29.5.04

Misunderstandings

Googling around, I find a strange accusation (scroll down to 4/25) made by Joe Taylor:

I dare the people who support the draft - e.g. Stentor Danielson (look for "debitage" on my blogroll) - to say directly to me what they really mean by supporting conscription: "I don't mind to see you killed if it'll further my Cause." Come on, guys, say it, even though you don't read this page...

I'm not sure where Taylor got the idea that I support the draft, but luckily for him I published an article a few days later clarifying my position (and using the very argument he offers, among others).
Stentor Danielson, 18:31,

28.5.04

Geography Of "Soda"

This is why we have geographers (via Keywords). What strikes me is how polarized opinions are, especially on the east coast. Western Pennsylvania is hardcore pop country, while the eastern half drinks nothing but soda, and there's only an extremely narrow border zone. Likewise with the weird soda stronghold around St. Louis.
Stentor Danielson, 20:45,

"Healthy Forests" In Action

Neighborhood Wildfire Plans Spark Concerns ... For the last six months, Perrin has joined dozens of neighbors in drafting a wildfire protection plan for 14 neighborhoods along the upper Deschutes River, from Wickiup Reservoir to Sunriver. The plan is a result of the Healthy Forest Initiative, passed by Congress last December, which empowers communities to help decide how public land should be managed. ... But there is some concern that as small communities create their own forest-management plans, a patchwork of localized plans could prove difficult to coordinate.

This sounds like some good coming out of Healthy Forests. Of course, the usefulness of this kind of community planning depends on whether HF gets fully funded, which might not happen.

It also seems that HF is having some "success" in the courtroom:

Tree Cutters Find Success Under New Forestry Law Since December, when President Bush signed a new forestry law, the government has won 17 consecutive court cases favoring timber cutting over challenges by environmentalists. Bush pushed for the law that sponsors named the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, saying it would reduce wildfires in national forests by thinning trees while also limiting appeals and environmental reviews of proposed timber sales. ... The court victories mark a turnabout from recent years, when environmentalists succeeded in delaying and halting logging projects the Bush administration and many Western lawmakers said could have removed the trees and underbrush fueling wildfires.

Unfortunately, the article isn't clear on the distinction between fuel reduction forestry projects and non-fuel reduction forestry. Presumably HF would only aid the former, and the government was winning most of those to begin with. So a streak of 17 victories alone doesn't tell us a whole lot. I'd want to see details of particular court cases that engaged the provisions of HF.
Stentor Danielson, 19:45,

Three Links

1. The European Biomass Industry Association did a study to see whether switching to biomass fuels could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder what their conclusion was. I can certainly see the advantages of biomass over fossil fuels, but you'd think the WWF could find a co-sponsor with a little less of a vested interest in the outcome, to give their finding a bit more credibility.

2. Wanting to eliminate fire is like "wanting to have a turkey on Christmas Day, despite the fact that it's 35 degrees." A nice analogy for people who brought their British views of the environment and holidays to the Southern Hemisphere.

3. There's a major fire in New Mexico, luckily burning in a mostly rural area.
Stentor Danielson, 19:37,

Dredge Defeated

Lobbyists Influence House Voters In 63-130 Rejection Industry lobbyists won yesterday in Harrisburg, despite a strong push by two local lawmakers to enact legislation that would protect residents in our area and across the state. ... The legislation contained wording that called for a voter referendum to decide whether to allow dredge to be dumped in municipalities. Lobbyists argued, essentially, that giving local residents a chance to vote against the dumping of waste products would destroy Pennsylvania's economy.

My first thought was that this was typically slanted Times-News coverage of this issue (though perhaps understandably so, since the key legislators are local). When I went looking for a different spin on the story, I found this article, credited to the AP, which matches -- in both tone and wording -- Donald Serfass's Times-News piece. Somebody is ripping off somebody.

I tried to find out more about how giving communities control over dredge dumping would destroy Pennsylvania's economy, but beyond the word "oppose" on the PA Chamber of Business and Industry agenda, I couldn't find a counter-argument on the sites of any of the opponents. I guess the destruction of the state's economy isn't a high priority. So somebody here is engaging in some exaggerated rhetoric.
Stentor Danielson, 00:16,

Homophobia Down Under

Howard Warned On Bid To Jilt Gay Marriage Moves by the [Australian] Federal Government to outlaw gay marriages would cost the Coalition votes at the next election, a Liberal MP warned yesterday as the Government's own backbenchers protested against the decision. The Prime Minister, John Howard, said he would insert into the Marriage Act a specific definition of marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life". ... Mr Howard has defended his plan to amend the Marriage Act, saying it did not discriminate against gays and that they were not prevented from having a same sex relationship.

If the concern cited in the first paragraph pans out, it would boost my faith in the Australian public (recall that the Australian Liberal party is conservative). And to John Howard: if you're going to reinforce the discriminatory status quo, at least have the guts to admit that's what you're doing. Spare us the twisted logic of how it's not discrimination against gays, it's discrimination in favor of straights, and the sad consolation prize that gays can still have a relationship (unless you're seriously considering taking even that much away).
Stentor Danielson, 00:01,

26.5.04

John Kerry Isn't A Trustworthy Source Of Information But I'm Voting For His Policy Anyway

Going Both Ways On The Environment More than a third of Americans say they don't trust President Bush "at all" as a source of information about the environment, according to a new survey of attitudes about the environment by the Global Strategy Group for the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences. Kerry fares somewhat better, with 24 percent saying they don't trust him on the issue. But before Kerry's campaign tries to make hay out of that finding, consider the flip side: Although 26 percent of Americans say they trust the president "a lot" for environmental information, only 12 percent say they feel that way about Kerry. Another survey finding: Survey respondents mentioned environmental concerns (9 percent) almost as often as terrorism (10 percent) as "the most important problem in the United States in the next 20 years." The top-ranking concern is jobs and the economy (17 percent). -- via The Commons

Amy Ridenour at The Commons says that "The lesson for politicians? Don't bother approaching environmental issues from a political perspective. It won't help you anyway." But I think that's a misreading of the poll. It's not that people distrust the candidates' environmental policies, it's that they distrust the candidates' statements of factual information. I, for one, don't base my understanding of (say) climate change on what John Kerry or George Bush have to say about it. I collect independent information -- from the news, scientific publications, personal experience, etc. Then I match my views on climate change to the policies advocated by the candidates. I don't much care what Kerry says about whether and how the climate is changing, I care what he says about what he's planning to do about it.

This interpretation -- that the candidates should be politicians and discuss policies "from a political perspective," rather than trying to be scientists and tell us how the environment is doing -- is supported by some additional information from Yale's press release:

A majority of Americans (56%) say that the candidates should talk more about their plans for the environment. A significant percentage of the electorate (37%) wants the candidates to talk "much more" about environmental issues. And the public wants action as well as talk. Eighty-four percent believe the United States should enact stricter emissions and pollution standards for business and industry. This reflects substantial majorities of Democrats (92%), Independents (90%) and Republicans (68%).

In other words, the electorate wants the environment to be an issue, and raising its profile would be likely to help Kerry (he should beware of respondents' reluctance to sacrifice other values for the environment, though they're generally sympathetic to Kerry's view that environmental protection helps the economy). Particularly encouraging from his perspective would be the apparent close agreement on environmental issues between independents and Democrats, which suggests that environmentalism isn't some far left-wing cause that he needs to tone down in order to appeal to swing voters.

One interesting bit in the full report is the generally more positive attitude people have toward their local environment. 51% say that the national environment is "fair" or "poor," while only 43% say the same of their local environment. 67% think that the federal government needs to do more to protect the environment, while 61% say the same of the state and only 55% say their local government needs to do more. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Perhaps the immediacy of locally-concentrated environmental threats, as compared to the diffuseness of larger-scale ones, means that local governments have had a better record of success than the feds.
Stentor Danielson, 21:03,

24.5.04

Log Cabin Democrats

Morat and Steve Gilliard can't understand why the Log Cabin Republicans stay Republicans when the GOP is so blatantly anti-homosexual. I'm not a fan of the "why are you gay people still Republicans"? line.

The main problem is that it portrays gay voters as one-dimensional. Yes, gay rights are clearly very important to someone who would join a group like the Log Cabin Republicans. But I imagine they also care about other things, like cutting taxes and the war in Iraq. I don't see how we have any call to demand that people sell out all but one of their principles. And if they came over to the Democrats, they'd get the same kind of flak -- "why don't you and Zell Miller take your pro-war views and go join the Republicans?"

Second, there's an important role for people working for change from within. If the Log Cabin Republicans ought to give up on the GOP and vote Democratic, why shouldn't all American gays give up on America -- which is still legally and socially a fairly homophobic country -- and move to Canada or the Netherlands? Because gay Americans have an attachment to the non-homophobia elements of America, and thus they'd like to stick around and reform the place. I don't think it's a hopeless cause. As bad as the contemporary GOP is, it (and the Democrats) used to be worse. Each succeeding generation is more gay-friendly than the last. The Log Cabin Republicans are in it for the long haul, to create what Matthew Yglesias has called "two non-insane parties." The two-party system is entrenched enough that the only way gay rights will ever be on a secure footing is for the GOP to be converted (in the same way that they were converted to supporters of Medicare and Social Security).
Stentor Danielson, 11:51,

Noble Lies And Objectification

Plato famously defended the idea of the "Noble Lie," a falsehood propagated by the ruling class to keep the rest of society in line. The practice has been adopted by many a tyrant throughout history, and it's a rare ruler who hasn't been accused of spreading Noble Lies by his more radical opponents. Defenders of truth and freedom have made numerous counter-arguments, but what interests me about the Noble Lie is how it plays on the ideas of reflexivity and objectification.

Reflexivity is the standard explanation of why the social sciences can't work the same way as the natural sciences. The natural sciences study an objective world, attempting to develop theories that will explain it, help us to predict its changes, and perhaps even control it. This works because the natural world's principles of operation don't change. While formulating scientific laws can drastically change how we see nature and how we interact with it, they don't change nature itself. Snow falls just the same after we discovered the Bergeron process as before, and the same principles would continue to apply if we used our knowledge to intervene and provoke or forestall a snowstorm.

The social world, on the other hand, won't stay "out there." When a theory of anything is formulated, it becomes part of the social world. When that theory is about the social world, we encounter what's known as a reflexive situation. People change the rules of their behavior based on theories ranging from folk knowledge to social scientific investigation. Unlike crystals or trees, people won't sit still and let social scientists get their behavior figured out. Current trends place an ethical value on increasing the reflexivity of the research enterprise, involving informants in the process of data interpretation and disseminating results far and wide for public use.

What a Noble Lie does is short-circuit the process of reflexivity. The ruler's actions and knowledge never make it into the consciousness of the public because they're kept wedded to a stable lie about how society works. This enables the ruler to develop a body of objective knowledge about society, knowledge free of the complications of reflexivity. This kind of knowledge is more easily used for control of society. Essentially, a successful Noble Lie enables the ruler to treat society as an objective world, a thing "out there" that can be manipulated, but not changed by self-awareness.
Stentor Danielson, 01:47,

23.5.04

More "Beyond The Pale"

The latest issue of the Commonweal Institute newsletter recommends the Media Matters for America site as a source for "the sort of 'I-can't-believe-they-said-that' quotes that every progressive should have at his or her disposal." They give some examples of the kind of quotes they mean (and yes, they're unbelievable), but they don't elaborate on the important question -- why I would want to have "'I-can't-believe-they-said-that' quotes ... at [my] disposal." Perhaps they would be useful if I needed to discredit Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh as individuals to an audience not familiar with the crazy things they say. Maybe they'd be useful as well if I wanted to do some guilt-by-association to take down some more reasonable conservatives (before I do that, I'll need to come up with a good defense of A.N.S.W.E.R. and Stalin, seeing as both my own opinions and theirs happen to fall to the left of center).

But outrageous quotes don't do anything to help construct an argument against actual conservative beliefs -- indeed, they do just the opposite. The whole idea of such quotes is that they're self-evidently wrong and thus in need of no arguments. But if Michael Savage and his fans believe that Arabs are "non-humans," then simply restating their belief is unlikely to make them reconsider. (I'm imagining someone saying to me, in a shocked voice, "you want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? and failing to be terribly convinced by my outraged interlocutor.)

The real effect of having "'I-can't-believe-they-said-that' quotes ... at [my] disposal" would be to taint my view of conservatism. The quotes would seem more representative of what conservatives think, and hence I'd start to feel like conservatism was self-evidently wrong and that therefore anyone who holds such views must be willfully refusing to think rationally. And I'm not interested in winding up like that.
Stentor Danielson, 22:27,