12.11.04

Red Ecosystems vs Blue Ecosystems

It has become commonplace to complain about the distorted view that standard maps of the presidential vote give (here is a good set of the maps I refer to in this post). Because the GOP does better in rural areas (though not by as much as in 2000), you wind up with a whole lot more red on the map, creating the false appearance of a Republican landslide. The county-by-county maps only make it worse*. So sophisticated observers look at cartograms in which the area of states and counties are made proportional to their population or electoral vote count.

But when it comes to the environment, there's some utility to the plain old geographically accurate maps. While there are such things as biodiversity hotspots and critical ecosystems, the environment is distributed roughly evenly over space. Standard maps help to make the point that most of the nation's environment is inhabited by conservatives.

There are two categories of environmental issues: cumulative and systemic. For systemic environmental issues like climate change, the usual electoral calculus applies -- pick up a few more votes around the fringes of the blue areas, so that we can tilt the White House and Congress into liberal hands, then implement a progressive national policy. But for more cumulative issues, like forestry, that's not enough. For practical and moral reasons, the cooperation of the locals is critical. Protecting the nation's public lands will require a much more sophisticated outreach (and listening) than simply pointing out that "conservation" and "conservative" have the same first ten letters. Some of the groundwork is already there, as rural conservatives begin to recognize that their representatives are selling out their quality of life to corporate interests. But the emergence of right-wing environmentalism is stymied by the perception that environmentalists are urban elitists -- a perception fueled by spillover of vitriol (on the part of both parties) from other issues such as gay rights.

*Incidentally, why is the lower-level breakdown always by county? Given how unsystematic the placing of county boundaries is, I would think a map showing the vote by precinct would be a better representation.
Stentor Danielson, 15:15, ,

11.11.04

Comic Time

I took an unannounced week off, because our issue was canceled due to the editors being in Nashville for a conference. (Not that I seem to really have a following waiting impatiently for my new material -- even a post on abortion couldn't get any comments!) But now they have returned, so I bring you a comic:



I also bring you a column, "Draft Fears Overestimate George Bush," and a comic to go with it. The column turned out much nastier to Bush than I had planned, and I didn't really play up the parallel with his handling of the budget the way I did in the post that this is an expanded version of.

Amusing note: When I format my columns for the web, I just grab a random old html file to use as the template. For this one, I happened to unwittingly pick my only other column about the draft.
Stentor Danielson, 19:53, ,

10.11.04

Bleeding Heart Conservatives

Stickers Put in Evolution Text Are the Subject Of A Federal Trial A federal judge began hearing testimony on Monday about whether the Cobb County School District should be allowed to leave stickers in biology textbooks saying that evolution was "a theory, not a fact" and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." ... The stickers were placed in the textbooks in 2002. The books include a thorough treatment of evolution, and the stickers were intended only to "acknowledge that it may hurt some people's feelings," said E. Linwood Gunn, a lawyer for the board. ... Marjorie Rogers, a parent and self-described "six-day literal creationist" who led a drive that prompted the stickers, said she was not advocating the teaching of religion, but just more theories besides evolution, which she said was disputed science. "I just want an even footing, if there's any kind of science to support it," she testified. -- via Chris C. Mooney

I actually agree with Rogers. Schools should teach every theory that has "any kind of science to support it." So in addition to evolution, they'll have to teach ... um ... evolution and evolution.

The title of my post refers to the comment by Gunn. I thought conservatism was all about the need to suck it up and face reality -- but when it comes to the origin of species, they're apparently all for treating all opinions as valid and making sure not to hurt anyone's feelings.
Stentor Danielson, 16:47, ,

Abortion Vs. God's Will

I normally don't touch abortion discussions with a 10-foot pole. I've even gone so far as it refuse to hold a position on the issue, so as not to get sucked into the arguments over it. But in the comments to a Hugo Schwyzer post, I encountered an argument that raises some interesting issues about agency that seem relevant beyond the specific example of abortion (notably in the case of "wilderness" and human interference with nature). Chip writes:

If every human being comes into existence only by the direct will of God, and if God is active in creating the body and soul of each human being, then abortion is contrary to God's desires for us.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that God has a specific plan for the world, and that actions are right or wrong as they help or harm the execution of that plan*. The idea here is that human action interferes with God's plan. God is directing the natural biological forces to create a life, but a person -- endowed with free will, and thus unable to be stopped by God -- can butt in and screw things up. That seems simple enough, and the presence or absence of human agency explains why an abortion is morally different from a miscarriage, since God is in control of the forces that cause the latter.

But is it really right to say that mere passivity in the face of natural forces directed by God is the way to ensure God's plan is carried out? It's quite clear that in many cases -- such as feeding the poor -- God's will is carried out through human agency. For whatever reason, God would rather inspire a soup kitchen volunteer to show love toward a homeless person than simply instigate a rain of manna. In the case of abortion, recall that the pregnancy in question occurred because of the agency of at least one of the parents. So abortion is no more an interference in the natural course of things than pregnancy is. An abortion doctor may be just as much an agent of God's will as a miscarriage-inducing genetic defect.

Indeed, one might go so far as to say that the existence of a pregnancy may be a human-caused snafu in God's plan, and an abortion is setting things right (which would at the least lend support to the rape and incest exceptions, since pregnancy aside those acts are both presumably violations of God's plan).

This is not to say, of course, that by this standard abortion is always acceptable -- there would remain times when having an abortion would be contrary to God's plan (since I assume God's plan involves there being some people in the next generation). But it does mean that the fact that human agency was used to abort the pregnancy is not prima facie evidence that God's plan has been thwarted. We'd have to have more evidence -- either direct communication with God, or a set of principles indicating in which circumstances God would want a child to be born.

*My personal view is that God's plan is statistical and open-ended (requiring some human input), rather than detailed and micro-managed. But since the plan is simply an extrapolation of the requirements of the principle of love, it is accurate (though not my preferred phrasing) to characterize good actions as those in conformance with the plan.
Stentor Danielson, 09:18, ,

9.11.04

Weirdness of the Day

I'm still getting back into the swing of blogging after the election, but for the moment we can ponder the fact that the Prohibition Party's page has camels in the background (presumably because they don't drink much). I imagine we'll be hearing a lot about them in the next few years, though -- their Presidential candidate, Earl F. Dodge, only lost the popular vote by 59,729,815.
Stentor Danielson, 14:40, ,

8.11.04

Bumper Stickers

I think we can safely draw the conclusion that if you want me to contribute to a political cause, you have to offer me a bumper sticker. I was motivated to join the ACLU by a desire to have an ACLU bumper sticker on my car. A few months ago the Human Rights Campaign sent me a mailing, which I probably would have looked at and thrown out except that there was a bumper sticker in it. That was enough to get me to keep the mailing sitting around, and thus there was a return envelope waiting to be filled with a check (my second ever political donation) and mailed off today as I mourned the success of the 11 anti-marriage ballot initiatives (the sticker will be going on my car soon).
Stentor Danielson, 14:46, ,

Contrarian Cartoons

Why is it easier to think of editorial cartoons for positions you disagree with? I'm writing an article about whether there will be a draft, and my first thought was to illustrate it with a picture of Bush saying "read my lips: no new draft." The only problem is that my argument is that he will keep his promise not to bring back the draft.
Stentor Danielson, 11:52, ,

7.11.04

British Optimism

Britain Hopes To Push U.S. On Climate Change, Says Adviser Britain hopes it can exert influence on reelected President George W. Bush and push the United States to do more to combat climate change, the British government's chief scientist said on Thursday. Prime Minister Tony Blair has made tackling global warming and reducing carbon emissions one of two priorities for Britain's year-long presidency of the Group of Eight (G8) richest nations starting in January. ... [David] King said he was encouraged by comments over the summer by Jack Marburger, Bush's chief scientific adviser, and by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Bush announces a major climate change initiative in the next few years. Of course, it will be a lot of nice words without much substance, like so many of his liberal-sounding proposals. Indeed, to judge from the prescription drug plan and Healthy Forests, he'll find a way to give some favors to his corporate backers -- perhaps via huge subsidies or tax breaks for R&D on technical fixes -- without actually doing much to address the real problem. Adjusting to climate change will require some sacrifices in the short term, and Bush has never been one to demand sacrifices from anyone (certainly not a foreign anyone).
Stentor Danielson, 23:08, ,