Election Day 2008

I just got home from the polls and wanted to document the vibes in the air today. It's just so exciting being part of this, and even though I voted for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney for president (my biggest issue, as always, remains lack of choice), I am hoping for an Obama win. And regardless, it feels like we are finally waking up from the long, deep sleep we've been in as a nation for the past 8 years.

I'm skeptical as ever regarding Obama's plan for America, and I have yet to trust any politician. However, I'm going to support his presidency (should we find out later tonight that he's won) and will consider voting for his second term should he follow through on his lofty promises. He does have a chance of removing some of the deep cynicism embedded deep within my psyche---and conversely, he could also be the biggest disappointment in history.

For better or worse, today is the beginning of a new era in this country.

The End of the "Free" Market?

This week has been insane, with the bailout of AIG, the collapse of Lehman Bros and the buyout of Merrill Lynch, and finally the massive $700 billion federal financial rescue plan. It's an unprecedented repudiation of the ideals of deregulation and limited oversight as championed by fiscal conservatives over the past 3 decades. Ronald Reagan, that slick snakecharmer, used to famously say that government wasn't the solution---it was the problem. Well, considering that these federal bailouts were literally the ONLY OPTION for preventing Great Depression-like financial ruin, I wonder what the Gipper would be thinking now. Seems that government was the only solution possible here. Free Market Fundamendalists like to think that the market will solve all problems through some sort of magical, mystical, Santa Claus-like "invisible hand." But what happens when that hand is caught in the cookie jar? Who slaps that hand when it's been bad?

I only wish that the collapse of conservative ideology could happen in a vaccuum and didn't have to drag the rest of us down.

Drill Drill Drill

All the recent talk of offshore oil drilling spurred me to write this essay.

COM 471
08/15/08

“Drill, Drill, Drill”---John McCain, 2008

The U.S. presidential campaign has always been a home for outlandish claims and vague policy promises. From the first President Bush's “No New Taxes” refrain to the current's “Restoring Integrity to the Oval Office,” presidential candidates have never shied away from lofty, persuasive appeals long on emotion but short on facts. As these two examples (and countless others throughout our sordid electoral history) show, these claims are generally nothing more than lip service designed to mobilize voters around a candidate's cause. This year's presidential campaign is no exception. In fact, with all of the current concern over energy, the economy, and the environment, it should come as no surprise that political discussion around the water cooler these days involves the one issue that binds together those three major policy rails: Offshore Oil Drilling.

Republican candidate Senator John McCain, attempting to direct the tenor of this ongoing debate, recently reversed his longstanding position supporting the Congressional ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). McCain now argues in favor of drilling, and has featured this issue in the forefront of many of his recent stump speeches and campaign advertisements. Drilling, McCain argues, would help the United States achieve 3 major objectives: (1) a reduction in the price paid by consumers at the gasoline pump; (2) greater energy independence for the United States as a whole; and (3) a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit as a result of lessened oil imports from abroad. (McCain, 2008)

Obviously, McCain's proposal comes at a time when consumers are facing increased pressure at the pump, with gasoline prices having recently reached into all-time record territory. Offshore drilling is such a critical issue that it is literally featured first on his campaign website, ahead of even the current housing crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Considering a recent Rasmussen poll found that nearly 70% of Americans support offshore drilling, it is easy to see McCain's political motivation. But will offshore drilling really help achieve the objectives McCain has identified---or is this rhetoric simply red meat designed to appeal to the broadest political base possible? A close analysis of McCain's three major claims shows it to be just another false electoral promise, steeped in emotional appeal yet severely lacking on facts. Let us examine each claim on its own merit.

- - - - -

Claim 1: Offshore drilling will help to reduce gasoline prices

Oil prices, and subsequently, gas prices, have reached record highs in 2008, creating economic and financial hardships for millions of Americans. A number of separate solutions have been offered, amongst them a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax (also proposed by McCain), pleas to oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia to increase production, and even the conversion of formerly food-producing crops such as corn into the oil replacement ethanol. However, none of these solutions has made much of a dent in the price of gasoline, and the high prices continue to affect the overall economy, which has been teetering on the brink of recession for much of the past two years. Because of its critical place in a society which has been built upon the abundance of cheap oil, gasoline price increases have affected all facets of the economy and created a tense environment for nearly every American. Considering the failure of all other approaches in reducing the price of gas, offshore drilling seems to be a perfect solution---or at least the only one left---and the fact that a majority of Americans support lifting the ban seems logical.

Unfortunately, however, many independent economic sources, both liberal and conservative, have roundly criticized the position that offshore drilling will have any immediate reduction in the price of gas at the pump. The Bush Administration's own Department of Energy, in their 2007 “Annual Energy Outlook,” was blunt in their assessment of the impact offshore drilling would have at the pump:

Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. (DoE, 2007)

This bland analysis from an administration comprised of many former oil executives should be taken seriously, yet claims such as McCain's are allowed to take root without any factual analysis of the reality of his position. The last sentence of this quote is most important, as it invalidates practically McCain's entire claim that increased supply through domestic production will help drive down prices; since oil is a global commodity, it is traded on the international market, and that is where costs are determined. The more liberal Boston Globe hits directly on this point, in no uncertain terms:

"Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically," said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they could get from French consumers? No. Where oil comes from has no effect on price." (Boston Globe, 2008)

This basic economic principle---of shared global resources determining price---lays bare McCain's proposal and exposes it for what it is: simple red meat in the heat of an election campaign. The record highs recently achieved in oil prices come from increased demand, from rapidly-developing countries like China and India, and has literally nothing to do with supply, which has not fluctuated or decreased in the same time period. Recent events prove this equation: the reductions achieved in the price of oil over the past three weeks have come with no increase in supply whatsoever, but instead have come as a result of the largest drop in U.S. demand since 1982: “U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day compared to the same period a year ago, the biggest volume decline in 26 years, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.” (Reuters, 2008) Although McCain has admitted that economics is not exactly his strongest suit (“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues---I still need to be educated.” [McCain, 2005]), reversing the roles of supply and demand is a most egregious error for the presidential candidate of a major political party.

- - - - -

Claim 2: Offshore Drilling will Result in U.S. Energy Independence

While this is most certainly related to the principle of shared global resources as discussed above, refuting the very idea of such a thing as energy independence in a global economy, the claim still deserves its own discussion. McCain's claim that drilling will result in energy independence is facetious at best, and this is due to the tiny impact any offshore drilling would have in overall worldwide supply. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), America's oil production has been in decline since its peak in the early 1970s, at which time the U.S. was the world's largest producer, a title since assumed by Saudi Arabia. “With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way out” of our dependence on foreign oil. (NRDC, 2008)

The real driving force for U.S. Energy independence will not come from drilling into what amounts to an additional 920 days of oil supply, which, according to the DoE, is what comprises the proven reserves of the outer continental shelf. (DoE, 2007). Instead, McCain's arguments for drilling obscure the real solutions for energy independence such as conservation, new technologies, and greater maximization of available sources such as solar, wind and nuclear power. While, to his credit, McCain does mention these additional solutions (especially nuclear), they often come across as secondary, almost token, policy positions built around the centerpiece of increased domestic oil production. But as McCain’s rival for the presidency, Barack Obama, often remarks, any policy involving increased oil production amounts to nothing more than a “gimmick.” (CNN, 2008)

Even independent sources such as influential Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens have begun to call for energy independence through a set of initiatives aimed at reducing our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil. For example, the “Pickens Plan” calls America the “Saudi Arabia of Wind Power” and makes the claim that nearly 20% of electricity power could be supplied by wind farms alone:

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country. A 2005 Stanford University Study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured. (Pickens, 2008)

It’s particularly noteworthy that a plan such as this comes from a billionaire oilman, who made his fortune importing and reselling foreign oil. This fact alone lends a certain credibility to his claims, and flies in the face of McCain’s political posturing around offshore drilling. The Pickens Plan makes no mention of increased offshore production, other than to call it a mistake.

Pickens goes a step further with his plan, calling for increased domestic natural gas production to “bridge the gap” between oil-based gasoline energy and future clean technologies such as hydrogen. In fact, he suggests that we are already well-prepared to transition directly into this cleaner and more abundant source of energy:

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations. (Pickens, 2008)

Logically, this makes perfect sense. Why, argues Pickens, should we continue to import oil, or increase offshore production, when we are already in possession of more than enough energy to fuel our country? Any increase in offshore production signals either an ignorance of the potential alternatives; or, more ominously, the immense clout of the vast oil lobby in Washington, D.C.

- - - - -

Claim 3: Offshore Drilling will help Reduce the National Trade Deficit

Discussion of the U.S. trade deficit is generally reminiscent of a complex shell game---it is incredibly easy to highlight one area (in this case, oil imports) while obscuring another (domestic fiscal policies such as the recent “stimulus package”). Politicians love to talk about the trade deficit because it is incredibly easy to manipulate statistics to favor one’s position. McCain’s claim that 41% of the U.S. trade deficit is due to oil, while factually-based, obscures many of the intricate and sophisticated factors which contribute to that deficit. The most glaring obfuscation is that of the role of the global currency market on imports and exports. Over the past 8 years, the value of the dollar has declined by nearly 60% when measured against the Euro and other major international currencies (OANDA, 2008). This raises a simple economic question of purchasing power, and McCain’s claims completely ignore the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar is considerably less than it was even just a decade ago. Even though we’re not importing much more oil today than in 1998, it costs considerably more to do so today because of the incredibly weak dollar. While McCain is correct that 41% of import expenditures are due to oil, he fails to mention this important economic component. Were the dollar to regain its footing in international currency markets, the trade deficit would be immediately reduced without producing a single additional drop of oil.

Another major factor impacting the U.S. trade deficit is the impact of the recently-passed “Economic Stimulus Package” of 2008. In order for our empty Treasury to provide $600 individual tax rebates to millions of citizens, the government had to borrow billions of dollars from international investors (coincidentally, from rich oil-producing nations benefiting from the recent skyrocketing oil prices). This, along with the aforementioned weakness of the dollar, drove up the trade deficit this year more than any other mitigating factor, including oil. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan financial wing of the government, the deficit had been reduced to less than $170 billion for fiscal year 2007, but had grown to a projected record high of $482 billion for 2008. Jim Nussle, the director of the CBO, confirmed the dynamics behind this rapid increase: “The primary reasons that there will be larger deficits in 2008 and 2009 are because of the bipartisan growth package or stimulus checks… as well as slower economic growth.” (CBO, 2008).

Interestingly (and quite compellingly), some economists have even indicated that the current deficit and related economic woe is good for the long-term energy outlook in the United States. While noting the short-term hardships on the current economy, most notably the trade deficit, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco argues that such hardships will force a change in the oil-based economy and lead to a broader change in habits in both business and public usage:

…It could take a while for the U.S. trade deficit to adjust in response to persistently higher oil prices, as businesses need time to install new, less energy-intensive equipment. However, one positive and important implication is that eventually the U.S. Economy will become more energy-efficient, which, in turn, would help contain the cost of oil imports and increase the economy’s flexibility in absorbing future oil price increases. (FRBSF, 2006)

It is certainly not unusual for politicians from either the liberal or conservative sides to lack a long-term outlook on most policies. However, when a supposed long-term solution is sold to the public, such as McCain’s claim that increased offshore drilling will bring down prices, it is important that voters remember the facts and not be distracted by the shell game.

- - - - -

Emotional Appeal: Should We Pump Every Last Drop of Oil out of the Ground?

The previous sections of this essay have focused on factual refutations to the three main points of John McCain’s plans to lift the ban on offshore oil production. However, at this point, I would like to make a more personal, emotional argument against offshore drilling, in the hopes of appealing to one of the main traditional platforms of the Republican Party: Family Values. For the party so closely associated with these values, it often strikes me as ironic that there is not more of a concerted effort to provide a long-term plan to make the world a more livable place for our children and grandchildren. “Drill, drill, drill” seems incredibly short-sighted.

Oil is almost always closely associated with gasoline and energy, but rarely mentioned is its greater impact on our quality of life through the thousands of other products derived from it. Plastic, one of the most ubiquitous innovations of the 20^th Century, has made an incredible impact on today’s modern society. It is almost impossible today to imagine a world without plastic. Our quality of life would be nowhere near what it is today without this amazingly flexible and malleable substance, and it is an integral component in almost every aspect of our modern lives. Plastic, for example, provides safe repositories for food, has been critical in the development of computing technologies, and has allowed the inhabitants of our large planet to feel closer to one another through improved communication. And there are a million more uses for plastic. For proof, just look around you!

Other usages for oil run the entire spectrum of the modern economy, with important niches in medicine, technology, construction, and many other industries. For example, polyester, an oil derivative, is the most prevalent fabric in the world, long ago replacing cotton (an incredibly energy-inefficient crop which drains the world’s rivers) as the foundational basis of the textile industry. Chemicals derived from oil are used in many of today’s complex medicines, such as treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis. Our roads would still be paved with cobblestone if not for the invention of asphalt, which uses oil to bind together gravel as a solid, durable substance. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the overall oil economy (one could spend an entire essay discussing only the non-fuel-related uses of oil), but even these few examples underscore our modern reliance on petrochemicals and their importance in our daily lives.

While scholars have debated the coming of “peak oil” for decades now (“peak oil” refers to the point at which we as a global society have used more oil than is remaining in the earth’s crust), it is not debatable that oil is a limited resource. Some scholars have said that peak oil has already occurred, as far back as the 1970s, while others say it won’t happen until the 2050s. Regardless of the details, the simple fact is that one day our global supply of oil will run out. It is unavoidable. Thus begs the ethical question: Should we continue to drill for oil until every last drop has been exhausted in order to save a few pennies at the gas pump? Or, considering all the amazing non-fuel uses for this wonderful resource, should we leave some in the ground for future generations? This is not a question I aim to answer, and I really have no right to answer it anyway. This, instead, is a question for every parent of every child on the planet. While consumers are most certainly under strained financial pressure due to current high energy costs, this pressure pales in comparison to the post-modern nightmare one imagines when considering a future without petrochemical products. Surely the party of Family Values needs to consider the implications of a drastic drop in our quality of life.

- - - - -

Clearly, the presidential campaign is not, and has never been, a place for factual-based claims and big-picture analysis. Instead, for centuries, our candidates have played off our emotions, hopes and fears in order to win elections and control policy from the White House. Both of the major political parties are players in this traditional pageant, and neither party is innocent of the transgressions of truth germane to a country which values free speech and democracy. Deception is a “necessary evil of democracy”, as F.F. Centore has said, and it has always been our duty as informed democratic citizens to sift through the marketplace of ideas with our own rationality and attention to critical thinking. Yet, the recent debate over offshore oil drilling is one of the most blatantly fallacious arguments ever to grace the campaign trail, coming at a time when this issue instead requires hard truth, new ideas, and forward thinking. John McCain’s cunning obfuscation of some of the most basic economic facts behind this argument is nothing short of stunning. These false claims need to be addressed and inserted into the public debate, especially with polls showing overwhelming support for the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling. And after we’ve debunked these false claims and have moved beyond this specious discussion, perhaps it will finally be time to address some of the larger concerns our oil-based society faces as we move into a future with oil as a limited, and not abundant, resource.

Bibliography

Centore, F.F. Two Views of Virtue: Absolute Relativism and Relative Absolutism. Greenwood Press, Boston, MA. 2000

CNN. “Obama Slams McCain’s Energy Policy.” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Congressional Budget Office. “2008-2009 Budgetary Forecast” http://www.cbo.gov/search/sitesearch.cfm?criteria=trade+deficit+forecast

Federal Reserve Bank, S.F. “Oil Prices and the U.S. Trade Deficit.”http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-24.html

McCain, John. “Presidential Campaign Website.” www.johnmccain.com. 2008.

NRDC. "Take Action: Tell Congress You Don't Buy the Lie" http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/stop_arctic_and_offshore_drilling

OANDA. “Currency Converter and Historicals.” http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory

Pickens, T. Boone. “The Pickens Plan.” http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Rasmussen Polling Service. 2008. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices

U.S. Department of Energy. “2007 – Annual Energy Outlook.” Energy Information Administration.

Wangsness, Lisa. "New Offshore Drilling Not a Quick Fix." Boston Globe, June 20, 2008.

How Rich Am I Again?

Apparently McCain doesn't even remember how many houses he owns. That's probably not going to play very well to middle-class voters...

When asked about the number of houses he owned in a Politico interview
published Thursday, McCain was unable to answer. "I think — I'll have my staff
get to you," he replied. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to
you.

Sure wish I had that problem.

Dirty Money

No, I'm not talking about the Republican National Committee's warchest. Actually, it's the stuff in your wallet that's nasty. It's not just cocaine on your bills and coins!

It turns out, money really is dirty, and not just with drug traces. One past
study revealed 94 percent of $1 bills collected from a community in western Ohio
contained disease-causing or potentially disease-causing bacteria. The study,
published in 2002 in the Southern Medical Journal, was led by Peter Ender, chief
of infectious diseases at Wright-Patterson Medical Center in Ohio.
That's not too surprising, as $1 bills stay in circulation for an average of 21 months,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, during which time they
get handled by plenty of people. For larger bills, the life span is even longer,
with $20 bills lasting about 24 months and $50 bills staying in circulation for
55 months.

Ewww! Guess this is why I always wash my hands in the time between buying and eating lunch... Who knows where that $5 bill's been?!?

Intelligent Design v. Evolution

Here's an essay I just wrote on the subject, analyzing the usage of different forms of persuasion in advancing the arguments of each side. Interesting stuff, and a fun essay to write!

COM 471 - Persuasion
Court Case Analysis
July 21, 2008

Of Pandas, People, and the Law

Science has long called into question many of the basic tenets of religion, and the antagonistic relationship between those in each camp has continued in perpetuity for centuries. Ever since Galileo, the father of modern science, first theorized that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around, as claimed by the Catholic Church), religious fundamentalists have struggled to maintain a supernatural world view despite an ever-expanding database of methodical observation and empirical data supporting natural science. The latest in this centuries-old battle is the debate between those who feel that creationism should be taught alongside (and in some cases instead of) Darwin's theory of evolution, and those who feel that creationism---being inherently religious and thus illegal under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause---has no place in the public school system.

In 2005, this battle came to a head in the Pennsylvania courtroom of John E. Jones, a federal district court judge who was tasked with rendering a verdict in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. This was a landmark legal proceeding, pitting a group of skeptical parents and students against the overly zealous Dover School Board, intent on inserting a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, into the school library and forcing the science faculty to offer it as an alternative to evolution. This fascinating case, seen through the lens of the Aristotelian Theory of Rhetoric, illuminates many of the standard arguments used by both sides in this centuries-old struggle. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is “the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion,” and under his theory, can be broken up into three forms: Ethos, which are appeals based on the character of the speaker; Pathos, which are appeals to emotion; and Logos, which are appeals based on logic. By analyzing each side's use of ethos, pathos, and logos in their closing legal arguments, as well as the judge's rational responses to each, one can paint a fairly detailed portrait of the motivation and nuance of the overall historical debate between science and religion.

- - - - -

The lawyers for the plaintiffs begin their closing arguments with a logos-based, sound argument, painting the defense as implementing a curriculum change designed to "denigrate evolution and promote supernatural intelligent design as a competing theory." (p.28) At question is this theory of intelligent design. While couched in scientific language and jargon, and made to sound and look as scientific as possible, intelligent design is clearly not science, and the plaintiffs intend to prove that. Under the Constitution's First Amendment, which clearly bars any governmental entity "respecting an establishment of religion" (known colloquially as the "Establishment Clause"), any intentional or unintentional endorsement by a publicly-funded institution is expressly illegal. Thus, argue the plaintiffs, the Dover School Board's introduction of intelligent design as a "complementary theory" alongside the scientifically justified Theory of Evolution, should be prohibited. This is the underlying motivation behind the entire lawsuit, and it is appropriate, according to Aristotle, that it should be logical.

However, the plaintiffs definitely do not rely on logic alone as they continue their closing arguments. There is also a strong undercurrent of ethos-based arguments throughout the entirety of their case. The court, having established precedent placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to show not only effect, but also intent (the endorsement test as well as the Lemon test's "intent" prong), introduces a whole range of ethical arguments against certain individuals on the school board, peppering their narrative with juicy accounts of subversive and secretive actions taken by these individuals in their quest to skirt underneath the firm language of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' lawyers take special care to call into question the credibility of many of the lead players on the Dover School Board, such as William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, introducing evidence and testimony contrasting their private views of intelligent design as creationism, with their more public proclamations of intelligent design as science. They pull no punches in questioning this credibility:

"Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth at their depositions, and they have not told the truth in this courtroom... This court should infer from their false statements that defendants are trying to conceal an improper purpose for the policy they approved and implemented, namely an explicitly religious purpose." (p. 35; 37)

Interestingly, the plaintiffs' lawyers briefly touch on the bigger picture, tying the actions of the Dover School Board to the "actions of the intelligent design movement at large." (p. 38) Having failed at all attempts to introduce creationism into the public school curriculum since its explicit ban in the 1960s, religious fundamentalists have jumped from euphemism to euphemism, in an attempt to paint the expressly non-scientific creationist perspective as something more palatable to the scientific community. As the plaintiffs' evidence clearly indicates, even the textbook in question, Of Pandas and People, underwent a litany of grammatical changes after the McLean decision of 1987 doomed the previous creationist effort under the preceding term, "creation science." This logical argument is difficult to refute with any semblance of credibility.

Finally, it is very telling that the plaintiffs mostly shy away from the usage of pathos-based avenues of argument in their case. Other than expressing, at the outset, the initial outrage of the plaintiffs upon finding that religion had infiltrated their public schools, as well as an emotional concern that the teaching of intelligent design would stifle critical thinking, their case is mostly based on logical and ethical arguments, relying on actual evidence and data while not attempting to pull at the heartstrings of the judge. Other than some finely-tuned criticisms of the defense's expert witnesses (for example, at one point they question Michael Behe's motivations as not scientific but rather geared towards "book royalties and speaking engagements”), the plaintiffs present an almost emotionally-devoid case, which becomes even more astounding considering the attendant hype and coverage generated by this important trial. This reliance on data and hard fact, even in the face of pressing emotional distraction and religious fervor, mirrors the scientific community as a whole and clearly delineates the scientific world view from that of religion.

- - - - -

The defense, on the other hand, not being saddled with the burden of proof, simply attempts to poke holes in the plaintiffs' case, employing a sly blend of ethos and pathos disguised as logos. The defense spends considerable time attempting to rehabilitate the reputations of both Bonsell and Buckingham, portraying them as "hardworking and upstanding" administrators, concerned only with the welfare of their students and engaged in a wholesome effort to simply provide them with an alternative to "stand alongside" Darwin's theory. (p. 64; 69) Disguised as ethos, the defense attempts to portray pro-intelligent design administrators and faculty as victims, arguing that they meant no harm and certainly didn't intend to do anything illegal. However, this line of reasoning does not very effectively conceal a blatant attempt at pathos, as the defense tries to remake the case by re-directing attention away from the real victims---the plaintiffs.

The defense expends great effort at trying to turn the plaintiffs' arguments against them, but as the judge later agrees, it is all based on extremely faulty logic when the overall context of the case is taken into account. The defense tries to portray Bonsell as a hero who is "not afraid of the truth. He is afraid of something that we have seen here, science taught as dogma." (p. 68) They even attempt to defend Buckingham as "fair" despite the litany of evidence to the contrary. And, perhaps most egregiously, they rail against the teachers themselves, who, according to the defense, “resisted implementation of the curriculum change on the grounds that they were not educated in or trained to teach intelligent design, but somehow... felt qualified to opine that it was not science." (p. 75) This disjunctive syllogism, appearing in such a high-visibility court case, is typical of the twisted logic used by those defending that which cannot be tested or proven. The intelligent design movement wants desperately to be taken seriously by the scientific community at large, but when told by those same scientists that what they are presenting is not real science, the response is not to further research the theory and offer new testable hypotheses, as befits the scientific method, but instead to criticize science itself as "dogmatic."

As the defense winds down its case, it even attempts to portray the actions of the board as innocuous and "with good intent," in a pathos-based attempt to again portray the scientific community as dogmatic and close-minded. They attempt to play down the effect of the four-paragraph disclaimer (directing students to the library to find Pandas) as harmless: "Your Honor, a four-paragraph statement, an informational statement which does not detail the claims of intelligent design, may serve to prompt the curiosity of students, may lead them to the library, but it does not advance religion." (p.82) Or, they play up the generally-accepted social notion that all knowledge is a good thing when asking "How can adding books to the library be a bad thing? It is not." (p.84) There are many seemingly-innocent pathos-based arguments within the defense's case, and taken all together they function as an illogical, disjunctive mess.

- - - - -

No wonder, then, that Judge Jones, despite being openly Christian and having been appointed by the fundamentalist President George W. Bush, rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and in doing so proceeds to logically deconstruct the defense's case. At almost every turn, this obviously no-nonsense judge tends to agree with the plaintiffs' characterization of the events leading up to the installation of Pandas (and intelligent design policy) in the high school curriculum. In a logos-based section discussing the causal effect religious policy might have on a hypothetical objective observer, Jones sets up his own theory and proceeds to test it accordingly, finding through legal precedent as well as common sense that "the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent." (p.24) He responds to the plaintiffs' accusations of religious endorsement, and defense claims of innocence, with striking clarity: "Anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God." (p.25) This statement recognizes that the plaintiffs' case as logically-based, while simultaneously rejecting the defense's claims of innocence as absurd. Throughout his summary, Judge Jones takes careful pains to note that there was a concerted and specific strategy in place---these weren't the actions of an unknowing bystander.

Judge Jones also positively (and often sarcastically) responds to the plaintiffs' ethos-based arguments which questioned the credibility of many of the defendants. In fact, the Judge often goes to even greater pains than the plaintiffs' lawyers did to paint defendants such as Buckingham and Bonsell as non-credible. In one biting passage noting the testimony of Professor Behe, who had claimed that belief in intelligent design was dependent on belief in God, Jones reminds that no "other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God." (p.28) Jones even takes his inquiry a step further than required by the case itself, and spends a large portion of his summary in an effort to establish that intelligent design is in fact not real science, and in doing so he renders useless the credibility of nearly all of the defense's expert witnesses on the matter. He establishes three simple and logical reasons for this, which again are almost impossible to refute (logos-based arguments rarely are): “(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (p.64)

The judge rarely, if ever, even acknowledges the defense's case, except when to criticize it for its impropriety. He doesn't seem concerned with the portrayal of proponents of intelligent design as victims, noting with special fervor that many of the Board members who had voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. The defense's continued pathos-based claims fall on deaf ears, while the judge focuses only on the law itself. He dismisses the defense's claims that the curriculum change was designed only to offer an alternative theory to evolution, since they were not actively teaching intelligent design. Jones skips directly around that faulty argument with a clear and incontrovertible declaration: “Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (p.132)

- - - - -

After all is said and done, the judge's written decision greatly simplifies a massively complex case into one clear, logical message, despite all of the legal jargon and redundant arguments supplied on both sides: intelligent design is not science but religion, and as such should not be taught in the public schools. While he clearly sides with the plaintiffs, and even takes great pains to establish precedent to prevent future appeals and wasteful lawsuits, it is still interesting and enlightening to view the arguments of both sides from Aristotle's perspective, parsing each side's rhetoric to further understand their respective motivations and tactics. In this case, the plaintiffs stick to logos- and ethos-based arguments, metaphorically representing the intentions and methods of the greater scientific community as a whole. Their arguments, and the judge's subsequent decision, work in much the same way as the scientific method itself: establish a hypotheses, then gather evidence and data to test that hypotheses. The defense, on the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that they didn't bear the burden of proof, argues from the completely opposite position, using pathos-based arguments to claim innocence and ignorance, and portraying themselves as the real victims in the matter---a sort of modern-day David story against the Goliath of big science. Aristotle would have criticized the lack of logic in the defense's case, and the judge does just as much. Fortunately, the attempt to inject religious belief into the publicly-funded school system was thwarted this time around, but if history is any indication, arguments such as these aren't going away any time soon. Each side in this epic, historic struggle between science and religion would do well to pay attention to the rhetorical tactics in this case, both successful and unsuccessful, as they greatly help to illuminate the framework for this classic debate as it moves into the 21st Century.

Bibliography
Middle District Court of Pennsylvania. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. 2005. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1104_day21_pm.pdf

Crewell, Dustin. Learning How to Use the Three Main Rhetorical Styles. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1996. www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group4

Simons, Herbert. Persuasion in Society. Sage Publications, London. 2001

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. PBS Nova Special. Paula S. Apsell, Executive Producer. 2007.

Living in Fear

I've often thought about how stressful it would be to be a conservative in this country. Living in fear of everything takes a lot of energy! Chris Bowers sums it up perfectly:

It must be really scary to be a conservative. To be one, you must live in constant fear of terrorists nuking the United States, of gay people on the verge of convincing you that you really enjoy sodomy, of Spanish becoming the official language of the United States next week, of every African-American voting seven or eight times in the next election, of radical Islam suddenly becoming the latest hip thing among kids across the country, of perpetual lesbian orgies in girls bathrooms in high schools across America, of liberals forcing everyone to become a vegan, of Christians being rounded up into concentration camps, and of Democrats outlawing private property if they were to ever take power again.

I couldn't have said it better. No wonder Republicans have 3 times as many nightmares as Democrats. Being socially conservative takes quite a toll on your mental health!

McCain to Veto Beer

Uh oh. With this proclamation, ol' John McMaverick might lose a few of the gun-totin' conservatives he's courting:

In a slip of the tongue while railing against excessive earmarks at the National Small Business Summit in Washington, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee inadvertently pledged to veto the popular alcoholic beverage.

I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every single beer — bill with earmarks," he said, as rumblings from the crowd could be heard. "And every single bill that we have come across my desk I will make them famous. I will veto them, you will know their names."

Personally, I would really miss beer if it was vetoed. Let's not elect this man.

97% Walk Score

Well, even though my apartment is pretty loud, I get a good "Walk Score." What is a walk score, you ask? Well, according to the website:

What is Walk Score? We help homebuyers, renters, and real estate agents find houses and apartments in great neighborhoods. Walk Score shows you a map of what's nearby and calculates a Walk Score for any property. Buying a house in a walkable neighborhood is good for your health and good for the environment.

Sweet---97 out of 100 is pretty damn good. President Bush's Crawford Ranch, on the other hand, gets a zero.

Darwinism at Work

Sometimes I get a little annoyed at our "always-connected" culture. As a downtown dweller it's frustrating getting constantly cut off on the sidewalk by people lost in their cell conversations. But hey, according to the Seattle Times, maybe I shouldn't be so worried about it. Evolution's taking care of it!

Economic Emasculation

Well, fellow Americans, take notice: as of this morning, Mar. 15, 2008, our economy is no longer the biggest in the world, a position we have consistently held since the end of WWII. That distinction now belongs to the EU. I don't see this in many headlines, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion of it. Perhaps it's just too hard on the national pysche to deal with this---we Americans do always like to think we've got the biggest dicks.

Strangely, I actually feel that this is a good thing, at least for now. The low dollar (and high euro) is causing many European companies to consider opening new factories in working cities across America. Considering that we have been off-sourcing manufacturing for decades now, and our economy is over 75% services at this point, I think this could be a blessing in disguise. A nation that can't make anything is doomed to failure (see the rise and fall of the Roman Empire for more details...)

Congressional Science Injection

The US Congress got a badly-needed shot of rationality today as Democrat Bill Foster won the special election to replace retired speaker of the house Dennis Hastert. Leaving aside the fact that winning an election in a heavily Republican district bodes well for the fall, the thing that excites me most is Foster's 25-year record as a particle physicist and proponent of scientific research. In a legislative body full of dogmatic thinking and bully pulpits, even a single scientific and rationally-based member can go a long way. I didn't think Foster would win. The Repubs sunk a ton of cash into this race, and even got John McMaverick to campaign for Foster's opponent. The fact that the nerdy rational thinker pulled it out, in the district of the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, no less, is perhaps another sign that we're turning a corner on these long years of critical ignorance.

Wii Fit for US!

I've been waiting patiently for the US release of Wii Fit, which looks like a lot of fun. It's been out in Japan since December but doesn't come out in the US until May. Why the delay? Well, apparently so that Nintendo can make a bigger board. No comment necessary.

Eclipse

During the break between classes tonight I had the chance to glance up and see the lunar eclipse. Perfect night for it---clear sky, great visibility. It was weird to watch the perfect arc move across the full moon. It was beautiful in a peaceful sort of way, and lots of others were out there watching it too. My earlier class had ended a little early so I had a good half hour to get into it. A well-needed injection of natural phenomena into my otherwise crammed Wednesday.

Then, I went into my Chinese history class, and the instructor mentioned how eclipses were bad omens for the ancient dynasties---they could signal distress or even the eminent collapse---one had actually happened right before the fall of the northern Song. Hmmm... considering there's been a Bush or Clinton on every ticket since the year I was born, might we be seeing the end of a dynasty here in our own land? (Well, of course, until the next dynasty eventually takes charge... History does have that nagging way of repeating itself...)

McCain Mashup

Wow, this has got to be one of the funniest little vids I've seen in forever. The fact that John McCain is looking like the front runner signals a Republican party in tatters. But we can certainly laugh along the way:

Extremism at Home

Wow. So Mike Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to adhere to "god's standards."



Scary, scary stuff. I wonder which god he means? There's thousands of 'em out there. Hopefully not Zeus. That guy was spiteful.

The Cliff

While most seem focused on the horserace or silly divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage, I'm growing incredibly concerned about the economy. Devilstower nails it.

Now or six months from now, there's little doubt that US economy has run out of steam, and unlike recent recessions, economists fear that we're going to be a long time recovering from this slump. Why? Because we've taken all the elastic out of the system.

* The conservative "shower the rich with gifts" strategy has drained the surplus and replaced it with a massive debt, while providing the middle class with no additional funds with which to build up a buffer against disaster.

* The "mystical magical invisible hand of greed will fix everything" conservative approach to the markets has allowed the housing market to devolve into a quivering mess, wrecking the investments of those who played it safe right along with those who gambled and lost.

* The "shop if you love your country" conservative philosophy has encouraged a negative savings rate, that leaves families, stores, and financial institutions all waving their arms at the brink of a cliff.

* The "preemptive strategy" of the neocons has ensured that the sands of Iraq have soaked up American dollars along with American and Iraqi blood. Funds that could be going to help US workers, are instead being spent paying mercenaries and bribing insurgents.

* The conservative "borrow against the future to satisfy my greed today" strategy has left international investors none too keen on the future of the US dollar, making our currency about as popular and stable as marks from the Weimar Republic.

With our treasury looted so completely that echoes and spider webs are all that remain, what can we do about it? Don't expect much movement from Bush. He's still busy praising the wonderful state of our economy and has nothing to propose except giving more money to the rich and rewarding the people who have screwed up the fiscal markets with less regulation.

Thanks George, for setting us up for a potential depression, not just recession. The debt-to-income ratio is higher now than it has been since the late 20s... And we all know what the late 20s led to.