"I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'." – Ronald Reagan
"Get the habit of analysis - analysis will in time enable synthesis to become your habit of mind."
- Frank Lloyd Wright
The first issue with declaring the waste cited in the report as the “Republican War on Science” can be resolved with a closer look at what exactly we (as taxpayers) were funding. The shrimp treadmill study cost $500,000 for example; and as ABC News says, “its not entirely clear what the study hoped to establish”. The ABC News article went on to say, “The foundation spent $1.5 million to create a robot that can fold laundry. But before you try to buy one to save some time, consider that it takes the robot 25 minutes to fold a single towel. The list goes on. Lots of people love to use Farmville on Facebook, but lots of people probably don't love the government's spending $300,000 in taxpayer money to study whether it helps build personal relationships.” Now obviously adding up $3 billion in useless and wasteful studies still is less than what we borrow to finance the government’s operations (we borrow around $4 billion a day). So eliminating those grants would allow us to only borrow $1 billion tomorrow to keep the government operating, and not contribute anything else to our national financial crisis. This isn’t the first time the NSF has gotten public scrutiny in recent years, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2009, “In a blandly titled “Semiannual Report to Congress,” the National Science Foundation’s inspector general disclosed that “numerous reports” and an in-house investigation revealed that some NSF staff were spending a lot of time on government computers reviewing porn instead of grant proposals.”
But, such waste is typical of governmental agencies, who don’t have to worry about staying in business or pleasing shareholders; who only answer to other Washington bureaucrats who have mastered the art of bribing voters/lobbies with their own money. As Sen. Tom Coburn says in the report, “The good news for taxpayers is there is no question NSF has contributed significantly to scientific discovery. The bad news is a significant percentage of your money is going to what most Americans will consider fraud, waste and abuse, and there are many areas where NSF could contribute far more with better management and smarter targeting of resources.” Coburn went on to explain in an interview the problems with government bureaucracies saying, “We have 12 different agencies doing pure research, and we're duplicating and we're not sharing the information across and it's siloed." He concluded, "What it says to me is, they have too much money if they're going to spend money on things like that." ABC News backs up Coburn’s statement on past innovations coming from the NSF by pointing out its role in creating important innovations like bar codes.
Now, something to consider is what that $3 billion (and personnel) could’ve gone to (if paying down the debt wasn’t an option). It could’ve gone to medical research such as finding cures and treatments for cancer and such, or technology to help understand and predict natural disasters, perhaps it could‘ve gone to NASA who has received numerous cuts, or any other science related function that government funds. Or if that money wasn’t collected via taxes, it could’ve gone to companies employing scientists and engineers to develop new medicine, treatments, technology, or anything else. Hell, for that matter, not taking that money could help people pay down their debt, invest in companies, or spend it on products they like thus stimulating the economy. It could’ve gone to anything, but instead we have the satisfaction of an inefficient robot that folds clothes. The question I’d propose is, “is this an example of the Republican War on Science or is this the government’s war on the taxpayer?” If I were to truly support a war on science, I’d continue to fund worthless experiments and studies to rouse public anger, instead of funding important and worthwhile causes.
With such waste which is so prevalent in government, a private charity or business with $3 billion to spend on research, would spend it on populist research such as archaeology or developing a product that people want to use or buy, respectively. If businesses waste that kind of money, their executive board will get fired by the shareholders and restructuring will be needed; if a charity were to do it they’d stop receiving donations. This isn’t true of government, they’ll keep on keeping on. As George Bernard Shaw is alleged to have said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can be assured of the support of Paul”. Likewise, one can perhaps assume that any person receiving grant money to study Farmville will throw their political support behind the people who gave it to them. That doesn’t make scientists terrible people, it makes them like any other group that is similar: unions, green energy companies, farmers, and etc. In case you were wondering, the Republicans who don’t want to give unions sweetheart deals like guaranteeing them alone government contracts and bailing out unionized companies, are accused of perpetrating a “war on the middle class”, another front on the war on the middle class was the Bush tax cuts which cut every tax rate, including the middle class. It is still unknown by most republicans how giving tax cuts to the middle class is the equivalent of engaging them in battle, but democrats insist that it is. Republicans who don’t want to give corporate welfare to green energy companies and enact policies designed to benefit them at the expensive of everyone else are accused of 2 things: being in bed with big oil (democrats employ the “if you aren’t with ‘us’, you’re against us” philosophy in insisting this) and waging war on the environment. Unfortunately though, republicans have never gone to war with agriculture as they give huge subsidies to farms and farmers, which raises the price of food.
A more thorough look at the Republican War on Science (both the book and the nefarious struggle) reveals coordinated efforts on a number of fronts. An ongoing front in the Republican War on Science is their stance on global warming. One may first ask, what is their stance on global warming? The typical republican stance on global warming can be categorized into three groups: the wait and see approach, the human activity accounts for slim - none of the rise in temperature since it started going up, or the cost-benefit analysis approach. The fact that republicans aren’t alarmists, don’t profess a spiritual connection to Gaia/Mother Earth, and never bought into Al Gore’s widely discredited claims in An Inconvenient Truth is often used as an example of their war on science. The wait and see approach that many republicans subscribe to is based around both the fact that the temperature has only risen around 1 degree in the past 70 years and the fact that the Earth’s temperatures and climate has naturally changed numerous times throughout history. They essentially believe that we (as a society) need to observe the temperature for the next few decades, and if it rises drastically then take action to fix it. Those who believe in a cost-benefit analysis approach to global warming cite the costly measures of global warming proposals as well as they economically damaging impacts of the regulations versus expected results from the policies; with Cap N Trade being the perfect example of very costly without hardly an anticipated impact on temperatures.
There are a number of inexpensive plans out there by think tanks and universities on how to reduce temperatures, but considering a number of them involve “geo-engineering”, the environmentalist wing of the democrat party will fight those proposals tooth and nail. The anti-corporation/socialist wing of the party views the issue as a way to redistribute wealth both nationally and internationally and thus they won’t support a non-Cap N Trade solution. Is there a democrat war on science? Yes, but seeing as they cite everything as being the consequence of global warming, the media portrays them as champions of science and the environment, so good luck fighting that narrative. Chris Mooney, the author of The Republican War on Science came out in 2007 and spoke on the cheap and effective solutions geo-engineering offers in combating climate change, however he fails to place the blame on the democrats for rejecting the ideas as he does the republicans for their hesitance to buy into global warming as a crisis. Mooney is a fairly typical liberal in this respect, and his 2007 article was written after his “Republican War on Science” book, so I can’t really say whether or not he would’ve presented a “more” fair attack on them if he had waited to write the book. Also noteworthy, since that book, global temperatures have gone down a small amount AND the climate gate scandal uncovered a large amount of falsified data which trumped up the global warming advocates’ accusations.
The debate between Creationism versus Evolution is another battle in the Republican War on Science. The reason this discussion is used as an example is because more Republicans are Christian than democrats; however, even then the assumption is that every or the vast majority of Christians are creationists. I believe this is a faulty assumption. For example the Catholic Church, who employs a sizable amount of scientists, officially endorses evolution (via intelligent design) as a belief. How many Catholics are there? Roughly 1 billion worldwide.
I think a larger disconnect comes from the fact that the majority of Christians hasn’t really spent much time thinking about it. I’m included in this category. Whether or not we got here via a process of evolution or by direct creation has no impact on my belief structure or way of life. My personal view is that evolution very possibly happened, I don’t know. There is lots of good evidence to make a compelling case for it, I just haven’t done anything besides a minimal amount of research because it doesn’t really matter to any practical degree. It doesn’t effect my income, my way of life, my education, my interests, my belief structure, or any other aspect you could possibly think of. Churches rarely focus on the book of Genesis, as it is the first book in the Old Testament and Christianity focuses on the New Testament. Why is this? Christ is foretold in the Old Testament, but the story of Him and His life is written in the New Testament.
I was taught evolution in high school by a biology teacher who attends the church I attend (as rare as that may be…). The theory of evolution makes a compelling case, though obviously it isn’t without holes. Mathematicians for example often are at odds with evolutionary scientists based on how old Earth is believed to be. Mathematicians believe that its nearly impossible for evolution to have occurred (based on the way the theory is currently taught) in the time span in which Earth has existed. Because evolution is believed to be true, its often used as a basis for other theories. Every couple of years a news story will come out saying Earth is millions and millions of years older than expected, generally these stories come out not because they’ve necessarily founding archaeological evidence supporting it, but to help rectify evolution’s validity. I’m not saying the creationists out there necessarily know that and have based their beliefs accordingly, I state the above example simply because Christian apologists cite it as well as other reasoned arguments in defense of those who don’t believe in secular evolution. However, it does stand to reason that apologists such as CS Lewis could be popular amongst creationists.
By mischaracterizing facts and beliefs and with blowing things out of proportion, it is assumed by those who didn’t grow up in a religious household that religious people are ignorant backwards hicks with a low IQ. Are there some uneducated redneck Christians without reasoned beliefs? Sure, and God knows they get all the attention. Think about what gets play in the media: Vatican scientific discovers (which includes the Big Bang Theory, by the way) or a few crazies featured in the documentary “Jesus Camp”? Generous donations by hard working church-goers or a minister in a sex scandal? Michael Guillen, an ABC News science correspondent and theoretical physicist, wrote a book in 1996 called Can a Smart Person Believe in God? He says the answer is yes and demonstrates his religious transformation, growing up with a father who was a preacher, becoming a steadfast atheist, and eventually coming back to Christianity. According to reviews, the book shows how intelligence and faith can and should go hand in hand. I haven’t read the book, but its personally insulting that someone would have to write a book saying that faith and intelligence isn’t mutually exclusive. But such religious bigotry is common thought in the society in which we live. And unfortunately the bigotry and anti-Christian bias, which is commonly featured in movies and in the media, can also create cynicism and skepticism over time, in some Christians, against the media and some scientists. The cynicism and skepticism in turn may be perceived by some groups of people as a complete rejection of reason, intelligence, and science further perpetuating the anti-Christian bias which in turn will continue to fuel the cynicism and skepticism. It can easily become a vicious circle.
The self-perpetuating distrust on both sides can ferment into a “with us or against us mentality”. Comedian/Magician and TV host Penn Jillette is an atheist, who is good friends with radio/tv host Glenn Beck. The irony of the friendship is that Jillette will not allow any religious person in their house to prevent any possible influence on his children. On the other hand, you have groups like the Amish who are religious isolationists, who want the ability to raise a family without what they view as corrupting outside influences. This desire to raise children without corrupting influences is why some Christians don’t want evolution only taught in schools. Some Christians home school their kids, or send them to private school (both of which way out perform public schools… so much for Christians being stupid…) while the vast majority send them to public schools. Despite what perceptions may be, Christians aren’t trying to convert Atheist children, they just don’t want a science teacher to cause what may be irreparable damage to their children’s religious views. Once again, the goal isn’t to exclude evolution from being taught, there is a ton of evidence to support evolution as having occurred. The goal from most Christian parents (the ones who raise this issue publicly, which is a small minority as well), is to simply get intelligent design explained as a possible alternative, without any negative stigma. The teacher explaining the concept and saying “a number of Christians and Jews subscribe to this belief” may simply suffice for most of the complainants. This debate is way too polarizing and gets way too much attention for its actual level of importance. However, this debate being handled on a national level instead of at a local level could be another example of the “Democrat War on the 10th Amendment” and “The Democrat War on Parenting”.
Why does it matter anyway? What it comes down to politically is a belief in centralized or decentralized government. In the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter, a democrat, created the Department of Education. The Department of Education exists in spite of every state and county having an education department and school board, respectively. The department’s goal is to dictate to the states how to run their operations and what to teach and what not to. Since 1970, the federal education spending has risen adjusted for inflation 190%. The result? Before I give you these statistics, which are from the department of education, its important to note that in 2004 they changed scoring which has “altered scores by 4 points”, they neglect to say what direction that has sent the scores, but in the interest of them keeping their jobs you’d expect them to say the changes have caused scores to go down 4 points, meaning that using past criteria that the scores would be 4 points higher. Thus I suspect that the 4 points are added points meaning that using past criteria, the scores are actually lower. Regardless, the NAEP math score in 1971 was 304. Trillions of dollars in spending later, in 2008 the NAEP math score was 306. The NAEP reading score in 1971 was 285. In 2008 the NAEP reading score was 286. The 2007 graph put out by the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that the NAEP used to test science scores as well. This trend ended in 2001, with science scores actually having gone down since their 1971 level.
So if the federal Department of Education is a money sink that at best hasn’t improved education and at worst has either stopped potential improvement or made education worse, why do we continue to have it? Since its inception, democrats have supported it and have never stopped. There are two reasons for this: 1) democrats support it for their fundamental belief in a strong centralized government, there is a reason that virtually all of their solutions on a national level involve more government. They likely won’t admit the department’s failure, and if they do they’ll want to keep it under the hopes that one day it’ll have a positive effect. 2) The democrats gain their support from a number of special interest groups (wont go into all of them here) but perhaps their biggest supporter and fundraiser is unions. The largest union in the country is the National Education Association (NEA), who has gained permanently increasing power since on a national level since the Department of Education was instated. The NEA likes policies that give them power, more money, and job security and the democrats act in kind. This is why democrats oppose policies that have shown to be beneficial to education, but that limits governmental control and endorses schools being more self reliant (which may end up getting bad teachers fired); examples include the democrats (and NEA’s) opposition to: merit pay for teachers, charter schools, vouchers for schools, certain curricular changes, and weakening tenure for teachers.
Conversely, conservatives and libertarians oppose centralized government, preferring to let states and localities enact policies that they deem best to fix their problems. Democrats use the issue of Republican’s opposition to federally mandated curriculums to make republicans look like they support creationism in schools. When in reality, conservatives and republicans either want to leave the decision up to states or localities and perhaps eliminate the federal department of education altogether.
Another complain is that the supposed Republican War on Science is furthered by republicans opposing endlessly increasing funds to education. Even though to many people its counter-intuitive, there has never been an established correlation between education funding and test scores. Its often thought that South Carolina doesn’t give enough money to education. The reality is that SC is in the middle of the pack in terms of school funding and at the bottom in terms of results. In 2008, Texas A&M put a study together a state ranking for “Per-Pupil Expenditures - Adjusted Using Comparable Wage Index”. Washington DC ranked 9th with $13,434, SC ranked 33rd with $10,108, NC ranked 49th with $8,299, Utah ranked last (51st) with $6,523, and NY ranked 5th with $15,069 (using CWI, each state spent different real $ per student). And using National Center for Education statistics this is how they ranked on 8th grade reading (national average score was 261) and math (national average score was 282) scores: Washington DC had a math score of 254 and a reading score of 241. South Carolina had a math score of 280 and a reading score of 257. North Carolina had a math score of 284 and a reading score of 259. Utah had a math score of 284 and a reading score of 262. And New York had a math score of 283 and a reading score of 264. You may notice that only 2 of the 6 states I ranked scored above the national average in both departments, NY who spent the 5th most money on education of any state and Utah who spent the least money on education. Washington DC who spends much more than NC and SC did much worse than both states in both areas of study. And NC, who ranks 49/51 in funding compared to SC’s 33/51 ranking, beat them in both departments.
So when conservatives and libertarians bring up that theirs no correlation between student achievement and school funding, now you know its not just a talking point. Sure, there is a necessarily base level, but clearly throwing money at a problem generally leads to a more expensive problem, not a solution. The solution is to use the money smarter, and to quote Ron Paul, “If I truly opposed education, I’d support keeping the federal Department of Education”. Continuing to embrace such reckless spending on education, without producing results could be called “the Democrat War on Statistics” and another example of “The Democrat War on Taxpayers”
The stem cell research issue is yet another example of the Republican War on Science. Anyone who believes republicans oppose stem cell research is incorrect. What they oppose is government funding of embryonic stem cell research. There are a number of types of stem cells, including adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells, which don’t involve creating, using or destroying human embryos. Because of this: they aren’t controversial and republicans don’t oppose public funds going to their research. Republicans oppose public funding of embryonic stem cell research for these chief reasons: 1) Republicans (or at least free market capitalists) believe that companies and private entities will allocate their own funding more productively than the government (see any government department’s budget for details) and 2) is the opposition of making people who believe embryonic stem cell research is fundamentally wrong, fund it. I’m not saying I personally believe that you are condemned to Hell for “playing God with embryonic stem cell research” (or anything of that nature using aborted babies) and I’m not saying most Christians or church establishments believe it either, but if I were to believe it I sure as Hell wouldn’t want any of my money to go to it. Not because I’m personally performing the tests myself, but because I don’t want my money (voluntarily or involuntarily) to end up potentially damning me either. Once again, I’m not saying I believe that, but I sure as hell want to err on the side of caution with my soul. Pepsi recently announced they were using stem cell research (no you aren’t drinking human cells) and republicans haven’t moved to shut them down. They just don’t want to make people fund it against their will, particularly when one’s positioning in the afterlife is at stake. Republicans oppose government funds going to abortion too. I’m moderately pro-life, and my goal isn’t to make people in NY stop having abortions, but I sure as hell don’t want any part in it.
Now let me address a related complaint, that politicians shouldn’t let their religious beliefs dictate their political views. Now, to a certain point I agree. I get angry with our republican dominated state senate and their refusal to let non-profit organizations run casino nights or that our liquor stores close at 7pm in South Carolina. However, when it comes to making the taxpayers fund controversial issues, I oppose making people do things against their will. Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” His point was somewhat obvious, that he doesn’t really care what the religious beliefs are of his neighbors because it has no impact on him. Well, making people pay for things that go against their religious views, picks their pocket and injures their soul. And to be honest, the complaint against republicans that their religious views dictate their public policy is a hypocritical purely political attack. Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and numerous other democrats have cited their religion when passing a number of bills, when their promoted policies are in line with the official positions of various church establishments. Examples being Obamacare (Some churches support health care for all as being “humanitarian” and in line with God) and most democrat’s support of an open border policy (The Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge national borders). Essentially when democrats do it, its fine. When republicans do it, they are the devil. This could be called The Democrat War on Consistency.
Speaking of religion’s influence on politics, the separation of church and state was another issue brought up in the Republican War on Science, as being evidence of republicans ignoring science. Ignoring other issues with this being introduced as evidence, what should be focused on is the meaning and origin of the separation of church and state. This is often shouted by secular organizations anytime the issue of religion and government are uttered in the same breath; generally without much thought behind it. As the Free Republic writes, "In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that 'the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state.'" They go on to explain the letter further saying, “His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocating of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).”
In other words, whenever a group such as “Freedom From Religion Foundation” from Wisconsin demands that the Charleston Fire Department remove their Nativity scene from the firehouse grounds, citing the “separation of church and state” or the “First Amendment” as the legality behind their demand, they are out of line. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. A few things important distinctions show the idiocy of Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim. First, the Charleston Fire Department isn’t Congress nor is it establishing a religion; its important we recognize that before going forward. With that being understood, the Fire Department isn’t prohibiting people from exercising their religion. Once we stipulate to those terms, the fallaciousness of the demand becomes obvious. Only when you get an understanding of the Constitution and the history behind the debate does it become apparent that the loud obnoxious cry of “separation of church and state!” doesn’t really mean what the masses think it means. The term God is actually a fairly ambiguous term, an example being when a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Muslim all pray to “God”, they are all praying to different deities. “Nature’s God” is a term in the Declaration of Independence, the reason of which is to establish natural rights that men are born with and because Thomas Jefferson, likely a deist, doesn’t quite subscribe to the same God as George Washington or John Adams. This sentiment was further reflected in the Massachusetts state constitution which states, "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship."
Yes, God was endorsed in their Constitution. Do we want to go over why its not a violation of the establishment clause? Congress isn’t mandating or establishing anything, nor are they prohibiting people from exercising their religious views. Its important we establish this point, there is a freedom of religion, you can choose to be a member of any faith or of none at all; and in doing so, you can practice your faith in any manner that doesn’t harm or impose on others. With that being said, there is no freedom from religion, you can’t claim that others must change their ways or demand fire departments take down displays because you don’t like it or believe in the faith. If I was driving by city hall in Dearborn, MI and they had an Islamic religious display, I wouldn’t mind, it doesn’t impact me at all. The same goes with Jewish displays in a municipal building in places such as Florida. In a free society you will hear and see things you don’t like, and we are privileged enough to live in a free society. Just keep that in mind the next time you feel tempted to complain about “In God we Trust” on our money or a license plate.
Its important to know why the founding fathers emphasized this freedom as important enough to be in the First Amendment. Our founders, being well-read men with mostly an English ancestry understood the dangers of government control of religion. In today’s society, our nation’s ignorance is on display when they believe the issue is religion creeping into government. The entire point of the First Amendment’s religious freedoms was to prevent government from controlling a religion. The historical basis for this fear was Henry VIII of England who separated his country from the Catholic Church and established the Church of England. The point of doing so was so he could control the church’s purse strings (he took a large amount of church assets and moved them to his treasury), so his actions were seen as perfectly acceptable in society and not at odds with the church, and so his priests would teach loyalty and service to the king as being as important as faithfulness and loyalty to God. Anyone who wouldn’t take the loyalty oath to the new Church of England was tortured, imprisoned, and often times killed. The perception that priests, ministers, pastors, rabbis, and other religious clergy beg and pray for government to get in bed with them is insane and ridiculous. Not acknowledging these truths is yet another example of “The Democrat War on History”
Obviously, in this blog I use the narrative that republicans are all religious and democrats are 100% secular. This isn’t true, but this blog post is already unacceptably long. Both political parties have different religious bases. The “religious right” gets a lot of media attention and needs no further explanation as a key voting block for the republican party. But a closer look at the democrat base reveals the black community, which is somewhere around 85% democratic is much more religious than virtually every other group. The Hispanic community is perhaps just as religious as the black community and in 2008 voted 67% in favor of Obama according to Pew Research. But going back to my early referencing of Thomas Jefferson, the point is people shouldn’t have to pay for things that go against their religious beliefs. Now, one can point out that there are other policies that taxpayers pay for that could also violate a number of peoples’ personal beliefs. To that I’d say exactly, that’s why I advocate for a smaller central government so do this to less people, and let states and localities decide such policies. If people leave their cities or states in large numbers, then you’ll know that the controversial policies should be repealed. But its much more difficult and complex to leave a country than it is a city or state.
This post was to show that there are 2 sides to every story. I wrote this, not to defend republicans in general, as I oppose them on a number of issues too. But at times I am put in a position where I must defend things and people I don’t hold in the highest esteem. When speaking to political novices I often refer to myself as a republican, I do this for 2 reasons. 1) Because my beliefs are much more complex than what the average person understands and they likely aren’t familiar with third parties. 2) Because third parties don’t get a fair shot in this country, the political rules and regulations help to stack the deck against them. Correcting the record and not letting platitudes and generalities stand is something that I must do. I hope this does an adequate job of explaining the politics and economics in depth, which is obviously much more complex than it appears at face value. This is true with nearly every political policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment