by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 20, 2008
This election year has already prompted some criticism of the primary system. Both major parties have seen complaints about the results of the presidential primaries and the nominees who have emerged.
Some Republicans have lamented the process that gave them McCain as the nominee and eliminated others they saw as truer to conservative ideals. Later primaries were purely formality, constantly reminding McCain’s critics of the bleak choice they had left.
The Democratic race was more controversial and fraught with problems. Early on, the issue of Michigan and Florida primary dates became a source of concern. The Democratic National Committee spoke out against the legitimacy of these races, which had violated party rules and denied these states’ delegates seats at the convention. Later, as the potential nominee began to materialize, voters watched as a fight for those seats began to taint democracy. The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee eventually deliberated and decided on a formula to split the delegates to be seated among the candidates. That the seating of these delegations was determined by a committee and not by the voters cast a shadow of doubt on the outcome and undermined the democratic process. Damage to the party’s reputation and unity were inescapable.
Then came the issue of “superdelegates.” This informal term refers to delegates, primarily in the Democratic party who are seated at the convention without regard to primary or caucus results. These delegates are free to choose to support whichever candidate they wish, and could conceivably award the nomination to the candidate of their choosing. While often the gap between the Democratic frontrunners was too wide to be bridged by the introduction of superdelegates, at times when the race narrowed, the question of who would win their allegiance was of great concern. This factor further degrades the election process and by extension democracy.
There are other ills infecting the primary and election system. Campaign funding, “527” (described below) groups, the length of primary and general election seasons, and other issues create problems for presidential campaigns as well as other political races.
The financial requirements of running for office are a tangled web of corruption that ties the hands of candidates. It is nearly impossible for politicians to operate legitimately and ethically, and hope to win elections. During every election cycle there is talk of campaign financing reform and using public funding to break the stranglehold of this broken system. Unfortunately, campaign coffers grow substantially with each cycle and competition among candidates to outraise their opponents is spirals the situation out of control. There is little hope of true finance reform without dismantling the existing structure and safeguarding those who would ethically campaign from being buried by those tied to a corrupt financing structure.
During the 2004 presidential campaign the term “swiftboating” was coined to describe the way in which Senator John Kerry was slandered by a group called “Swift Veterans for Truth.” That election brought 527 organizations (tax-exempt groups designated by section 527 of the tax code) onto many people’s radar screens for the first time. 527 groups are not bound by the same regulations that the Federal Election Commission imposes on political campaigns. Therefore, they can raise much larger amounts of money and are freer to operate outside ethical bounds. The existence of 527s and the influence they have over the public arena, threaten democracy by acting as extensions to political campaigns while avoiding oversight.
The length of the current primary and general election seasons is a problem as well. Early primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states carry great weight and can affect the way voters cast their ballots in the later primary season. Public attention quickly shifts from hard issues and platforms to the electibility of a candidate. The horserace coverage in the mainstream media overshadows and minimizes domestic concerns and foreign policy perils. Candidates with dedication to solving national problems are often marginalized and largely overlooked. Voters are left uninformed about anything save the ranking of the proclaimed frontrunners and the speculation about their hopes in upcoming races. Predictions about primary results become self-fulfilling prophecies as voters react to questionable polls and fail to turn out for their candidates who “don’t stand a chance” of success.
These problems with the election system are further complicated by each state’s primary rules. The rules are complicated and varied. Some states allow voters to participate in primaries regardless of the party in which they are registered. Other states, such as New York, restrict a voter to his party affiliation when it comes to primary participation. Caucuses and primaries differ in process and the way delegates are seated for candidates. Often, voters who have registered and voted for years find themselves confused about the primary structure and the rules that apply.
It is obvious to those on either side of the political spectrum that change is needed in our electoral process. In order to achieve true democracy, I think a combination of reforms needs to be implemented. Federal standards should be applied to all state primaries to simplify the process and demystify the electorate. The length of the primary season and the general election need to be assessed. A single national primary election date would also end the debate over states moving up their primaries in order to appear relevant. Debates during the primary season should focus on issues of importance to the American citizenry and the media would be able to cover those issues instead of simply reporting win and loss results like sports scores. Controlling the influence of third party groups and political action committees as well as regulating campaign financing will go a long way toward cleaning up the dirty politicking so many of us are tired of.
These changes are possible but will be hard fought. The current perpetual campaign culture in government has turned the electoral process into a commercial venture. Corporate lobbyists, organizations, politicians, and states have been reaping huge financial benefits from the current system. There is little motivation from the top to bring about meaningful resolution of these issues. Well-intentioned candidates who seek to wage clean and ethical campaigns soon run up against the brick wall of status quo. If we seek democracy we must cry out from the grass roots that we will tolerate this broken process no more.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Some Possible Solutions to the Messy Primary System
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 20, 2008
The selection of the President of the United States of America is a very important event for our nation and for the world. While I may be bordering on ethnocentrism here, I believe that our country is the sole super-power on this planet, thereby making the leader of our nation the de facto leader of the free world.
Therefore, I believe we must make some changes in the current selection process to ensure that we truly select the best woman or man for the job. The current nominating process is fraught with potholes and obstacles that inhibit the speedy and smooth travel from candidate to nominee. The front-loading that occurs because of the heavy emphasis upon New Hampshire and Iowa – two states with their own peculiar demographics that are not at all reflective of the nation as a whole – can promote or demote potential candidates without the consent of the majority.
While many who have seen this messy process played out every four years have suggested and proposed reforms over the years, perhaps this year, the power brokers will be forced to at least consider making some long-overdue changes.
The primary challenge faced by those who would reform this process is the same challenge faced by those of us who scream for a playoff to determine the true National Champion in the NCAA Division I Football teams; that challenge is of course the dominance of political power and M-O-N-E-Y. It may sound as if I have been drinking from the well of the conspiracy theorists, but we would be blind and foolish to not see that the present situation does serve to enrich and empower certain people. That being said, I do believe that we can make enough noise to shake the branches of our political parties and, perhaps, see some true reform.
Some possible solutions to this system have been proposed throughout the years. Almost 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson introduced the idea of a National Primary Day (NPD) in 1913. While it seems to make the most sense, it does have its opponents. It would make sense because it would give each voter’s vote more relevance and hence it would possibly stir more voters to rise from their sofas and recliners and venture out to the polls. It would serve to make the candidates deliver a more cosmopolitan message, rather than making the token appearances at the Iowa State Fair’s pig-calling contest and the New Hampshire Small Town Diner.
With this past season’s Super Tuesday contest, we came relatively close to the scenario of what a NPD would look like. The candidates had to spread themselves out and send out surrogate campaigners in key states and regions, thereby broadening their exposure and enhancing their message.
The opponents of this NPD proposal cite the dilution of power from the party elite and the increasing irrelevance of the national conventions. Another problem with this proposal would be the fact that campaigns would have to be fought and financed on a national level, thus demanding larger amount of…-you guessed it – M-O-N-E-Y.
As a Constitutionalist, I am somewhat reluctant to join in on any proposal that would further empower the Federal government at the expense of the state’s individual rights. However, I am willing to admit that the day has arrived in which most of our state’s rights have already been eroded by Federal mandates.
Another proposed solution is called The Delaware Plan. According to an article on www.centerforpolitics.org this plan is the brainchild of Delaware GOP state chairman, Basil Battaglia. In this picture, the states would be grouped into four ‘pods’, according to their populations, with the smallest thirteen states voting first, followed by the thirteen next larger states, then the twelve medium-sized states and the twelve largest states voting last.
Under this proposal states would retain the right to determine whether they wanted a caucus or a primary and the candidates would all be forced to fight on to the last primary because the heavier load of votes would not be cast until then. It would also empower the smaller states by giving them primacy. This would also allow for grassroots campaigns to ‘catch fire’ while at the same time, lengthening the process long enough for the ‘survival of the fittest’ to work itself out.
Opponents to this plan argue that the plan will not remove that ‘root of all evil’ (whispered …m-o-n-e-y) from exerting its heavy weight upon the process, as candidates would have to be very well financed to run a long, national campaign.
My fellow columnist and I do not differ on the contention that the process is in dire need of repair, nor do we differ on the fact that money and power limit the selection process to a chosen few rather than the best possible person for the job.
One difference between us is that I do not believe we can ‘regulate’ our way out of the corruptible influence of money by ‘controlling the influence of third party groups and political action committees’. I believe that such ‘regulation’ is opening the door to censoring free speech. I believe that open and unrestrained discussion of the candidates and their positions is vitally necessary for an informed choice.
I also believe in the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. Therefore I am optimistic that we can work our way out of this mess with a limited amount of regulation from the federal government, i.e. through the agency of the political parties themselves - and someday soon produce a system that is fair and effective.
From Broader View Weekly, June 20, 2008
The selection of the President of the United States of America is a very important event for our nation and for the world. While I may be bordering on ethnocentrism here, I believe that our country is the sole super-power on this planet, thereby making the leader of our nation the de facto leader of the free world.
Therefore, I believe we must make some changes in the current selection process to ensure that we truly select the best woman or man for the job. The current nominating process is fraught with potholes and obstacles that inhibit the speedy and smooth travel from candidate to nominee. The front-loading that occurs because of the heavy emphasis upon New Hampshire and Iowa – two states with their own peculiar demographics that are not at all reflective of the nation as a whole – can promote or demote potential candidates without the consent of the majority.
While many who have seen this messy process played out every four years have suggested and proposed reforms over the years, perhaps this year, the power brokers will be forced to at least consider making some long-overdue changes.
The primary challenge faced by those who would reform this process is the same challenge faced by those of us who scream for a playoff to determine the true National Champion in the NCAA Division I Football teams; that challenge is of course the dominance of political power and M-O-N-E-Y. It may sound as if I have been drinking from the well of the conspiracy theorists, but we would be blind and foolish to not see that the present situation does serve to enrich and empower certain people. That being said, I do believe that we can make enough noise to shake the branches of our political parties and, perhaps, see some true reform.
Some possible solutions to this system have been proposed throughout the years. Almost 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson introduced the idea of a National Primary Day (NPD) in 1913. While it seems to make the most sense, it does have its opponents. It would make sense because it would give each voter’s vote more relevance and hence it would possibly stir more voters to rise from their sofas and recliners and venture out to the polls. It would serve to make the candidates deliver a more cosmopolitan message, rather than making the token appearances at the Iowa State Fair’s pig-calling contest and the New Hampshire Small Town Diner.
With this past season’s Super Tuesday contest, we came relatively close to the scenario of what a NPD would look like. The candidates had to spread themselves out and send out surrogate campaigners in key states and regions, thereby broadening their exposure and enhancing their message.
The opponents of this NPD proposal cite the dilution of power from the party elite and the increasing irrelevance of the national conventions. Another problem with this proposal would be the fact that campaigns would have to be fought and financed on a national level, thus demanding larger amount of…-you guessed it – M-O-N-E-Y.
As a Constitutionalist, I am somewhat reluctant to join in on any proposal that would further empower the Federal government at the expense of the state’s individual rights. However, I am willing to admit that the day has arrived in which most of our state’s rights have already been eroded by Federal mandates.
Another proposed solution is called The Delaware Plan. According to an article on www.centerforpolitics.org this plan is the brainchild of Delaware GOP state chairman, Basil Battaglia. In this picture, the states would be grouped into four ‘pods’, according to their populations, with the smallest thirteen states voting first, followed by the thirteen next larger states, then the twelve medium-sized states and the twelve largest states voting last.
Under this proposal states would retain the right to determine whether they wanted a caucus or a primary and the candidates would all be forced to fight on to the last primary because the heavier load of votes would not be cast until then. It would also empower the smaller states by giving them primacy. This would also allow for grassroots campaigns to ‘catch fire’ while at the same time, lengthening the process long enough for the ‘survival of the fittest’ to work itself out.
Opponents to this plan argue that the plan will not remove that ‘root of all evil’ (whispered …m-o-n-e-y) from exerting its heavy weight upon the process, as candidates would have to be very well financed to run a long, national campaign.
My fellow columnist and I do not differ on the contention that the process is in dire need of repair, nor do we differ on the fact that money and power limit the selection process to a chosen few rather than the best possible person for the job.
One difference between us is that I do not believe we can ‘regulate’ our way out of the corruptible influence of money by ‘controlling the influence of third party groups and political action committees’. I believe that such ‘regulation’ is opening the door to censoring free speech. I believe that open and unrestrained discussion of the candidates and their positions is vitally necessary for an informed choice.
I also believe in the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. Therefore I am optimistic that we can work our way out of this mess with a limited amount of regulation from the federal government, i.e. through the agency of the political parties themselves - and someday soon produce a system that is fair and effective.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
What Happened to the Truth
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 6, 2008
There is a very astute criterion for determining truth given to us in the Levitical Law of the Old Testament: “…On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” (Deuteronomy 19:18 NASB) This standard has been accepted and incorporated into our legal system. It is a very good standard, as we have many clear examples of “He said, She said” scenarios in which we are left with no valid establishment of where truth actually resides. The current belief that ‘truth is relative’ has led us to some very dangerous waters, with no secure harbor for our trust. It seems that each time an enterprising individual decides to “tell it all” (for a sum and a brief jaunt before the limelight of every talk show in Hollywood) we end up with various shades of “the truth”.
In the current scene being played out on the morning “news” shows and on the pages of the daily papers, we have a former White House press secretary telling us “the truth” that he was supposedly unable to tell us before this particular day and time. A day and time, by the way, which would just happen to be the most headline grabbing and consequently, more profitable for book selling.
So then, what exactly must we do to ascertain whether this Scott McClellan is telling us the truth, or whether the former Scott McClellan was telling us the truth? Let us go back to the above-mentioned criterion that has served us well for centuries. Let us look for “two or three witnesses” and let us also look at the current McClellan’s own words in his preface.
“Writing it wasn’t easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process…I’ve found myself questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I’ve reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. THE QUEST FOR TRUTH HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE FOR ME…I DON’T CLAIM A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH…AFTER WRESTLING WITH MY EXPERIENCES OVER SEVERAL MONTHS, I’VE COME CLOSER TO MY TRUTH THAN EVER BEFORE.” (Emphasis mine.)
The choice of words is very significant here and bears some analysis. While I do not claim to be a psychologist, I can easily see how a person can change his/her “perceptions” and “interpretations of events” to the point where they can easily accept a truth as theirs, without ever establishing or proving it to be absolute truth.
So, now let us go back to the days before the Iraq War began and listen to “two or three witnesses” who saw a different truth.
We have quotes from several news sources – apart from those bought and paid for by the U.S. Government – that Saddam Hussein had acquired and sought to acquire more weapons of mass destruction. We had proof that he used them on his own people. We had verification that he was promoting terrorism as well as rewarding the families of Palestinian homicide bombers with $25,000 “bonus checks”. We had several UN Resolutions that were indisputably violated by Saddam. We had several instances where he violated the no-fly zone and fired on our patrol planes.
We had, at those times when McClellan took the party line and delivered the words of the President with his fingers tightly crossed behind his back, as if he was somehow absolved from fibbing, a climate much different from the climate we have today. Just as the sunny weather we are now enjoying in early June tends to shield our memory of those icy days of January, the current environment of security and relative absence of terroristic threats tends to shield us from the days 2002 and 2003. In those days, the terrorists were spreading their evil and threatening the citizens of Spain, France, Germany and many other nations. They seemed to have the upper hand as they fought against our conventional means of warfare and negotiation with unconventional weapons of suicide bombings and broken negotiations. Today, we, and Scott McClellan, enjoy a relatively secure world with the terrorists losing battles daily on the streets of Iraq and – more importantly - in the hearts of the Iraqi people.
The decision to use force in Iraq was approved by a vote of 296 – 133 in the House of Representatives and a vote of 77 – 23 in the U.S. Senate (On October 16, 2002, several months before Coalition Forces “rushed to war” in Spring ’03), based upon their belief in the truth of two or more witnesses that a very real threat existed in Saddam’s regime. A coalition of like-minded sovereign nations agreed with that assessment and joined us in the liberation effort.
The lesson to be learned from this is not that we acted in some kind of blind nationalism – but that we acted upon the best basis of truth at the time, i.e. the testimony of several witnesses. Another lesson to be learned is to “follow the money” whenever we are seeking the motive of an individual who tells a different story at different times. A hefty book contract and a speaking tour under the spotlight comes much more easily when you can say something sensational and if you can drop it into the middle of a media-rich presidential campaign.
From Broader View Weekly, June 6, 2008
There is a very astute criterion for determining truth given to us in the Levitical Law of the Old Testament: “…On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” (Deuteronomy 19:18 NASB) This standard has been accepted and incorporated into our legal system. It is a very good standard, as we have many clear examples of “He said, She said” scenarios in which we are left with no valid establishment of where truth actually resides. The current belief that ‘truth is relative’ has led us to some very dangerous waters, with no secure harbor for our trust. It seems that each time an enterprising individual decides to “tell it all” (for a sum and a brief jaunt before the limelight of every talk show in Hollywood) we end up with various shades of “the truth”.
In the current scene being played out on the morning “news” shows and on the pages of the daily papers, we have a former White House press secretary telling us “the truth” that he was supposedly unable to tell us before this particular day and time. A day and time, by the way, which would just happen to be the most headline grabbing and consequently, more profitable for book selling.
So then, what exactly must we do to ascertain whether this Scott McClellan is telling us the truth, or whether the former Scott McClellan was telling us the truth? Let us go back to the above-mentioned criterion that has served us well for centuries. Let us look for “two or three witnesses” and let us also look at the current McClellan’s own words in his preface.
“Writing it wasn’t easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process…I’ve found myself questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I’ve reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. THE QUEST FOR TRUTH HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE FOR ME…I DON’T CLAIM A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH…AFTER WRESTLING WITH MY EXPERIENCES OVER SEVERAL MONTHS, I’VE COME CLOSER TO MY TRUTH THAN EVER BEFORE.” (Emphasis mine.)
The choice of words is very significant here and bears some analysis. While I do not claim to be a psychologist, I can easily see how a person can change his/her “perceptions” and “interpretations of events” to the point where they can easily accept a truth as theirs, without ever establishing or proving it to be absolute truth.
So, now let us go back to the days before the Iraq War began and listen to “two or three witnesses” who saw a different truth.
We have quotes from several news sources – apart from those bought and paid for by the U.S. Government – that Saddam Hussein had acquired and sought to acquire more weapons of mass destruction. We had proof that he used them on his own people. We had verification that he was promoting terrorism as well as rewarding the families of Palestinian homicide bombers with $25,000 “bonus checks”. We had several UN Resolutions that were indisputably violated by Saddam. We had several instances where he violated the no-fly zone and fired on our patrol planes.
We had, at those times when McClellan took the party line and delivered the words of the President with his fingers tightly crossed behind his back, as if he was somehow absolved from fibbing, a climate much different from the climate we have today. Just as the sunny weather we are now enjoying in early June tends to shield our memory of those icy days of January, the current environment of security and relative absence of terroristic threats tends to shield us from the days 2002 and 2003. In those days, the terrorists were spreading their evil and threatening the citizens of Spain, France, Germany and many other nations. They seemed to have the upper hand as they fought against our conventional means of warfare and negotiation with unconventional weapons of suicide bombings and broken negotiations. Today, we, and Scott McClellan, enjoy a relatively secure world with the terrorists losing battles daily on the streets of Iraq and – more importantly - in the hearts of the Iraqi people.
The decision to use force in Iraq was approved by a vote of 296 – 133 in the House of Representatives and a vote of 77 – 23 in the U.S. Senate (On October 16, 2002, several months before Coalition Forces “rushed to war” in Spring ’03), based upon their belief in the truth of two or more witnesses that a very real threat existed in Saddam’s regime. A coalition of like-minded sovereign nations agreed with that assessment and joined us in the liberation effort.
The lesson to be learned from this is not that we acted in some kind of blind nationalism – but that we acted upon the best basis of truth at the time, i.e. the testimony of several witnesses. Another lesson to be learned is to “follow the money” whenever we are seeking the motive of an individual who tells a different story at different times. A hefty book contract and a speaking tour under the spotlight comes much more easily when you can say something sensational and if you can drop it into the middle of a media-rich presidential campaign.
What Happened to the Truth
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 6, 2008
During his service as White House press secretary, Scott McClellan embodied the unwavering loyalty that the Bush administration expects from its high-level staff. In daily briefings, McClellan would consistently present the official line to the media and the American public, and reporters could count on the secretary’s full support of every policy and decision of the administration.
I am no fan of the man, but as I frequently watched these exchanges, often horrified by implications of the policy being formulated, I remember remarking on more than one occasion that Mr. McClellan must have the worst job in the country. It must be exhausting, I thought, to be continually forced to publicly defend a president whose policies so clearly alienate the majority of Americans, while serving the political machine and feeding corporate greed. Still, McClellan stayed on task, even through his betrayal by Karl Rove and I. “Scooter” Libby, when he made assurances to America that neither the political strategist nor the vice president’s chief of staff had any involvement in the public outing of federal agent Valerie Plame. He was considered a stand-up guy at the time and Bush himself couldn’t heap enough praise on him as he presaged at McClellan’s resignation, that the two would find themselves on a front porch in Texas one day. Bush was sure he would still hold the same “well done” sentiment for Scott on that far off day.
Well, times and sentiments may have changed. The White House and other former staffers have changed their tunes. The words “disgruntled” and “turncoat” seem to be on the lips of most administration proponents, in the few days since it was learned that McClellan’s new book was highly critical of the administration’s direction and policy in the post-911 world.
In addition to describing the disillusionment McClellan felt over the Plame incident (the CIA agent was outted to silence the dissent of Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and his questioning of WMD evidence used to make the case for war with Iraq), What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception reinforces the belief that the intent to bring down Sadaam Hussein was set early on and that intelligence was being manipulated to implement the policy. McClellan talks about the decision to run with the weapons of mass destruction angle as an easier sell than the less convincing motivation of transforming the region with democracy.
Amid the criticism and harsh attacks stirred a variety of questions. From the White House and the Bushies the prominent questions were of motivation. Why write a book so critical of the administration? Was it a matter of revenge for being pushed out of his position? Was McClellan seizing the opportunity to capitalize on his former position? And why now? Was the book a part of a vendetta and a last shot at a sitting president? Was the timing designed to maximize the book’s profitability?
I haven’t had time to read the entire book, and cannot vouch for Mr. McClellan’s thoughts or feelings, but he seems sincere when he explains his motivation as a way to offer his experience as a lesson. He says that in the current election season it is important to examine the “permanent campaign” culture of Washington, which seeks to manipulate the narrative to maintain power and influence, in order to reform politics and transform our government into the republic it should be.
Regardless of the motivation, the book has had the positive result of bringing more important questions to the forefront. It offers no groundbreaking revelations, but the fact that the book was written by an administration insider who had access to the most vital information about the most important policies confirms claims critics have been making for years. The admitted secrecy and deception employed by this administration should be cause for concern.
If, as McClellan seems to believe, the real motivation behind our invasion of Iraq was the noble cause of bringing stability to the region through democracy, the administration should have never manipulated the public with fear and rage over 9/11 to sell the war. This bait and switch tactic has defiled the trust a leader must earn to lead effectively. Whenever we commit young men and women to die, we must do so with the greatest care. We should never lead a nation into war using deception and obfuscation.
What Happened speaks much about the Washington political machine and how the game is played, but the effects of the current culture extend beyond the beltway. Too many of the nation’s citizens fall prey to the mentality that effects our politicians. We too often follow blind nationalism into bad policy. When “our guy” says something we too often accept it as right and true. We wave banners of liberalism or conservatism, of Republican or Democrat, and fall for the party line, then fall into line and allow the self-deception of which McClellan writes.
We can fall into the easy debate about this book that the media has facilitated. We can praise McClellan’s courage at making the enemies he has invited or vilify him for his lack of loyalty. We can question his motivations, or how his views suddenly changed, or his choice of timing. We can play into the “one side vs. the other” political game. We can choose to completely ignore it or call it commercial opportunism.
Or we can take heed of the warning. When Bush, Condoleezza Rice and other officials travel the world beating the drums of war against Iran we can start paying attention to the echoes of the Iraq lead-up. We can choose to be stirred by reason and not fear. We can focus on issues and not bumper sticker slogans. We can send a message to our leaders that we will not tolerate being manipulated no matter the agenda. We can send a message that lives should not be committed lightly and only as a last resort. We can stop blindly supporting “our guy” when his policies violate our interests. We can reject politics-as-usual and force the reform Washington needs. We can choose democracy over sensationalism and blind nationalism.
From Broader View Weekly, June 6, 2008
During his service as White House press secretary, Scott McClellan embodied the unwavering loyalty that the Bush administration expects from its high-level staff. In daily briefings, McClellan would consistently present the official line to the media and the American public, and reporters could count on the secretary’s full support of every policy and decision of the administration.
I am no fan of the man, but as I frequently watched these exchanges, often horrified by implications of the policy being formulated, I remember remarking on more than one occasion that Mr. McClellan must have the worst job in the country. It must be exhausting, I thought, to be continually forced to publicly defend a president whose policies so clearly alienate the majority of Americans, while serving the political machine and feeding corporate greed. Still, McClellan stayed on task, even through his betrayal by Karl Rove and I. “Scooter” Libby, when he made assurances to America that neither the political strategist nor the vice president’s chief of staff had any involvement in the public outing of federal agent Valerie Plame. He was considered a stand-up guy at the time and Bush himself couldn’t heap enough praise on him as he presaged at McClellan’s resignation, that the two would find themselves on a front porch in Texas one day. Bush was sure he would still hold the same “well done” sentiment for Scott on that far off day.
Well, times and sentiments may have changed. The White House and other former staffers have changed their tunes. The words “disgruntled” and “turncoat” seem to be on the lips of most administration proponents, in the few days since it was learned that McClellan’s new book was highly critical of the administration’s direction and policy in the post-911 world.
In addition to describing the disillusionment McClellan felt over the Plame incident (the CIA agent was outted to silence the dissent of Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and his questioning of WMD evidence used to make the case for war with Iraq), What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception reinforces the belief that the intent to bring down Sadaam Hussein was set early on and that intelligence was being manipulated to implement the policy. McClellan talks about the decision to run with the weapons of mass destruction angle as an easier sell than the less convincing motivation of transforming the region with democracy.
Amid the criticism and harsh attacks stirred a variety of questions. From the White House and the Bushies the prominent questions were of motivation. Why write a book so critical of the administration? Was it a matter of revenge for being pushed out of his position? Was McClellan seizing the opportunity to capitalize on his former position? And why now? Was the book a part of a vendetta and a last shot at a sitting president? Was the timing designed to maximize the book’s profitability?
I haven’t had time to read the entire book, and cannot vouch for Mr. McClellan’s thoughts or feelings, but he seems sincere when he explains his motivation as a way to offer his experience as a lesson. He says that in the current election season it is important to examine the “permanent campaign” culture of Washington, which seeks to manipulate the narrative to maintain power and influence, in order to reform politics and transform our government into the republic it should be.
Regardless of the motivation, the book has had the positive result of bringing more important questions to the forefront. It offers no groundbreaking revelations, but the fact that the book was written by an administration insider who had access to the most vital information about the most important policies confirms claims critics have been making for years. The admitted secrecy and deception employed by this administration should be cause for concern.
If, as McClellan seems to believe, the real motivation behind our invasion of Iraq was the noble cause of bringing stability to the region through democracy, the administration should have never manipulated the public with fear and rage over 9/11 to sell the war. This bait and switch tactic has defiled the trust a leader must earn to lead effectively. Whenever we commit young men and women to die, we must do so with the greatest care. We should never lead a nation into war using deception and obfuscation.
What Happened speaks much about the Washington political machine and how the game is played, but the effects of the current culture extend beyond the beltway. Too many of the nation’s citizens fall prey to the mentality that effects our politicians. We too often follow blind nationalism into bad policy. When “our guy” says something we too often accept it as right and true. We wave banners of liberalism or conservatism, of Republican or Democrat, and fall for the party line, then fall into line and allow the self-deception of which McClellan writes.
We can fall into the easy debate about this book that the media has facilitated. We can praise McClellan’s courage at making the enemies he has invited or vilify him for his lack of loyalty. We can question his motivations, or how his views suddenly changed, or his choice of timing. We can play into the “one side vs. the other” political game. We can choose to completely ignore it or call it commercial opportunism.
Or we can take heed of the warning. When Bush, Condoleezza Rice and other officials travel the world beating the drums of war against Iran we can start paying attention to the echoes of the Iraq lead-up. We can choose to be stirred by reason and not fear. We can focus on issues and not bumper sticker slogans. We can send a message to our leaders that we will not tolerate being manipulated no matter the agenda. We can send a message that lives should not be committed lightly and only as a last resort. We can stop blindly supporting “our guy” when his policies violate our interests. We can reject politics-as-usual and force the reform Washington needs. We can choose democracy over sensationalism and blind nationalism.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
High Gasoline Prices Highlight the Need for New Energy Policy
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
The rising price of gasoline is more than just a political talking point. For most Americans, the pain at the pump is a tragic reality that interferes with daily life. In a move that appeared to address the gas crisis, a candidate from each major political party recently supported a proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax during the summer months, as a Gas Tax Holiday. The lackluster support in Congress for such an idea made this a perfect storm for election year hype: a cheap campaign promise that the candidate has no obligation to fulfill.
Unfortunately, the suspension of this gas tax doesn’t even represent a Band-Aid solution to the existing crisis. The average American wouldn’t be able to fill a single tank with the savings generated during the “holiday”. In fact, the perception of a gas price relief might drive consumption rates higher as drivers see the opportunity to travel or make otherwise unnecessary trips, thereby increasing expense.
The gas tax also represents a source of important revenue to public services and infrastructure. Americans would be forced to choose between safe roads and bridges and other tax alternatives to make up the difference if the gas tax were suspended. Last year’s bridge collapse was a wake-up call to the consequence of ignoring the maintenance of our roads and highways.
There is also the possibility, as was widely reported, that the tax savings would not be passed on to the consumer, further lining the pockets of the oil industry profit-takers. With Exxon-Mobil recently posting another record quarter of profits, this is a legitimate concern. Oil industry corporations are certainly obligated by their charters to benefit their shareholders at the expense of the consumer.
Some fiscal conservatives would point to government regulation as the core problem contributing to the high price of gas. According to these small-government proponents, refinery regulations, intended to address the ecological damage caused by our dependence on petroleum, contribute more to the ballooning price of fuel than does corporate greed. In fact, relaxing government regulation of the oil industry would probably do little to relieve rising prices, as it’s doubtful that corporations would feel committed to passing these savings on to the consumer. An oil industry unfettered by government control would worsen global environmental crises, control already strained fuel supplies and drive up prices. Big Oil’s internal memos circulated in the mid- to late-1990s admit to a strategy of shutting down their own refineries (not government limiting of refining) in order to slow supply of gasoline and to grow profit margins.
But Big Oil is only a part of the problem. One must factor into the equation the high per-barrel price of oil. The United States’ relationship with OPEC nations has done little to offer hope of using influence to increase supply and drive down crude prices. Bush’s recent meeting with the Saudis, who have a history of ties to the Bush dynasty, was fruitless at bringing about any meaningful change. Add to the reluctance of OPEC to comply with U.S. wishes, the unrest in the region that our aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan has wrought, and it is clear that our foreign policy has done far more to contribute to the current crisis than to address it.
The plain fact is that our addiction to petroleum coupled with the dwindling supply of oil worldwide is nearing a point of collapse. It is impossible to sustain the current balance of supply and demand of oil. So much of our supply of food, goods and service is contingent on a ready supply of oil. Even when you get past the pumps, you can see the impact in rising prices at the grocery or department store.
Peak oil is the point at which oil production is not sustainable because the maximum rate of production has been reached and the point at which this rate begins its terminal decline. There is debate over whether we have, globally, already reached peak oil or if we are just near peak production. The dramatic rise in oil prices may be the result of market speculation or an indicator that peak oil has been reached. Regardless, our hunger for oil, especially in the nation responsible for the greatest consumption of oil resources, has brought us to an undeniable crisis. It is as plain as the faces and shaking heads of those we see at our local Citgo or Sunoco stations.
In my economic state, I can ill afford these rising prices – certainly, I can afford it less than many. However, the rising gas prices do have some potential positive effects. Even among the wealthy, the cost of a fill-up has taken some of the fun out of driving obnoxiously inefficient SUVs or Hummers. Higher prices have already spurred some shift to public transportation where it is available, and indicators are that a curbing of unnecessary travel has already begun. A noticeable drop in demand for oil will send a message to oil companies and OPEC that the market will not continue to bear the price. The painful shock to the pocketbook will also eventually stir the citizenry out of apathy. I have long thought that the price of gas was a catalyst and call to action of revolutionary proportions.
Frustration may be enough to engage Americans to consider their consumption of resources and carbon footprints. It may prompt calls for fuel-efficient vehicles from an auto industry that has the technology but not the will to provide cars and trucks with dramatically higher mileage ratings. Increased support of viable alternatives to petroleum may spring from economic hardship. U.S. citizens might grasp the futility of our intervention in the Middle East and its failure to “protect our interests” or control oil supplies. Whatever the impact, real change won’t come from rolling back the per-gallon tax, but from a transformation of our tolerance of the situation.
Though the federal gas tax holiday gathered little steam, the New York State Senate seized the opportunity to jump on the political bandwagon by passing a gas tax relief at the state level. While the Governor and State Assembly leaders oppose the bill, there is increasing pressure from State Senators in favor of the measure. We need to send a message to our legislators that we want a real solution to rising gasoline prices, not political gimmickry.
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
The rising price of gasoline is more than just a political talking point. For most Americans, the pain at the pump is a tragic reality that interferes with daily life. In a move that appeared to address the gas crisis, a candidate from each major political party recently supported a proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax during the summer months, as a Gas Tax Holiday. The lackluster support in Congress for such an idea made this a perfect storm for election year hype: a cheap campaign promise that the candidate has no obligation to fulfill.
Unfortunately, the suspension of this gas tax doesn’t even represent a Band-Aid solution to the existing crisis. The average American wouldn’t be able to fill a single tank with the savings generated during the “holiday”. In fact, the perception of a gas price relief might drive consumption rates higher as drivers see the opportunity to travel or make otherwise unnecessary trips, thereby increasing expense.
The gas tax also represents a source of important revenue to public services and infrastructure. Americans would be forced to choose between safe roads and bridges and other tax alternatives to make up the difference if the gas tax were suspended. Last year’s bridge collapse was a wake-up call to the consequence of ignoring the maintenance of our roads and highways.
There is also the possibility, as was widely reported, that the tax savings would not be passed on to the consumer, further lining the pockets of the oil industry profit-takers. With Exxon-Mobil recently posting another record quarter of profits, this is a legitimate concern. Oil industry corporations are certainly obligated by their charters to benefit their shareholders at the expense of the consumer.
Some fiscal conservatives would point to government regulation as the core problem contributing to the high price of gas. According to these small-government proponents, refinery regulations, intended to address the ecological damage caused by our dependence on petroleum, contribute more to the ballooning price of fuel than does corporate greed. In fact, relaxing government regulation of the oil industry would probably do little to relieve rising prices, as it’s doubtful that corporations would feel committed to passing these savings on to the consumer. An oil industry unfettered by government control would worsen global environmental crises, control already strained fuel supplies and drive up prices. Big Oil’s internal memos circulated in the mid- to late-1990s admit to a strategy of shutting down their own refineries (not government limiting of refining) in order to slow supply of gasoline and to grow profit margins.
But Big Oil is only a part of the problem. One must factor into the equation the high per-barrel price of oil. The United States’ relationship with OPEC nations has done little to offer hope of using influence to increase supply and drive down crude prices. Bush’s recent meeting with the Saudis, who have a history of ties to the Bush dynasty, was fruitless at bringing about any meaningful change. Add to the reluctance of OPEC to comply with U.S. wishes, the unrest in the region that our aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan has wrought, and it is clear that our foreign policy has done far more to contribute to the current crisis than to address it.
The plain fact is that our addiction to petroleum coupled with the dwindling supply of oil worldwide is nearing a point of collapse. It is impossible to sustain the current balance of supply and demand of oil. So much of our supply of food, goods and service is contingent on a ready supply of oil. Even when you get past the pumps, you can see the impact in rising prices at the grocery or department store.
Peak oil is the point at which oil production is not sustainable because the maximum rate of production has been reached and the point at which this rate begins its terminal decline. There is debate over whether we have, globally, already reached peak oil or if we are just near peak production. The dramatic rise in oil prices may be the result of market speculation or an indicator that peak oil has been reached. Regardless, our hunger for oil, especially in the nation responsible for the greatest consumption of oil resources, has brought us to an undeniable crisis. It is as plain as the faces and shaking heads of those we see at our local Citgo or Sunoco stations.
In my economic state, I can ill afford these rising prices – certainly, I can afford it less than many. However, the rising gas prices do have some potential positive effects. Even among the wealthy, the cost of a fill-up has taken some of the fun out of driving obnoxiously inefficient SUVs or Hummers. Higher prices have already spurred some shift to public transportation where it is available, and indicators are that a curbing of unnecessary travel has already begun. A noticeable drop in demand for oil will send a message to oil companies and OPEC that the market will not continue to bear the price. The painful shock to the pocketbook will also eventually stir the citizenry out of apathy. I have long thought that the price of gas was a catalyst and call to action of revolutionary proportions.
Frustration may be enough to engage Americans to consider their consumption of resources and carbon footprints. It may prompt calls for fuel-efficient vehicles from an auto industry that has the technology but not the will to provide cars and trucks with dramatically higher mileage ratings. Increased support of viable alternatives to petroleum may spring from economic hardship. U.S. citizens might grasp the futility of our intervention in the Middle East and its failure to “protect our interests” or control oil supplies. Whatever the impact, real change won’t come from rolling back the per-gallon tax, but from a transformation of our tolerance of the situation.
Though the federal gas tax holiday gathered little steam, the New York State Senate seized the opportunity to jump on the political bandwagon by passing a gas tax relief at the state level. While the Governor and State Assembly leaders oppose the bill, there is increasing pressure from State Senators in favor of the measure. We need to send a message to our legislators that we want a real solution to rising gasoline prices, not political gimmickry.
High Gasoline Prices Highlight the Need for New Energy Policy
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
There is a scene in the Frankenstein movie where the village residents, bearing torches and pitchforks, head out in pursuit of the fearsome monster. It seems that the promise of this “New and Improved!” form of life turned out to be a threat. The moral of that particular story is the classic warning that when we tinker with nature, we may not always like what we create.
Today we have a presidential candidate trying to inspire the electorate to grab the pitchforks and light the torches once again. This time we are going to storm the strongholds of that hairy monster called BIG OIL. According to the proposed tax holiday, this campaigner will bring the hairy monster to its knees by repealing the 18-cent per gallon federal excise tax. We also have a vote-hungry New York State Legislature proposing a similar repeal of the state excise. These temporary measures are supposed to miraculously rid our landscape of high gasoline prices and teach that monster exactly how much profit it should make for bringing this vital commodity to our fueling stations each day.
This proposal scares me more than the hairy monster does for several reasons. First of all, let us discuss how this monster was created in the first place.
To trace the origin of BIG OIL, we need to go back to the year of 1999, when our present campaigner slept in the White House while her husband’s administration gleefully approved the merger of Exxon and Mobil. This seemingly innocuous combination of two companies started a rash of mergers that, over the next decade, resulted in the number of major oil companies falling from 43 separate and competitive entities into less than 14 companies with no more than five major companies controlling the lion’s share of oil revenues.
At the time of that merger, gasoline was priced at $2.05 a gallon and oil was $12.37 a barrel. It is easy to see with hindsight that this merger was not in our best interest and the Federal Trade Commission was obviously sleeping on the job as well.
But today the monster is here and we must learn how to live with him. We cannot rout him from the tower with a minor manipulation of the gas tax. We can not placate him with less demand for his product. According to the latest figures from the first quarter of this year, fuel demand is down over 1.4% from the same quarter of last year. Yet the prices continue to rise and the monster seems to be hungrier.
Another reason why I oppose this Band-Aid approach to economic crises is because it is clearly political pandering and, as such, it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of my fellow citizens.
It would also serve to cloud the real issues by forestalling true energy policy reform.
In order to tame this monster, we need to reaffirm our commitment to the American people and the American economy. We need to realize that sound energy policy is necessary not only to calm the effects of Gasoline Pump Anxiety Syndrome (GAS PAS), but it is also necessary for national security reasons. As long as we continue to harass this monster by imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions and limiting domestic production and exploration, we will always be at the mercy of this monster and the foreign producers.
We should also examine ways to partner with friendly producers such as Canada, who, by the way, happens to be our number one supplier, and Mexico, who ranks as our third highest supplier. These two nations are already partnered with us in NAFTA and with further encouragement and cooperation with our research and development capability could easily compete with OPEC producers.
We have to take a sane and logical look at exploiting the tremendous reserves in the deposits of oil sands in Alberta as well as pressuring the Mexican government to revert the control of PEMEX (the government-controlled oil producer) back to private ownership.
The GAS PAS will not be relieved by temporary patches, nor will it be resolved by chasing big, bad monsters with pitchforks and torches. It demands honest appraisals of what created this monster, and logical solutions.
From Broader View Weekly, May 23, 2008
There is a scene in the Frankenstein movie where the village residents, bearing torches and pitchforks, head out in pursuit of the fearsome monster. It seems that the promise of this “New and Improved!” form of life turned out to be a threat. The moral of that particular story is the classic warning that when we tinker with nature, we may not always like what we create.
Today we have a presidential candidate trying to inspire the electorate to grab the pitchforks and light the torches once again. This time we are going to storm the strongholds of that hairy monster called BIG OIL. According to the proposed tax holiday, this campaigner will bring the hairy monster to its knees by repealing the 18-cent per gallon federal excise tax. We also have a vote-hungry New York State Legislature proposing a similar repeal of the state excise. These temporary measures are supposed to miraculously rid our landscape of high gasoline prices and teach that monster exactly how much profit it should make for bringing this vital commodity to our fueling stations each day.
This proposal scares me more than the hairy monster does for several reasons. First of all, let us discuss how this monster was created in the first place.
To trace the origin of BIG OIL, we need to go back to the year of 1999, when our present campaigner slept in the White House while her husband’s administration gleefully approved the merger of Exxon and Mobil. This seemingly innocuous combination of two companies started a rash of mergers that, over the next decade, resulted in the number of major oil companies falling from 43 separate and competitive entities into less than 14 companies with no more than five major companies controlling the lion’s share of oil revenues.
At the time of that merger, gasoline was priced at $2.05 a gallon and oil was $12.37 a barrel. It is easy to see with hindsight that this merger was not in our best interest and the Federal Trade Commission was obviously sleeping on the job as well.
But today the monster is here and we must learn how to live with him. We cannot rout him from the tower with a minor manipulation of the gas tax. We can not placate him with less demand for his product. According to the latest figures from the first quarter of this year, fuel demand is down over 1.4% from the same quarter of last year. Yet the prices continue to rise and the monster seems to be hungrier.
Another reason why I oppose this Band-Aid approach to economic crises is because it is clearly political pandering and, as such, it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of my fellow citizens.
It would also serve to cloud the real issues by forestalling true energy policy reform.
In order to tame this monster, we need to reaffirm our commitment to the American people and the American economy. We need to realize that sound energy policy is necessary not only to calm the effects of Gasoline Pump Anxiety Syndrome (GAS PAS), but it is also necessary for national security reasons. As long as we continue to harass this monster by imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions and limiting domestic production and exploration, we will always be at the mercy of this monster and the foreign producers.
We should also examine ways to partner with friendly producers such as Canada, who, by the way, happens to be our number one supplier, and Mexico, who ranks as our third highest supplier. These two nations are already partnered with us in NAFTA and with further encouragement and cooperation with our research and development capability could easily compete with OPEC producers.
We have to take a sane and logical look at exploiting the tremendous reserves in the deposits of oil sands in Alberta as well as pressuring the Mexican government to revert the control of PEMEX (the government-controlled oil producer) back to private ownership.
The GAS PAS will not be relieved by temporary patches, nor will it be resolved by chasing big, bad monsters with pitchforks and torches. It demands honest appraisals of what created this monster, and logical solutions.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Is Intelligence being Expelled from our classrooms?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 9, 2008
Because my hectic schedule has not allowed me the time to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I can not and will not comment directly upon the film itself. However, I can and will respond to some questions raised by my fellow columnist in his review of the film and its thesis.
According to my brother’s column, he expected “a dialogue about the alternate theory of creation that ID (Intelligent Design) presents.”
It is my intent here to open such dialogue and I invite all interested parties to respond, as long as we all agree to follow the rules of decency and to refrain from making broad, unsubstantiated statements.
To begin with, I must admit that I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Some of you may not know that one of my many obligations is that of substitute teacher for the Earth Science classes at Twin Tiers Christian Academy in Breesport. As a consequence of that obligation, I have just recently spent several weeks of my life preparing and teaching lessons about the Geologic Ages and the Evolution of Life according to the curriculum mandated by the New York State Board of Regents. I taught the students how to follow the guidelines of determining a rock’s age by the index fossils contained therein and also how to correlate the age of the fossils by the rock strata that contained them. I taught the students that, according to their book and for the purpose of answering the questions on the exam, their lives, thoughts, dreams and very souls were the result of a long progression of chance mutations and natural selection. I taught them that the first living things resulted from a chance lightning strike upon a primordial, chemical soup; and that these primitive living things somehow mutated into photosynthetic organisms. I then taught them, that according to their textbook (Brief Review for New York Earth Science – The Physical Setting, pg. 260) these organisms used Carbon Dioxide and released free Oxygen in enough amounts to alter the atmosphere of the earth.
I proceeded to teach them all the information in the remainder of that chapter, but then I challenged them to think a little deeper. Because this particular school allows the teachers and students the privilege of academic freedom, I was able to open another door and to allow these students to peek into another room of thought. I was able to expose my students to the idea that neither Evolutionary Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory should be considered as settled scientific fact, because both are dealing with the subject of ORIGINS – of the universe and of life itself – and neither could be open for refutation by experimentation and observation (which is the criteria for true scientific methodology).
I was able to teach them that both theories should be treated as Scientific Models, which could then be designated as credible or legitimate through the agency of prediction and analysis of those predictions.
If the Evolutionary Model is correct, then certain predictions could be matched with known (irrefutable) laws and facts. If, however, the Intelligent Design Model is correct, then it too could be matched with known facts.
I believe that this method of teaching served my students best, as I believe it is more important to produce critical thinkers than it is to produce robotic test takers.
Now, concerning the two models, let me briefly outline the two conflicting theories, realizing that the word count and space limitations preclude me from explaining them in great detail.
Intelligent Design Theory postulates that an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material or unguided chemical cause can best explain the qualities we see as we make advances in scientific discoveries (cell structure, DNA, microscopic features of single–cell organisms, etc). According to this ID model, one would predict that we would find complexity and purposeful design in every life form, from the ‘simplest’ to the most complex. In other words, we would predict that the feathered falcon that flies above our forests would be as complex and purposely designed as the Falcon fighter jet produced for our U.S. Military. Until we can intelligently design a plane to reproduce itself, I would posit that the feathered design is far superior.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will restrict my definition of Darwinian Evolution to the following: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. Change is the result of material causes, driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.
Regarding the introduction of Intelligence into the classroom as a possible cause for all life, I think it is more than ironic that we seek out intelligence or design in many other scientific endeavors without fear. For example, the Search for Extra–Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program has spent over 40 years and millions of dollars scanning the radio waves from space to determine if there is any sign of intelligent life out there. The criteria for that intelligence would be the detection of a repeating pattern that is not random. We also seek design and intelligence when we conduct forensic examinations of dead bodies to determine a murderous agency (something other than natural causes); archeologists seek out design and purpose when exploring digs to determine intelligent life forms. Why then can we not teach our students to examine the fossil evidence and cell biology for signs of intelligence? What are we afraid of?
From Broader View Weekly, May 9, 2008
Because my hectic schedule has not allowed me the time to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I can not and will not comment directly upon the film itself. However, I can and will respond to some questions raised by my fellow columnist in his review of the film and its thesis.
According to my brother’s column, he expected “a dialogue about the alternate theory of creation that ID (Intelligent Design) presents.”
It is my intent here to open such dialogue and I invite all interested parties to respond, as long as we all agree to follow the rules of decency and to refrain from making broad, unsubstantiated statements.
To begin with, I must admit that I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Some of you may not know that one of my many obligations is that of substitute teacher for the Earth Science classes at Twin Tiers Christian Academy in Breesport. As a consequence of that obligation, I have just recently spent several weeks of my life preparing and teaching lessons about the Geologic Ages and the Evolution of Life according to the curriculum mandated by the New York State Board of Regents. I taught the students how to follow the guidelines of determining a rock’s age by the index fossils contained therein and also how to correlate the age of the fossils by the rock strata that contained them. I taught the students that, according to their book and for the purpose of answering the questions on the exam, their lives, thoughts, dreams and very souls were the result of a long progression of chance mutations and natural selection. I taught them that the first living things resulted from a chance lightning strike upon a primordial, chemical soup; and that these primitive living things somehow mutated into photosynthetic organisms. I then taught them, that according to their textbook (Brief Review for New York Earth Science – The Physical Setting, pg. 260) these organisms used Carbon Dioxide and released free Oxygen in enough amounts to alter the atmosphere of the earth.
I proceeded to teach them all the information in the remainder of that chapter, but then I challenged them to think a little deeper. Because this particular school allows the teachers and students the privilege of academic freedom, I was able to open another door and to allow these students to peek into another room of thought. I was able to expose my students to the idea that neither Evolutionary Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory should be considered as settled scientific fact, because both are dealing with the subject of ORIGINS – of the universe and of life itself – and neither could be open for refutation by experimentation and observation (which is the criteria for true scientific methodology).
I was able to teach them that both theories should be treated as Scientific Models, which could then be designated as credible or legitimate through the agency of prediction and analysis of those predictions.
If the Evolutionary Model is correct, then certain predictions could be matched with known (irrefutable) laws and facts. If, however, the Intelligent Design Model is correct, then it too could be matched with known facts.
I believe that this method of teaching served my students best, as I believe it is more important to produce critical thinkers than it is to produce robotic test takers.
Now, concerning the two models, let me briefly outline the two conflicting theories, realizing that the word count and space limitations preclude me from explaining them in great detail.
Intelligent Design Theory postulates that an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material or unguided chemical cause can best explain the qualities we see as we make advances in scientific discoveries (cell structure, DNA, microscopic features of single–cell organisms, etc). According to this ID model, one would predict that we would find complexity and purposeful design in every life form, from the ‘simplest’ to the most complex. In other words, we would predict that the feathered falcon that flies above our forests would be as complex and purposely designed as the Falcon fighter jet produced for our U.S. Military. Until we can intelligently design a plane to reproduce itself, I would posit that the feathered design is far superior.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will restrict my definition of Darwinian Evolution to the following: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. Change is the result of material causes, driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.
Regarding the introduction of Intelligence into the classroom as a possible cause for all life, I think it is more than ironic that we seek out intelligence or design in many other scientific endeavors without fear. For example, the Search for Extra–Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program has spent over 40 years and millions of dollars scanning the radio waves from space to determine if there is any sign of intelligent life out there. The criteria for that intelligence would be the detection of a repeating pattern that is not random. We also seek design and intelligence when we conduct forensic examinations of dead bodies to determine a murderous agency (something other than natural causes); archeologists seek out design and purpose when exploring digs to determine intelligent life forms. Why then can we not teach our students to examine the fossil evidence and cell biology for signs of intelligence? What are we afraid of?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ben Stein's New Documentary on Intelligent Design
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 2, 2008
This past week I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein’s new documentary, which argues that discussion of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is being systemically forbidden by the scientific community. Judging from the praise the movie had received from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, and religious organizations like Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), I had presumed the film would be another tool used to scare folks, predominately conservative Christians, that religious freedom was once again under attack by science and academia. In that sense, I wasn’t disappointed.
Much is said by those interviewed in the movie about the desire to simply have a dialog about the alternate theory of creation that ID presents. I would welcome this kind of discussion, and one might actually believe this to be the motivation of the filmmakers if it weren’t for the repeated imagery of the Berlin wall; the ominous warnings about the loss of freedom; the assertion that Darwinism is the precursor to Nazism; or the vilification of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It is clear that it is the scientific community that is under attack here.
The cinematic mastery of the documentary is powerful and emotionally moving, especially the tour of a Nazi asylum and the Dachau concentration camp. It is indisputable that atrocities were committed in Nazi Germany, and the viewer is right to be disgusted by the eugenic destruction of the handicapped or the persecution of millions in the concentration camps. The argument that the scientific theory of evolution is the root of Hitler’s rise and is indicative of the decline of modern “indoctrinated” society is nonsense.
The problem is that with the film’s emotional pull and entertaining black and white clips, there is little substance to be found to back up the far-fetched claims of conspiracy. A few disgruntled individuals assert that promotions or funding were denied, or that they lost their jobs, or that pressure was brought to bear simply because they had dared to mention the words “Intelligent Design.” As proof of the conspiracy, the filmmakers extract, from the powers that be, statements that any actions taken had nothing to do with the issue of intelligent design. It is hard to imagine how that helps to make the case.
The movie also makes a laughable attempt at claiming that Intelligent Design has little to do with religion. In fact, the Discovery Institute and other advocates of ID seek to use a seemingly scientific theory to promote biblical creationism and inject it into education and academia. Anyone who doubts this need only look to Answers in Genesis, which skews its scientific theories to support a young earth and a six-day creation period of the universe that flies in the face of the theory of ID. Yet this organization touts the movie on its website, and it and other conservative Christian groups urge Christians to go see it. The motivation appears to be to use ID as a wedge to force biblical theories into the classroom and springboard creationism and Judeo-Christian dogma into the schools.
Where Expelled fails most miserably, in my opinion, is not offering any real discussion of the theory of ID itself. The film criticizes the media for giving short shrift to Intelligent Design, then never really expands the explanation of the theory in any meaningful way. The audience leaves the theater as confused as ever about what ID really is. A great deal of the movie is spent pointing out the admitted gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution but does little to explain how its own theory solves those questions. Darwin doesn’t satisfy my curiosity in these areas but this film doesn’t even try. Instead, it rakes over the coals the most controversial and least influential author on the subject, the inflammatory Richard Dawkins, and attempts to poke new holes in evolution. I was not impressed.
If you are looking for a reason to believe your spirituality or religion are under attack by the secular demons of academia, by all means plunk down your seven dollars and catch this movie. If you are looking for intelligent discourse on intelligent design, talk to a biology professor.
From Broader View Weekly, May 2, 2008
This past week I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein’s new documentary, which argues that discussion of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is being systemically forbidden by the scientific community. Judging from the praise the movie had received from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, and religious organizations like Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), I had presumed the film would be another tool used to scare folks, predominately conservative Christians, that religious freedom was once again under attack by science and academia. In that sense, I wasn’t disappointed.
Much is said by those interviewed in the movie about the desire to simply have a dialog about the alternate theory of creation that ID presents. I would welcome this kind of discussion, and one might actually believe this to be the motivation of the filmmakers if it weren’t for the repeated imagery of the Berlin wall; the ominous warnings about the loss of freedom; the assertion that Darwinism is the precursor to Nazism; or the vilification of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It is clear that it is the scientific community that is under attack here.
The cinematic mastery of the documentary is powerful and emotionally moving, especially the tour of a Nazi asylum and the Dachau concentration camp. It is indisputable that atrocities were committed in Nazi Germany, and the viewer is right to be disgusted by the eugenic destruction of the handicapped or the persecution of millions in the concentration camps. The argument that the scientific theory of evolution is the root of Hitler’s rise and is indicative of the decline of modern “indoctrinated” society is nonsense.
The problem is that with the film’s emotional pull and entertaining black and white clips, there is little substance to be found to back up the far-fetched claims of conspiracy. A few disgruntled individuals assert that promotions or funding were denied, or that they lost their jobs, or that pressure was brought to bear simply because they had dared to mention the words “Intelligent Design.” As proof of the conspiracy, the filmmakers extract, from the powers that be, statements that any actions taken had nothing to do with the issue of intelligent design. It is hard to imagine how that helps to make the case.
The movie also makes a laughable attempt at claiming that Intelligent Design has little to do with religion. In fact, the Discovery Institute and other advocates of ID seek to use a seemingly scientific theory to promote biblical creationism and inject it into education and academia. Anyone who doubts this need only look to Answers in Genesis, which skews its scientific theories to support a young earth and a six-day creation period of the universe that flies in the face of the theory of ID. Yet this organization touts the movie on its website, and it and other conservative Christian groups urge Christians to go see it. The motivation appears to be to use ID as a wedge to force biblical theories into the classroom and springboard creationism and Judeo-Christian dogma into the schools.
Where Expelled fails most miserably, in my opinion, is not offering any real discussion of the theory of ID itself. The film criticizes the media for giving short shrift to Intelligent Design, then never really expands the explanation of the theory in any meaningful way. The audience leaves the theater as confused as ever about what ID really is. A great deal of the movie is spent pointing out the admitted gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution but does little to explain how its own theory solves those questions. Darwin doesn’t satisfy my curiosity in these areas but this film doesn’t even try. Instead, it rakes over the coals the most controversial and least influential author on the subject, the inflammatory Richard Dawkins, and attempts to poke new holes in evolution. I was not impressed.
If you are looking for a reason to believe your spirituality or religion are under attack by the secular demons of academia, by all means plunk down your seven dollars and catch this movie. If you are looking for intelligent discourse on intelligent design, talk to a biology professor.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Prejudice at the Forefront
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
Thankfully, the current election year has brought the issue of racism to the public forefront. It is easy for complacency to set in as we look at our progressive social construct with all its diversity. As this year’s presidential contest becomes more and more about race we are reminded that racial hatred, and more importantly, widespread prejudice is alive and thriving even in the 21st Century.
One need only observe the frequency with which Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein is bandied about as an effective scare tactic by those who would make the entire Arab world our enemy or equate Islam with evil.
Recent polls among primary and caucus goers found many who claim they would never vote for a black man for president. Others said the same about voting for a woman. Despite years of struggle for civil rights and suffrage, such gender and racial prejudice still grips many and remains an issue that should grab our attention if we seek to overcome our sins of the past.
That struggle for freedom from the oppression of racial hatred compelled Obama’s minister to make the comments that continue to haunt the senator’s campaign. His words came from a frustration that Pat Robertson never knew. His perspective is much different than is Geraldine Ferraro’s. Reverend Wright comes from a place closer to Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who voiced similar criticisms of the government of the United States in the tumults of the sixties. Still, the criticism of Wright contrasts the reverence of King.
In fact, the most inflammatory comment of Wright’s rantings was a condemnation of America not unlike the one Reverend Jerry Falwell attributed to God when he asserted that 9/11 was the punishment for the horrible sin of tolerance.
The good news during this election cycle is that a woman and a black man have gotten so far amid the lingering tangles of racism and sexism. 2008 could be a turning point in our history when we embrace our commonalities and begin to ignore our differences.
2008 should be the year we stop persecuting individuals for their sexual preferences and treat them like fellow humans with the same rights to the pursuit of happiness the Constitution affords the rest of Americans.
2008 should be the year we begin the journey to healthcare and education for all regardless of race, ethnicity or station.
2008 should be the year we address the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, instead of perpetuating the current policy of class warfare.
2008 should be the year we stop using religion as a weapon and honor the spirit of religious freedom the Constitution’s framers sought.
We must stop crying “reverse racism” and mourning the plight of people like Don Imus whose consequences suit their actions. White America is not being perpetually punished for the sins of slave owners or the racial oppression of the Deep South. But, we cannot try to ignore that those dark stains are indelible on our history. We must move on toward the progressive nation we hope to be, but we should be mindful of the prejudice that would block our path.
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
Thankfully, the current election year has brought the issue of racism to the public forefront. It is easy for complacency to set in as we look at our progressive social construct with all its diversity. As this year’s presidential contest becomes more and more about race we are reminded that racial hatred, and more importantly, widespread prejudice is alive and thriving even in the 21st Century.
One need only observe the frequency with which Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein is bandied about as an effective scare tactic by those who would make the entire Arab world our enemy or equate Islam with evil.
Recent polls among primary and caucus goers found many who claim they would never vote for a black man for president. Others said the same about voting for a woman. Despite years of struggle for civil rights and suffrage, such gender and racial prejudice still grips many and remains an issue that should grab our attention if we seek to overcome our sins of the past.
That struggle for freedom from the oppression of racial hatred compelled Obama’s minister to make the comments that continue to haunt the senator’s campaign. His words came from a frustration that Pat Robertson never knew. His perspective is much different than is Geraldine Ferraro’s. Reverend Wright comes from a place closer to Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who voiced similar criticisms of the government of the United States in the tumults of the sixties. Still, the criticism of Wright contrasts the reverence of King.
In fact, the most inflammatory comment of Wright’s rantings was a condemnation of America not unlike the one Reverend Jerry Falwell attributed to God when he asserted that 9/11 was the punishment for the horrible sin of tolerance.
The good news during this election cycle is that a woman and a black man have gotten so far amid the lingering tangles of racism and sexism. 2008 could be a turning point in our history when we embrace our commonalities and begin to ignore our differences.
2008 should be the year we stop persecuting individuals for their sexual preferences and treat them like fellow humans with the same rights to the pursuit of happiness the Constitution affords the rest of Americans.
2008 should be the year we begin the journey to healthcare and education for all regardless of race, ethnicity or station.
2008 should be the year we address the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, instead of perpetuating the current policy of class warfare.
2008 should be the year we stop using religion as a weapon and honor the spirit of religious freedom the Constitution’s framers sought.
We must stop crying “reverse racism” and mourning the plight of people like Don Imus whose consequences suit their actions. White America is not being perpetually punished for the sins of slave owners or the racial oppression of the Deep South. But, we cannot try to ignore that those dark stains are indelible on our history. We must move on toward the progressive nation we hope to be, but we should be mindful of the prejudice that would block our path.
Racism by any other name is still racism
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
The most recent barrage of hostile rhetoric between the warring Democrat party candidates has brought the issue of racism back to the front pages of our papers. In that sense, I believe, this historic presidential cycle has already served our nation well. I believe the issue of racism should be examined from time to time and regardless of the machine that drags it to the exam room of our minds, we should take the time to give it our full attention.
First of all, let us define what racism is and what it is not. According to the cold, dry dictionary (Random House College Dictionary Revised 1975, to be exact) racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Now let’s define what racism is not. Racism is not just a poor choice of words. We should not call someone racist just because she/he had a ‘slip of the tongue’ when she/he has not demonstrated a previous lifestyle of hatred or denigration of another race. Racism is not limited to one particular race, i.e. anyone can hate, and hatred of another race is racism. Regardless of the color of the skin that is stretched over the skull, if the mind within that skull is filled with hate for another person solely because that other person’s skull is covered by another color of skin, it is a racist mind. Racism is not merely seeing and recognizing differences. That is just being observant. If, however, by seeing and recognizing differences, one person suggests that those differences make one race superior or inferior to another, that is racism.
If we are to stretch the definition of racism to the point beyond that simple definition given above, we will all suffer for it and the issue will continue to fill the front pages of our papers.
We have only to glance back a few months to find examples of how dangerous and damaging it is when we re-define this term. Men and women have lost their jobs because they made a verbal gaffe. People have been expelled from schools based upon unsubstantiated charges. Companies and corporations have spent valuable time and resources to shield themselves from or restore themselves from being labeled. Politicians have twisted their words like pretzels to avoid offending potential voters.
Now, I am not claiming that words are not powerful, nor am I suggesting that we should not be careful how we use this great gift of language. We should all join David, the Psalmist, when he prayed “Set a guard, Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips.” (Psalm 141:3 NASB) Words must be chosen carefully and there should be similar consequences for using this weapon with malice as there are for using any other weapon with intent to injure or maim.
However, I also believe that the current climate of judging someone solely upon a few words, with no regard for the whole context of his speech, or for the whole content of his character is a dangerous and damaging precedent.
The most recent controversy regarding the former Pastor of Barack Hussein Obama’s church in Chicago and his incendiary sermons illustrates one such example of spewing hatred that would be clearly defined as racism should the target and the shooter be of different colors. In other words, if Pat Robertson had blamed Black America for inflicting whites with AIDS or if a Rabbi had suggested that Black Protestants ruled the air waves; the hue and cry would have been deafening. We should denounce silly accusations and broad generalizations wherever and whenever we see them.
Another example of what happens when the race card is dealt from the bottom of the deck, rather than being played in its proper order, occurred when Geraldine Ferraro was labeled as a racist – even to the point of being referred to as ‘David Duke in drag’ by a ‘not-so-funny’ comedian – for merely making an observation. I did not support her when she ran as a candidate for the vice presidency, nor do I support her political stances now, but I do know that she has demonstrated nothing more than an astute mind when she made the statement that she believed Obama’s popularity had something to do with his race. It was not uttered in hatred. It was not intended to instill hatred in others. It was not the fruit of a lifetime of hatred. There is a wide ocean of difference between her words and those of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Yet she has suffered the consequence of a stretched out definition.
In conclusion, let us all examine ourselves daily “and see if there be any wicked way in me.” (Psalm 139:23a NASB) and determine if our thoughts of others are guided by hatred for their race. And we should also examine the actions of those accused of racism to determine if their words were just poorly chosen or if they are the fruit of a poisoned mind.
From Broader View Weekly, April 18, 2008
The most recent barrage of hostile rhetoric between the warring Democrat party candidates has brought the issue of racism back to the front pages of our papers. In that sense, I believe, this historic presidential cycle has already served our nation well. I believe the issue of racism should be examined from time to time and regardless of the machine that drags it to the exam room of our minds, we should take the time to give it our full attention.
First of all, let us define what racism is and what it is not. According to the cold, dry dictionary (Random House College Dictionary Revised 1975, to be exact) racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Now let’s define what racism is not. Racism is not just a poor choice of words. We should not call someone racist just because she/he had a ‘slip of the tongue’ when she/he has not demonstrated a previous lifestyle of hatred or denigration of another race. Racism is not limited to one particular race, i.e. anyone can hate, and hatred of another race is racism. Regardless of the color of the skin that is stretched over the skull, if the mind within that skull is filled with hate for another person solely because that other person’s skull is covered by another color of skin, it is a racist mind. Racism is not merely seeing and recognizing differences. That is just being observant. If, however, by seeing and recognizing differences, one person suggests that those differences make one race superior or inferior to another, that is racism.
If we are to stretch the definition of racism to the point beyond that simple definition given above, we will all suffer for it and the issue will continue to fill the front pages of our papers.
We have only to glance back a few months to find examples of how dangerous and damaging it is when we re-define this term. Men and women have lost their jobs because they made a verbal gaffe. People have been expelled from schools based upon unsubstantiated charges. Companies and corporations have spent valuable time and resources to shield themselves from or restore themselves from being labeled. Politicians have twisted their words like pretzels to avoid offending potential voters.
Now, I am not claiming that words are not powerful, nor am I suggesting that we should not be careful how we use this great gift of language. We should all join David, the Psalmist, when he prayed “Set a guard, Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips.” (Psalm 141:3 NASB) Words must be chosen carefully and there should be similar consequences for using this weapon with malice as there are for using any other weapon with intent to injure or maim.
However, I also believe that the current climate of judging someone solely upon a few words, with no regard for the whole context of his speech, or for the whole content of his character is a dangerous and damaging precedent.
The most recent controversy regarding the former Pastor of Barack Hussein Obama’s church in Chicago and his incendiary sermons illustrates one such example of spewing hatred that would be clearly defined as racism should the target and the shooter be of different colors. In other words, if Pat Robertson had blamed Black America for inflicting whites with AIDS or if a Rabbi had suggested that Black Protestants ruled the air waves; the hue and cry would have been deafening. We should denounce silly accusations and broad generalizations wherever and whenever we see them.
Another example of what happens when the race card is dealt from the bottom of the deck, rather than being played in its proper order, occurred when Geraldine Ferraro was labeled as a racist – even to the point of being referred to as ‘David Duke in drag’ by a ‘not-so-funny’ comedian – for merely making an observation. I did not support her when she ran as a candidate for the vice presidency, nor do I support her political stances now, but I do know that she has demonstrated nothing more than an astute mind when she made the statement that she believed Obama’s popularity had something to do with his race. It was not uttered in hatred. It was not intended to instill hatred in others. It was not the fruit of a lifetime of hatred. There is a wide ocean of difference between her words and those of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Yet she has suffered the consequence of a stretched out definition.
In conclusion, let us all examine ourselves daily “and see if there be any wicked way in me.” (Psalm 139:23a NASB) and determine if our thoughts of others are guided by hatred for their race. And we should also examine the actions of those accused of racism to determine if their words were just poorly chosen or if they are the fruit of a poisoned mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
