Archive for the ‘Bias’ Category

Dear President Lincoln

Friday, February 27th, 2015

In honor of President’s Day, here’s an open letter to two of the Presidents generally regarded as the two best Presidents in history.

The challenge we face in this partisan political environment is to resist the temptation to rewrite history to serve a particular political position.

Some examples of that are David Baron and Wall Builders. He claims that the founding fathers intended to create a Christian Nation.

And Andrew Napolitano’s ridiculous claims about Lincoln and slavery.

Dear President Lincoln, thank you for your vision, courage, and sacrifice. You knew that slavery had to be abolished for the country to move forward. You asserted the federal government’s right to impose its will on those states that refused to comply. You had the courage to issue an executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation because Congress and states refused to act.

A lot of people were angry with your willingness to go to war over this issue. Some formed a new political movement called the Copperheads. They called you an emperor destroying American values with despotic and arbitrary unconstitutional actions. They held large rallies calling for you and your Republican party’s impeachment. The Copperheads ran candidates opposing your policies and won majorities in state legislatures including Illinois.

Important news outlets supported the Copperheads. The La Crosse Democrat called you a “Fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism” and a “worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero … The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer … And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”

Thank you President Washington for religious freedom. You held good citizens to the moral standard of one country rather than one religion. Honoring liberty and supporting country requires respect for ALL religious beliefs and the right for all to practice in peace. “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” 1790 Letter from President Washington to a Rhode Island Hebrew congregation. Your letter embracing a group of citizens who didn’t share your views of Jesus Christ was a wonderful example of your expectations.

The real tragedy today are those citizens who attempt to rewrite history to fit a particular political/religious narrative rather than honor it in all of its messy complexity.

As far as God’s politics, Lincoln said, “I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right, but it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.


Saturday, January 17th, 2015

The recent Charlie Hebdo attack has again raised the prospect of global radical Islamic terrorism.

Unfortunately, the reaction in the US continues to be myopic and uninformed.

Here’s just a sample.

Network national security analyst KT McFarland blamed the shooting at Charlie Hebdo headquarters on France’s “really strict gun control” and “politically correct” policies that treat everyone equally. Echoing disdain for policies that treat everyone equally, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck added that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatens the city’s security by demoralizing the New York Police Department and painting the NYPD with “a racist brush” when officers act on that principle.

Strategic analyst Ralph Peters cited the shooting to attack Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), invoking the recently released Senate Intelligence report on CIA interrogation techniques. Peters proclaimed that “these terrorists who did this monstrous attack in Paris are the people Senator Feinstein doesn’t even want to waterboard,” adding that the Obama administration is too “soft on radical Islam.” editor-at-large Ben Shapiro used the tragedy to invoke tired Benghazi smears of Hillary Clinton and President Obama, asking when they would “recommend we arrest the rest of the Charlie Hebbdo staff for inciting Islamic violence?”

Outnumbered hosts agreed that Americans “are being hunted” by terrorists, and network host Kennedy added that “I think the best thing that Americans can do is arm themselves.”

Ingraham blamed the tragic attack in Paris on France’s immigration policy, saying “the principle of multiculturalism and open borders… is pure insanity, a suicide pact.”

While wrong-headed partisan responses from conservative pundits is not surprising, these also continue a false narrative about why all of this is occurring.

Jihadist attacks to not occur because of there are too few guns in citizens’ hands. They did not occur because of political correctness. They do not occur because we are too soft or because there is too much free speech. Jihadists are not hunting Americans. They don’t attack because of our immigration policy or the immigration policies of any other western country.

Jihadist attacks occur because disaffected young men (mostly) are radicalized by an idea and inspired to sacrifice themselves and others to support that idea.

Jihadists have no monopoly on disaffected young men. There is a long list of young men who carry out murderous suicidal attacks in this country who are motivated by any number of other twisted ideas that have nothing to do with Islam. It is the same quirk in the maturation process of young men that armies through the ages have been able to take advantage of. They need a cause that they can commit themselves to.

If it isn’t something uniquely sinister in young Muslim men, what is it that continues to cause attacks from radicalized Islamic fundamentalists on western targets?

It’s the Caliphate, stupid

The Caliphate is an Islamic state led by a person who combines both political and religious leadership. This is not all that different from revisionist history preached by fundamentalists who claim the founding fathers intended to create a Christian nation.

This exploration of the Caliphate as the root of jihadism is based on some very thoughtful analysis published in a column by Canadian Columnist Gwynne Dyer.

The first question to ask is why is a caliphate at the root of this terrorist activity?

The answer is simple.

There is a civil war going on in Islam. Since Islam is a religion without borders, this war also has no borders. The vast majority of the casualties in this war are Muslim, but what gets reported in the west is when this war occasionally overflows into western countries.

The great Muslim civil war is about the political, social and cultural modernization of the Muslim world. Should the Muslim world continue down much the same track that other major global cultures have followed, or should those changes be stopped and indeed reversed? The Islamists take the latter position.

It has become a war because most Muslims across the world find modernization very attractive. Those who oppose democracy, equality, consumerism, etc. are a minority even in their own countries. They understand that the only way to preserve the way of life they feel is required of all devout Muslims, is to create a conservative Caliphate. This Caliphate can impose the harsh policies of Sharia law on the majority of the population who would not follow the fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran given a choice.

They use the west to recruit followers by inventing a narrative that says that modernization and western culture itself is a plot to undermine Islam. The main strategy to prove their point are attacks INTENDED to trigger a military response. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq established the jihadi movement as a legitimate political force. Decades earlier the same tactics prompted the same response from Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

To the degree that these attacks also trigger mistreatment of Muslim minorities in other countries or acts that even the Muslim mainstream considers offensive (burning Qurans and public ridicule of Mohammed), the fundamentalists win.

So it should be no surprise that when ISIS declared that their intention was to create a Caliphate in northern Syria and Iraq, fundamentalist Muslim fighters from around the world poured into that region to help.

The second question is also obvious. What does the west do?

The answer to this question is more difficult.

The west cannot stop being an engine of cultural change. That is in our nature. So it will always be viewed by a fundamentalist minority as a threat.

The west also cannot stand idle while terrorists continue to attack. These are issues of security and law that demand a response.

But the west can’t continue to treat this ideology as a movement of rational people. This is similar to the challenges that the US faced with Japanese kamikaze attacks. How do you defend yourself against someone who is not only willing, but eager to die for their cause?

The solution lies in our own culture and our own values.

Our greatest asset in the United States in this conflict of ideas is the fact that our success as a nation is testimony to the power of freedom, liberty, and religious pluralism. If we compromise religious liberty in the name of defeating Wahhabis, we lose. We become who the Islamist said we were.

The best way to prove that secular society is preferable to an Islamist one is to prove that all human beings including Muslims prefer to live in these types of societies, over those ruled by Sharia and clerics, out of their own free will and not by coercion.

It may seem counter intuitive, but the best way to defeat this idea is to welcome Muslims who are willing to live by our laws into this country.

Just as the Wahhabists and Salafists use our freedom of speech to spread their message, we have to spread our message of freedom and liberty by demonstrating that western societies are able to walk our talk.

We also have to shut off the flow of money from Saudi Arabia that supports the spread of this fundamentalist ideology. We are finally in the position to do so because of the collapse of the OPEC cartel.

“We can’t kill our way to victory,” Adm. Michael Mullen famously said of the Afghan war.

We can’t spy our way to victory.

We can’t torture our way to victory either.

We can’t close the borders and expect to be safe.

We can’t silence the voices of those who disagree with us and assume that disagreement will end.

Ideas can’t be killed. But they can be defeated by a better idea. The current jihadi movement is built on a couple of lies. People live better lives under Sharia law. Western culture was created to defeat Islam.

We defeat jihadism by demonstrating that peace loving people live better lives when they get to decide for themselves how they would like to live.

We defeat jihadism by demonstrating that law abiding Muslims are more welcomed and free to practice their religion in the United States than any other place is the world.

The Human Condition, Faith, Facts, and Truth

Friday, December 26th, 2014

First a brief review of the difference between fact and truth.

A fact is something that can’t be logically disputed or rejected. Within the base ten system, two plus two will always equal four. That’s a fact.

Truth on the other hand has within it the quality of judgment. That’s because pointing out what is “true” immediately also identifies what is “false”.

Truth is something that must be discovered or created. Here’s an example. The observable facts are that the path that light from a distant object takes can be curved by the presence of another large object (the sun). This observable fact supports Einstein’s general theory of relativity. We accept that theory as a true description of how the universe works because it explains all of the observable facts that we can assemble.

The search for meaning (truth) has always been part of the human condition. In that search, we assemble observations. Some of those observations are facts (mathematics). Some are not (religion).

The challenge of course is that all humans are also susceptible to accept those observations that agree with our point of view as fact and dispute those truths that call our favorite “facts” in question. Scholars from Johnathan Haidt to Aristotle have wrestled with this question of whether there is an absolute truth that can and should be universally shared.

Science has moved the furthest in the direction of separating fact from belief and true from false. The way that they do that is through a version of crowd sourcing called the scientific method.

When someone discovers something that they propose as a fact, they share it with everyone else in their scientific community. If others can duplicate that observation, it is affirmed as a fact. Others in the community can challenge that fact, but they have to produce their own observations that can be duplicated that demonstrate the the original observation was inaccurate.

Only after accepted facts are established, do members of that community attempt to discover or create theories which explain why those facts occur. Those theories get tested and re-tested as new facts are discovered. Eventually some subset of theories emerge as accepted truth because a majority of the scientific community agree that these theories accurately explain all of the applicable observed facts.

That doesn’t mean that these truths are absolute. As our knowledge expands, there is always the possibility that new facts will be discovered that force a re-evaluation of previous theories. This process of enhancement is what improves theories. Occasionally, observations require a radical change to theories. But usually the change is more gradual. That gradual change is currently underway in improving the climate models that we have. But one of the accepted truths in climate science is that the atmosphere is warming at a rate that exceeds what can be explained by natural phenomena.

What makes all of this work is that this scientific method is BIASED toward crowd sourced peer review that is eager to discover and prove new facts. The claim by some that the scientific method suppresses facts in an effort to prevent contrary theories from emerging is self serving FUD. Those who voice that opinion are attempting to discredit the process because they oppose the results of the process – not because they have any proof that the results of the process are flawed. If anything, exactly the opposite is true. The scientific community gives fringe opinions too much respect. This provides those who practice “science for hire” undeserved legitimacy. One example of this junk science were the tobacco-funded researchers who for years tried to disprove the fact that tobacco caused cancer. The fossil fuel industry invests in similar research today in an attempt to muddy the water regarding the real causes and likely results of climate change.

The challenge of trying to live a fact-based life, however, is that it often fails to satisfy our basic need for meaning. We have a gut feel that there is a God, even though it can’t be proven. We have a gut feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with dependency, but we can’t explain why. We have a gut feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with discrimination, but we can’t explain why. There are some human activities that we feel are revolting or depraved even when it only involves willing adults.

We long for a connection to a higher power who can help us resolve these conflicts, provide us direction, and give us purpose.

This is a belief-based life.

Those who live belief-based lives are sometimes vulnerable to intolerance, bias, discrimination, and even fanaticism in response to those who don’t share their beliefs.

The problem is that those who claim to live fact-based lives are no less vulnerable to the same temptations.

So where does this leave us?

Confirmation bias clouds our vision, confuses belief with fact, and causes us to take positions on an emotional basis and then attempt to defend those positions with junk science or conspiracy theories. In other words, facts no longer have an objective quality. Instead every fact gets evaluated against the filter of how it affects our view of the truth. Truth constructed from beliefs can’t be questioned even when there are no facts to support it. Climate change is a perfect example of this phenomena.

While no one has a monopoly on facts or the truth, the further we drift away from respect for facts and the certitude of science, the more difficult it becomes for us to find the common ground that we need to allow our Democracy to work.

Aristotle summed it up best.

The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of all things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed.

The universal truth may be that we are all human and in that shared humanity are the seeds for transcendence and destruction. This holiday is the celebration of our shared hope that we can overcome our weaknesses and build a better future where we all can live in peace.

Riding the Ted Cruz Crazy Train

Friday, November 28th, 2014

I heard Ted Cruz on NPR the other evening talking about Net Neutrality. He had a “wonderland” approach to the issue that made my head spin. I thought it would be fun to review his positions on a number of other issues.

First, we should state for the record that Ted Cruz is running for President in 2016. At the point that he formally announces his intensions, he will have been in the Senate for 4 years. If you doubt that claim, he’s what one of his advisors says.

“At this point it’s 90/10 he’s in,” one Cruz adviser said. “And honestly, 90 is lowballing it.”

Cruz has quickly displaced Paul Ryan as the hero of the Tea Party movement. In part that was because Ryan disagreed with Cruz about the government shutdown strategy. In part, it is because Ryan has deliberately distanced himself from the Tea Party.

So let’s go down through the list.

Net Neutrality
By way of full disclosure, Ted Cruz gets significant funding from those who would stand to gain if Net Neutrality rules are not passed.

The basic issue is not legality. The government does have the legal right to regulate the companies who provide Internet service under a law originally passed to regulate telephone service. Companies that provide internet service can charge a premium for people who want faster connections TO the Internet. Just like phone service, however, once you are connected, what comes through that connection is the same whether the “call” is from Amazon or your significant other.

Cable companies oppose regulation. They want an Internet where they can price content delivery in the same way that they price user connections. Big content companies like NetFlix are willing to pay a premium to get their content delivered faster than everyone else. The specific issue, however, is that since everything is delivered at the same speed now, the only way to create a new faster speed, is to slow down those who don’t pay.

Cruz, however, chooses to describe this as a government takeover of the Internet and wraps himself in the sheep’s clothing of champion of the little guy.

I promise the regulations over and over and over again will favor the big guys that have armies of lobbyists in there and will end up putting more burdens on the startups and the entrepreneurs.

The problem with this claim is that the “little guys” want this law. They see government as their defender from the folks who support Cruz.

Julie Samuels is the director of Engine Advocacy which represents about 500 startups and small companies, including Etsy and Kickstarter. She says the biggest Internet companies can afford to pay more for faster access to their customers.

SAMUELS: They can afford to pay Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner more, even if it sucks for them. But let me tell who can’t afford that. That’s the small companies and the startups and the ones who are just trying to get out there and reach consumers and reach users.

Politifact labels Cruz’s claim of a government takeover as false.

Senator Cruz claimed a mandate from the 2014 elections to repeal Obamacare.

the American people overwhelmingly said we don’t want Obamacare. It’s a disaster. It’s hurting the American people.

The facts, however, don’t line up with his claims. Only 37% of those eligible to vote, actually voted. That electorate was more heavily Republican than national elections. But even with that built-in bias, exit polls showed that only 49% thought the law “went too far” – hardly “overwhelming” opposition.

Politifact labled this claim “False”.

How about the claim that the Affordable Care Act is “hurting” the American people?

“Virtually every person across this country has seen premiums going up and up and up” due to Obamacare. – Ted Cruz

The rate of premium increases has gone down nationally from over 10% to 8%.

Politifact labeled Cruz’s claim “False”

Here are a few other facts which contradict Cruz’s claim that the ACA has been a “disaster”.

  • The uninsured rate has gone down from 18% to 13%
  • Medicare trustees have said that the ACA extended Medicare’s fiscal solvency four years.
  • The death spiral that Cruz predicted failed to materialize because healthy people did sign up
  • The ACA has had a positive impact on the deficit as predicted by the CBO
  • Immigration
    Cruz has also made his immigration stance clear.

    This was a referendum on amnesty…. we don’t want amnesty. And I’m sorry to say the president is behaving in an unprecedented way. There is not in recent times any parallel for a president repudiated by the voters standing up and essentially telling the voters go jump in a lake, he’s going to force his powers.

    In those same exit polls in an election already biased in a Republican direction, 57% supported a path to a legal status for illegal immigrants. Only 39% supported deportation. Cruz was overstating his support here too.

    He also said, Barack Obama “is the first president we’ve ever had who thinks he can choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.”

    Politifact found this Cruz claim false too.

    As far as his claim that the President was telling voters to “jump in the lake”, he was doing exactly the opposite. They supported his action.

    Eminent Domain and Keystone
    Cruz is a big supporter of the Keystone pipeline and also a big defender of personal property rights. By way of disclosure, he also has received over $2M in campaign financing from the fossil fuel industry.

    My view of eminent domain is that it should be limited with regard to the constitution and the fifth amendment of the constitution that provides that it can only be used for public use.


    I am disturbed by eminent domain abuse, because I think private property rights are fundamental to who we are as Americans… I don’t we should be helping out private interests,

    Eminent domain is the core issue with the Keystone Pipeline that is currently in the Nebraska Supreme Court.

    The landowner’s legal challenge cites the use of eminent domain as a major point in their opposition to the project. Previously the elected Public Service Commission had the authority to give utilities or other ‘common carriers’ like railroads to use eminent domain to construct projects that benefited the community.

    So how did Cruz react to the question of eminent domain being used to promote the private interests of TransCanada Corp?

    The problem with the Keystone Pipeline isn’t the issue of Eminent Domain, the problem is the Obama administration with the stroke of a pen shut that project down.

    I could go on, but I think you are getting the picture.

    There is a pattern here.

    Ted Cruz claims to be a champion of “common sense principles – small business, small towns” yet his actions on things like the Affordable Care Act, Net Neutrality, Immigration, and eminent domain directly contradict those principles.

    And it’s not just those issues. It is every issue on which he engages. If you doubt that claim, here’s a list of every issue covered by Politifact and their ruling on those issues.

    Over his last two years in the senate, he has been completely honest just once. Two thirds of the time that he opens his mouth on public issues, he is telling lies.

      True (3%)(1)
      Mostly True (13%)(5)
      Half True (18%)(7)
      Mostly False (23%)(9)
      False (33%)(13)
      Pants on Fire (10%)(4)

    Just by means of comparison for those who think I’m picking on conservatives, here’s the same list for President Obama. He’s clearly told some lies too, but over a much longer time in office with much higher visibility, he has flipped the script on Cruz. Obama has told the truth three times out of four.

    I would not hold this up for a standard either. That’s not the point. The point is that conservatives like Ted Cruz and those that support him vilify President Obama as the worst president ever BECAUSE in part of the lies that he has told. The reality, at least from an objective point of view, is that those who support Ted Cruz fail to apply the same standard of accountability to him that they use for the President. That’s the reason the Ted Cruz can get away with it.

      True (21%)(115)
      Mostly True (25%)(132)
      Half True (27%)(147)
      Mostly False (12%)(63)
      False (13%)(70)
      Pants on Fire (2%)(9)

    Much like the Tea Party he claims to represent, Ted Cruz is a walking contradiction. He thrives on the “straw man” argument where he constructs his own version of reality and then knocks it down with his “common sense” approach. The reality is that he is not the principled person he claims. He is instead just another opportunist taking advantage of dog whistle political issues. He acquires power from the support of those whose bias have left them vulnerable to exploitation. He brokers that power for money from the corporations who are really setting Senator Cruz’s agenda.

    The primary agenda of these interests is to render government incapable of filling its role as a balance to the expansion of corporate power. In that role, Ted Cruz has been a superstar.

    Crazy Train – 2014

    Tuesday, October 28th, 2014

    We are witnessing the inevitable consequences of making science optional.

    Exhibit 1 – Ebola

    Ebola is a virus that was originally identified in 1976. Fruit bats may be the carrier. They aren’t affected.

    Humans are.

    There have been approximately 10 outbreaks of the disease, all in Africa, over the last 40 years.

    The most recent outbreak has been by far the most serious.

    Like many other diseases caused by a virus, there is no cure.

    This virus, however, is relatively difficult to transmit. You have to actually consume some body fluid from an infected person during the period of time that they are exhibiting symptoms in order to contract the virus. Because the symptoms are so debilitating, those most likely to contract the disease are those providing care to those who already have the disease.

    The common flu, which infects and kills WAY more people every year than Ebola, mutates regularly and is airborne. You only have to breathe the same air that was recently sneezed into by a flu victim in order to catch their flu.

    Ebola, while exhibiting dreadful symptoms, is relatively easy to contain. Just wash your hands.

    The reason that it spreads in Africa is because living conditions are primitive, cities are crowded, hygiene is difficult to maintain, there is little health care infrastructure, a shortage of clean water, and burial customs involve families touching the corpse.

    The reason it won’t spread in any more advanced country is because people DO wash their hands, there is clean water, there are fully staffed hospitals, governments are able to isolate the infected, quarantine those that have been exposed, and people generally refrain from touching a corpse if they suspect it may be diseased.

    Unfortunately conservative Republicans cannot refrain from dragging this “corpse” through the public square with a big sign that says “be afraid of foreigners”.

    Exhibit 2 – Beheadings

    The Islamic State has figured out how to manipulate the west again.

    They kill a handful of people in a gruesome barbaric way and the US fires up the engine of war again and sends it chugging back into the Middle East to the tune of $22M a day.

    Over 33K people die on our roads every year. Many of these deaths are just as gruesome. The only difference is that they are not broadcast on YouTube and they are mostly accidents, not homicides.

    There are almost as many gun deaths in this country every year too. Many of these deaths are just as gruesome as the ISIL videos. Few of the gun deaths are posted to YouTube, but most of them are intentional homicides.

    The bottom line is that you are 33K times more likely to get killed by a car or a gun than you are to be beheaded by a terrorist. Yet we aren’t spending $22M a day to make our roads safer. We certainly aren’t spending $22M a day to reduce gun violence.

    The reason we are terrified of ISIL is the same reason we are terrified of Ebola.

    Fox News tells us we should be afraid of them because there is a Democrat in the White House and an election in two months.

    It is boogyman politics at its worst.

    You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark than you have contracting Ebola or being beheaded by a jihadist.

    This is exactly the reaction ISIL was hoping for because their lifeblood is new recruits. The best way to get recruits is to pick a fight with the west. And we are happy to accommodate because Republicans have a chance to take over the Senate.

    David Brooks calls it contagious hysteria.

    He blames it on our polarized segmented society. People are choosing to live near those who share their political beliefs. They only talk with those who share their beliefs. They only listen to news sources that echo their beliefs.

    People who feel alienated from the leadership class distrust the institutions of those leaders, whether it is political, cultural, or scientific. As a result we see a dramatic increase in parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids because they fear autism. We see junk science and conspiracy theories carry as much weight as sound peer-reviewed academic research. We see a general erosion in the confidence in government regardless of who is in charge, and the ability for the democratic process to effect any substantive change.

    Add to this already toxic mix, a partisan broadcast media pursuing a business model that feeds on crisis, dissension, and demonization. Fox and MSNBC are the modern day Savonarola leading the mob in pursuit of those responsible for the plague.

    The true weakness is not in our institutions. It is in us.

    Root Cause – Ferguson Riots

    Thursday, August 28th, 2014

    The death in Ferguson of an unarmed teenager and subsequent unrest raise a couple of basic questions.

    The first is obvious. There is no question that a police officer shot an unarmed citizen multiple times. The teenager died from his wounds. What happened in the moments leading up to gunshots being fired are still in dispute. We have a legal process that assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty. A grand jury has been empowered to determine whether or not the officer should face charges. Until that grand jury brings back a verdict, there is not much more useful to comment on the incident.

    The other equally obvious question is why did the residents of Ferguson react as they did?

    The sad reality is that police are killing people at the rate of about 400 a year for the past five years according to the FBI. These are “justified” homicides. There aren’t any FBI statistics on unjustified homicides where police offices are put on trial and found guilty of a homicide.

    An independent report assembled from media, obits, and facebook pages provides a little more detail.

    ferguson graphic 1

    There are additional statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that also have bearing.

    44% of the contact that an African American has with the police is for a traffic stop. But African Americans are three times as likely as white drivers and two times as likely as Hispanic drivers to be searched during a traffic stop. Statistics also show that this higher rate of searches doesn’t result in the discovery of any more drugs or guns than the any other traffic stop.

    These same statistics (compiled by show that African Americans are three times as likely to be threatened by force during their encounters with police and twice as likely to actually have force used against them. A majority of those who reported force being used against them felt it was excessive. But the interesting final statistic is that when you break down all of those people who feel that they were subject to force, African Americans were the least likely of all of the racial divisions to regard that force as excessive.

    ferguson graphic 2

    But this is happening in communities across the country. Ferguson is no different than any of the larger cities profiled in these statistics. Why is it that only Ferguson burst into flames?

    Here are some more statistics from Politfact.

    Ferguson is 67% African American. Four decades ago Ferguson was 99% white.

    The Ferguson police department is 94% white. The police chief is white. The mayor is white and the local prosecuting attorney is white. The judges are white. The school board is mostly white.

    Even this isn’t that unusual in communities that have experienced rapid demographic changes. It takes a while for the new majority to assert itself politically.

    Ferguson is special in a way not obvious from all of these statistics.

    They are a classic speed trap complete with a predatory court system. But as the demographic in Ferguson changed, so did the targets for traffic enforcement. Instead of targeting out of towners, Ferguson targets its own population of poor African Americans. Fines and court fees are the second largest source of Ferguson’s revenue. According to a white paper by Arch City Defenders, in 2013 Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants for unpaid fines in 12,018 cases. That is the equivalent of 3 warrants per Ferguson household.

    How can that happen?

    Because the court system is rigged to benefit those who can afford a lawyer and punish those who can’t. According to the report, “the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defendant arriving even slightly late receiving an additional charge for failure to appear.”

    NPR goes on to report that those who can’t afford to pay the thousands of dollars in fines and fees associated with a single violation, are put on payment plans by the courts with interest rates sometimes as high as 12%. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that people can’t be jailed for failing to pay their bills, Ferguson regularly issues arrest warrants for those who miss payments. It also requires those on payment plans to appear in court monthly. This inevitably results in missed court dates which create additional fines and arrest warrants. When people get arrested, they lose their jobs, which makes it all that much more difficult for them to pay their fines.

    A community group has been organizing arrest warrant amnesties for these non-violent offenders. Earlier this month 3000 people in Ferguson, 15% of the total population of Ferguson, lined up to participate in the program.

    The result is a deeply polarized and isolated community. Because so many residents of Ferguson have open arrest warrants, they fear getting stopped, resent the police, and feel imprisoned in their own homes.

    “It’s a risk to go to the store,” says Ahmed. “Outside of that community, it’s a risk to go to any educational institution, to get a job, to go for job interviews. Especially since most of the jobs are maybe 5 to 10 miles away. So some of them just don’t even try anymore.”

    The African American population in Ferguson not only distrust the police, but also the courts. They feel the system is deliberately rigged against them, and statistics suggest that it is.

    It’s against this backdrop that two teenage African American boys were stopped by a white Ferguson police officer for walking in the street. They all knew what was going to happen next. The officer was going to check to see if the boys had any warrants. He would arrest them if they did, and issue them a jaywalking ticket if they didn’t. That ticket would cost each of them money that they didn’t have. They were going to end up in jail either way. These kids just kept walking. It may have been foolish, as young men often are, but they likely felt that they didn’t have many other choices. They challenged the police officer’s authority because they regarded it as illegitimate. According to one account, they also asked if he was going to shoot them for jaywalking – an obvious reference to Ferguson’s “speed trap” justice system. The officer responded by backing up his vehicle and confronting these two boys. That confrontation resulted in one of them being shot to death.

    That death caused an outpouring of frustration, violence, and crime from a community that felt that it had no other options. Unfortunately, it is what humans around the world do when they feel their governments give them no other options.

    That’s the root cause.

    We believe in Science

    Saturday, August 16th, 2014

    “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.” Elizabeth Warren

    This was part of a longer list of progressive values that Elizabeth Warren listed in a July speech to Netroots Nation.

    I agree with her list, but I thought it interesting to dig into why progressives believe in science. It might also be interesting to compare those beliefs with the implied opposing conservative view. Since this is just my opinion, I’ll change this perspective from “we” to “I”.

    Why I believe in Science?

    Science is inherently about the search for truth. While any human endeavor is vulnerable to bias, the scientific community celebrates revolutionary thought rather than suppressing it.

    These claims are the result of the modern scientific method.

    That method employs what we would now call crowd sourcing as a protection against bias.

    Science, at least the hard sciences, depends on mathematics. Mathematics has no bias.

    There are two types of scientists in the world – theoretical and experimental. Theoretical scientists rely on mathematics to create new models to explain or predict experimental results. Experimental scientists test these theories through experiments.

    All scientists publish the results of their work in peer reviewed journals. The scientific community engages through these journals to verify the math, confirm experimental results, and comment on new theories.

    If the math behind the theories survives review by independent groups, the theories gain credibility.

    If the theories accurately predict experiment results, the theories gain credibility.

    If the experimental results can be duplicated by independent groups, they gain credibility.

    As theories gain support in the scientific community, more scientists engage in exploring the boundaries of those theories. As the experimental evidence accumulates and the boundaries of the theories emerge, those theories become accepted by a majority of the scientific community.

    That’s where we are with climate science. The boundaries are still evolving, but the basic assumption that the current changes in climate that we are seeing are caused by human activity is accepted by 98% of those qualified to have an opinion.

    I believe in science because I believe in the purity of mathematics and reliability of the peer-reviewed crowd sourced model.

    Why do liberals believe in science?

    The answer here is more nuanced.

    The facts are that we are all fundamentally emotional decision makers. That’s what moral intuitionism is all about. The difference is that when it comes down to a choice, it is easier for liberals to alter their views in the face of contradicting facts than it is for conservatives.

    We’ve also talked about how liberals and conservatives operate emotionally from two different sets of moral foundations. Liberals focus on fairness and care. Conservatives share those foundations but are also concerned about liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

    Science is inherently fair. Liberals view science as a tool to determine how to best address the problems of those who need care and protection.

    That isn’t to say that liberals don’t also have their biases and areas where these emotional moral foundation-based decisions cause them to be science deniers. Vaccinations, though not exclusively a liberal issue, is a good example.
    Finally, studies also show that liberals are fundamentally accepting of change while conservatives fear it. If science has any bias, it is toward change. Scientists are motivated toward answering the unanswered questions. That inevitably leads to upending accepted theories and replacing them with new ones.

    Why are conservatives science deniers?

    Conservatives weren’t always science deniers. The coalitions created by Nixon and Reagan, aligned conservatives with Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians ARE science deniers. The result has been the politicization of science because it calls into question beliefs that spring from a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Big Tobacco developed the political tools to cast doubt on mainstream science. It was the only way they could continue to sell a product that killed people. A long line of conservative political operatives have refined those tools to create wedge issues, build conservative coalitions, and attack liberalism.


    Mathematics is one of the few things in our existence that is pure, absolute, and rational. That is not an indictment of emotion or belief. Science, because it is based on mathematics, simply stands in stark contrast to belief.

    Those who attempt to base their lives on belief, for example, have no choice but to deny science. Science isn’t specifically attacking their beliefs. Science is simply creating theories to explain experimental evidence that is being discovered. Any damage that any particular belief suffers is generally unintended.

    Here’s just a simple thought experiment to illustrate the point. If at some point in the future, science discovers that there WAS evidence of some “creative event” that could only be explained by intervention from a higher power, liberals would have no problem accepting that theory. Liberals would find themselves more closely aligned with conservative Christian beliefs on this particular topic. Atheists would then find themselves in the curious position of denying science in order to defend their position.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t work the other way and that’s the basic challenge of this age.

    For liberals, science largely guides belief.

    For conservatives, belief trumps science.

    Immigration Hysteria

    Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014

    Over the past two years, large numbers of unaccompanied mostly teenage boys from Central America entered the US illegally and immediately turned themselves over to authorities. The trip cost their families up to $10,000.


    Poverty, violence, persecution, and exploitation in their native countries.

    85% have family in the United States.

    A 2008 Bush child sex-trafficking law requires a court hearing before non-border country children can be deported. The flood of non-border country children overwhelmed available judicial resources. HHS ran out of room to house children waiting for backlogged hearings. Immigration Control couldn’t legally deport them. So most of the children were placed with their relatives.

    The good news is that the flow of children has slowed. Our government is successfully defeating the rumor in Central America that children receive amnesty.

    Rumors aren’t as easily defeated here.

    The Obama administration proposed a tardy but reasonable plan. Dramatically increase holding and processing capacity. Help Central American countries improve living conditions and political stability. Reform the 2008 child-trafficking law as part of a larger immigration reform package.

    Republicans refused to fund any part of the plan.

    Instead radical extremists whipped up xenophobic fears of child-terrorists to gain political advantage. The same Republicans who want to sue the President for lax law enforcement demand that he ignore the 2008 child-trafficking law. Texas governor Rick Perry sent 1000 National Guard troops to the border. Local officials complained. Since the troops can’t deport these kids without a hearing, they can only greet them, take them into custody, and scare away the tourists.

    Those opposed to immigration reform will likely survive yet another election cycle by continuing to portray illegal immigration as an enforcement problem. Clearly these children are not criminals. They and their parents are risking their lives and savings for a better future.

    It’s past time that we have a rational immigration policy that promotes our economic growth and regulates the flow of legal guest workers. We are a nation built on the promise of a better future for those willing to work hard, abide by our laws, pay taxes, shop in our stores, learn our language, and cherish our kids.

    Immigration reform will happen when supporters punish the bigoted and fearful opponents of reform both in the pocket book and at the polls.

    What Republicans view as an advantage in 2014 may set them up for another crushing defeat in 2016.

    Magic Thinking and Personal Interest

    Thursday, June 19th, 2014

    We’ve talked about confirmation bias in the past and how we are all susceptible. Confirmation bias is when we accept those things that support our particular view of the world and reject those things which call that view into question. A version of this is Moral Intuition. That’s when we respond to a particular issue emotionally and then use our rational brain to create arguments supporting what we have already decided must be true because it aligns with our moral foundations.

    These biases lead to Magic Thinking. That is when we invent or accept views completely unsupported by science or fact because this particular view is consistent with our world view.

    Here’s an example of Magic Thinking.

    God makes political choices
    This is a simple one to work through. God, as described in the Bible, is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect. He created us in His image and likeness which means in His eyes we are perfect too. He supplies our every need. So why would this God involve Himself in politics at all? It is akin to praying that God influence the outcome of a sporting event. Why would He bother? It is our responsibility to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”. Then Paul goes on to say, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Events unfold to further God’s will, not to satisfy our own particular personal plan. That will is His desire for us to increase in grace and in our understanding of Him. So the unfolding of God’s plan is generally the path that does the most good and blesses everyone. There are no losers in God’s plan. Winning is strictly a human concept. It is Magic Thinking to expect a prayer for victory to be answered. A much more effective prayer is one that humbly seeks direction and alignment with the plan that is already in place for us.

    Magic Thinking is dangerous for our democracy because it transforms important issues from facts to belief. Beliefs are highly emotional subjects. So any attempt to debate them is divisive. That’s because beliefs by their nature are personal. So when you question a belief, you are also calling into question the intelligence and honesty of the person holding that belief.

    Some who seek to manipulate the public in order to advance their own agendas put a lot of effort into transforming political positions into beliefs.

    Here are some other examples.

    Climate Change
    From a scientific perspective, there is wide agreement that the climate is changing and that the change is PRIMARILY caused by human activity. That doesn’t mean that all scientists agree on everything. There are certainly a small number of climate scientists who have dissenting views. It also doesn’t mean that the scientific models are perfect. They aren’t because our planet is a complex system. But those models continue to improve as climate scientists better understand how our planet is responding to the increased heat being retained by our atmosphere.

    Magic Thinking claims that climate change is some sort of liberal conspiracy. The politics of personal interest is the best way to disprove that. Self interest in the scientific community is strongly biased toward disproving accepted theories. That’s how scientists make a name for themselves in their peer community. The scientific method REWARDS the person who is able to demonstrate that a popular theory is flawed. That reward is shared with those who can duplicate the experiments which support the new theory. In other words, a dissenting view supported by good research is always welcome in the scientific community.

    There is also no proof that scientists who disagree with the generally accepted theories about climate change suffer financially. In fact, it is much the opposite. Those small number of dissenters from the majority view are richly rewarded for their positions by the powerful interests who oppose actions restricting the use of fossil fuels.

    The politics of personal interest also provide a simple explanation for conservative opposition to any government actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The majority of the money financing conservative politicians who deny climate change comes from organizations linked to the Koch Brothers. Their wealth is based on fossil fuels. Their personal interests are opposed to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.

    They have successfully deployed the same techniques originally developed by the Tobacco Industry to create doubt and confuse science and belief. If anything, it is testimony to the ethics of the scientific community that most climatologists have resisted the temptations of participating in the lucrative practice of junk science.

    Free Markets
    The Magic Thinking here is that free markets can regulate themselves. So any failure for free markets to operate successfully is attributed to too much government intervention rather than companies that have become too big to fail.

    The reality is that while it is certainly possible for government to overreach, there is no evidence that free markets can effectively operate without regulation.

    The politics of personal interest are a reliable measure of where this argument came from too. Who stands to benefit the most from a deregulation? Those entities that had been previously regulated, their management, and their stock holders. Who back the conservative politicians who promoted the agenda of deregulation? The same group.

    One need look no further than China for examples of how industries behave in economies where there are no regulations. The environment is polluted. Workplaces kill workers. Products kill customers.

    The Magic Thinking is on the part of individuals who have been convinced by these larger monied interests that deregulation benefits them. Just ask the people in Charleston, West Virginia where “business friendly” state regulations allowed a toxic chemical storage facility to be built upstream from their drinking water intake pipes. Magic Thinking in this case is the Libertarian view that the marketplace will punish bad corporate behavior. The facts are that at least in our version of capitalism, short term profits always trump long term unfunded liabilities (externalities).

    What happens instead is that the offending company profits from their bad behavior. Those profits flow to company management and shareholders. When the externalities finally catch up with the company, the real costs of production are revealed. The cost of the damage done to either the environment, the workers, or the customers far outweighs the assets of the company. The company declares bankruptcy and taxpayers are often left holding the bill. Lawyers may make a little money attempting to recover some costs from those who profited, but most of those profits are long gone and will never be recovered.

    Just like climate change, this country is facing an undeniable demographic reality. Our population is aging. If we fail to embrace immigration, we will suffer the same bleak economic outlook that Japan has been struggling with the past decade. Combine that with the major demographic shifts in the electorate that were the foundation for Obama’s two Presidential victories and Republicans are facing a stark choice. Either embrace immigration reform or die as a relevant national party.

    The Magic Thinking is that conservative Republicans can continue to be a force in the House because of gerrymandering and the lower voter turnouts during off year elections. As long as they can retain that majority, they don’t need the White House or the Senate. They can do this by suppressing the vote, preventing immigrants from becoming citizens, playing wedge politics with their base, and outspending the opposition.

    The reality is that conservatives are simply going to run out angry white voters. When they do, it will be hell to pay for the tactics that they employed to hold onto the power that they had.

    The facts are the no one can say when life begins. We can recognize when something is living, but there is no agreement when something starts living.

    The rest of the facts are that Roe V. Wade did not decide when life begins. It also had nothing to do with personhood. It was decided based on the rights of the mother. Her rights take precedence until the point in time that the fetus can survive independently. There is NOTHING that the current right to life movement can do to change that perspective short of a constitutional amendment.

    Magic Thinking, however, suggests that the Justices make a bad decision. They simply didn’t have the facts that we have today. If we just get some different justices on the bench, the decision will get reversed. It’s not going to happen.

    The politics of self interest call into immediate question why this issue continues to fester for decades after this decision was made. The people who benefit from this continued controversy are the advocacy groups (for both sides) and the politicians who are able to raise money by aligning themselves with one group or the other. It is not unlike divorce lawyers to make their money asserting the rights of their client, when they know full well that judges are loath to give one parent sole custody of the children, support an inequitable property split, limit child support, or these days provide alimony. If both parties in a divorce were told what the likely settlement would be, they would start to work out the details on their own rather than invest money in lawyers attempting to “win”. The same is true here. No one will win. It will instead be a trench war that will only stop when the next generation refuses to continue to fund special interest groups.

    The Poor
    Poverty is a complicated subject. The facts are that programs like Social Security and Medicaid have dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly. We already dug into the economic costs of poverty and the benefits to reducing it.

    The Magic Thinking, however, is that poverty is the fault of the poor. They must have made a bad decision somewhere in their lives for them to end up in the position that they now find themselves. As a result, any attempt to help them escape poverty does nothing to resolve the more fundamental character weakness that got them in this condition to begin with.

    Ayn Rand has written the “Bible” for this particular form of Magic Thinking. The challenge is that those who advocate this gospel of “personal responsibility” and “greed is good” are also dealing in belief rather than fact.

    Magic Thinking masks the politics of personal interest. Those special interests are well versed in the tactics required to transform political points of view into beliefs. Once a political position becomes part of an individuals belief system, they are no longer open to a fact based discussion. Those who embrace these beliefs will only accept the facts that support their beliefs. They will reject the facts that call those beliefs into question. They will defend their positions using the stock arguments of Moral Intuitionism. Those include media bias, conspiracy theories, flawed polling, and junk science.

    The result is an increasingly polarized electorate, gridlocked government, and crumbling economic and physical infrastructure. The only times that we are able to make any changes are during the first two years of any new administration when the majority party can actually pass parts of their agenda by imposing their will on the minority.

    This is no way to run a country.

    When Ideology Confronts Personal Reality

    Friday, January 17th, 2014

    Increasing Healthcare Costs

    I was getting my hair cut the other day. The guy doing the work owns the salon. He was complaining that his bill for healthcare insurance almost doubled from last year. He purchases his insurance through a well-respected local insurance broker. He has conservative verging on libertarian political views, so his immediate reaction was to blame the Affordable Care Act in general and President Obama in particular.

    He was also upset at what he felt was poor service form his broker. They met in November and the broker couldn’t provide any detailed information about what it would cost for him and his wife to renew their policy. The next thing he knew, he received a bill in the mail in late December that he had to pay immediately if he wanted to continue his coverage.

    I asked him some questions about the nature of his previous coverage. From his description, the silver plans might work just fine for him. I asked if he had gone to to check out other options. He was surprised that you could do that sort of comparison shopping without creating an account. I assured him that he could and that he could also probably cancel his existing plan if he found something better. We agreed to check back in a couple of weeks.

    Just out of curiosity, I checked the site too. I found that the MOST expensive plan listed there from his current insurance company was $200 less a month than the bill that he received. I found silver plans from other companies could REDUCE what he paid LAST YEAR by as much as $300/month.

    It will be interesting to see what he thinks about the Obamacare the next time I see him and who he feels is to blame now for the sticker shock he experienced in December.

    Long Term Unemployment Insurance

    As we’ve been discussing in previous posts, Republicans are opposed to extending long term unemployment benefits because they feel that those benefits reduce the incentive of the unemployed to find a job. They believe that those who are unemployed CHOSE to collect their benefits rather than look for another job. They argue that eliminating those benefits will be just the encouragement that the unemployed need to get back to work.

    Republicans have been under a lot of pressure from Democrats who don’t share their beliefs and feel that cutting off benefits is both cruel and bad economic policy. Republicans said they would consider passing an extension if the Senate could find a way to pay for it. Senate Democrats did find a way to pay for it, but Republicans didn’t like it. So now I guess the Republicans are saying that they would consider passing an extension if the Democrats could find a way to pay for it that caused the Democrats some pain. The result is another impasse with more people every week finding themselves without any benefits. Not surprisingly, some of those people are Republicans.

    Here are a couple of quotes.

    The standoff infuriates people such as Lita Ness, who lost her job as a civilian contractor at Peterson Air Force Base in August 2012 and just received her final check from the unemployment office.

    “I’m registered as a Republican, but if they continue to use this not extending our (aid) I’m probably changing to Democrat,” Ness, 58, said as she took a break from a computer training class at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. “People in our district who vote `No’ on this, I’m not going to support them.”


    Others feel that after having contributed to society, they are now being abandoned by the government. “I paid my taxes. I’ve helped people my whole life,” said Barbara Greene, 59, who lost her job as a medical secretary in a hospital last year and expects her jobless benefits to end in March, “and now they’re just throwing me to the side.”

    The spokesman for Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn who represents that district said, “It’s $6 billion, doesn’t do anything to create jobs. House Republicans remain focused on creating jobs and improving the economy.” It is easy for him to say this because he HAS a job. His constituents who are losing their benefits don’t share his belief that money spent on unemployment benefits is wasted on the unemployed.

    The unemployed know this claim isn’t true. So do economists. The data that I quoted in an earlier post shows that unemployment insurance actually DOES create jobs. That’s because the benefits are spent immediately on goods and services. That spending flows into the hands of grocers, landlords, gas station owners, and other retailers. Every dollar of unemployment insurance generates $1.55 dollars of benefit to the local economy where that dollar is spent. No other private or government program is as efficient.

    Rep Lamborn may still be re-elected to represent Colorado Springs in November, but fewer people are going to vote for him because they are beginning to realize that his ideology (smaller government and lower taxes) is not delivering the prosperity for middle class folks that he told them it would.

    Climate Change

    Three interesting studies came out recently with regard to climate change.

    In the first, researchers found that opposition to the concept of climate change varied based on the weather. The hotter it was, the more support there was for the concept of human driven climate change. The colder it was, the more opposition to the concept. This has to do with the discovery that when it is hot, our memory reminds us of all of the other times we’ve experienced heat. Same thing when it’s cold.

    What climate scientists predict, however, is that climate change will drive more extreme weather. Here in the upper Midwest that means MORE precipitation particularly in the winter and particularly at night.

    But clearly that didn’t stop climate change deniers like Donald Trump who proved the studies point by tweeting, “We are experiencing the coldest weather in more than two decades-most people never remember anything like this. GLOBAL WARMING anyone?”

    The reality, however, is that climate change is threatening Donald Trump’s home in NYC, his Casino’s in Altantic City, and his golf courses in Florida.

    A second study documents the dramatic rise of sea levels on the east coast. They rose eight inches over the past 130 years. They are projected to rise another eight inches in the next 35 years. By 2100 that eight inches will become 36-39 inches.

    Hurricane Sandy had a peak storm surge of 14 feet and caused $65B in damage. As the sea levels rise, less powerful hurricanes will cause similar damage more frequently.

    Rising sea levels have already inundated barrier islands which protect the mainland from storm damage. An additional three feet of sea level change will eliminate most of the barrier islands on the east coast including Hatteras.

    We are already seeing the financial consequences of this creeping disaster. Those with property in the expanding flood zone can’t get 30 year mortgages. Flood insurance has already going up dramatically and in some areas is no longer available from private sources. The federal flood insurance program is $24B in the red. Some Republicans, in an interesting turnabout, are demanding that the government DO MORE to protect commercial and residential interests in their districts.

    The reaction in states like NC is to simply deny these changes. In 2012, the state legislature passed a bill banning state agencies from reporting sea-level data. Two weeks after that bill passed, a study from the US Geological survey documented that sea levels along the coast line from Cape Hatteras to Boston were rising at four times the global rate. You may have guessed by now that since 1980, NC leads the world in disappearing shoreline.

    Same thing is going on in Virginia where the legislature budgeted money to study the problem, but only after all references to sea-level rise and climate change had been removed. In towns like Norfolk — where neighborhoods are already flooding repeatedly even in the absence of storms, and where some homes have become unsaleable — people are starting to pay attention.

    “In the last couple or three years, there’s really been a change,” said William A. Stiles Jr., head of Wetlands Watch, a Norfolk environmental group. “What you get now is people saying, ‘I’m tired of driving through salt water on my way to work, and I need some solutions.’ ”

    In the third study, an Iowa state poll of farmers added a question last year about whether or not farmers believed that climate change was real and human caused. Clearly this is a group that is politically conservative, deeply religious, and highly dependent on weather patterns for their living. Last year 67.7% answered yes. This year that jumped to 74.3%


    We are finally seeing what happens when political positions arrived at through emotional decisions based on moral choices confronts undeniable reality.

    Obamacare DOES save people money regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian. The only difference is that it is difficult for conservatives and libertarians to accept that fact.

    The unemployed AND the economy benefit from assistance. During times of economic downturn when job seekers outnumber jobs, unemployment benefits do not increase the unemployment rate. Putting money into the hands of the unemployed actually REDUCES the unemployment rate. Unemployment benefits help everyone regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian. The difference is that it becomes increasing difficult for conservatives to claim that the long term unemployed have only themselves to blame, when they themselves join the expanding ranks of the long term unemployed.

    Increasing sea levels is a fact. The sea doesn’t care if you are a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian. The people who do care are those who finance and insure property. Their actions speak volumes about whether or not climate change is real. Property values in the affected zones are dropping. Banks are unwilling to make new long term loans. Insurance companies are raising rates, or canceling policies. Conservative evangelical Iowa farmers are including climate change predictions in their agricultural and livestock planning. Conservatives and libertarians are having to come to grips with the reality that ideology cannot hold back the tide or make it rain no matter how hard you try.