Then he wrote this:

I really don’t much care anymore what the Answer is. It doesn't make a difference on my behavior, or on the behavior of anyone I know. The good people keep on being good, regardless of their religion, and the selfish bastards keep on being selfish, regardless of Their religion.

I love this simplicity, and it feels more truthful than all the wild stories in many religions. Are we supposed to take those seriously? But that's what some people need--a  complex set of myths sold as the gospel truth that happened exactly that way.

Image: pinterest.com

Short: Liberalism is respect, resistance, conflict, and hope

This is a review of a book that tries to tease out the basics of liberal democracy. I won't read the book because the review explains the ideas well enough, and I can already start applying them. So how do these four basic ideas work to undergird liberalism?

• Out of respect for people, none are arbitrarily excluded from the rights and protections that others have.
• Power tends to tyrannize, so it must be checked (resisted) through individual rights, checks and balances in government and society, and the right of the people to decide on laws.
• Conflict is inevitable, since people desire conflicting goals. But the conflict is channeled through liberal practices of competition, discussion, debate, and voting.
• Hope is the belief that change will generally be for the better, so the system shouldn't be frozen at a particular point, but should be allowed to adjust and change. (This is the least developed of the ideas in the review, so I've interpolated, or guessed.)

I was surprised at how well this list of four aspects explains liberal democracy. It really is a surprisingly full and satisfying explication. Who would have thought it would boil down so compactly? Amazing.

Image: milleniumpost.in

The high stakes of culture, part 1

Wow. I'm not sure I can do justice to this topic. Today I read a long article on the influence of American media, with its liberal bias, on American thinking and behavior. I have no doubt it's true because I see the effects of culture everywhere.

• Why do we have so many guns and mass shootings? The gun culture in our country. I'm sorry, but a few decades of anti-gun-ownership laws in a few liberal states doesn't change that.

• Why do blacks and minorities do worse on IQ tests? The first place to look is at the huge cultural differences between the creators of the tests and the young minorities taking those tests.

• Why is the south and the midwest so Republican? It stems from the interplay of culture and political movements.  

I'll stop now with the recitation of examples. But even a believer like me was astounded by this:

"The researchers found that areas that gained access to Globo [a major Brazilian TV channel] saw larger drops in fertility than those that didn't... It was not any kind of news or educational programming that caused this fertility drop but exposure to the massively popular soap operas, or novelas, that most Brazilians watch every night... Exposure to this glamorized and unusual ... family arrangement [small family and childless adult women] 'led to significantly lower fertility'—an effect equal in impact to adding two years of schooling." -- reported by Jonathan Chait

Yes, Brazilian tele-novelas depicting small families changed the fertility rate among Brazilian women from "6.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.3 children in 2000." Wow.

It's no wonder then that traditionalists are so frustrated with and defeated by American mass culture. When TV and movies started depicting gays as OK and pre-marital sex without life-ending shame, traditional values didn't stand a chance.

But there's more to this, I think. Those traditional values were, in part, lies. All gays weren't greasy, sadistic lurkers. Pre-marital sex didn't have to end in shame and exile from your family. It was the improvements in life that accelerated the spread of these cultural changes. That, and perhaps blindness to the downside of the changes. 

These reflections on culture to be continued...

Opening episode of The Bachelor--Tuesday night at 9 Eastern

Image: pictify.com

One thing I learned: Cultural differences, cancer, and ACA

I'm a strong supporter of ACA. However, I didn't realize until this fall how much my middle-class background contributes to that viewpoint.

Here's the background. Middle-class people are used to living comfortably, with enough money so that running out of money isn't a problem that they've faced. Sure, some get into money trouble by excessive spending or risky investments, but most middle-class people avoid that because they strongly fear poverty--the hand-to-mouth existence is the opposite of middle-class security.

So imagine how a cancer diagnosis affects a middle-class person. He isn't used to the uncertainty, and the treatment of cancer is almost always physically unpleasant. However, it's manageable if there's a good chance that you can return to your old life.

Wrenching choices

Now imagine that cancer diagnosis if you knew you couldn't return to your old life. This is how it feels when a middle-class person faces an extremely expensive, uncovered medical expense. You are almost guaranteed to plunge yourself and your family into a poverty they have never experienced before.

It's little wonder to me that some/many middle-class people in this position might choose to ignore the signs of illness. On one hand, it looks like they (that is, me) value money over life. However, a different way of interpreting the choice is that they choose to maintain their family's comfort and way of life over their own lives. They sacrifice their own lives to maintain the family--something which is easier to understand than why they won't pay what it takes to treat the illness.

This is how I think, and perhaps I'm generalizing too much. But I'm not the only one who feels this way. This also explains the behavior of the woman made famous in the anti-Romney ad. She chose to ignore her symptoms because she didn't have medical insurance, and died because of it. She avoided saddling her family with debt--maybe they even got a life insurance payout. That could well have been preferable to her. I certainly would be to me.

This is why good medical coverage is so important to the comfortable middle class ethos. It's probably one of the first questions families ask when someone gets a job. With more of the middle-class out of work, 2008 was a great time to push for universal coverage, and it finally passed, though more because of the 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Answers from the class divide

If you don't believe there's a class divide in how people view health coverage, read this post giving advice to the uninsured. Look at the range of answers, from which social workers are the best; to how to cash in your insurance to pay for your care; to shopping around for care in other countries. The advice strikes me as coming from solidly middle-class people... until this answer from a commenter named so_so (sorry, no link):

"In August I was diagnosed with a Nice big fat cancerous tumor in My Bladder,,, It Required surgery because I had to have a Catheter .. Could not Pee!!!! [...] I was with a Catheter for almost 1 month and family took up a collection for me to give the Doctor 500.00 Otherwise I was just out of luck.... Needless to say I have not been to the Doctor again... Can not afford it... I do not have money....And do not want Charity... It does not make me feel good at all....( Still not over the Family and X family I had sending 500.00 here... Yes grateful, But taking help from People You know hate you is not a good feeling... ) And that will never let you live it down,,,EVER!!! despite the 500.oo they sent I now owe the Hospital close to 10 thousand.... And it was a day surgery,,,, I talked them into letting me go home....I knew i could not afford the stay.... Glad I did not stay,,,, It will take me a good long while to pay that off..... The Doctor told me 50/50 chance it will come back...."

I don't believe this woman will pay her $10K hospital bill, but it didn't keep her from getting or taking the medical care. I was astonished by this post because it is so different from my attitude. I wouldn't take on medical debt I couldn't pay as this woman did. Though she doesn't admit it, she is a charity case pretending that she isn't one. That option probably isn't open to me, nor should it be necessarily.

Why should my child's college fund, my retirement savings, my additional savings, and the equity in my house be exempt from the bills I run up? Sure, I'd like them to be, but that's not how our personal finance laws work. So I assume charity care is reserved for those who don't have the funds I have.

Self-reliance vs. Outside security

Here's another example of the difference in attitude to how the uninsured should deal with medical expenses:

"I have a good friend...  He is a manual laborer of sorts and has never had health insurance all the time that I have known him.  I am aware of one time that he experienced kidney stones and was in real agony.  He went to the Emergency Room and was treated.  The bill was $4,000.

He depleted his entire savings account and paid the bill in full.  The only thing he owned, which would have been attached had he not paid the bill, was his 12 year old pickup truck which he had to use to work.  I would also add that he has suffered with a bad back for 10 years but still has been able to work, most of the time, in pain.  But work, yes he has continued to do so."

The teller of this story, a conservative I follow named Anson Burlingame, sees this as a story of self-reliance. I see it somewhat differently. Yes, this man was self-reliant. He's been careful and hasn't squandered his money, and toughed it out what he could. But he's also used his entire financial cushion in one day, and he doesn't have any money for the next emergency. What will he do next time? That might also be another reason why he's a hero to conservatives. This man is willing to do what a middle-classer fears so much--pay all the money he has to settle his debt, and go on with his life. Why can't a middle-class family do the same?

There is a cultural difference, not just political differences, in attitudes to ACA. Many approve of charity for the truly poor, but everyone else should be self-reliant. The safety net shouldn't be provided by government, but by the family and community. The Mommy-State takes away this self-reliance and eliminates the need to stay on good terms with your family and community. You can be selfish, lazy, rebellious, or irresponsible, and Mommy will still take care of you. There is some truth to this, but it doesn't capture the whole truth.

Through the filter

The whole truth is that we each have a filter through which we see universal insurance. Some of us see it as a necessity for the financial security we value highly. Others see health insurance as a bonus, but it's wrong for it to creep into the category of a necessity or a birthright. We used to be made of tougher stuff, and not rely on government guarantees for our lives and healthcare choices.

As much as I respect self-reliance, I'm solidly middle-class by birth and education, and I don't want to be uninsured. That happens to be the same sentiment expressed by this Tea Party thirty-something: "This is my only option for employer care and I don't want to be uninsured." We bourgeoisie, we really can't imagine life without our security blankets.

As I said before, possibly I'm overplaying how an uninsured middle-class person would respond to a cancer diagnosis, or I'm generalizing too much from my own personal reaction. I'm not certain, but I see the evidence that others respond the same way.

What we're scared of: expensive and no guarantees

urology.ufl.edu

Extra. Uninsured cancer patients are twice as likely to die.

Last outpost of crazy: Conversative haters of Mandela

Goddamn communist, pinko, terrorist murderer Nelson Mandela. Also destroyer of South Africa.

That's Nelson Mandela according to some comments in response to a National Review column where the author admits to being so wrong in his conservative's fear of Mandela.

I suppose that it doesn't matter if you manage to avoid a bloodbath when you negotiate the end of oppressive, violent minority rule. It doesn't matter if you try to heal your country through truth and reconciliation, and you largely succeed at that awesome and unbelievable task. To some people with tiny brains and tiny hearts, you're just scum. And a baby murderer.

For myself, I believe that angels sometimes walk among us, not as supernatural beings, but when people are inspired to do more good than you thought was possible. Farewell, Madiba. Deepest thanks for making a world so much better.

Mandela, Springbok fan. Look it up.

Image: sowetanlive.co.za

Update 12/10/13. Where did the talking points against Mandela come from? WND, perhaps, or Free Republic, or maybe this White Christian neo-Nazi site. Yuck, the places these people hang out.

One thing I learned: a case against ACA

I'm not as open to different ideas as I would like to be. It seems to me that most people who are firmly against ACA fell into one of more of these categories:

• Libertarians who don't want federal government in any kind of social program. (I give them a pass for deeply held, coherent beliefs that I happen to disagree with.)
• GOP partisans who hate all Democratic programs regardless of their strong points.
• People who think the country is made up of makers and takers, and the takers don't deserve access to health insurance, or probably healthcare either.
• Fools/zipperheads who think that the GOP proposals would have solved the problems well enough at a much lower cost.

I found another category, or maybe I just started hearing the argument: fiscal conservatives who don't trust the finances of the program.

"Obamacare is basically just another entitlement. It has no solid foundation to pay for it despite all the rhetoric. I'm not 100% opposed to entitlements per se, but we do a pizz poor job of administering them - so in my view we don't need another one." -- National Review commenter

This is a strong argument. If I take the argument sentence by sentence, it holds up quite well:

• Another entitlement--check. It's a federally-guaranteed and financed large-scale program.
• No solid foundation to pay for it--a strong possibility. The dedicated revenue streams may not be enough.
• Pizz poor job of administering them--check. The track record for federal programs include no cost containment in Medicare and Medicaid, welfare that grew far too large, etc.

I support universal health coverage for a variety of reasons, but I'm also aware that it could be a failure. I want to try it anyhow for the many benefits, which I already have as a Massachusetts resident. My empathy for people in need outweighs my worries. But for many people, the scale falls the other way. 

They have good reasons for their opinions, perhaps stronger than mine, yet I still don't agree. It's not that I'm giving in to illogical motives. It's because of the mystery of how some values take precedence over others.

Image: nationalmemo.com

Values and judgment: Judging Scalia, judging tradition

Antonin Scalia is in trouble again with liberals and the media over his viewpoints. This happens fairly often, but with little effect on the offender or the offending behavior. Scalia, with a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court, doesn't have to change. No amount of anger, demonstration, fury, or criticism will dislodge him if he doesn't want to go. Besides, he seems to love the attention and the fight.

This is the latest fracas: on Monday, Scalia spoke at Princeton. Unsurprisingly, he defended his support of laws against sodomy. He defended his comparison of laws against sodomy to laws against murder. That's expected. However, he unnecessarily twisted the knife when he added:

"I'm surprised you weren't persuaded."

Hey, Justice Scalia, a lot of people have opinions that differ from yours. That doesn't make them stupid or contemptible, so don't treat them that way.

Many people dissent

Image: amazon.com

Tradition vs. Change

Aside from Scalia's atrocious manners (and he's not alone--there are way too many nasty, screeching liberals too), there is a huge question on how we respond to our traditional moral teachings. To gain some perspective, let's look at a case of conflict between tradition and change.

The Christian Example

Christianity had a major problem back in the first century. Did adherents have to follow all the laws of Judaism? On one hand, the laws had made the Jewish people keenly aware of right and wrong, and they endeavored to live in ways that were deeply virtuous. On the other hand, the laws were crazy in their extent. Not only was there circumcision with prayers, etc., but there was a huge number of dietary laws, marriage laws, maybe just about any law you could imagine. This was offputting to people who were interested in living virtuously as God intended, because it strained belief that God intended so many strictures for everyone, not just for the high priests.

St. Paul probably saved Christianity by giving adherents a pass on the old laws, which he deemed to be superseded by the new laws, which were a new covenant with God.

So there's a precedent for looking at your laws (moral rules), and chucking them when they don't make sense anymore. It certainly didn't turn Christianity into a shameless, vile religion that led people into evil ways. Christianity has generally been a force for benevolence to mankind, just as Judaism was and is.

 Image: todayinheritagehistory.wordpress.com

America questions

Now we in the US are in a similar process of questioning some of our traditional morals. Specifically, are homosexual relationships immoral? Can we, like the early Christian founders, examine the laws and judge their merits?

I think we can and should. There are a lot of sources for our moral laws, and many of them are specific customs. The permission of a father or brother used to be required to get married. Was it really a moral necessity, or just a custom? How do you answer such a question? Furthermore, what are the implications of asking such a question?

There are typically two ways to answer the question. One way is to appeal to an established authority, such as custom, religion, or an authority figure. Another is to test the action in a moral system such as the Golden Rule or Kant's categorical imperative.

The Advantages and Problems with a Moral Authority

It's interesting that there is a method other than appealing to authority. For many people, the authority is the final word, and the only safeguard from a moral free-for-all. However, the problem there is that people strenuously disagree on who or what is an accepted authority. Having an acceptable alternative, such as a test by way of a moral system, solves this problem to a certain extent, but many find it an affront to the authority they deeply respect.

Based on what I know of the American founders (admittedly just high school history), they were probably more comfortable with testing within a moral system. Political philosophers such as Locke were developing ideas of government based not on authoritarian justifications, but on consent of the governed. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are the two philosophers who have tried to develop systems for testing moral precepts that didn't depend on a moral authority. They haven't been completely successful, but that's true for all the other moral philosophies too.

I don't think we'll ever have a perfect moral system. I prefer a non-religiously-based moral system, but that is a preference that reflects my values, not a demonstrably superior position. As I've written before, there aren't absolutes when it comes to values, judgment, and morals.

 Image: irregulartimes.com

Extra. An earlier gotcha moment for Scalia.

Values and Judgment: Judging the values

This is the capstone on my series about values and judgment. It will sum up my philosophy on values, making judgments, and on argumentation. First, a quick review:

• Values aren't absolute.
• There are good values on both sides.
• Both sides can admit that the opponents have some strengths and good qualities, and are not total jerks despite how you feel about them sometimes.

I hope you're staying with me this far, because the meat is coming up. What makes one side's values so different:  A different emphasis. That is, the sense that certain values are much more important than other values. So the key is not that the opponent's values are bad, corrupt, or stupid, but that they're not the right values to emphasize.

The best way absorb this point is through a handy example--the difference between progressive values and conservative, as illustrated by these morsels from the web.

Progressive Values from Progressivevalues.org

• Progressives emphasize values that support the human family, that is, values such as inclusion, compassion, community, and nurturing. Lesser, but still important values are fair markets, active citizenry, and rule of law.

Conservative Values from conservapedia.com

• Conservatives emphasize values that support self-reliance, truth, hard work, and the ability to resist lots of human weaknesses such as addiction, depression, and fear. Lesser, but still important values are humility, open-mindedness, and a tempered respect for authority.

Conservatives can look at the progressive's list and agree that the values are OK (maybe with a few exceptions), but not the most important. Ditto for the progressive looking at the conservative's list.

So, what separates the conservative and the progressive is what values they think are most important. However, this has a huge effect. For example, the ideal conservative world probably looks quite different from the ideal progressive world. (I won't actually engage in considering these ideal worlds because I don't waste my time on politically-tinged fantasy worlds.... gag!)

Another big difference is how to promote or achieve these values, what methods are effective, and what are appropriate spheres for taking action or addressing needs. Even then, you won't find total disagreement. Conservatives think that the federal government is the right vehicle for certain tasks, and so do progressives. It's just the tasks are different, say national defense versus providing healthcare.

So, to recap again:

• There are good values on many sides.
• There is no absolute way to show one set of values is better than another.
• The differences in viewpoint often come down to a different emphasis on what is most important, how to achieve goals, how to provide for needs, and what spheres or methods are most effective.
• None of these can be judged absolutely, so judgment is always subjective.

Nonetheless, people can and do make judgments and choose the most important values to uphold and promote. With consideration, you can weed out the bad ideas. With even more consideration, you can weed out good-but-not-good-enough ideas. This is what I try to do.

Conclusion

1. I'll present my values, but not as dogmatically correct. I'll explain why I think they're best.
2. I'll try to find the best reasons for opposing values and present those too.
3. Usually I'll be able to choose what I think is best, and explain why I think so.
4. I won't expect everyone to agree with me, but they should explain their reasoning as I explained mine.

More progressive values from The Daily Kos. More conservative values from William Buckley and the American Conservative Union.

Values and Judgment: What they don't tell you

Values are a difficult topic, requiring more abstract discussion than other topics. Nonetheless, I'll try to make the ideas as clear as I can. Start with this question:

What is the best way to live your life?

If you have a thoughtful nature, you've spend time thinking about what makes for the best life, the fullest, the most meaningful life, the most enjoyable life. Different people come up with different answers and the answers change over time.

Even if you think you have the answer, how do you know for sure? You can't go to Wikipedia for this question. Religious books aren't precise in their answers or we'd have fewer denominations. You can't subject the answer to logic, because classic logic (if A, then B) is too limited and simplistic for this kind of question. When it comes down to it, there isn't a clearcut test, though philosophers and theologians have worked on answers for all of human history.

So the answer is that there will not be a definitive answer. You cannot be sure. You can arbitrarily decide that one test or another (the tenets of a particular religion, the  greatest good from John Stuart Mill, or universality of action from Kant) is the way to determine the best values, but you have to admit that there's an arbitrary choice in selecting which test to use.

When it comes to values, you will never have a guarantee that you're right. That's doesn't absolve you of making decisions, however. It just means that certainty won't be part of process. Have I proven that sufficiently? If so, welcome to my world in shades of gray. I'll remind you, though, that it hasn't prevented me from forming strong opinions. But it has guaranteed that I question everything.

What they don't tell you: 

There are no absolute answers.

Why they don't tell you:  

So you'll stay, keep listening and hoping, and maybe be convinced.
Also, they might have suppressed their doubts and bought the whole story.

***********************************************************************

Just for fun, I asked Google, "what is the best way to live your life?" Some of the answers:

• Follow these 7 tips
• Follow these 101 tips
• Find yourself a Jesus-lovin’ grateful man
• Rent this condo in the Caribbean