Silencing the Critics

One of the issues currently in vogue is global warming, or as many like to put it, "climate change". It's one of those topics that if talked about for too long can get incredibly boring. People on both sides of the issue cite scientists who support their views and deem the other side "junk science".

My position on the matter is probably a pretty moderate one, and since it is not truly what this post is about I'll go ahead and put it right up front: it seems clear that the Earth is warming in recent years; the issue is determining why. I am highly skeptical that we can know for certain that our activities are warming the Earth. There are great scientists who think so, but there are great scientists who doubt it. Either way, it seems that there is at least a chance that we are the cause, and we should therefore start to take steps to curb what we are putting into the air. Yet, since there is strong disagreement over whether we are causing it, I would reject motions to radically re-arrange our society (e.g. tax SUVs or fine GM or move to all electric cars).

That is neither here nor there. What is important, however, is that we keep and open mind to those who have an opposing view to whichever we hold. As I said, there are great scientists on each side, and therefore their research should be brought to light, allowing citizens and government alike to make informed decisions.

Sadly, some disagree.

They think their position is the One and Only. They are firmly convinced that their theory is correct. Once any of us reaches a conclusion we think is supported by research, sound scholarship, and rational/reasonable/sound logic, we should stand up for our position. However, standing up for your position is quite different from banning others from having a voice in the debate.

That is exactly what some in the media wish to do. Enter Dr. Heidi Cullen.Dr. Cullen is the climate specialist for the Weather Channel (yes, it is questionable if the whether channel counts as "media"). Yesterday she said this on her blog:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms...If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

Suppose one of Dr. Cullen's colleagues read a peer-reviewed, solid piece of science that cast doubts upon the idea that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Suppose, further, that said meteorologist finds the scholarship convincing. What would be Dr. Cullen's reaction? Would she openly debate such a person? Would she present contrary evidence and weigh the merits of both positions? I hope she would. But her statement yesterday, simply paraphrased, says, "if you don't support my position on global warming you should be de-certified by the professional organization that oversees our work". In essence, you do not deserve to be recognized as a 'real' meteorologist.

When we shut the door to debate we are always shutting the door on any chance that we are wrong. When we do this it is arrogance at best, and insecurity at worst--arrogance in that we hold our view so superior as to not even be worthy of scrutiny, and insecurity in that we do not wish to face any possibility that our views do not hold up to the light. The latter is worse because it devalues Truth for our own peace of mind and tacitly accepts living by a lie, for the lie is one we like.

If one is truly convinced that the evidence is so overwhelming that the other side should be marginalized, let the power of the facts do the marginalizing. Let people see both sides and see that one is clearly in the right. May the force of the argument--not the force of political decisions--carry the day.

More Like Them

You've heard of Nancy Pelosi, but have you heard of her youngest daughter, Alexandra?

In 2000 a quirky little documentary aired on HBO called Journeys with George. It chronicled the primary and general election runs of then Governor Bush. If you have not seen in, I highly recommend it. It paints the President as a very friendly, caring, funny, and likable person. The most amazing thing about the film is not that it was shot all by home video camera, not the great behind-the-scenes happenings of the mainstream media, not the rare (unpolished) access to the candidate, but rather the name on the cover: Alexandra Pelosi.I have seen uncut footage of Alexandra, and it is quite clear that she shares her mother's political leanings. Whereas I have little respect for Madame Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for Alexandra. While the Speaker was bashing the President, lowering the level of political discourse, Alexandra was, while no less liberal, raising it.

Now Alexandra has a new film coming out. It's called "Friends of God" and takes a trip through the evangelical community. According to the NY Times yesterday she finds a Christian Wrestling Federation, a Biblical Mini-Golf Course, and a drive-through church. Despite these inclusions (which, imho, make Christians look just plain silly), Pelosi tried to make this film present the best possible side of evangelicals.

Something Alexandra said when interviewed about her movie stuck out, so much so that one of my friends called it "one of the best quotes" he has read in a while:

'I believe in the culture war,' she said. 'And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I’ll take their side,' meaning the Christian conservatives. 'Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I’ll take Jesus.'

Wow. Pelosi the Younger is well aware of the reality that many evangelicals will dismiss her movie out of hand because they so vociferously disagree with the Speaker, her mother; yet she is capable of praise of those same people.

Alexandra also wrote a piece about the relationship between the President and her mother. It is well worth reading.

Over the past two days, reading about Alexandra Pelosi, dialoguing with danny (see yesterday's post), talking with others about sending more troops into Iraq, recent conversations on race, etc., I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time about the tone of our conversations and our ability to let reason override emotion, to set aside the Freakshow, and to be civil toward those with whom we disagree.

Maybe we can beat the Freakshow. People like Alexandra and danny give me hope. May there be more like them.

Death by Emotion

The new Democratic Congress was sworn in yesterday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the push of what she has deemed the "100 Hour Plan". The plan calls for things like an increase in the miniumum wage up to $7.25/hr, direct government negotiation of prescription drug prices, and what they call "ethics reform".

No doubt Speaker Pelosi is well aware that her actions will reflect upon the field of Democratic candidates for president in 2008. She has certainly consulted with the rest of the leaders of her party in formulating her agenda. They have settled on these three issues in large part because they resonate quite easily with the America public.

Because of the structure of the House of Representatives, Pelosi can force through these measures without any committee involvement, any amendments, or any open debate. In effect, she is using this time for political gain rather than for creating good government policy. The things she and her fellow Democrats might or might not be good. That is beyond my point. For now I'm asking this: why not have an open debate on these issues, then allow for committees to talk to experts, make amendments, and come up with the best possible solutions?

Simple: Joe American has an emotional attachment to these issues. Better to ram-rod through a poorly crafted bill or a bill that doesn't really address the problem than to be deliberate, thoughful, careful, and bipartisan.

Again, I am not trying to argue that what the Democrats are inherently bad or wrong. Certainly I have issues with they way they are going about some of these changes, and I flatly disagree with them on others. But that is beside the point, which is this: we need to get beyond emotion and ask the hard questions. Is raising the minimum wage good or bad for the poor? Will the job losses suffered by minorities and those who work for small businesses offset the gains in quality of life for those receiving a raise? Will small businesses be unfairly hurt by such a price floor for labor? These questions and more would be good for our country to have. Maybe in the end the answers to these questions would still lead to a $7.25 minimum wage. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Sadly, those with an agenda have worked hard to get knee-jerk reactions about such issues. They have succeeded at getting Americans to be repulsed by anyone who opposses a raise in the miniumum wage, or anyone who sees long-term dangers in government setting price floors for prescription drugs.

The people who push such an agenda use our emotions against us. They play our feelings up to the point that they suffocate our ability to reason. Intelligent discussion dies a slow death at the hands of emotionalism.

This was made all too clear to me when the wife of one of my best friends called him "cold-hearted" for voting against our state's proposed minimum wage increase. That is the perception. If you don't want to raise the minimum wage it must be because you are mean/hateful/heartless/insensitive/insertnegativeadjectivehere. By-and-large, Americans at present seem to distain the idea of thoroughly examining measure they "know in their heart" are good.

Want to raise the minimum wage? Okay, let's have an open, honest, intelligent discussion about it. Want to have "ethics reform". Good. So do I. Let's have the open, well-reasoned discussion about the best way to do it.

Let knee-jerk reactions die at the hands of intellectually honest discussion. Don't try to ram through what's popular so you can claim an emotional victory.