CNN Presents Darwin Fight

In this corner, Richard Dawkins:

In a series of books starting in 1976 and in his 2002 TED Talk, biologist Richard Dawkins has explored the implications of Darwin's work. In "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins wrote, "Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over 300,000 million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin."

...

Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.

And in this corner, some yahoo from the pseudoscientific Discovery Institute:

Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature.

And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree "the development of life was guided by intelligent design." Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.

We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate.

And that's just the beginning of his bogus claims. If one watches the video of Dawkins on the top link you'll find his points about "proving a negative," which you'll find in most of his major writings on the subject. As with most intelligent design arguments the avoidance of offering any proof (as opposed to falling back on long debunked arguments against the other guys) is fairly telling. But let's look at those arguments:

• "The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature."

This is an unoriginal straw man that attempts to dishonestly frame the situation. Evolution is a theoretical explanation for how modern species came to be not some attempt to disprove supernatural explanations of the same. The only real threat it poses to supernatural theories that rely on unobservable and untestable phenomenon is that it makes them unnecessary to rely upon. One fits the evidence. The other's only use is to make someone feel better about their supernatural beliefs. Astronomical findings didn't disprove Apollo, but it certainly made some theory about a deity dragging the Sun around the Earth entirely unnecessary to understand why we see what we see.

• "A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree "the development of life was guided by intelligent design." Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory."

This is a two-for... an appeal to popularity along with more dishonest framing. If we learned anything from our high school experience, understanding that popularity is irrelevant to proving something as accurate ranks high on the list. But in this case they are only pointing out the popularity in conjunction with the not-so-subtle implication that supporters of evolution theory somehow want to deny people the right to disagree. The victim mentality would be humorous if the examples generally cited aren't as easy to debunk as easily as they are accepted without critical thought by believers. The fact is that if you want to force an "alternative theory" to something that has been confirmed endlessly with strong predictive capability into the science classroom... you'll have a hard time doing so with something less observable/testable than ether theory.

• "We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate. But does it ever happen that a seemingly broad consensus of scientific expertise turns out to be wrong, generated by an ideologically motivated stampeding of opinion?"

More dishonest framing. Evolutionary theory is constantly debated and no sane scientist would demand otherwise. What is generally not debated among scientists is whether evolution theory should be tossed out altogether given no other explanation has the evidence to support the explanation. They also try to depict evolution theory as some mere opinion as if scientists could just change their mind on the subject and the "consensus" would be different. The problem is that evolution is backed by ever growing evidence that cannot simply be ignored. Compare this with say ether which was a theory without evidence or observations backing it. Once disproved in scientific testing it was quite easy to throw out and work on electromagnetic wave propagation theories that actually fit the evidence.

• "Contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or "phyla" (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors."

Of course instead of backing their "alternate theory" they decide to go down the irrelevant path of attempting to debunk another. But even their attempts to debunk are nonsensical. The "Cambrian explosion" doesn't cast doubt on evolution. In fact it helps support it. There are many simple critters today that will never leave a fossil record because they lack the evolved structure to physically make fossilization possible. The explosion makes sense if those fossilized examples evolved from more simple structures to more complex ones, say with bony structures useful for survival.

• "Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms, not the gradual "branching-tree" pattern implied by Darwin's common ancestry thesis."

Again not providing evidence for his own theory, but an attempt to cast doubt on evolution... again dishonestly. The fossil record provides snapshots in time, often separated by huge gaps due to the very specific conditions required for fossilization (and of course discovery) to occur. Beyond his strange views of what the fossil record can magically tell us, he's also incorrect that it somehow provides evidence against the branching of species as they evolved separately from common ancestors. To the contrary evolution theory predicts the kind of variation we find in related species that evolved on this island or that lake as opposed to others that developed on this continent or that other disconnected body of water.

• "There are also reasons to doubt the creative power of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale "micro-evolutionary" variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life."

Again attacking evolution instead of supporting his own theory. Again doing so dishonestly. Those little changes are what evolution theory is all about. His attempts to imply that the big differences we find had some supernatural cause as opposed to the culmination of those little changes over extended time periods are just absurd, but more importantly entirely unfounded. Evolution is about subtle changes over time... not dramatic and useful mutations in a short time on par with a comic book plot.

• "For this reason more than 800 scientists, including professors from institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Rice universities and members of various national (U.S., Russian, Czech, Polish) academies of science have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism."

Appeal to authority and popularity, but this time merely for doubt of evolution theory, not the one he's supposedly arguing in favor of.

• "Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" to be designed. Instead, living systems display telltale signs of actual or "intelligent" design such as the presence of complex circuits, miniature motors and digital information in living cells."

Again focusing on doubting evolution, with bogus reasons no less, and attempting to rely on the appearance of design to back his own theory. The problem is that the appearance is painfully exaggerated. He ignores the fact that "intelligence" isn't required for useful mutations to increase the odds of those mutations of being passed on to offspring. The fact that they're useful, or in some cases merely not detrimental, will ensure that. He further ignores all of the oddities that would suggest that if there was a "designer" he may have had a severe drinking problem given all of the errors, dead ends, vestigial throwbacks to our fishy roots, etc.

His play on words of "digital information," "complex circuits," "miniature motors" is obviously intended to confuse more than inform. One could easily get the impression that DNA works like a blueprint for a robot as opposed to how it really works. He seems to be hoping that the reader has no idea how little mystery is left in the chemical reactions behind the far more complex end result of more of this protein or that one... why the early embryonic cells divide into daughter cells that will eventually be your muscles or skin tissue or a spleen. But to go from a single cell to a complex organism is something we've all done. The chemistry behind a self-replicating molecule is fascinating, but the idea is simple enough to grasp.

The evidence available doesn't require an invisible hand to explain why changes that help a critter survive, or just as importantly when it does not, why those changes have been discovered occurring over the long history of our planet. The energy and resources necessary to keep the process going aren't any mystery either. So what exactly does their alternate theory explain? Why it's okay not to have to learn about the chemistry? About genetics? Is it just an excuse to get out of going through the hassle of learning how all this stuff works or perhaps to protect a worldview they've been indoctrinated into that has become "too big to fail" for them to deal with and how that may apply to their worldview in general? You be the judge.

• "The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code."

Spoken like someone both ignorant of genetics and computer programming. But in this case it's just an obvious attempt at deception hoping to capitalize on the general ignorance of both subjects by the public. While DNA is simply a molecule that can act as a catalyst for forming other molecules, computer code relies on a processor to use the information to perform logical operations on data... all requiring an actual designer. The chemical reactions necessary for life hardly require so much hands on interaction.

In other words, he's begging the question.

• "This discovery [of DNA] highlights a scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed: how did the first life on earth arise? To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell."

Now he really goes off on a tangent. We don't know what the first replicating molecules looked like so the theory of how living organisms evolved with all of the evidence substantiating it is somehow suspect? That doesn't even make sense. Worse for him it does absolutely nothing to prove an intelligent designer was involved (unless lack of proof is somehow default proof of the supernatural... worked great for Apollo theory of sun movement). Even worse for him is that the building blocks of life come down to simple chemical reactions hardly point to, let alone substantiate, some complicated intelligent designer or what his origins may be... it just creates new unanswered questions.

• "Instead, the digital code and information processing systems that run the show in living cells point decisively toward prior intelligent design. Indeed, we know from our repeated experience -- the basis of all scientific reasoning -- that systems possessing these features always arise from an intelligent source -- from minds, not material processes."

As pointed out above it shows no such thing. It shows the opposite. Again he begs the question by painting DNA as somehow mysteriously functioning as opposed to being yet another chemical process common throughout our scientific observations.

• "DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. Information -- whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal -- always arises from a designing intelligence. So the discovery of digital code in DNA provides a strong scientific reason for concluding that the information in DNA also had an intelligent source."

Back to lying his ass off. DNA doesn't function like a software program at all. The "information" isn't a programming code to be processed by some computer. The "information" is also not like a book, written language, or radio signal. He's conflating the idea of "information" that someone would be sending out (i.e. begging the question again) with the scientific concept that generally revolves around anything that can inform... right down to the fact that hydrogen exists. Here he's literally playing dumb.

• "All the more reason to let the evidence, rather than a supposed consensus, determine the outcome of what is, in fact, a very legitimate and important debate about the Darwinian legacy."

For someone so concerned about the "evidence" you'd think he'd provide some. Instead he misrepresents, distorts, or outright lies about a competing theory while providing no evidence for his own. But using a lot of logical fallacies he could fool some into thinking his side has support beyond "faith."

In the end his little rant quite openly is about spreading doubt about something that challenges his religious philosophy... not substantiating any scientific theory of his own. He helps confirm the Dawkin's accusation that intelligent design is more about discouraging scientific understanding and hoping people will rely on supernatural explanations they've been indoctrinated with instead.

The desperation is encouraging to a "militant atheist" like me.

Comic Relief: Doing sex to China

Comic Relief: Being a Man

The Daily Show asks you to decide who the man is... appearances can be deceiving:

Taking another Bow

This time the White House isn't even denying it as it did when he bowed to the Saudi royalty. The nutters are out again in full force trying to make this into an even bigger deal than it actually is. But that's not to say I approve. In fact, it turned my stomach and had me raging at the screen when I saw it.

Bowing to royalty in general is just repugnant to what our system of government stands for. But this Washington Times nimrod thinks that Obama is somehow oblivious to our history, our founding principles, of removing sovereignty from some inbred bloodlines claiming divine or higher authority, etc? That's just nuts. His conspiracy nuttery just confirms he's a gullible nitwit who will believe just about anything if it suits his agenda or gives him false comfort when his perspective is hitting the rocks. It's about as insane as the folks that somehow thought the bow to the Saudi royalty was ceding our sovereignty as part of some grand conspiracy to destroy America.

The fact is that our president is highly educated and is well aware of our history, founding principles, and unique place in the world in stoking the fires of republicanism against the monarchs of it. This seems to be yet another blatant example of his attempts to shift our foreign relations posturing dramatically, even in ways that are merely symbolic such as bowing to royalty. And while that symbolic stuff may be much ado about nothing to his supporters and arguably many who share his ideology in general, to an ideologue like me, who takes that part of our history and those principles to heart, this is a second slap in the face that just makes me cringe. But I have no doubt that such reactions were taken into account and weighed against the practical realities of what they hope to gain by such symbolic gestures. It's hardly the worst, let alone anywhere near the most destructive, violation of our ideals one of our nation's leaders has committed while attempting to act within the national interest.

I do, however, see it as a pointless violation and yet another pointless and otherwise symbolic gesture towards Obama's goals of gaining greater international support by changing the tenor of our interactions. No amount of sucking up and humiliating self-deprecating rhetoric will change the fact that much of the world is becoming far more competitive for resources and influence for their competing interests. The interactions are far more cordial now, but they still say no, but with a hardy laugh and a smile. It's as if a politician has found himself in a chess tournament and thinks he can win by complimenting his opponents. It's an interesting display, though sometimes painful to watch.

Other presidents have had to learn this lesson the hard way too. Our last president pulled similar nonsense at times, though the rest of his time was spent towards the opposite direction of bluster that would make some wonder if the "W" may have really stood for Wilhelm II. I suppose we shall see if Obama can be more effective with his naive perspective on symbolism and sucking up as opposed to Dubya's naive assumptions on American dominating global influence that seemed to seriously underestimate how much it was waning since the end of the cold war. Unfortunately making demands one has little ground to make is probably equally as futile as begging for nations to act against their own interests when there is still no real good reason to do so. The begging in itself helps confirm that that the former had no ground and the latter is desperate because he knows it.

Like I said, an interesting display, but painful to watch.

Veterans Day Fracas

Caught this story on a posting on Pharyngula. Apparently a couple of veterans groups are boycotting Veterans Day activities at a school who are bound by current law not to allow the promotion of religious activities. To go a step further they've even threatened to stop offering scholarships to the students!

Veterans day should be about teaching kids about the sacrifice of veterans and their families and the respect that they deserve... not to make some absurd statement against the separation of church and state as the current interpretation of Constitutional law. And to additionally start denying kids scholarships? Who are the children here?

In the comments, there are multiple folks talking about this being a "Christian nation" or the U.S. military being a "Christian military"... they must be reading a different Constitution than I am, which clearly established a secular federal government and enshrined religious freedom unspecific to any religion, let alone some specific Christian one, nor any generic "Judeo-Christian" concept that didn't even get popularized until the 20th century.

I understand many people disagree with the 14th Amendment incorporation of the 1st Amendment upon State governments and their established local governments. And they really dislike the fact that public school employees, as agents of the State, are no longer allowed to use their positions as a pulpit. But that's the current Constitutional interpretation. It's not the principal's fault and it is by no means the fault of the children who are too young to vote for the people who appoint the justices who maintain it.

Shame on these veterans groups for punishing children for their political disagreements that have nothing to do with these kids. Shame on these groups for depriving these children of an important lesson on Veterans Day over their pointless and horribly misdirected political protest.

Veterans Day and Giving Thanks

It's one thing to say thanks.

It's quite another to give thanks. Care packages for troops overseas are always important, but perhaps more so during the upcoming holiday season. Our own local Toys for Troops organization is a great place to start. The USO also does care packages if you're interested. There are also endless ways to both volunteer and put your money to use to help veterans.

An equally important thing is to demand thanks... by staying current with veterans issues on everything from holding the VA, military, and the federal government accountable on education and health benefits to those benefits for their families and dependents. There are currently backlogs and bureaucratic snafus leaving hundreds of thousands of veterans struggling to see the benefits they have earned... and unless they have the support of their fellow citizens, many of these issues go largely ignored.


I also have a Veterans Day movie recommendation, though it may initially seem more appropriate as a Memorial Day movie, "Taking Chance," is also a good Veterans Day movie. The storyline revolves around the true story of a soldier's last journey home, but equally as important are the veterans and other civilians who must carry on after the wars and the losses.



-- UPDATE 9:10 AM --

From our local newspaper on the Toys for Troops group mentioned above:

Students ensure military service doesn't go unnoticed

MAHOMET – Veterans Day sounds more like Thanksgiving this year.

For the third year, Lincoln Trail School in Mahomet has donated food, toiletries and other gifts to Toys for Troops, a care package for overseas soldiers founded by Laura Stewart of Champaign.

...

Williams got involved in the effort two years ago, when Lincoln Trail students collected 2,100 plush baby toys. Last year, the school donated Thanksgiving treats.

"When we do (the packing) on Veterans Day, the kids have a purpose and a goal. We have veterans over who give them a good sense of why they're doing this; it's a double reward, for the troops and the pupils," Williams said.

Toys for Troops will still be responsible for much of the cost of shipping the Thanksgiving boxes next Wednesday, a cost that will total between $900 and $1,000, Stewart estimated.

The cost of shipping one box is $11.95.

If you'd like to sponsor the cost of shipping a box to a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, click on the PayPal donation button at www.toys-for-troops.com.

Or you can send a check for $11.95 to Toys for Troops, 1123 Lancaster Drive, Champaign, IL 61821.

Donations are tax-deductible.

Good stuff.

Sunday Blasphemy

I noticed O'Reilly has already begun his "War on Christmas" nonsense early, so I'm revving up the other side of the debates again here on the blog by bringing back the Sunday Blasphemy series. And I will of course begin bringing up the other sides of the stories on what I'm sure will be a season filled of the dominant ruling majority being horribly oppressed by an evil atheist cabal... typically offended at the notion that anything but exclusive respect for, or keeping disagreement silent or out of sight for, their particular views is practically on par with tossing them into lion dens.

So here's a fairly good debate on BBC on whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world (h/t Pharyngula blog) that was worth the watch (full program):



410 supporters lost? Ouch! No wonder questioning things has long been a popular taboo of organized religion.

Factcheck: Repubs Wrong...

...because Dems are too.

If you've heard your average Republican talk about health care reform bills floating around congress lately, you've probably heard accusations that they completely take over American health care, either by endless regulations or forcing everyone onto government plans by making coverage mandatory and also bankrupting private insurers.

If you've heard your average Democrat talk about health care reform bills floating around congress lately, you've probably heard excuses on why the bill isn't even what they'd prefer (generally a single payer system or some other far more extensive reform), but that we should support it anyways. The excuses generally range from the idea that this is some sort of "dent in the armor" to get "real" reform later to the idea that it is better than nothing to ensure costs go down.

Of course all of the above is either outdated, exaggerated, or flat out wrong. From factcheck.org:

The early House bill called for a federal insurance plan that would pay health care providers at Medicare rates, which are 20 percent to 30 percent less than what private plans pay on average, according to the Lewin Group. If this type of federal plan, which would be substantially cheaper than private insurance, were open to everyone within three years, it could lure as many as 114 million away from private insurance, Lewin estimated. The revised bill calls for a federal plan that pays negotiated rates, putting its premiums in line with those of private plans.

The Lewin Group has not released an analysis of the latest House bill, but it did model what would happen under a similar situation, with a federal plan paying negotiated rates. Lewin found that such a plan would result in 10.4 million to 12.5 million people moving off of private plans, in favor of the "public option." Why the big drop? Because those with private insurance wouldn’t save much money, if any, by switching to the federal plan.

CBO analyzed the revised House bill, and it came up with even lower numbers. CBO estimated that 6 million Americans total would join the so-called "public plan" by 2019 — and that premiums would be "somewhat higher" than the average private plan premiums offered through an insurance exchange. CBO said the plan would be most attractive to the less healthy members of the population, forcing premiums higher, despite the fact that the federal plan would save some money on administrative costs.

In one fell swoop it knocks out the government takeover and savings memes as it notes that the medicare rates in earlier versions are no longer in the current bills, which prevents the public option from actually being much different in cost of care issues than the private insurance it would be competing with. By some estimates the public option may end up being more expensive and thus less competitive.

And as for the future holding some magic remedy for "real" reform later, and thereby justifying GOP concerns that this is just a first step towards the government takeover they fear, while being the single payer or other far more extensive government plan the Democrats really want... neither worry nor hope is a big secret. While Democrat leaders dismiss the notion in public to allay fears, the activists and prior statements of the leaders make it clear that this is what they hope for. But the reason they're not taking advantage of their current super-majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House with a resident sympathetic to the cause (and advocate of the same while on the campaign trail) is because it's simply not politically feasible. Such hopes (or worries if you're on the other side of the aisle) rest on the idea of some super-duper uber-liberal majorities to pull off in the future. A future that no expert on either side of the aisle is expecting to come to fruition any time in the short or long term.

If they could pull it off, the time is now. Activists on the left are fully aware of this... and doing everything they can to try to do so now. Activists on the right are fully aware of this... and doing everything they can to shut down anything of the sort while the Democrats hold such vast power in this current Congressional term.

So what are we left with?

• We have bills that create a public option that isn't very competitive, if at all, with private insurance.

• We have bills that signify a death knell for any sort of single payer or more extensive government reform of health care in the foreseeable future.

• We have bills that do little nothing to address the increasing costs of health care and the adverse effects it is having on the economy and stability of future government budgets on all levels of government, let alone any real benefits in the short term for the current recession.

• We have bills that do little to nothing to address the boomer and other crunches coming with medicare and medicaid beneficiaries.

• And We have bills that do little to nothing to reform current health care programs, such as the Veterans Affairs and Medicare/caid systems, that are in dire need of improvement.

But it's not all bad. The mandatory coverage and subsidies will ensure far more people are covered that previously would have been unable to get it. This comes at the cost of forcing a lot of people into coverage who would otherwise not get coverage, adding to the profits of insurance companies... so much so they're unconcerned with the provisions that end denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, an otherwise typical thing in any other type of insurance. You won't find too many auto insurers that will pay for a car you already smashed to bits, or home insurers that will take you after your home burned down... the risk is 100%, and taking such folks wouldn't be "insuring" them, i.e. it'd be a boneheaded business decision.

But people don't really want insurance for their health care. They want health care coverage. It still boggles the mind when people get mad at insurance companies for being insurance companies and not pay-my-bills-for-me companies as if they were a government safety net program.

The bills also open up interstate competition for insurance, which could have some net positives, though the nationwide standardization of coverage minimums will put a damper on that meaning much to the average joe who can only afford the minimum with or without subsidies.

Unfortunately none of the bills really do much to address the rising costs which are overwhelmingly on the provider end of the spectrum... and as noted above, they really don't do much on the insurer/coverage end of the spectrum either. Nor do any of them address the already heavily problematic government programs already in place that, in spite of recent improvements here and there, generally have a mixed history with some real nightmares rivaling the horror stories being pumped out by current proponents of reform of the private industry.

What's clear is that the Democrats are missing a clear opportunity to attempt real reform now, something shockingly admitted by Democrats themselves if you talk to them about it outside of some partisan pissing match. And while the Republican opposition generally seems to be misguided or overwhelmingly based in hysterical fears (to be fair somewhat grounded upon the stated hopes of Democrats themselves) there's little reason to support the current bills (also, ironically enough, echoed by the Democrats themselves).

For all the costs and effort being put into unrealistic hopes of some magic fix later in the support of this bill, it's an unnecessary waste at a time when the government cannot afford to waste anymore resources on non-solutions to a very real economic crisis.

Unemployment Blues Update

A while back ago factcheck.org referenced a chart showing the Obama promises versus reality on unemployment and verified the data was accurate. That chart has since been updated and you can verify the data via the factcheck.org article and the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:


(Click to enlarge)

Scary.

Casualties of War

My first impressions with the news that's come out on the Ft. Hood shooting since yesterday afternoon:

• From the information about his prior statements both in person and on the web, this man's loyalties were with his fellow Muslims, not with his country.
  

• He was desperate to avoid being deployed overseas where he'd potentially have to harm his fellow Muslims.
  

• He targeted the part of the base where soldiers were preparing to deploy, out of all parts of the base he could have targeted, he went after the ones who were about to leave to engage his fellow Muslims.
  

• Though he did not appear to be adhering to any particular group that the United States is at war with, and the United States is not specifically at war with Muslims, this man's religious loyalties appeared to have caused him to oppose the current military actions of the United States in regions where the enemy is composed of Muslims.
  

• His actions, in my opinion and given the information thus far, constitutes waging war against the United States. Short of any new information, it seems to me that he should be hung as traitor.
  

And this happened just shy of a week before Veterans Day. What a nightmare.


-- UPDATE 11/6/2009 @ 11:12PM --

Additional and updated summary of information on the "suspect" with more evidence of his treasonous intentions and his demeanor of preparing to leave for war in the weeks and days leading up to and the day of the attacks.

This wasn't a man who just snapped. This was a planned assault on our troops. He traded in the deployment he detested for one he could be at peace with.

Comic Relief: Accident Victim Not Glenn Beck

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

All Politics is Local... um wait...

The old saying may not hold true in the current infighting between various Republican and conservative groups. The recent ouster of Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican, from a New York district race by die hard conservatives from around the country supporting Dough Hoffman, a 3rd party conservative rival, seems to perfectly highlight the problem. From CNN:

Late last week, as the pace of conservative and congressional Hoffman endorsements quickened, reports began to spread among anti-Scozzafava conservatives that national Republicans had quietly ended both anti-Hoffman and pro-Scozzafava efforts, focusing their resources instead solely on attacking Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

By the weekend, with House Republicans joining the conservative base in open revolt, it was clear that both Scozzafava and the GOP had run out of options.

Scozzafava's exit was followed a day later by her endorsement of Owens, as the RNC immediately funneled resources to Hoffman, and third-party groups backing both remaining candidates descended on the district.

Everyone agrees that the grass-roots insurrection against the Republican Party's official candidate means something significant, but exactly what it means depends on who's asked.

The general summary is that the conservative activists think this is some grand opening victory in a campaign to force the Republican Party to bend to its demands, while moderate Republicans and party bosses tend to view it as a growing circular firing squad that will eventually just help the Democratic Party stay in power.

This type of thinking isn't unique to the Republican Party. There are plenty of liberals and Democrats who think it is in their interest to weed out moderates within their own party as well. Both situations seem to rely on the belief that their prior or current majorities that have included such moderates could have been possible without them and that voters who support such moderates will be forced to align with their more extreme counterparts when their ballot options are between a die hard on one side or voting for the other party they normally don't match all that well with. Not necessarily a safe bet.

As an independent with strong opinions that, at least on the whole, do not fit either major party all that well, this parallel infighting has typically been a source of ironic amusement. But with the growth of the Tea Party groups the normal ranting and bickering of people outside of the districts of moderate politicians has grown into something that may actually have the capability to thwart the will of the constituents of those districts who very well may support more moderate policies. Essentially taking the notion of 'all politics is local' and turning it on its ear. If my district's representative isn't conservative or liberal enough for some factions of their respective party should my district be flooded by outside financiers and supporters to toss him out of office... even in suicide missions as suggested by some Tea Party supporters that suggest even if their preferred outside supported candidate loses, it's a victory?

"We should be magnanimous in victory -- and whether Hoffman wins or loses, as long as Dede Scozzafava loses it is a victory," Erickson said. "But we should demand accountability, we should demand a reckoning, and we should demand a purge from the party establishment of those people most responsible for the Republican disaster in N.Y. 23."

I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. This is taking the already heavy nationalization of local races and taking that problem to the extreme. Our federalist system of government is structured to empower regionalism in democracy. The people of this city don't have to have the same kind of government as the next. The people of this State don't have to have the same kind of government as the next. They can each choose for themselves, with higher echelons of government limited in how much the majorities that influence them can allow them to force their favored local policies on opposing majorities in regions within it.

With our federal representation this means each district decides who will represent them in the federal government. Instead of this some die hard party activists want such local representation to be thrown out the window for some uniform party control. Local district representatives or State senators all falling in line with what some outside yahoos want them all to be instead of the people of those districts or States choosing for themselves.

The parties themselves already go too far in this process, though generally with less success than what we've seen with the NY-23 race with the grassroots activists. People generally have been able to buck the parties desires for "pure" candidates and the result is a mixture of red state Democrats or blue state Republicans who are better fits for their districts, but who might generally drive die hard ideologues elsewhere out of their minds when it comes down to crucial votes on areas where they align with their constituents instead of the toeing the party line.

It's a two way street though and I think too many people fail to see the benefits when they can gain support from moderates of the other side and focus entirely too much on when their own party's moderates thwart their goals. But this is how the system was designed, and it should be obvious that this is a good thing. Our government wasn't established to have overbearing party apparatuses force their will on local constituencies, but the exact opposite situation of having a government that is built of representatives of those local constituencies who duke it out over policies that affect the whole... thereby restraining the government from overstepping its authority and limiting its ability to force policies on local/regional majorities that oppose them.

As more of a classical liberal I generally agree with many of the issues conservatives and Republicans have with out-of-control central power, but in this case the die-hards seem to be betraying their own ideology out of a sheer lust for power, a desire to get their policies enacted by any means necessary even if those means include thwarting the principles of limited government they hold so dear.

The hypocrisy is even more blatant as they are often regular critics of Democratic Party pushes to force national policies on local or State issues where their local or State constituencies do not support them. When it comes to "purifying" their party and purging of representatives for the constituencies of which they do not even belong, it comes far closer to their hyperbolic accusations, likening their opponents to party-centric regimes around the world, than they'd ever be likely to admit.

If these purges remain successful it may start a precedent for both parties that could have dire consequences on our federalist system, shattering the notion of local representation and the protection of local interests to ensure the success of certain policies at any cost, even if they lack the popular support via the Constitutional system they otherwise hold in such high esteem.

Happy Halloween!

-- UPDATE 10/31/2009 @ 10:51 PM --

My pumpkin got posted on the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! And I couldn't be prouder.