Politics attempting to rewrite scientific findings

There's a move afoot in the politics of this country to oppose any science that doesn't agree with certain political standards.  Although not yet at the same level of abuse of power that caused Galileo to be convicted by the Roman Inquisition in the early 17th Century for stating his finding that the Earth orbits the Sun, this 21st Century American political attempt at mass mind-control through factual obfuscation is nonetheless dangerous.  If this cynical attempt to rewrite the validity of the scientific method by denying its reality is to win, then the country loses. 

Here are the profiles of two complicit misadventures that contribute to this pattern of denial. The first is  bureaucratic stonewalling and obstructionism on the part of national politicians; the second is an outlandish collaboration between monied interests and a state legislature in an attempt to use self-serving lawmaking to deny reality.

Misadventure #1 - Curb the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does good, scientifically-sound work; count me as a fan.  Its efforts helps us to have a healthy living environment by confronting the sources of a full spectrum of pollutants in the nation's air, water and land.  The EPA has been doing this for over forty years, ever since late 1970 when William Ruckelshaus was sworn in as the first EPA Administrator during the Administration of Richard Nixon.

                                  

President Nixon--a stalwart of the Republican Party--did good work, too, by supporting the creation of the EPA and encouraging its science-based activism in the causes of the nation's environmental health.  But that was then, and this is now, and Mr. Nixon's ideological descendants no longer seem eager to maintain his legacy.

Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) introduced and advocated a measure--Senate Joint Resolution 37--that would have prevented the EPA from carrying out its responsibilities to reduce mercury and other toxic air emissions from certain of the country's power plants.  Fortunately, that bill was defeated last week in a Senate vote.  However, the EPA is constantly under attack by Senator Inhofe and others of similar beliefs, so expect more of the same behavior until these politicians are convinced that the EPA's fan club counts the majority of Americans in its membership.

I wrote (sort of) to my Congressman on this subject, and received his written (sort of) reply.  My communication was enabled by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) which provided me with one of those web-based forms that made it easy to send a business-like letter to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California, representing my district) in which I stated my desire that this legislative attempt to restrict the EPA's authority and actions should be defeated.

Congressman Rohrabacher's reply was an email back to me whose substance was in the vein of "curb the EPA."  That was no surprise.  What was revealing, though--and this is no surprise, either--is that the heart of his justification for severely restricting the EPA is that "Local and state agencies are better situated to control pollution and maintain a clean environment."

That is an ideological statement that is beside the point and ignores--or at least minimizes--the science of the EPA's work.  Pollution is complicated.  The efforts needed to study and analyze it require specialized skill and tools; this is a complex, laborious and expensive undertaking.  Few, if any, local or state agencies are funded or equipped to do this on the scale that is needed.  Replicating the EPA's activities across 50 states and an unknown number of local jurisdictions would be a waste of money and would not yield results that can be applied in a strategic manner on a national scale.

Depending upon local and state agencies in this way would also be a political and legal nightmare.  Pollution flows without respect to local and state boundaries.  Pollution might be created in one local jurisdiction, but end up having its most dangerous results in an entirely different state.  Cities and states can make laws and take actions only within their own borders.  Any kind of environmental pollution that is created in a certain local jurisdiction can potentially cross legal boundaries and affect people living in other cities and even in other states.

Local and state agencies have their parts to play in environmental protection, but they need a robust EPA to lead the way.

The EPA provides a national strategy to build and maintain a clean and healthy national environment.  It deserves strong bipartisan support, just like it enjoyed when it was started in 1970.

Misadventure #2:  Legally deny scientific reality when it's bad for business

Perhaps by now you have already heard about the recent attempts by the North Carolina legislature to rewrite scientific methodology as it applies to projections of increased sea levels through the use of State statute.  This news has been in lots of places.  One that I have seen that is particularly informative is a Scientific American article; another one--more entertaining, perhaps not so informative--is The Colbert Report on June 4. 

The Los Angeles Times has a good article, too.

This seemed to be so far out that I browsed over to the North Carolina legislature's web site to see if the legislation was as described in the various news and commentary sources.  I used my very own eyes to read through the language of the bill, and, yes, it is as portrayed; maybe even worse.

This is a passage lifted directly out of House Bill 819 of the General Assembly of North Carolina, dated June 12 of this year (the latest one available):  "Historic rates of  sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."  (The emphasis is mine.)  The bill's versions and its legislative history are currently available on the North Carolina General Assembly's web site by clicking here.

To put this a little more plainly:  this statute would redefine the scientific method such that only historic trends can be used for predicting future rates of change, thereby ignoring any scientific evidence showing that the future could be different from the past.

This proposed law is the product of a locally-powerful and wealthy business group co-opting a pliable legislature.  The State of North Carolina directed that a scientific study be conducted to determine the potential effects on the state's coastlines of the likely increase in the level of the sea during the rest of the century.  When the report showed that much of the state's coastline will eventually become inundated because of an increasing rate of sea level rise, the local land developers teamed up with coastal county government representatives to form a lobbying organization called NC-20. 

NC-20 went to the legislature with the message that such a scientific projection as this would be bad for business, probably because it might interfere with plans to build and sell new houses, condos, resorts, shopping malls, and other such things within the potentially afflicted geography.  They also have mentioned that if this news gets out then it might be expensive for homeowners, too, what with insurance premiums going up, and maybe other higher expenses, too.  That's so considerate of them.

I almost forgot to mention that the North Carolina legislature is dominated by the Republican Party.

Similar, although not quite so egregious, actions have been underway in the States of Texas and Virginia.  The impetus for these actions comes again from GOP legislators.

Respect the scientific method

Here's a little graphic that says a lot:                            

                                                                              

It's inevitable that any government body or anything commissioned by legislative action will be inherently political.  Different people with different frames of reference will look at the same set of facts and might come up with entirely different conclusions.  That's natural.

What is unnatural, as well as potentially harmful and a waste of time and resources is to try to insert political interference into into meaningful, well-founded work that is apolitical.  The EPA is fair game as a political target in many ways, but not when somebody is targeting it by trying to misrepresent environmental issues that have already been scientifically-established.  Toxins and pollutants, whether they are sourced from power plants or from something else, have harmful effects that do not respect arbitrary boundaries established by humans and their laws, the knowledge of which is based in decades of authoritative research and analysis.  The same is true for climatological phenomena such as increasing rates of sea level rise.

These things are obvious.  If certain politicians and the ideologies that they embody are not able to understand this, then it has to make you wonder what else they don't understand.

Healthcare law -- would somebody help me understand what people want?

Perhaps the Supreme Court is working this one for dramatic effect -- June is rapidly drawing to a close, and there's no word yet on the Court's rulings on the ACA.  This reaches back to the cases brought to it in March on the healthcare law enacted in 2010.  According to a calender that shows on the Court's web site, there is some kind of scheduled session for next Monday the 25th of June, and then nothing else is shown after that.

Maybe the news will come on Monday, but it will have to come out sometime next week or there will be a whole lot of disappointed people.

Actually, no matter what the news out of the Supreme Court is on the healthcare law, it looks like most Americans will be disappointed with the results.  That's so if the results of a recent survey are to be believed.

Pew Research Center does a really good job of conducting surveys and reporting on public opinions.  A current survey, conducted in mid-June (June 7 - 17) as a preliminary to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law of 2010, seems to show that more people will be "unhappy" instead of "happy" with any potential ruling by the Supremes.

It makes my head spin trying to think this one through, so I'm just going to go with the flow now.

Take a look at this:
 

In all three Supreme Court outcomes, more people are unhappy than are happy.  In each case, a small portion says that they "don't know" how they will feel; that's a puzzler, too.

Now look at this:
 
It looks like an overwhelming majority of people implores the government to take some action to mitigate what they pay for healthcare, as well as to broaden its scope of availability in some way.  And yet this feeling coexists with a concern that our government has involved itself too much in the nation's healthcare.

Maybe those feelings can be reconciled somehow, but I'm struggling with it.

If anybody has this figured out, I'd love to hear about that figuring.

One thing seems certain:  The Supreme Court is not going to have the last word on this subject; the conversation is going to continue even after the ruling is known.

View of California from London obscured by fog

The Economist is a magazine--well, they call themselves a "newspaper"--that I respect and enjoy reading.  Sometimes, though, I read something from among their usually well-written articles and feel that the beat just isn't going on like it ought to.  Then I browse over to economist.com and write a comment on their story.  A recent article that they published on California is a case-in-point.  The title of the article is "California -- Not quite Greek, but still weak."   You probably get the drift of the article just from its title.

There's much value in their article, but even so it has significant shortcomings, perhaps caused by a murky view from their vantage point in London.  They seem to have a reporter stationed in Los Angeles, and you would think that could be an aid in accuracy, but perhaps that person--if originally from the cooler climes of Great Britain--has been disadvantaged by a bit of sunstroke.

The links in this posting will let you reach their web site where you can read the article as well as numerous other comments, if you so choose.  Here's a copy of my comment in its entirety:

"As a life-long Californian who has been a regular participant in our local political shenanigans for the last four decades, I feel qualified to recognize that your article on California is reasonably informative as well as mildly entertaining. In a similar manner, your very own Sir Francis Drake once set foot upon our fetching shores and then quickly removed himself to more agreeable adventures after apparently concluding, as The Economist has done, that the land held great promise if only the natives could be brought to heel.

"In fact, California is a monumentally successful giant. Though it has troubles, it is misleading to your readers to begin your story with a headline that implies infirmity. California has been, and continues to be, a prodigious producer of goods and services from such industries as agriculture, entertainment, finance, information technology, tourism and a variety of different types of manufacturing.

"And yet, even with all of these successes and strengths, the governing of the State is, as you have pointed out, not producing the same type of success. Governance needs improvement, but it is not likely to come about in the manner that you have suggested.

"A comprehensive and lasting solution to California's revenue and spending woes will require a recognition on the part of the State's voters that they cannot create and implement a solution, and so instead they must once again empower their elected representatives to accomplish this herculean task.

"The State's voters have occupied themselves with setting limits on taxation, while at the same time requiring more government services, for several decades now, and the evidence of their failure to balance revenues with spending is obvious. It has been the voter's actions--instigated, at times, by election advertising that is lavishly-funded by various special-interests--that have contributed to a mismatch between funding obligations and revenue generation. Also, voters' actions bear much of the responsibility for the creation of the current dysfunctional legislative environment.

"For example, revenue generation from the collection of taxes on real property is limited by a law passed by the State's voters in the late 1970s, called Proposition 13. The property tax on all real (not personal) property is 1% of that property's assessed valuation, and the assessment is allowed to increase by a maximum of 2% annually, until the property's ownership changes, at which time it is reassessed at the value of the current transaction. This applies to business and residential property equally. Since the ownership of business properties changes much less frequently than does the ownership of residential properties, the revenue collected for State and local government operations has withered to a far greater extent than had been the original understanding of the voters who enacted this law.

"In addition, this same law enshrined the legal requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the State legislative bodies as a requirement for the passage of taxation measures. Proposition 13 also required the same super-majority legislative vote for annual passage of the State's budget, but that was reversed by a simple majority popular vote in 2010, and now the State's Legislature and Senate are empowered to enact an annual budget on a simple majority vote, but are not allowed to pass corresponding revenue measures in the same way because taxation still requires a 2/3 majority vote of those bodies.

"California's voters have also imposed term limits on all State legislators. One unintended consequence of this attempt to ensure that it would be impossible to make a career out of being elected to office is that professional lobbyists have become the most legislatively-knowledgeable people involved in State government. Since knowledge creates power, the lobbyists are perhaps now the most powerful force involved in State government.

"To say, as you do, that California's politicians are "hated" probably overstates the feelings of the electorate. Though there are always some who hate, I believe that in this case a more accurate statement would be to say that our politicians are often viewed with mistrust, skepticism and disrespect. Some of those feelings are well-earned, but not all of them.

"The recent changes in the State's election system that you have described might contribute some improvements to governance over time. However, probably of greater importance is a recognition by the State's voters that they have contributed to the fiscal problems by creating a maze of conflicting boundaries within which California's legislative bodies are compelled to act. Once that recognition is achieved, we as voters can then stop being obstacles for good governance, and instead expect--as we once did--that our elected representatives are professional enough to produce good governance through their legislative actions."

Read this if you've heard enough about cans and roads

If punditry is to be believed, then the roads in Europe and America are littered with cans that have been kicked, and are being kicked some more.  What's not mentioned is that the political and governmental act that they call "kicking the can down the road" is (1) pretty typical behavior for almost anything that involves humans; (2) a natural, and even necessary, characteristic of a democratically-elected government; and (3) sometimes helpful.

Lots of chatter

All of this talk about can-kicking is the outgrowth of the need that the popular auditory and visual media has to generate chatter about the events of the day.  Kicking the can down the road has become the metaphor for governmental inability to deal with great gobs of sovereign debt that is currently on the books of the Eurozone countries and the United States (and a few others, too, but let's not make this any worse or more complicated than it has to be).

Today has probably seen a new record set in the number of times that talking heads--and disembodied talking voices--have evaluated the current political and economic landscape by wisely observing that another can--or maybe the same can--has been kicked down the road.

We would all be better-informed if this record is not superseded at some future time.

In the minds of these pundits, here is a list of current events that are examples of kicking all those cans:  yesterday's Greek elections; last week's recapitalization program for Spain's banks; California's new State general fund budget; U.S. Federal government inaction on the national debt; insufficient progress in addressing Italian sovereign debt.  I'm surprised that France hasn't been included--or maybe it has been and I missed it--since that country also had an election this past weekend.

We deserve something better

Don't misunderstand me; all of these things are important.  The issues of economic growth and fiscal responsibility deserve more definitive action on the part of the responsible governments than has been the case to date.  But the general public--that's you and me--deserves better analysis than the dismissive statement that "they're just kicking the can down the road again."

Here's why.

To begin with, kicking cans down the road is a natural human behavior.  It starts when we are children.  There's something in the psyche of the human child that compels the foot to be used to kick inanimate objects that are left lying in the road.  That's just the beginning of a life of kicking cans, balls, rocks, and what-have-you.  Taking aim, and then propelling the foot to a successful encounter with the object is immensely satisfying and entertaining.  Like everybody else, I've done it lots of times -- not so much in the last few years, perhaps, but many, many times over my lifetime.  Boy, girls, men, women; we all have done it and, chronological maturity notwithstanding, we continue to do it until we are physically and/or mentally unable to cause the necessary motor actions.

Kicking can be entertaining, but it can also remove a potential obstacle from the chosen path.  The repositioning of the obstacle might be just temporary, but creating that reprieve provides the person with some more time to figure out a more permanent solution, or maybe just anticipate another opportunity for entertainment.  Go ahead, kick the darn thing again!  Eventually, it becomes a recognized and official sporting event.

Democracy -- it's not always pretty

Secondly, the nature of democracy is to incubate an environment that fosters the behavior of debating, deliberating, dithering and dissembling on monumental issues.  Take a look at our own history here in America:  it took our representative republic the better part of a century to figure out that something as monstrous as human slavery was wrong, and then do something about it.  The debating on this subject consumed huge amounts of governmental energy for decades with little to show for it.  Ultimately, the issue was resolved only by the secession of that part of the country that had the most to gain from the institution of slavery.  That started the Civil War, slavery was ended, and we then saw the beginning of another century of political, governmental and social debate on civil rights.

Democracy is a very messy form of government.

But it's the government that we Americans have chosen.  So, too, the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, British, French and all the other Europeans.  We have all chosen the path of debate, deliberation, dithering, and--sometimes--dissembling.  This path is a road with lots of potholes.  Maybe some of those potholes should be filled, and that's why we periodically conduct elections.  Sometimes the elections have outcomes that cause the potholes to be filled; often, elections end up causing more potholes, but somehow over time we move along that road.

By the way, this is the same road that is filled up with all of those cans that have been repeatedly kicked.  It's the only road that we can take, because the other one is named "Autocracy Avenue."

Let's kick something else

Which brings us to that last point I mentioned at the beginning:  How can all this kicking of cans be helpful?  (Bet you thought I'd never get back here, didn't you?)  Most folks hear the phrase "kicking the can down the road" and think that amounts to nothing more than a delay of the inevitable.  Well, maybe so, but maybe not so, if the delay can be used productively by filling in some of those pesky potholes before you reach that can again.

I think that the metaphor is part of the problem.  It sets us up with preconceived notions of rigid limitations.  If we want our elected governments to actually accomplish something, then hemming them in with such unyielding limitations is self-defeating.  Frankly, by limiting elected representatives' choices of actions, it ultimately makes their jobs too easy, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?  Let's make them work harder to figure out something creative!  Something that actually has beneficial, long-term results.

You're probably pretty skeptical at this point.  Look, I realize that my best chance here to keep you with me is to dig up something from the world of sports.  This is my idea:  Let's replace the "kick the can" metaphor with a sports metaphor.  My choice is "punt the ball down the field."  That's something that goes on in American football. 

American readers know this; non-American readers might not, so I'll explain.  If your team is advancing the ball down the field but their forward motion is stopped, then it's sensible to regroup themselves and use their last remaining efforts before losing the ball to kick it as far down the field towards the goal as possible.  They punt.  They don't reach the goal, but it gives the team a chance to reposition itself and rework its strategy for another attempt at success.  Now they are forced to be creative and to execute well with whatever tools and skills they already have, but maybe with a new plan of attack.

Back to the real world now.

The talking heads and disembodied voices are probably going to continue talking about kicking cans.  They aren't going to pay attention to me because they don't know about me, they don't know these ideas that I am writing here, and even if they did they would not believe that I have the political, governmental or economic qualifications to say these things.  And it's true:  I don't have any such qualifications.

Most of them don't have any real qualifications, either.  Some do; most do not.  And to make matters worse, not only are they adding nothing of value by talking about kicking cans, they are also encouraging a conversation of sound bites, rather than of substantive analysis.

Pay them no heed, and laugh when they talk about kicking cans on the road, because it's all just for entertainment.

The real work is done elsewhere and at other times, and it's very messy work.

Immigration and assimilation

President Obama's recent Executive Order creating an official legal status for certain currently illegal immigrants is a step in the right direction.  It's a restart of something that America has traditionally been very good at doing, but which has been put largely on hold for the last several years -- the assimilation of foreign immigrants into the American system and society.

This was predictable

Predictably, there has been a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the conservative side of the political spectrum as a response to the President's action. 

Yes, I will agree that the calculus of votes for the November election probably had something to do with this.  No, I will not agree that such a consideration invalidates the value of this action.

This. . .not so much

Unpredictably, there was also a fairly reasonable and accurate comment from Mitt Romney in his capacity as the GOP's presidential candidate.  To paraphrase him, he said that an executive order does not necessarily create a permanent environment.  That's true, although it's also true to say that an environment created by a Presidential executive order is not necessarily temporary, either.

It's a good beginning

This is a step in the right direction, and more steps are needed.  A permanent solution to the current problem of having about ten million undocumented illegal immigrants living in the United States is needed.

Some people are of the opinion that mass deportation is the solution.  Well, that's a solution, but not the best solution.  It's impractical in terms of the resources that would be needed to accomplish it, and it would be hugely counterproductive for the future of the country.  Likewise for any solution that contemplates the creation of a hostile employment and living environment for these people.

Here's what's needed

What's needed is a good solution that is humane, respectful of the country's history and laws, and economically productive.

Why is this needed?

Because immigration is and always has been a vital part of the way that the country has grown and developed.  Immigration has brought with it abundant skills, energy and ideas.  It has always brought problems, too, starting with the first English settlers at Jamestown in 1607 and continuing right up to today.

Let's not forget that the ability to immigrate to America has for many people meant a better life with freedoms and opportunities that might not have been available to them in other parts of the world.  We're all familiar with the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and the poem by Emma Lazarus that is inscribed near the statue (". . .Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . ."), but  we do not easily remember that the poem names the statue as "Mother of Exiles."


Now that is one powerful name.

When you think about it, it's pretty remarkable to realize that for over four hundred years the country has grown and become great in large part by accepting and dealing with the problems caused by a vital component of that greatness.

Assimilation of immigrants = American greatness

America is able to assimilate newcomers.  It hasn't always been easy--in fact, usually it has been hard--and assimilation has occurred in fits and starts.  However, it has always happened.

But it cannot happen if the reality of the immigrants is denied.  Our current approach to undocumented illegal immigrants amounts to denying the reality that most of these people actually live among us.  As a result, the process of assimilation is put into stasis.

Assimilation of immigrants is what has created today's America.  The country would be much different, poorer and weaker if it had not assimilated the Irish, the Scots, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Mandinka, the Temne, the Portuguese, the Egyptians, the Hungarians, the Croatians, the Mexicans, the Filipinos, and numerous other waves of immigrants from Africa, Europe, Asia, Latin America and all other parts of the world.

Ironically, the only people currently living in the United States who have not been fully-assimilated into what we now think of as "the American way" are those whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of this land, namely, the Native Americans.  All of the rest of us owe our existence in America to immigration.

History is the proof for this case

Not much else needs to be said on this to build an iron-clad case for documenting the undocumented and continuing their assimilation into American society.  Not much else is needed because over four centuries of American history has already proven the point. 

Documentation, acceptance and assimilation means that people can live in an honorable and secure fashion, and can maximize their contributions to American society through their culture, their skills, their work, their consumption, and--yes, we had to get to this point--through their tax payments.

This is a two-way street; no doubt about it.  Respect must flow in all directions, laws must be properly enforced and enacted as necessary, and those who are new will end up changing themselves more than will those of us who are already a part of the mainstream.

Anything less than full acceptance and full assimilation means that we are all just cheating ourselves.

Like I said at the beginning -- this Executive Order is a good start, but it's only a start.

How to run an election -- #1

American elections can spawn bad behavior.  I suppose elections anywhere can do the same, but my focus is on elections in the USA, because that's my country.

The bad behavior is mostly in our campaigning.  I don't want to contribute any bad behavior.  Whatever I contribute should be well-behaved.  So, these are some rules that I have set for myself.  These are my rules for how I will behave during the campaign, right up to election day.  This affects my actions as a part of the electorate and as an advocate for my candidates.  They apply to me as I observe, evaluate and write about the positions of the candidates and the parties, and they will apply to my conduct in supporting any candidate or political party.

Since these rules are good enough for me, I think they ought to be good enough for everybody else, too, including the candidates, the parties, and the entire electorate.  I don't think that's too much to ask, but you be the judge for yourself as you read the rules.

Rule #1 -- don't question the other candidate's patriotism

I've been watching American elections since 1960--well, yes, I was mighty young then, and barely self-aware, but still have a dim recollection of the televised Kennedy-Nixon debates--and in all that time I have never seen an unpatriotic candidate for any national, state or local election.  Just because somebody is running for elected office--U.S. President, governor, senator, dog-catcher, or what-ever--and has positions that don't agree with my ideas doesn't mean that I am entitled to questions said candidate's patriotism.

By extension, this rule also limits the use of labels.  Labels are usually a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy; as soon as you call somebody a "liberal," you find out that that person also has some "conservative" beliefs, and vice versa. Brand affiliations--such a Democrat, Republican, American Independent, Green, and so on--are OK, since they are usually self-inflicted.  It's easy--and somewhat descriptive--to politically-label somebody as "left wing," "right wing," "conservative," "liberal," or the much-coveted but ultimately wishy-washy "middle-of-the-road."  So, I imagine I will occasionally descend to the use of such labels, and accept that fact that others will, too.

But I draw the line at labels that are used for a disparaging effect.  For clarity's sake, I'll be blunt here:  if Barack Obama is to be called a "socialist," then Mitt Romney will be called a "fascist."  The truth of the matter is that Obama is not a socialist, and Romney is not a fascist.

Like I said, don't question somebody's patriotism, whether done directly or indirectly.

Stay tuned for Rule #2.