Archive for January, 2011

1 in 7 students are taught creationism in school

January 28th, 2011

Evolution

Photo by latvian on Flickr

A recent survey of high school biology teachers shows the majority don’t take a solid stance on evolution with their students.  Fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance, while the majority hedge on the topic in order to avoid potential conflict.  A full 13% openly teach creationism.

President Obama’s “Sputnik moment” call to inspire a new generation of science students stands in stark contrast to the stifled educations being offered to most of today’s kids.  The argument is often that teaching creationism as science might stunt a student’s biology career, but it shouldn’t prevent producing scads of software engineers and physicists.  But that’s sophistry.  A lot of the innovation space with the rapidly aging populace is in medicine and biology, so there is a need for people who really understand the life sciences.  But moreover, when a child’s early exposure to science of any flavor is basically that a bunch of whackos in lab coats have this nutty idea, but really the way the world works is something else, they learn an inherent distrust of science in general.  Why would a student want to pursue a career using the same fundamental techniques that yielded such “flawed theories” as evolution?  It requires a pretty significant cognitive dissonance to believe that biology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, and several other sciences are fundamentally wrong, but quantum physics is right on the money.

The prevalence of creationism in schools does matter.  Children require inspiration to pursue careers in science and technology. And teachers, especially science teachers, who don’t have enthusiasm for the field or reject the discipline altogether are certainly not being inspirational.

It would be easy but overly simplistic to dismiss this as just a problem in our schools.  The reality is that teachers are human.  They reflect the values, beliefs, and attitudes of the society as a whole.  Considering that repeated studies have shown about 45% of the population in general believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, science teachers are already well outside the mainstream.  The answers here don’t lie in fixing the schools as much as in fixing society.  Children are not often motivated toward goals their parents openly reject.  When almost half of parents reject science as hooey, it’s not surprising that kids are not flocking to the field.

Industry doesn’t help here either.  While demand for science and tech jobs has picked up a bit, the outsourcing of entry level positions to overseas markets continues to make it challenging for average students to find work after college.  If the U.S. is to grow the next generation of talent, we have to be willing to plant the seeds domestically by hiring fresh grads.

In addition, society doesn’t treat science as credible, cool, or aspirational.  The CSI and Mythbusters television shows have helped make science seem a bit more interesting and mainstream.  But science and tech careers are still things perceived to be pursued largely by those geeky kids who seems inexorably destined for lab coats from birth.  Yet that minority of kids will not be sufficient to fuel a new Apollo program.

If this is truly a Sputnik moment, we need to inspire a big chunk of the “normal” kids to get their geek on.  Teachers are a part of that. Government is a part of that. But unless society as a whole embraces it, it will not succeed.

Our generation’s Sputnik moment finds few science students ready to answer the call

January 26th, 2011

Sputnik

Sputnik means nothing if we don't go all Apollo on it

President Obama’s State of the Union address last night reminded Americans that our future depends on research and innovation.  The same day that results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress were released showing that only 21% of graduating high school seniors ranked proficient in science.  Moreover, only 1% ranked at the advanced level, deemed appropriate to pursue science at the college level.  Fourth and eighth graders were also evaluated, and the results were similarly disappointing.

Obama made repeated appeals in his State of the Union speech to the need for a workforce skilled in science and technology:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the space race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean-energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet and create countless new jobs for our people.

We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Over the next 10 years, with so many baby boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.

These are noble and vital aspirations. Yet the current state of our educational pipeline indicates we may be a decade or more away away from having students prepared to pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) based careers.  Only 1% of our graduates are prepared to go on to study in scientific fields in college.  Fixing that is not merely a matter of funding or focus.  Even with the retooling of educational programs and an Apollo-level political will, it will take years and years to reeducate the current generation of students, or a decade to refill the educational pipeline with students who are properly prepared.

Achieving the economic goals outlined by President Obama are very much contingent on becoming a scientifically competent society.  As he said, “The world has changed.”  The days of toiling on an assembly line are gone.  Jobs that will allow our children to achieve the American dream require STEM skills and knowledge, and the foundation for that has to be laid in our schools.

This is not a path we are on.  And the results of our national school report card indicate it’s also not a path we are remotely prepared to travel.  This leaves us in grave danger of having our Sputnik moment sputter out and stall unless we unite behind this cause as one nation with one purpose, and hold that course for a generation.  Surely, this is a challenge worthy of the American spirit.

100% renewable energy achievable by 2030

January 20th, 2011

Off-shore_Wind_Farm_Turbine

Offshore wind turbine (Photo by Phil Hollman)

The journal Energy Policy has produced a study claiming that by 2030 the entire world could be operating on a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and wave power.  While achieving this would require a massive retooling of the world’s energy infrastructure, it is all doable with current technology and at a affordable cost.  The study’s authors, Mark Delucchi and Mark Jacobson note that all that would be required is the political will to make this happen.

The plan calls for building of about four million 5 MW wind turbines, 1.7 billion 3 kW roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems, and around 90,000 300 MW solar power plants.  These would be backed by geothermal and wave generation devices whose power output fluctuates less over the course of the days or seasons.  All the assumptions are based on using technology already in place at this scale somewhere today.

The execution of such a plan over the next two decades would require an “Apollo-level” commitment by successive administrations in the U.S. alone.  China and several European countries are already committed to massive green energy programs.  The global implications of such a shift in energy technology would benefit the climate as well as the economies and foreign policies of countries like the U.S. that have a huge dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

However, given the current depressed economy there is little appetite for infrastructure maintenance, much less the desire to rebuild anything.  It’s also unclear the current government could muster a new generational program given the level of corporate influence and the inherent polarization it operates under.  The long term benefits of such a program are enormous, but the short term investment will likely prove an insurmountable hurdle.

Still, it’s encouraging to know a fossil fuel free future is possible without new inventions.

State Dept. admits Wikileaks was embarrassing but not damaging

January 19th, 2011

Julian Assange

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (photo by New Media Days on Flickr)

A Congressional official said publicly that the Wikileaks revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.   On condition of anonymity, Reuters was told that State Department officials have privately said to Congress they expect overall damage to U.S. foreign policy to be containable.

“We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging,” said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.

Previously, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley had said, “From our standpoint, there has been substantial damage. We believe that hundreds of people have been put at potential risk because their names have been compromised in the release of these cables.”  But it turns out those assertions were overblown in an effort to stoke the firestorm of backlash against Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange, a claim Wikileaks defenders have been making for months.  Still, the U.S. government will continue to investigate whether criminal charges can be brought against Assange.  This admission by no means lets him off the hook.

This also does not mean the released information is inconsequential.  Damage assessments by the State Department, Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are still continuing.  Meanwhile, the current view of many officials that damage has been limited could change if WikiLeaks releases additional material from its trove of unpublished documents.

Independent analysis debunks false GOP claims about health reform

January 18th, 2011

Obama_healthcare_signature

Obama's signature on the health care reform bill

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group with a reputation for producing materials that are balanced, authoritative, and accessible to non-specialists, has released a study of the claims central to the debate on repealing health reform that will reopen in the House this week. The short answer is that the CBO analysis is deemed accurate while Republican claims to the contrary are deemed inaccurate.

At issue is the pending bill to repeal “job killing” health care reform, a bill who’s very name contains an accusation.  Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a leading proponent of repeal, says “This is the most important thing we can do, jobs and the economy have to follow through, but we can’t fix this economy unless we first repeal Obama care.”  But is that true?

Much of the rhetoric surrounding this debate has been quite partisan.  Yet a surprising element in this round has been the claim by Speaker Boehner that the CBO analysis of the health care reform act’s financials was merely their “opinion,” and he implied that Democrats had forced CBO to produce misleading figures, saying that “CBO can only provide a score based on the assumptions that were given to them.”  On that count, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says:

  • In fact, over several decades, the House and Senate Budget Committees, along with presidential administrations of both parties, have developed procedures that CBO uses to prepare cost estimates.  In estimating the cost of health reform or its repeal, as with any estimate, CBO uses these longstanding, bipartisan procedures — not assumptions specified by the sponsor of the legislation.  Thus, Speaker Boehner’s charge is flatly incorrect.
  • Up until now, congressional leaders of both parties have acknowledged CBO’s professionalism and recognized its critical role as a neutral arbiter in budget matters.  They have accepted CBO’s cost estimates, even when those estimates have proved inconvenient for their side.  This wholesale attack on, and rejection of, a CBO estimate for a major piece of legislation by the leadership of the House or Senate is unprecedented.

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”  A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll determined that 83% of the public say it’s extremely or very important for House Republicans to pass legislation that both parties can agree on.  Further, 70% of Democrats say the president should work to pass legislation Democrats and Republicans can agree on, even if it’s not what most Democrats want.

The public wants the government to cooperate together.  But this cannot happen if there is not at least agreement on the basic data related to an issue.  Debate the implications. Debate the ideology. But stop wasting everyone’s time debating the facts.

Congressional hypocrites investigate Wikileaks while soliciting whistleblowers

January 15th, 2011

Darrell Issa

The Irony-impaired Darrell Issa (R-CA) (Photo by Gage Skidmore on Flickr)

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) launched a new website this week soliciting government whistleblowers.  The site is looking for anonymous tips to locate government waste, abuse, and fraud.

Meanwhile, Issa has also promised to investigate Wikileaks, which has been the largest source of whistleblown tips for government waste, abuse, and fraud in recent history.

Issa said his committee would investigate WikiLeaks because it wanted “to get that right so the diplomats can do their job with confidence and people can talk to our government with confidence”.

However, in recognition of the probable lack of any existing laws with which to prosecute a foreign news organization for publishing leaked government information, he suggested the new Congress would have to pass legislation to try to prevent “similar acts of whistleblowing”.  Issa even calls it whistleblowing in both contexts.

This is not a case of one Congressional hand not knowing what the other is doing.  Both of these plans came from the same office within a couple weeks of each other.  Apparently, with absolutely no recognition of the inherent irony.

As debt ceiling nears the House floor, will USA hit the wall?

January 14th, 2011

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner sent a letter to Congress last week in which he laid out the dire economic consequences should the debt ceiling not get raised in the next month or so.  This alarm was not shared by The Economist, who pointed out that the Treasury Department still has several cards it could play to keep us from colliding with the ceiling until about August.  Piling on, Moody’s made noises this week that if Uncle Sam doesn’t get his debt under control, he might lose his most favorable AAA credit rating.  Meanwhile, House Republicans are demanding they will not entertain raising the ceiling unless they get significant spending reductions.  And for good measure, add to the mix a new poll showing 71% of the public is opposed to raising the debt ceiling.

Does your brain hurt yet?  It should.  The likelihood is that the 71% public opposition to raising the ceiling is rooted in trying to simplify this mess in your aching brain down to the notion that more debt is a bad thing.  While there’s truth to that, constraining the debt ceiling may be the wrong lever to use to achieve that objective.

Projected 2011 Cash flow

The helpful table from Lou Crandall of Wrightson ICAP shows that in every month this year, projected cash receipts comfortably exceed interest payments

First, let’s be clear about something.  Debt ceiling or not, the USA is extremely unlikely to default on its debt.  The impact of default would make the 2008 economy crash look like a minor hiccup.  The ensuing global catastrophe would hurt currency values as well as lending rates across the private and public sectors, and would leave a permanent scar on the US economy.  Avoiding default merely means paying off our existing debt on schedule and not borrowing over our limit.  As the chart to the left shows, keeping pace with our interest payments given our projected income isn’t at all unreasonable.  But it does mean the federal budget will need to shave about $1.5 trillion from its planned spending this year.  That’s not a haircut as much as an amputation, and without any anesthetic.

This brings us to Moody’s concern.  While some are citing the threat to our credit rating as evidence we need to stop borrowing and pay off our debt, the reality is much less draconian.  Moody’s would be quite content if we just looked like we had a plan for eventually paying off our debt.  However, they note that we are saddled with escalating medical costs, unfunded military adventures, deteriorating infrastructure, and a political body who adamantly refuses to raise additional revenue through taxes.  They are merely pointing out that this is not a sustainable path—and they are absolutely correct.

The common thread here is that we need a solid believable plan to get our debt under control.  It doesn’t need to eliminate the current debt or even reduce future borrowing.  We just need to walk a plausible path that leads to eventual stability.

Is the GOP helping then by using the ceiling as a lever to reduce spending?  Does capping the debt ceiling help us get on that financial yellow brick road?  Not really.  Refusing to move the ceiling is like calling the bank to have them reduce your credit limit because you can’t control your spending.  Yes, it forces you to not spend more, but it also causes the bank to rethink your credit worthiness.  That may result in higher interest rates and/or your inability to get credit when you really do need it.

If Congress refuses to move the ceiling, our creditors will take that as a bad sign with regard to our ability to manage our finances.  It won’t matter that we don’t default.  It will still negatively impact the rates we pay to finance our current debt.  And because almost all rates in the private sector are tied to T-bills, the higher rates will ripple into the rates paid by individuals and businesses as well.  This helps no one, except maybe the Chinese and others holding our debt.

Getting our federal finances in order is essential, but the debt ceiling is the wrong tool to get that done.

Patriot Act up for renewal and no one notices

January 13th, 2011

4th Amendment Comic

Comic by Electronic Frontier Foundation on Flickr

On January 5th, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced a bill to add yet another year to the soon to be expiring Patriot Act.  This would extend it until February of 2012, and passage is likely to happen with little debate or contention.  If passed, this would be the second time the Obama administration has punted on campaign promises to roll back excessive surveillance measures allowed under the act passed in the wake of 9/11.

When the Patriot Act was first signed in 2001, it was billed as a temporary measure required because of the extreme circumstances created by the terrorist threat.  The fear from its opponents was that executive power, once given, is seldom relinquished.  In retrospect, that fear appears well founded.  Not only has Obama not given the power back, but he has continued to abuse it to spy on citizens without due process.

In 2007, candidate Obama said during his Presidency there would be “no more National Security Letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime” because “that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.”  The hope that he’ll make good on that statement is seeming pretty audacious.

Palin had nothing to gain from apology

January 12th, 2011

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin in her America's Enduring Strength video

Sarah Palin released her “America’s Enduring Strength” video today in response to the media reaction to the of shooting of Rep. Giffords and others in Tuscon, AZ. Palin is suitably sympathetic in the seven minute monologue, but is decidedly unapologetic for her rhetoric. Not surprisingly, the political left and right are having dramatically different reactions to her message.

While most everyone in the mainstream seems to agree there is no direct link between Palin and the mentally unstable shooter, Palin feels understandably attacked in the media aftermath.  There is ample basis for discussion over whether or not the violent and gun-based language and imagery used by Palin and other politicians and pundits is potentially inciting violent actions by the fringe elements of society.  And it’s understandable why the Arizona shooting has been the catalyst for bringing up the topic of the lack of civility in our political discourse.  But the fact remains that there is no traceable connection between this incident and anybody’s political rhetoric.  Palin defends that point, and strikes back at those who would try to pin any wrongdoing on her or the right in general.

Ezra Klein makes the eloquent case on the left for why Palin missed an opportunity.

Imagine if Palin had come out and said, “My initial response was to defend the fact that I had never condoned such violence, and never would. But the fact is, if I in any way contributed to an unhealthy political climate, I have to be more careful and deliberate in my public language rather than merely sharpen my defenses.” That would’ve been leadership: It would have made her critics look small, and it would’ve made her look big. Those who doubted whether Palin could rise to an occasion that called for more than sharp partisanship would’ve been silenced.

The right’s reaction is typified by fellow Examiner Lori Calabrese.

In a climate of hate, Palin rose above her critics with a beautifully written address that spoke to us as a nation and,although, Palin struck back at her critics, she didn’t further divide our great nation, yet called for unity and defended the rights and freedoms that make America exceptional.

I don’t know about you, but I saw something different in Sarah Palin. She leaped into the leadership role of the Republican party with her statement, while other GOP hopefuls have either remained quiet on the issue or proved that they don’t have the grapefruits to lead our nation. Palin defends our rights spelled out in The Constitution addressing the fact that a member of Congress went so far as to announce that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

What Klein and others on the left are not owning up to is that while Palin may have made a few points with a more apologetic message, it would not ultimately have changed any of their minds about Palin.  Meanwhile, an apology would have inflamed her supporters who expect her to stand firm, refuse to compromise, and take no prisoners.  She had everything to lose by appearing to kowtow to the accusations of culpability, and nothing to gain.  However, staying true to her “don’t retreat, reload” mantra, she struck back at her accusers.  In doing so, she reinforced her credibility with her loyal base, and acted about like everyone else expected her to act.

All indications are that strategically this was the appropriate message for her to release.  Whether you loved it or hated it, she gets credit for being smart enough to recognize there is little she’s going to do that would persuade those who have already written her off to give her a second look.

Cuomo’s property tax cap is an ugly solution

January 11th, 2011

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo advocates for a property tax cap in NY (Photo by Michael Nagle-Getty Images)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has made a 2% property-tax cap a centerpiece of his new administration.  The state’s local taxes are now 79 percent above the national average, making them the highest among the 50 states.  Residents and businesses alike agree something has to be done.  However, there remains great debate on whether or not a tax cap is the best solution.

At first blush, the cap would seem to address the most direct cause of the financial pain.  Taxes are high and continue to rise in excess of the rate of inflation.  Stop that.  But considered from the municipality’s point of view, this constrains revenue, but not spending.

There should be a relationship between revenue and spending, but for counties, towns, and school districts in New York many programs are mandated by the state or the federal government. Mandates include special education, which at more than $24,000 per student is far more expensive in New York than in most other states.  And lawmakers have added 257 additional requirements to federal disabilities laws, according to the Citizens Budget Commission.  Further, school and municipal retirement and health insurance programs are set up by the state, but paid for locally.

This means that much of the spending is not under the control of the governments whose revenue has just been capped.  Local communities cannot run in deficit, meaning that non-mandated spending must be cut or the state must start providing funding for the mandates it has issued.  If the state doesn’t step up, expect layoffs of teachers, firemen, and police.  Road and sidewalk maintenance will be curtailed.  Playgrounds, community centers, and other popular local services and facilities will suffer.

The bet is that the dysfunctional NY state legislature won’t allow the local communities to suffer and will approve state spending to cover mandates.  But this is the same legislature who must pass the property tax cap.  In essence, they would be approving a tax cap in an effort to force themselves to approve paying for mandates.  Wouldn’t a sane body just deal with the mandates rather than trying to hold itself hostage?

Complicating this matter is Cuomo’s proposal that a 60% majority of local voters could pass a resolution to exceed the cap.  The likely result being that relatively affluent communities would opt to maintain the schools and community programs in their area, while less economically able areas would have to suffer the loss of services.  So the legislative bet is really that Albany will step in to prevent the economic suffering in the poorer regions of the state.  Given Albany’s history, there will be long odds on that wager.

It may well be that the property tax cap is the only program Cuomo can get passed.  The legislature has ignored the mandate problem for decades, and there’s no reason to believe they will act without some sort of leverage.  This may be the best tool available.  But citizens should be aware that while it sounds like a tax cap is in their best interests, the real objective is to create local pain such that Albany can be spurred to action.  If they act, they will be rescuing you from themselves—a result they are completely capable of doing without making you suffer in the first place.

AZ shooter is a nutjob, but violent rhetoric still matters

January 9th, 2011

TakeBackThe20

Sarah Palin's infamous "crosshairs" map of Congressional targets for 2010

Mere minutes after news broke of the shooting of Rep. Giffords and others in Tuscon the media war was launched to assign blame.  The left blamed the right, and the right blamed the left.  As more and more facts come to light on suspected shooter 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the only clear picture emerging is that he was mentally unbalanced.

The shooter’s particular lunacy embodied elements of crazy right-wing, crazy left-wing, Libertarian, Communist, and Nazi fixations.  This was mixed with a heavy paranoia about mind control, and an obsession with literacy.  It would be difficult to ascribe Loughner’s behavior to his allegiance to any political movement or his influence by any particular pundit or politician.

Loughner was a disturbed and frightened man looking to blame someone for everything.  And that is maybe the whole point.  When Sarah Palin says to “reload” in an effort to take back the 20, or Sharon Angle suggests the need for “Second Amendment solutions” to take back the government, sane people don’t hear that as an explicit call for armed insurrection.  They recognize it as charged political rhetoric intended to engage and polarize an audience.  But if your mind is a little less balanced… if your predisposition is toward paranoid fear… if you are basically a walking bomb in search of a detonator, then such messages resonate somewhat differently than mere rhetoric.

The political right has a particular penchant for militant and violent political rhetoric.  Their opponents are often positioned as evil and bent on destruction of the country.  Labels of communists and fascists, political regimes the country has previously been at war against, are thrown about.  Guns are frequently brandished at political events.  Even terms such as “death panels” position those with different policy opinions as an existential threat.

As an exercise, try searching the web for the terms “right wing militia” and “left wing militia“.   Alternatively, try “right wing violence” and “left wing violence“, or choose whatever terms you may like.  In all the cases, note the discrepancy of article types and images returned.  It’s not that the left is less fervent or politically active, but the results suggest a significantly lower affinity on the left for militarism, guns, and violence.

We may never know exactly what set Loughner on the tragic path that led him to shoot Giffords and kill six others, including a federal judge and a 9-year old girl.  As Glenn Beck has reminded us before, these happenings are each the act of a “nutjob”.  Granted.  But it would be naive to assume that nutjobs are immune to the influence of violent rhetoric.  On the contrary, they are likely the most gullible, malleable, and primed to be incited to violent action.

Perhaps your words don’t make you criminally negligent… but they still matter.  Choose them wisely.

GOP slide to the right fractures and divides Dems

January 8th, 2011

Spectrum Team

Politics requires a full spectrum of ideas (Photo by lumaxart on Flickr)

Republicans repeatedly urge Democrats to meet them in the middle—a middle which keeps moving further and further to the right of an ideological center.  And Democrats, in an effort to show bipartisanship, have willfully obliged.  Norman Goldman wrote in the Huffington Post this week that Dems need to rebrand themselves.  They should stake out the true center and demand the GOP meet them there.  However, while this is a fine high-minded principle, it ignores a fundamental law of physics that Republicans are exploiting to their advantage.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

In the two-party system that defines American government, the true middle is simply the dividing point between the parties.  The Democrats cannot pull their party left and leave a void in the middle.  They can only pull left if the Republicans are malleable enough to slide left and fill the gap.  This is more like a tug of war where one side can move only if they can budge the other.

The GOP has made ideological purity a concerted goal, and has succeeded in pulling the Democrats to where they are spread across a wide ideological spectrum.  Now on the one hand, it might seem that conceding all that real estate to the left was a bad strategy.  However, the result has been the ability for the right to adopt an almost unified policy stance on almost every issue.  Meanwhile, the left, and its ever growing and unwieldy big tent, struggled to find a position they could all agree on.

The result being a focused Republican party up against fractured and divided Democrats.  At this point, the GOP is entrenched.  They will not be drawn over their lines.  The only way Democrats can redefine the center is if the GOP breaks ranks.  Something increasingly plausible as the Tea Party Coalition’s new strength in Congress is now threatening a suicide bomber approach by trying to hold the country hostage over raising the debt ceiling.  If they are able to detonate that bomb (not raise the ceiling), the economic impact would be devastating to everyone, regardless of ideology or party.  While many Republicans recognize and enjoy the increased power of party purity, far fewer are willing to die for the cause.

Yet for Democrats to exploit this opportunity means they would also have to be willing to die for the cause rather than move the line.  Recent history suggests this isn’t remotely true, and the GOP knows this all too well.  This is far more likely to result in yet another step to the right for the political center of the two parties.

Where does all this lead?  I’ll defer to this allegory that uses crayons to illustrate where we are headed.

Once upon a time there was a box of crayons, one for every color of the rainbow.  Green was widely known as the middle of the spectral set, with Red, Orange, and Yellow to one side and Blue, Indigo, and Violet to the other.  People recognized the value of the diversity of colors and accepted that to behold the world in all its glory all the colors played a role.  Sure, people had their favorites.  Some loved the bold hues of the reds, others the compassion of the blues, while many gravitated to the natural greens of the center.  There was balance and harmony.

But one day things began to change.  The Reds began by chiding the Greens, and eventually the Yellows as well, for not being Red enough.  Some, compelled by the pressure, began to change their hue.  They shifted red over time and melded with the Red crayon causing it to grow.  But this left a spectral void.  So the Greens and Blues began to divide and shift their own hues until eventually, the group that used to span from Violet to Blue- Green, now encompassed all the Green and the Yellow as well.  Each crayon was smaller, but the void was comfortably filled such that the world could retain its full color.

The Reds, still confident they represented half the spectrum, even if only by weight, decided the new middle must be somewhere in the neighborhood of light Orange.  This made even a nice shade of Aqua seem distant and radical.

Before long, the Reds became so emboldened by their uniformity and enormity they started advocating that the world exist only in shades of Red.  Their followers, even those whose world depended on tints of all types, began to paint only in Reds and eschew other colors as evil.  They mocked the other colors for failing to agree on a single shade.  They relished their monochromatic view of the world.

For awhile, the Reds seemed an unstoppable force.  Their unity, their single mindedness, their size made them formidable.  Over time, the sun, the skies, the grasses, the seas all became Red.  But red suns burn cooler, and red chlorophyll doesn’t photosynthesize as well.  The world cooled and the air became foul.  The vibrant spectrum of life dwindled until eventually the world was, as the Reds had envisioned, a uniform color.  But not red.  Rather, an amalgam of all colors… lifeless brown.

Tea Party flip-flops on infallibility of the Constitution

January 6th, 2011

TeaParty-Constitution

The Tea Party believes in an infallible unambiguous Constitution (Photo by Susan E Adams on Flickr)

At the behest of the incoming Congressional Tea Party coalition, legislators led by Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte read the entire Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning.  Except they didn’t.

It seems the group decided to omit any parts that have since been overturned by other parts.  These omissions include Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.  Also omitted were the original method of having Senators appointed by state legislatures and the vice-president being the second place finisher in the election.  And there’s no point in bringing up Prohibition either, since it just gets rescinded shortly thereafter.

It might be reasonable to argue that this streamlining was just an effort to make the process efficient.  However, the motivation for the reading in the first place was because the Tea Party Coalition believes there is some magic wisdom in the words written by our founding fathers.  Inasmuch as the bible is viewed as the infallible word of God, the Constitution is viewed as the infallible word of the creators of the USA.

Reading evidence aloud that the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Congress in 1787 were fallible human beings who did a pretty good job, but still made a couple of colossal blunders does not fit with the narrative of the demi-gods who graced us with our founding document.  Curiously, mostly the same guys who drafted the Articles of Confederation as our very first founding document.  But that didn’t work out too well.  Apparently, infallibility takes practice.

Meanwhile, other Tea Partiers are working fervently to get the court to reinterpret the 14th Amendment such that birthright citizenship would be eliminated.  Granted, the 14th Amendment wasn’t written by the founding fathers, but it’s 150 years old and the statement, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room for reinterpretation.

Still, there are reasonable arguments that we no longer live in the same times we did a century and a half ago, and maybe granting everyone citizenship by virtue of being born within the borders doesn’t make sense any more.  But the larger point is, the Tea Party is arguing on the one hand that the Constitution is infallible and unambiguous, and on the other that it needs to be changed or reinterpreted because times have changed.

Both these cases illuminate a pretty clear history.  The constitution has evolved as the country has evolved.  A dynamism still ongoing today.  The Tea Party admits as much in their actions—actions contradicted by their semi-religious rhetoric.

They can’t have it both ways.

TWC demands broadband customers subsidize TV business

January 5th, 2011

Time-Warner-logoTime Warner Cable announced that its rates in the Rochester area will increase between 6% and 10% on Jan. 15th.  The rate increases will happen across the board so the increased costs will be borne by digital phone and broadband subscribers in additions to cable television watchers.

Unfortunately, the price increases are not reflective of changes in TWC’s cost to deliver each of those respective services.  Cable TV profits are clearly down.  Subscribers rates are not continuing to increase year on year as in the past.  There’s debate if this is because people are watching more TV online or if the customers are belt tightening because of the economy.  Margins are being further eroded by TV content suppliers demanding higher rates from TWC, such as their most recent spat with Sinclair Broadcast Group.  Meanwhile, costs to deliver broadband service are falling and profits for that business are continuing to rise.  In addition, America ranks 28th in global speed of Internet connections while having comparatively more expensive ISP service.

The only reasonable explanation is that broadband customers are being forced to subsidize cable TV service.  For customers who subscribe to both this may be a financial wash, but it still hides the true cost of TV service.   And while there are other TV options in the market, there is nowhere else to go for true broadband ISP connections.  This is yet further reason why we need unbundled service options and more competition in this space.

TWC has an effective monopoly in Rochester on broadband service.  While their speed is paltry by international standards, it blazes with respect to other ISP options in the area.   It is completely unfair of TWC to now demand that the broadband customers it is holding hostage prop up its faltering cable TV profits.

Competition would solve this problem as would regulation.  At present we have neither, and broadband consumers are left at the mercy of TWC.  Ouch.

Does belief in end times shape political views?

January 3rd, 2011

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Americans who believe Jesus will return within 30 or 40 years would seem to have motivation to make different personal and political choices than those who aren’t sure if or when the world will end.  And those choices may not be in anyone’s best interest if the world doesn’t end on schedule.

This past summer, a Pew Research Center Study found that 41% of Americans expect Jesus Christ to return within four decades.  This was pretty much flat from a similar 1999 study that found 44% of Americans held such a belief.  While the specifics of what will happen when Christ returns are not well agreed upon across Christian groups, it’s fair to say there is agreement that secular institutions like governments and banks will cease to be even a little bit important once He arrives.  So for all intents and purposes, we can say that 4 in 10 people expect the world to end by 2040, give or take a few years.

If, as an individual, you were convinced you would inherit a fortune from your eccentric uncle before you reached retirement age, you would certainly have little motivation to invest in your 401k, open any IRAs, or save up for that beach villa in Florida.   You might even rack up big debts in your middle years, confident you’d have the means to pay those off down the road.

Similarly, if you are convinced the world will end before 2040, there’s little incentive to invest in America’s long term future.  Social Security will still be pretty solvent then.  We can patch the roads and bridges up to get another three decades out of them.  The planet won’t quite be out of oil yet, and the pollution probably won’t have made the Earth unlivable.  So why worry?  Jesus will return and set it all straight.  All that really matters is that your spiritual life is in order to assure you are risen up.

Of course, if the world doesn’t end when it’s supposed to, then we’re all in deep tapioca. The end times have been predicted repeatedly since 30AD, then reached a fever pitch of predictions with the advent of dispensationalism in the mid-19th century.  But so far, we’re still here.  To those of us remaining uncertain the end is neigh, it seems only prudent to plan for the future.

It might also be expected that some end time believers would hedge their bets for the sake of their children and grandchildren and invest in tomorrow anyway—just in case.  But even if that’s half the group, it still means 20% have no vested interest in the future of the country.  On the other hand, it would also be consistent for end time believers to simply check-out of politics altogether.  After all, why should they care one way or the other.

It’s not clear there is any uniform code of Christian behavior for the final decades.  People might conceivably rationalize all kinds of things.  But coming to terms with the end, whether you are looking forward to it or not, has to have profound implications for how you live your life.  That in turn has to influence how you vote and what political policies you would support or oppose.

It would be very educational if some end time believers would connect some of those dots and illuminate the path they are on for the rest of us.  The world might make a tad more sense if we understood how end time beliefs translated into secular world behavior.