My Take on Kony 2012

Is it the perfect message?  No.  Is it way better than the alternative?  Yes.

First, if you haven't seen the Kony 2012 video, check it out here.  Now that you've seen it, you may have also heard some of the arguments against it:

• It oversimplifies the issue. There are more bad guys than Kony to worry about, it can't be solved so simply, etc.  And the nuanced version resonated how much?  That is, how much did people know/care about any of this before the video.
• It's out of date. Kony isn't even in Uganda any more, and Uganda is a really nice place.  Uganda may be doing well, but Kony and his buddies are still at large.  The film maker mentions that he's no longer in Uganda.  Besides, it isn't about Uganda - it's about Kony.
• It plays to the white savior complex. A bunch of white American college kids want to feel good about themselves for rescuing the poor Africans.  It's not a white/black thing.  It's a developed world/not-developed world thing.  Sometimes those who have want to help those who don't.  Comparitively speaking, Africa doesn't.  Who's being racist?  Now are Africans helpless?  No.  Can folks use help sometimes?  Yes.  So lose that argument.
• It targets the wrong issue. There are worse problems in Uganda and in Africa, in general.  Okay, go ahead and get people to care about that one.  Don't hate these folks for caring about something else.

For those that lament the lack of popularity for the more nuanced, timely message that targets the right issue and shows how self-sufficient Africans are, I feel you.  I sincerely wish that something like that would resonate with people - but so far, it hasn't.  For those who feel that developed-world aid is destructive (like this guy), I think there is a valid argument to be made. But I don't think the West doing nothing has made this particular situation any better, so maybe doing something will help.  And there may be better ways to help than what this group wants.  That's fine.  But that's what we have policy makers for:  top figure out how to do stuff in an effective way.

Also... Just read about a weird incident with the film maker...  Assuming that it's true (which it appears to be), it doesn't matter. It's not about that guy (he kind of creeped me out anyways...) it's about the message.

So, those of you who know more about this than me:  what do you think?

Read more »

Eric Cantor is a Waste of Space

Representatives are supposed to balance leadership with representing the will of their districts.  Eric Cantor does none of these.

I was going to title this one "Eric Cantor is a hair cut," but honestly, I don't even like the hair cut that much.  And besides, I think waste of space is more appropriate. 

This is a guy who, when Republicans controlled the House, voted for every single spending increase that he could get his hands on and supported enormous incursions of the state into personal liberty. Later, when the Tea Party showed itself to be a real political force and fiscal responsibility became the topic du jour, he was suddenly railing against "big government" and, along with his teammates, threatening some very fiscally irresponsible action (specifically, not paying for goods and services already purchased by the government).

This is the House Majority "Leader" who, once the question marks were removed from Republican race for Presidential nominee, boldly waded in to select the guy who had all-but locked it up.  Wow.

I had thought that he was running for re-election with no opposition, but a quick google search showed me that I was wrong.  Evidently, a guy named Wayne Powell is running against him.  I know nothing about this guy, but I'll look in to him.  He's a Democrat, and I suspect that he doesn't stand much of a chance in this district, but at least he's an alternative in a district where most people would prefer "someone else" (sorry, I didn't see the original source for this poll in my initial search, but I did first hear about it in a reputable outlet).  And hell, even if Mr. Powell turns out to be a total wing-nut, let's just give Cantor the boot this time and allow some new, respectable, less self-serving candidates from either party get a chance.

So... Anyone know about this Powell guy?  And is there anyone out there that actually likes Cantor that can tell me what I'm missing?

Read more »

Teach the Controversy

It doesn't work to simply scream "THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY!" - so let's arm ourselves and our kids with the ability to actively defend our beliefs.

"Teach the Controversy":
One of the soundbites from the creationist camp in an effort to get their ideas more exposure is "Teach the Controversy" - the idea being that even if you don't believe in creationism, you should at least accept the possibility that you are wrong and teach another view.  Their hope is that a) by being taught in schools, the perceived credibility of the idea increases, and b) by exposing more people to the idea, you can win converts.  Well, that, and they believe they are right, so why shouldn't you teach something that is right?

There is No Controversy?:
It is precisely for these reasons (except for the last one, I guess) that I was always against "teaching the controversy" - after all, amongst scientists, there is no controversy.   Yes, I realize that some credible scientists disagree, but they are a small minority, and we don't say that there is a controversy about whether man walked on the moon just because some don't believe it.  Not to say that evolution can't be wrong, just to say that there really isn't a controversy among scientists.

It's all well and good to make that claim, but in the world where 99% of us aren't scientists the folks with these counter-consensus ideas (against evolution, climate change, vaccinations, etc) are winning - they are picking up adherents left and right.  I think the problem is that most will learn just the basics around the consensus opinion from school - and in some cases less than that - and they go through life basically trusting that what they learned was probably right. Those that reject consensus, though, tend to really dive in on the subject and are often well-versed in the perceived shortcomings of what they don't like - and these tend to be very specific. Without knowledge of the specifics, the majority aren't equipped to rebut these arguments (even though a clear rebuttal may exist), and this dynamic can only favor the contrarians. 

Teach the Controversy, Redux:
So let's "teach the controversy" - but not as a presentation of two equally likely ideas.  Where we have increasingly popular attacks on ideas that we believe to be right, let's examine, and, when possible, debunk the attacks.  For example, when we teach evolution, have the kids go home and find a creationist claim that appears to contradict the theory. Then, in the class, discuss the theories and, if applicable, show the evidence that debunks the claim. This will equip kids to argue the specifics.

Further, it's not a terrible idea to offer a critical evaluation of the underpinnings of the alternatives.  Creationism isn't a theory (despite efforts by eerily well-funded organizations to legislate a change in the definition of the word - anybody have a relevant link for this?  I want to say it was in Kansas...) and it isn't terribly useful in science, so there are some reasonably straightforward holes that can be punched in it from a scientific if not theological perspective (and there are quality theological arguments against it as well, though public schools wouldn't be the place to dive in on that).

Don't Overreach:
Don't get carried away, though.  Remember that damned little is proven in this world, and that our understanding of the world evolves every day (the electron was the smallest particle when I was a kid, and then it was the quark, and now... I think there's something smaller).  If you can't find evidence to debunk a claim, admit it. Kids (and adults, for that matter) don't want to feel like they are being railroaded, and there is no faster way to lose credibility than by presenting a dishonest defense.  Climate change is a perfect place for this - the temperature on the Earth is the product of an insanely complex system, and even really smart people can be really bad at understanding insanely complex systems.  So global warming folks may be wrong.  This doesn't mean you need to concede the point - you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and say just because there may be a problem with A, then B must logically be true... Just allow room for the theory to evolve...


In short, it's a losing proposition to ignore the allure of likely wrong ideas and abandon the active defense of good ideas.  So arm yourselves and your children and your students with not only the fundamentals, but a specific response to any wrong attacks that are out there, and let's keep America - and the world - smart.

Stay tuned for my ironically titled "Defense of Unpopular Mainstream Beliefs" series, where I'll muster a basic defense of some things that I (and most scientists) believe are true, but that are popular to attack, such as:  evolution, climate change, and vaccination.

Read more »

Welcome to my Blog!

I have had a Judo blog for a while now, and recently had the desire to start a non-Judo blog.  So that's what this is - a non-Judo blog.  It won't get more well-defined than that, I suspect...  Politics, science, grammar, philosophy, pop culture, weird crap that I am interested in... Whatever.  I'll post it here.  I do have an objective, in general, though - I am going to try to be interesting, to offer food for thought, and hopfully make some contribution.  It may not be a unique contribution, but I'll try.  And as a personal objective, I want to help flesh out my own thinking on some things.

Maybe nobody will be interested, in and in that case, I'll probably stop writing.  But if folks are interested, I invite comment and debate - I readily admit that I may be wrong in most areas, and I'm happy to explore the issue.  I would just ask that we not get snippy or personal or worse.  Intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree.

Anyhoo, let me know what you think.  Here goes.

Read more »