The Rhetoric of Political Incorrectness

One of the hallmarks of the current presidential election is the preponderance of talk about political correctness. During the primary, the Republican candidates seemed to be in a competition to see who was more against it. Eventual winner Donald Trump put it this way "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either." So what is this "big problem" Mr. Trump and others who agree with him see? I think the key word here is "challenged".  When certain things Trump says are challenged, he just sloughs the criticism off as mere political correctness. Putting criticism in this category allows him to ignore it. And that's dangerous.

One component necessary for Trump to categorize criticism as politically correct is offense. If the critic is offended by what he says then he often accuses them of having a thin skin and being easily offended. The problem is offensiveness comes in degrees. If I'm in a store and someone behind me starts swearing because the line isn't moving fast enough, am I being overly sensitive if I turn around and criticize them for it? Maybe. Politeness in public is a norm that most of us follow but the consequences of breaking that norm are not earth shattering.  A rough analog to this is Trump talking about the size of his manhood during the debate. Sure it was offensive but I don't think it caused any grievous public harm. The level of potential harm is key. Going back to the store example, if the person behind me escalated and started threatening to shove people out of the way if the line didn't speed up then I would have every right to be offended and confront them about it. That's how I feel about Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US. Not only is he breaking well established American norms of religious fairness, he's proposing something that is clearly unconstitutional and dangerous. Sloughing off criticism of his proposed ban as mere political correctness is akin to comparing it to a discussion of penis sizes.

The other necessary component for Trump to categorize criticism as politically correct is the value system it comes from. If the criticism is coming from a perspective that socially disadvantaged or disenfranchised people need to be treated with respect then the PC pejorative is considered fair game. For example, if someone is offended by the racial implications of Trump's claim that people coming into the US from Mexico "...are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." then their criticism is pigeon holed as political correctness because the target of disrespect is people of Mexican heritage. If the target of disrespect were someone else then I suspect it would be a different story. If a candidate were to make a speech claiming soldiers are just wannabe baby killers and I criticize them for disrespecting the men and women in our military, I doubt Trump would accuse me of political correctness. In most cases political correctness is nothing more than a code word for "What is important to you is of no consequence to me". Discussing and maybe even accommodating multiple priorities for what is important is a critical element of political discourse. Ignoring the conflict serves no one.

Trump's strategy of political incorrectness is all about disengagement. He uses it to deflect criticism and avoid discussion. Political incorrectness isn't about free speech. It's about ignoring it.

Transgender Rights Turning Point?

The strong negative reaction to North Carolina's HB2, the so-called "bathroom bill", may turn out to be an important turning point on the path toward transgender rights in the US. The bill was passed in a one-day special session by the North Carolina General Assembly as a reaction to an ordinance passed by the Charlotte City Council that provided protections for gay, lesbian and transgendered people. HB2 is sweeping in its scope, not only eliminating Charlotte's LGBT protection ordinance but also nullifying any local ordinance that addresses the use of public accommodations, workplace discrimination and the minimum wage.

Opposition to HB2 was swift and direct. With support from the ACLU, Joaquin Carcaño, a transgender employee of UNC Chapel Hill; Peyton McGarry, a transgender student at UNC Greensboro; and Angela Gilmore, a lesbian associate dean and professor of law at North Carolina Central, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, contending that it violates both the Constitution and Title IX. A few weeks later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit claiming the law violates federal civil rights statues. This violation could end up denying North Carolina access to millions of dollars in federal funds. In response, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that transgender status is not a protected class.

Unlike the governor of the state I grew up in, South Dakota, who wisely vetoed a similarly backwards bill, McCrory is doubling down on his discriminatory stance. Unless he backs down (which seems unlikely) this could lead to a showdown in federal court. If that happens and the courts rule against North Carolina which I believe they will, then we may finally get definitive legal protection for people in the transgender community. I certainly hope so.

Aamer Rahman on "Reverse Racism"

Ever since Ferguson, I've heard a number of people talking about what they believe is "reverse racism". From my perspective, this idea arises from a basic misunderstanding of what racism actually is. I mentioned this to a friend and she sent me this hilarious video by comedian Aamer Rahman that pretty much captures my opinion.

Racist and Cowardly Statements by Michele Bachmann

According to the Washington Post, Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann reacted to pending executive action on immigration reform with the following statement:

"The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer — millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language."

And how does she back up her offensive use of the word 'illiterate'? She claims she heard it from 'American Hispanics on the border". Apparently she thinks she can escape responsibility for her racist comments by blaming them on people from the same ethnic group she is attacking. That's cowardly.

Same Old Paranoia About the ACA

This morning I decided to catch up on the tempest in a tea pot surrounding Jonathan Gruber and his comments on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  As far as I can tell, the controversy is about old videos where Gruber laments the fact that political gamesmanship was required in negotiating the wording of the ACA so that it fit the conventions mandated by the Congressional Budget Office to avoid being classified as a tax increase. I'm not sure why this gamesmanship is a surprise to anyone because determining how to phrase a bill is part of the negotiating process that leads to its creation. Legislators know phrasing is critical because as the New York Times points out the difference between a law being labeled a tax increase or something else eventually comes down to how it's worded.  Phrase it one way and it's a tax increase, phrase it differently and it's a penalty.  The thing is, at the time the ACA was created both Democrats and the Republicans passed the bill fully aware of its wording and how important that was.

It's too bad Gruber didn't realize how important his own words were when he commented "people are too stupid to understand the difference" but I guess we'll just have to live with it. Nothing has really changed - the ACA is in place, it's withstood some very withering attacks and it's finally starting to do some good. Now is the time to build on that success, not search for conspiracies that don't exist.

Duane Harkness

Congressman Reichert gets it right on H.R. 910, Amendment 6

I just sent the following e-mail to my congressman, Dave Reichert:

I would like to commend Congressman Reichert for voting "Aye" on H.R. 910, Amendment No. 6 which states "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the EPA that climate change is occuring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." The Congressman was the only member of his party to do so, which to me is a sign of both courage and leadership. 

Although (incredibly) the amendment was voted down, whenever one of our elected officials ignores party pressure and instead pays attention to established science rather than ideological malarky, they deserve positive feedback.

Check here to see how your representative voted on the amendment. Whether they did the right thing or the wrong thing, tell them how you feel about the subject. The more feedback they get the better.

Duane Harkness

Short Sighted Assault on the Clean Air Act

On December 7, 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that "current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases" including CO2 "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations". This endangerment determination triggered the regulation of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This action by the EPA was in response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles contribute to air pollution which could reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.

On November 11, 2010, as a result of the endangerment determination, the EPA issued guidance material to state and local permitting authorities to aid them in controlling and reducing greenhouse gases in certain key industrial sectors such as electricity generation, industrial boilers, pulp and paper mills, cement, iron and steel, refineries and nitric acid plants. Starting January 2, 2011 the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were required to show regulators how they plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

On February 3, 2011 House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky) announced draft legislation called the "Energy Tax Prevention Act" that would prohibit the EPA from exercising its power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The congressmen claim the purpose of this legislation is to stop the EPA "from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax".

Upton, Inhofe and Whitfield do not understand climate science. They ignore the the well established scientific facts of climate change and the obvious economic damage it will cause here in the United States. This legislation hides under the guise of anti-tax rhetoric which will make it popular with the newly formed Tea Party faction of the Republican party, but it will end up having the opposite economic effect. We need to act now to curb our carbon emissions so that even more economically crippling regulation isn't required in the future.

If you live in a Republican represented district as I do, please write your congressman urging him/her not to support this bill. We need to help them get back on a sane track that both acknowledges the scientific facts of climate change as well as the need for an economically pragmatic approach to the issue that doesn't cripple our economy.

Belief in Evolution: Slow but Positive Progress

The most recent Gallup poll on belief in evolution shows a small but positive (+4%) increase in the number of Americans who accept the scientific consensus, agreeing that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life". Currently 54% of Americans share this viewpoint which is good news for those of us who agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous statement that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unfortunately 40% of Americans still agree with the young earth creationist view that "God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."  This is an astonishingly high number, however it is actually the lowest level of support for young earth creationism in the history of the Gallup poll.

American Belief in Evolution
(Data Source: 2010 Gallup Poll)

So why do so many Americans reject the theory of evolution? Level of education is one factor. The less educated you are the less likely you are to believe in evolution. For example, only 43% of Americans whose education level is high school or less believe in evolution.

Another key factor is a person's religious beliefs. According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the more fundamentalist your religion the less likely you are to accept evolution.

Percentage of Adherents Who Believe in Evolution
(Data Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

So how does America compare with other countries when it comes to belief in evolution? According to a study published in the August 2006 issue of Science, the United States ranks second to last with Turkey being the only country in the survey with a lower acceptance of the scientific consensus.

Ranking of Countries by Belief in Evolution
(Graph Source: Science, August 2006)

The study identified two reasons for America's low ranking: 1) widespread religious fundamentalism and; 2) the ongoing politicization of science. Since the former is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and the latter is outside the control of scientists, educators and pro-science citizens, any strategy that hopes to increase evolutionary literacy in the US needs to take these issues into account.

Evolution is the foundation for modern biology. A thorough understanding of it is an absolute necessity for any person going into biology-based professions such as genetics, agronomy, medicine, etc. To remain competitive in the global economy, and possibly to even just survive the 21st century, we need to do much better than our current 54% acceptance. The Gallup poll shows progress has been slow but positive so we are doing something right, but to make serious gains I think we need some fresh new ideas.

Stop the Hate - Don't Take the Bait

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. He says very stupid things. A recent example is his suggestion that "The White racist leadership of the Democrat Party is trying to ace out [current majority whip Rep. James] Clyburn" who is vying to become minority whip in the newly Republican controlled House. He follows this crass accusation up with the equally inane opinion that Clyburn is just "...worried about not having the perk of a big office, driver, and so forth." He then offers the 'solution' that a new position should be made for Clyburn rather than minority whip.  "Clyburn's new position: Driving Miss Nancy [Pelosi]. He gets to keep the car. He gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He's not in the back of the bus. He's in the driver's seat, and she's in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem."

Stupid? Yes. Racist? Yes. Something we should take seriously? No. Rush is just doing his normal 'liberal baiting' routine. Normally I'd let this sort of thing slide because I don't want to give Rush any more attention than he deserves (which is none), however the article that highlighted this particular bit of Rush-nastiness included a number of comments from ostensibly liberal readers that I found equally offensive. They respond to Rush's racist 'humor' with equally intolerant (and decidedly unfunny) jabs - comments on Rush's weight, his struggle with substance abuse, hopes that his marriage falls apart soon, that his life should end in agony, etc.

Of course this all plays into Rush's hand because he has stirred up more left/right hate and he gets the attention and notoriety he's looking for. I'm sure some of the more provocative comments were provided by Rush fans who are helping stir the pot by masquerading as liberals, however I'm very disappointed with any of my fellow true liberals who would sink so low as to play Rush's game with him.

Duane Harkness

Patty Murray Wins

This is just a quick note to say I'm happy Patty Murray won re-election as senior senator from our state. She is a strong advocate for taking action to avert the consequences of global warming, including the development of clean energy alternatives to petroleum. You can find a quick summary of her votes on energy and oil legislation here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/international/Patty_Murray_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Unfortunately global warming denial was a big winner elsewhere in the election. According to the ThinkProgress blog, half of newly elected Republicans deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. What's worse is 86 percent of those same Republicans oppose any form of climate change legislation that increases government revenue requirements. That's sad. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Duane Harkness

Washington Senate Candidates and Climate Change

According to a September KING 5 poll, Patty Murray has a slim lead over Dino Rossi in the race for U.S. Senate here in Washington State. Given the current avalanche of GOP Senate candidates jumping over each other to claim the crown of king climate skeptic, I was curious where Murray and Rossi fit in the climate science consensus/criticism spectrum.

Murray, a vocal climate activist, is clearly in the consensus camp as you can see from the following statement from her campaign website (though she probably needs to add a comma somewhere since "less clean freshwater shortages" doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me, lol):

Climate change is real – scientists agree that it is happening and that there is a better than 90% chance that it is being caused by humans.  Climate change can mean more serious natural disasters and storms like Hurricane Katrina, less clean freshwater shortages and food production.  We owe it to our children and future generations to get this issue under control and soon.

I would categorize Rossi as falling in the "lukewarm-to-tepid" camp since he acknowledges the earth is warming but doesn't believe it is necessarily anthropognic in origin. Here's a typical quote:

I believe the Earth is warming. There is still debate in the scientific community about the level of human impact on climate change, which is why I think the more important question is what we are actually going to do in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Murray aligns closest to my own opinion on climate change, i.e. it is real, it is the result of human activity and the consequences could be dire if we don't do something about it. I'm happy to see Rossi's eyes aren't totally closed. Unfortunately I think his interests lie more in limiting the options for dealing with it (e.g. his opposition to cap-and-trade) rather than in actually solving the problem.

Things could have been worse because Rossi's position is light years ahead of the other major GOP candidates who lost out in our "top two" blanket primary. Former NFL football player Clint Didier, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin and finished in 3rd place, pulled no punches regarding climate change: "This global warming is a joke." When asked about a carbon tax or lid he said "We need more of it [carbon], to tell the truth". Not a particularly enlightened candidate. Businessman Paul Akers who finished a distant 4th in the polling was no better: "[Climate researchers] are not scientists. They are people with a political agenda... [Global warming is] part of the natural cycle." I don't trust anyone who throws out an entire branch of science and replaces it with a simple phrase like "natural cycle".

Bottom line: Murray's position on climate change is a big plus for me. I'll give Rossi a slight minus, not because he's 'almost right' (because he isn't) but because he deserves bonus points for not jumping on the hardcore denial bandwagon that seems popular in the GOP these days.

Cuccinelli's Fishing Expedition Gets Skunked, at Least for Now

Back in April, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the state's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) to command the University of Virginia to hand over mountains of paperwork associated with research performed by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann who taught at the University from 1999-2005. Mann (currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State) is a high profile climate researcher who is well known for his work on the historical temperature record. He is a strong proponent of the scientific consensus on climate change and has been a controversial figure in the ongoing political debate because his "hockey stick" graph (published in 1999) has been the subject of intense criticism by several members of the community who oppose the scientific consensus.

But controversy and debate are not synonymous with fraud. In my opinion, Cuccinelli's investigation is a politically motivated assault not just on one lone researcher, but on the entire research community itself. As the 500 Virginia academic scientists who signed a letter opposing Cuccinelli's investigation state:

"Science thrives on rigorous debate and a frank exchange of differing ideas and perspectives. The freedom of scientists to openly disagree and discuss critical scientific topics has brought Virginia and the United States prosperity and global leadership in science. Research shows that scientific discovery is held back when government officials harass scientists."

And that's exactly what I believe Cuccinelli is doing - he's harassing Mann and  in the process indirectly intimidating any researcher who is working in a field that might generate debate or political controversy. This is a very bad state of affairs. I agree with the American Association of University Professors, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the ACLU who filed an amicus brief with the court stating:

"...the Attorney General’s approach – investigating a professor on suspicion of fraud simply because his work has sparked political and scientific controversy – could have a grave chilling effect on scholarship and research at universities."

Fortunately on August 30, 2010 a Virginia judge ruled against Cuccinelli saying he had provided no "objective basis to issue a civil investigative demand". In other words, Cuccinelli has been accusing Mann of fraud without ever stating the nature of the alleged fraudulent behavior. That's not the kind of public service want from my attorney general, that's for sure. Which reminds me - I need to see what Washington's attorney general Rob McKenna is doing with regards to climate change these days. I hope he's keeping his nose out of it.

Political shenanigans by grand-standers like Cuccinelli will always be an issue for science. Fortunately, in the long run the truth prevails but rarely without a lot of  hard work by scientists, academics, well informed members of the press and dedicated science amateurs. I wish the judge had been able to put this particularly odious assault on common sense to bed quickly. Unfortunately he left Cuccinelli a bit of wiggle room so he hasn't given up yet and is planning to revamp his demands and try again. Ugh. When does he come up for re-election again?