The Politics Of God And Science

True believers, be they Atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Jews, are absolutists. They know the correctness of their belief system. They know the depth of ignorance achieved by non-believers. It is profoundly difficult to have a productive conversation with someone who is positive that you are a weak-minded religious nut, or a godless fool on the way to Hell. Absolutism does not blend well within the strictures of democracy; a fact plainly in evidence in conversations on abortion, evolution, or sexual orientation.

But how do these systems of belief relate to our democracy. How should we the people, in a fair-minded an efficient manner, reconcile the black and white of belief with the gray of functioning government? Many writers and philosophers have tangled with this particular tiger, often with bloody results. The Rational Middle will try to address this issue with respect to science and without angering everyone. This attempt will, I fear, almost certainly fail. But the all-knowing they say that fortune favors the bold; so here goes.

Thoughts On The Political Spectrum

We humans have a pervasive need to impose simple structures on everything we involve ourselves with. Good and evil, black and white, right and wrong; all of these constructs intended to make our choices as simple as possible. In our feeble way, we mimic the design of nature; the immutable laws of nature don't always give us the answers we like, but they are always there. Light itself, fits into a rigid construct, moving from infrared on the left to ultraviolet on the right. The light we see exists in the middle of that band; when it is passed through a prism, the spectrum of colors is revealed.

Ans so it is that we pass our political issues through a prism. Political scientists (and I use that term loosely), have determined an order to the spectrum. They sit in judgment on the issues and the politicians, carefully plotting the location of each within their simple structure. Left or right. For decades this construct has defined politics; totalitarian communism to the far left and totalitarian fascism to the far right. In the middle of the spectrum, the Republicans and Democrats, mercifully removed from the extremes. All the variables, oddities, brilliance, and ignorance of a rash of humanity boiled into one simple two-dimensional graphic.

Taxes Roll Downhill

Early in the debate over financial reform, the banking lobby explicitly stated that any tax assessed on them would just be "passed onto the consumers". Early in the debate on energy reform (aka cap and trade), Republican legislators explicitly stated that the cost of any tax or carbon credit would just be "passed onto the consumer". We are not dealing with implications friends, we are dealing with explicit threats.

It is a fact that business passes its costs onto consumers; that is just the way it works. Consumers pay the cost of the product or service, and some level of premium (or markup) that goes to profit; this is how business exists. There is nothing inherently unethical or amoral about the capitalist marketplace, but neither is it a guiltless virgin worthy of unrestrained activity. When businesses externalize their costs to the community they operate within, it is the responsibility of we the people to decide how those costs will be paid.

Nate On Sports: Big Ten Expansion Talk

This is fun stuff.

For those of you unaware, the Big Ten Conference has already announced its intentions to "explore the possibility" of expanding conference membership to 12, 14, or possibly even 16 teams. An advisory board has been hired and is exploring several possibilities (i.e. schools that could possibly be a good fit in the Big Ten.)

That's really all we know right now. It seems like there are different pieces of "information" leaking out every day with regards to the new additions to the conference. Over a month ago, Pitt was supposedly a done deal, a couple weeks later it was on good authority that UConn was in, and recently there have been rumblings that Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, and Notre Dame were all extended offers, and that three of the four (with, you guessed it, Notre Dame being the holdout) were virtual locks to accept.

At this stage, however, nothing is definite. While I'm of the opinion that the latter rumor is more likely to be accurate (as will be explained later), I'm also of the opinion that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany would kill anybody who leaked anything about expansion. Still, the rumors and speculation are a big part of the fun.

The Supreme Court Mystery

Who in the world is Elena Kagan? Why in the world did President Obama nominate her? How is it that Republicans and Democrats have begun to see the same picture, and report radically different visions? Supreme Court nominations, and the idea of the Court itself, have always been something of an enigma to the citizens of our democracy. We were all taught in civics or government class that the Court exists in our system of checks and balances, but we are deeply suspicious of it nonetheless.

The nomination of Elena Kagan, expected for weeks, has succeeded in driving other important news (financial reform, immigration reform, the Gulf environmental catastrophe) from the front pages. The initial Republican lines of attack are both humorous and obvious. Rush Limbaugh called Ms. Kagan an "intellectual lightweight" (her bipartisan status as brilliant notwithstanding). John Cornyn and others also immediately attacked her lack of judicial experience...she has never been a judge. Republicans in this new century have stood out for their short memories and ability to reverse themselves. Chief Justice (and conservative icon) William Rehnquist was appointed to the Court in 1972 by Richard Nixon...without having served as a judge previously.

Terrorists And Miranda

Most of America knows what the Miranda rights are, we hear them every time we watch a police procedural show on television. The product of a 1960's Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona, it mandates that a suspect be told his or her rights before an interrogation, lest the results of that interrogation be inadmissible in court. The question in today's headlines is whether this should be extended to terrorist suspects, and whether the extension of such rights is dangerous to America.

I have written many times of my personal beliefs on this matter; liberty and principle don't matter when they are thrown aside in times of danger. Patrick Henry called us to this ethic when he decried, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" But neither do I desire to be overly critical of divergent opinion; citizens have the right to call for the safety of their families. What then, are we to make of the recent controversies surrounding the "wannabe-bomber" and the "underwear-bomber"?

The Mission And The Men

The Rational Middle is published by a defense hawk. I am an amateur student of military history, and a believer in robust military spending. I am stating this upfront because the rest of this article is a reality check. This is for the Tea Parties, Conservatives, and Moderate Democrats who are (reasonably) pressing for fiscal discipline. Mathematically, you just can't talk about the deficit without addressing defense spending. Of course, you can't do it without talking about tax increases either, but I wrote on that subject here.

In the fiscal year 2009, as directed by George W. Bush's final budget, the United States spent $538.1 billion on discretionary domestic spending. That number is, as a friend would say, a lot of cheddar. During that same budget, our democracy spent $655.8 billion on defense. That is $117.7 billion more cheddar. I would vigorously argue that much of that spending (or at least what was purchased) was and remains necessary. I would also argue, as many have, that much of the spending cut be cut without the loss of programs...if only we could be more efficient. Some people think that the savings lie in stopping the "generous pay raises and benefits" lavished by Congress on the troops. Some people also, in my humble opinion, need to be taken out and and shot at for a while before deciding what level of pay is "generous".

Rational Politics Chapter 6: Liberty, Terror, And Schizophrenia

The great American author, Tom Clancy, noted in the epilogue to The Sum Of All Fears that it was not probable that any free democracy could prevent a terrorist event using weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11, most of the nation's best analysts, through interviews on television or in print, have repeatedly stated that another major attack is a near inevitability. This friends, leads us to the nature of terrorism; the ability of a small force able to bend a larger force to its will through intimidation. But the United States hasn't changed in response to the events of 9/11, have we?

Clancy made it a point to reference the free democracy in his note. Liberty, after all, does not blend well with a police state. For decades the Red Chinese, and the Soviets, Nazis, and Czarists before them, controlled the ethnic and religious divisions that existed in their nations. It is not coincidental that bloodshed began anew in the Balkans when Yugoslavia was dissolved; the tensions of Serb and Croat had been sublimated to the will of world socialism. Iraq as well, showed the results of tyranny on the profession of terror; Hussein allowed no jihad in his country, and was utterly without limits in his ability to enforce his will. It took a foreign power to uncork the terrorist potential in that nation.

Nate On Sports (Sort Of):To Tase or Not to Tase?

Now, this probably isn't going to be your typical sports blog. In fact, this will probably at least somewhat venture into the area for which this blog was originally created (i.e., politics.) And I'll tell you right now - my view probably won't be "politically correct" by any stretch of the imagination. Now if that isn't incentive for you to read on, I don't know what is.

The Sticky Logic Of An Oil Spill

I was reading the other day where some members of Congress and the punditocracy think that a cap and trade bill is dead in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill. Huh? A bill designed to limit the long term damage being done to our environment (read, the place we all live in) by slowly changing our energy infrastructure, is at risk because of an event doing massive damage to our environment. Does the term, ice cream headache, mean anything to the good folks we elect as our representatives? Admittedly, the politics of passing a bill as involved as cap and trade are daunting; stranger bedfellows than John Kerry and Lindsey Graham are hard to imagine. But this whole episode is hard to swallow; days on end of politicians straining to turn themselves inside out in search of political brownie points.

A couple of weeks ago, liberals were incensed that Obama cleared the way for expanded off-shore drilling. In the aftermath of the disaster, Rush Limbaugh went on the air to describe a conspiracy theory involving Obama, SWAT teams, and the intentional detonation of the rig...at the President's direction and with the intention of helping environmentalists. This idea friends, represents the depth of insanity and clearly describes how Limbaugh and others think. Power and glory are so important to them, that they could imagine the President ordering the literal destruction of a major ecosystem and staple economy, all to help a bill designed to safeguard the environment.

A Little Housework

Just a quick note on the RM as we enter May friends. There have been some subtle changes to the blog over the last week, as I attempt to make it more convenient to navigate (and more economical for me to publish). If you indulge in social networking, the "sociable" tab (top left) has a number of icons that will allow you to share the RM with your networks. If you are interested in following the RM on a regular basis, you can click on the "Facebook Badge" to go The Rational Middle on that service and become a fan; or, become a "friend" of the blog (Google calls it following...but I think it is creepy to have "followers"). You may also follow along on Twitter, or sign up to receive an RSS feed of the RM. Both the RSS feed and "notes" section of Facebook offer the posts free of additional graphics (and advertising).

A note on that advertising...I have posted Google Adsense Ads for 10 months now (although I hasten to add that I have no real control over the content of those ads); currently, my account shows that the blog has earned me $0.18. While not a get rich quick (or even a get rich slowly) scheme, I would be grateful if those of you who are planning an Amazon purchase anyway would consider killing two birds with one stone. Read and comment on the latest post on the RM, and then browse the Amazon gadgets on the sidebar.

A handful of friends and family started reading the RM with its first published post on June 22, 2009. Just a month ago, we passed 180 unique visitors in the history of the blog. In the last 30 days, we have doubled that number, and gone from an average of 5 page-views per day to 40. Please keep your comments coming, and keep sharing the RM...this blog belongs to the loyal visitors whose primary interest is bringing adult conversation back to our democracy. Thank You!