We really need to think about bias and negative inferences.

When corporations control the news media, we can infer that they will report in ways not dangerous to corporate interests.

A more specific inference: When people working for non-profits, earning salaries that they could surely improve upon in some other private business, tell us that global warming is a problem, we can probably trust their sincerity. When polluting industries and/or their agents/allies fund research that casts doubt on global warming, we can suspect the work is somehow biased. Why moreso than the non-profits? Profit.

This may seem obvious. But, as mentioned earlier, the corporate media tends to support corporate interests, and thus will often treat both sides of the debate equally. They do this by allowing both sides to allege facts, and failing to deeply analyze these facts. The news must include analysis, or else it is merely reporting on people’s words. Without the analysis, the reader/watcher may draw the inference that a set of claims is true, since they go unexamined in the reporting. I’m not providing empirical evidence, though I assume it exists.

Another dreadful inference: When those in power fail to pursue policies that will provide universal healthcare, provide clean environments, and provide resources to keep people out of poverty and danger, then we can infer that those in power are potentially capable of almost any atrocity (that they can get away with, perhaps) against their own people and foreigners.

This negative inference is something I touched upon in one of the forums, here, if you want to see where it came from. But what I wrote was this:

Ah, you bring up the taboo thought: administration knowledge and/or complicity in Sept. 11.

This was something I considered from the day of the attacks, before there was any evidence that would suggest who did it one way or the other (though the corporate media seemed willing to jump to unfounded conclusions, placing Bin Laden’s face on their screens for a great deal of air time, as well as the infamous and phony celebrating Palestinians).

Then came along people who tried to put the pieces together, some with very compelling cases both for and against administration (and if not administration, then some other domestic source of power) complicity/knowledge.

But what we cannot ignore is that I, and I’m sure others, considered the possibility shortly after we were aware of the attack. This is critical. It tells us that we had facts and beliefs about the sources of power in this country that would at least support this sad conclusion.

What facts could possibly have led someone like myself to suspect this possibility as very real? They would be the facts and beliefs that demonstrate to us a disregard for American lives and non-American lives. Environmental policies. Domestic economic policies. International economic policies. Health care policies. Law and order policies. Perceived motivations for future policy may have also had a role, but I really can’t remember clearly if I was considering that on the day of the attack, though I think I may have been.

Whether in the end any knowledge (that is, knowing knowledge, as opposed to knowledge they don’t realize they have… I support the Rumsfeldian interpretation of the knowledge of institutions) or complicity can be shown is unclear. Unfortunately, much of this unclarity is probably due to the secretive nature of the government and its institutional appendages/accomplices.”

Naturally, I do not draw a conclusion about 9-11, since all the facts aren’t out there, and whoever has all the facts is not willing to report them. But I believe the negative inference is a valid one.

Am I clouded by ideology? I do not put much stock in the word. We are already tax-slaves, and everybody agrees that we should be, else we would have no government. We’re all part-socialists, like it or not. Thus, I don’t think it is such a big step to raise more taxes to fund substantial social welfare programs and promote fairness. Or we could simply reapportion our current spending. Anyway, I never heard a politician of any stature proclaim that some people should not have health insurance, or that some people should be in poverty, or that some people should have to deal with polluted neighborhoods. So if we accept the words of politicians and ignore that they are lying and disingenuous, then we are all agreed.

One last inference: since these disingenuous politicians lie about their beliefs, motivations, ideology, etc., then we can expect them to keep lying about everything else.

Please let me know if I am nuts.

While we have the country in a buzz over “activist judges” let’s take a look at the news out of Indiana. As happy as I am to see that the American justice system is part of the true melting pot of America and its many diverse cultures (How often do you hear about a Wiccan divorce?), I’d like to point out that this is the type of action that our right wing friends would love to see practiced every day in our country. For citizens who’s political ideology stems from the sacred protection of state’s rights, this is their goal for the federal courts with the crusade for the appointment of Bush’s controversial judges. Doesn’t that scare you?

I’ll point out myself that this is but an isolated case active only in a single state. The ruling from the court in Indiana is nothing more than a persuasive precedent to other sovereign courts throughout our nation. They can choose to ignore or accept the foundations of the judgement as they see fit. But let’s take a peek at the wording from that ruling that is the source of my concern:

In the order, the parents were “directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.” The judge let the wording stand.

How does a court justify labeling a religion that is practiced by millions as something that is unfit to be taught by a set of parents to their child in their legal custody? Maybe it’s just me, but it seems this judge has no problems saying “This child, who already attends Catholic school, must not be taught the religion of his family by his parents because it is not like the religions that we’re all used to, like the ones that worship ‘one god’ and not some hodge-podge of nature deities.” (I singled out ‘one god’ there because despite their monotheistic foundation, Christians still divide their god into three parts, making themselves in effect polytheistic)

The only redeeming quality in this story are the actions by one Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana. Here’s someone who can look at this action, see the spirit in which it was made, and say “No, that’s not right. Labeling non-Christian religions as inferior and prohibiting parents from teaching them is wrong.” In my first article, I called on moderate Christians to exercise their faith truthfully and accurately in opposition to the factions that spread intolerance and injustice under the guise of religion. This is what I meant, right here, in the actions of Micah Clark. Now, if only this were the norm and not the exception, the world would be an amazingly different place where true freedom was permitted for all peoples, without interference from some “activist judge” from Indiana.

7 Republican and 7 Democratic U.S. Senators have hammered out a deal that avoids the so-called nuclear option and continues filibustering for 2 of President Bush’s judicial nominees in return for allowing 3 of them to be voted upon. While it’s admirable that some senators have attempted to find a compromise and break a deadlock over ideology, Democrats may have blinked too soon.

There was no guarantee that presidential hopeful (and thus religious right panderer) Bill Frist had enough support to change Senate rules. Arizona’s John McCain, Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski all but pledged to vote against banning judicial filibusters. Several other moderate Republicans could likely be counted on to also vote against such a move.

Even under the agreement there’s no guarantee that rewriting Senate rules is off the table. Some Republicans have already threatened to bring the issue back if Democrats use the filibuster for anything other than the “extraordinary circumstances” vaguely mentioned in the deal. The clause is a clear victory for the GOP, who can use any interpretation of how extreme the case is for filibustering to take up the nuclear option again.

Finally, some would argue that 2 of the 3 judges being allowed a confirmation vote are the worst of the whole bunch! Any deal should have allowed the less controversial of the nominees to go through in exchange for a few of them (a mere fraction of the already small number of blocked nominees) to be denied cloture.

Let’s not forget why these judges are controversial. Janice Rogers Brown gets the bulk of the attention for her comments on the New Deal, but there are others worthy of attention. Richard Pryor has called trial lawyers “leftist bounty hunters”, supported dismantling the Violence Against Women Act and Clean Water Act, and supported cruel treatment of Alabama prisoners. Priscilla Owen has regularly ruled against workers and consumers and refused to recuse herself when judging cases involving corporations who gave her campaign contributions. William Myers has compared federal environmental protection to Britain’s colonial tyranny and was a lobbyist for the mining and grazing industry. The American Bar Association weakly gave him a “Qualified” rating for the federal judiciary (not a “Well Qualified” rating, and with one third of the committee rating him “Not Qualified”). He’s never even been a judge! Monday’s deal effectively eliminates Myers from consideration, but as I note before, the nuclear option can’t be counted out. More importantly, though, it speaks to the quality of judge being nominated by Bush.

This was bad deal-making prompted by fear. Again, I’m all for compromise, but one needs to make sure that deals are fair and reasonable. Part of this problem is that the populace is too apathetic about this issue to talk to their senators about it. Plus, many misconceptions abound. Wake up everyone. This will affect you one day.

National news magazine prints story about desecration of Koran. Muslims riot and kill people. Said news magazine suddenly realizes that they “got it wrong”. White House acts high and mighty (leave it to a hypocrite like Dick Cheney to chastise anyone for causing “unnecessary death”). Does this reak of a public relations move to anyone else?

Desecration of religious items is nothing new, in fact it is a part of the curriculum of US military training programs such as SERE (Search, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape). A former US military officer had the following to say about what he experienced during SERE school, while involved in a mock excercise in which the student was the POW:

The bible trashing was done by one of the top-ranked leaders of the camp, who was always giving us speeches–sort of ‘making it real’ so to speak, because it is a pretty contrived environment. But by the end it almost seemed real. Guards spoke English with a Russian accent, wore Russian-looking uniforms. So the bible trashing happened when this guy had us all in the courtyard sitting for one of his speeches. They were tempting us with a big pot of soup that was boiling–we were all starving from a few days of chow deprivation. He brought out the bible and started going off on it verbally–how it was worthless, we were forsaken by this God, etc. Then he threw it on the ground and kicked it around. It was definitely the climax of his speech. Then he kicked over the soup pot, and threw us back in the cells. Big climax. And psychologically it was crushing and heartbreaking, and then we were left isolated to contemplate this.”

Did they really get it wrong? In the end, like most other things, it comes down to whatever you want to believe. If you’re like me and distrust most things you see and hear in the mainstream news, perhaps you will believe that the story was true and this is simply pressure being applied to Newsweek by an administration feeling the PR heat from the violent reaction it got in the Middle East. Does anyone really believe that the action of “flushing the Koran down the toilet” is something that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay would not do?

Either way, all the outrage just seems kind of fake if you ask me…starting with the Pentagon and the White House, which has had worse things to say about this than it did about Abu Ghraib, and on down to the rioters in Afghanistan and their political mouthpieces who were likely just waiting for some gas to pour on the fire. Frankly I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. I’m not trying to be insensitive to the religion, but in the end it is just a book…printed text on paper. Isn’t true spirituality something that you find within yourself which is greater than any mere material item? Maybe I just don’t get it, but the whole thing seems very childish. If I were being held indefinately at a prison famous for using sleep and sensory deprivation tactics I’d welcome a little bible flushing, maybe I could catch some z’s in between testaments.

People don’t seem to pay much attention to the Department of Homeland Security’s terror alert level these days (notwithstanding Fox News Channel’s ticker). Maybe they’ve grown complacent to the threat of attacks on U.S. soil. Maybe they trust the government’s efforts at combating terrorism. Or maybe false alarms and vague warnings have eroded what little value the system had in the first place.

Since its inception there had been concerns that the Bush Administration might use the Homeland Security Advisory System (as it’s formally known) for political purposes. These accusations certainly reached a high point when the alert level was raised to orange for key financial centers just a few days after the end of the Democratic Convention last summer. Later we all learned that the intelligence that justified the warning was 3 to 4 years old. Very suspicious, but the “liberal media” didn’t spend much time on it.

It now seems clear that we were right to be skeptical. Speaking to fellow former Homeland Security officials, Tom Ridge described disagreements with other presidential advisors regarding when it was appropriate to raise the threat level:

In those debates, in those discussions, more often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. … Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on [alert]. … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, “For that?”

Without even addressing what Tom Ridge’s statements say about the possibility of impropriety (an essay in itself), there’s an obvious danger in crying wolf so many times that you get the opposite of what you want: a vigilant citizenry. Even a legitimate alert has little usefulness. What does being “vigilant” entail? Does the government want stock brokers to racially profile fellow pedestrians as they walk down Wall Street? Should every passenger on an airplane monitor anyone wearing a turban during the whole flight? How are we to balance carrying on our normal lives (as terror warnings always encourage us to do) while simultaneously exercising caution?

There’s talk of reforming or scrapping the alert system altogether, and I certainly wouldn’t miss the rainbow of warnings. The government should be open with the public regarding credible intelligence of terrorist threats, but they should be specific to regions of the country. Rather than dictating a level of fear in the form of a color, information should be released in reports or presented at press conferences where the data can be dissected and questions asked. If there are specific actions that citizens should take to better protect themselves, the government should suggest those actions with clear and honest evaluations of their necessity to avoid panic. Constant communication between government and citizenry is key to properly preparing for the worst.

I have no doubt that for those in Washington legitimately concerned with the safety of this country, the decisions to release or withhold information are difficult ones. America suffered an unimagineable loss in 2001 and it can be tempting to err on the side of warning. Such warnings can be costly, though. They breed complacency, they use up much-needed police and fire department funds in local government, and they can be used unethically to cultivate fear and submissiveness to unjustifiable government acts. Public awareness is important, but the means to that awareness needs to change.

I am sitting in a room with three children. These children are 17 years old. One does not speak English, and when we give her a Gujarati dictionary, she does not seem to know how to hold it, but she smiles pleasantly and looks at her test book studiously as I read her the test questions. Another spends over half an hour painfully struggling to read a one and a half page story in order to answer questions on it. She slides her finger under the words, and frequently looks up in frustration. I nod at her encouragingly and she returns to work. The third is finished in under 15 minutes but he does not appear to have actually read a single one of the questions. Every one of these children is classified with a specific learning disability (and in the case of the first, also as an English language learner). Every one of these children must pass the rigorous three day state test that I am currently proctoring. Otherwise, it means we’ve left them behind.

Behind WHAT?

A brief primer in No Child Left Behind. NCLB was the education plan on which Bush campaigned in 2000. It was based upon the success of a similar plan in Texas, affectionately known as the “Houston Miracle” - which by the way NEVER HAPPENED (for more information see this article). NCLB was the first piece of domestic legislation passed after 9/11, and it was passed with bipartisan support because it sounded so appealing.

While there are certainly many admirable provisions in this law (most of which were never funded, but that’s a cry for another day), the most notable provision is the testing provision. By the year 2015, every child is to be passing a state level test at every grade level. There are gradual benchmarks set up for each year that passes. Currently, schools must maintain pass rates of 85%. That may not sound difficult. However, the schools are required to reach that benchmark in ever subgroup. Subgroups include, but are not limited to: children with disabilities, English language learners, and students with low SES. This means that 85% of ESL students must pass the state tests. 85% of special ed students must pass the state tests.

Now I am not a special educator, nor do I teach ESL. And as I look around the room at this group of students, there is not one of the three of them who I would be willing to leave behind. But as I watch them struggle through this test which is entirely beyond their cognitive capacity, I have to ask myself how this test can possibly be keeping them on track.

The very name “No Child Left Behind” is an artifact of the spin upon which this law was based. Born out of Rod Paige’s own lies and deceit, this law purports to help children by increasing accountability. The underlying assumption is that teachers, by default, are doing something wrong. Personally I find this insulting. More significant than my personal reaction, though, is the inherent lack of logic in this argument. Even if teachers are doing something wrong, increasing the accountability of teachers can only be done by observing, assessing, and educating teachers, not by testing children. How can a child’s test scores accurately assess a teacher’s performance when there are so many other variables which affect the test score? And this assumption that positive results on a three day test once a year will somehow prove that children are being better served is absurd. Good teaching involves working with students to meet their individual needs, based on their goals and abilities. Good teaching is not one size fits all.

This is not a measure designed to help children. This is a measure designed to punish teachers, to punish schools, and ultimately it will punish children. This is a law designed to label schools as “failing” when they are unable to achieve the stated goal with the available resources. Logic would indicate that such schools need more resources. The law would give them less.

The children in the library with me, like all children, deserve more than more tests. They deserve functional career education, character development, civics education, divergent thinking, socialization. The project of public education is developing an educated citizenry, helping to build a population responsible for its own democracy.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid, these days that is what’s being left behind.

I just ran across this article by Naomi Klein, written for The Nation:

Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works

It gives us a terrible rationale for the use of torture that we seem to be overlooking in the United States. From what I have read and heard, torture does not work for intelligence gathering. But if people are aware that there is a possibility that they may be tortured, they can be effectively silenced and politically or socially demobilized.

If this is what is intended by torture, then we have a name for it. Terrorism. In this case, state-sponsored terrorism. One does not need explosions or loud bangs to terrorize a population.

Speaking of definitions… shortly after 9-11, I wrote an article in my college’s daily news paper, one of my biweekly columns for that semester. I bring up the article now, not so much because I discuss torture directly, but because the theme was the definition of “terrorism.” The writing/editing may not be pristine, and the ideas behind the words I am sure originated in greater minds than my own, but I felt proud to expose a wide audience to the concepts I was pushing. Here is the article (by the way, I did not come up with the title, must have been some editor too lazy to read it):

Ben’s post-911 article on terrorism

If you don’t want to read it, here’s the last line, which I really dig:
“Certainly steps should be taken to prevent terrorist acts similar to the ones we were recently forced to witness. But we must not let ‘Infinite Justice’ become an overzealous defense of the status quo that completely ignores our own role in world terror while silencing forms of legitimate dissent.”

On March 16, the U.S. Senate voted 51-49 to go ahead with drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

I saw on television (amazingly there was actual relevant information coming across a television screen; I nearly choked in surprise) a female senator claiming the oil to be found in ANWR would cover the same amount as 25 years of Saudi Arabian imports.

Its hardly relevant to only consider only Saudi Arabian oil imports, but since the senator wishes to do so lets look at some facts and do some simple math. Firstly, we have only a rough idea of how much oil is in ANWR. Current estimates list it at 5.6 to 16 billion barrels, according to CNN and other various websites. Assuming this is accurate information, we can assume the actual amount is probably somewhere around 10.8 billion barrels, an average of the two estimates. America consumes approximately 21 million barrels of oil each day. In January, we imported 1.6 million barrels daily from Saudi Arabia, or 584 million barrels annually. This means the number is in reality closer to 18.5 years of Saudi Arabian imports. However, this is flawed for two reasons. American oil consumption increased more than ever in 2004, and taking into account an ever increasing population with ever increasing demands for energy and an ever decreasing sense of reality it is obvious that the real number is much less than that. Second, there is no guarantee that Saudi Arabian imports will remain steady. In fact, if recent trends are an indicator, they are already decreasing. Yea, I know, Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah met and promised us that Saudi Arabia can increase its imports…I’ll believe it when I see it (clasped hands notwithstanding). On top of all this, it will take 10 years for the first drop of Alaskan oil to find its way into our cars, homes, food, and virtually every other aspect of our daily lives. Also, keep in mind the amount of money and energy that will be used to build the infrastructure for this project. Think of the pipelines, roads, and refineries that will have to be built. Is it worth it?

It might sound fancy to say that there are billions of barrels just waiting to be pumped, or whatever other rhetoric the politicians will throw out to give the public the illusion that drilling in ANWR is going to do anything to decrease America’s oil addiction. Keeping the big picture in mind, at current consumption rates there is approximately enough oil in Alaska for 514 days (1.4 years) of supply, if we were solely relying on ANWR. All we are looking at here is more momentary satiation. Sooner or later it is inevitable that we move away from hydrocarbons and begin incorporating other sources of energy into our lives, nothing less than the survival of our society depends on it. John Kerry, whom I voted for without much confidence or hope, did have some words that actually made sense (amongst politicians, a rare feat). He said, “Drilling is not the answer, invention is.” Sounds good, John, but talk is cheap…lets see some action.

Republican acknowledges “gays and lesbians are human beings”, wrath of God withheld pending review by Holy Trinity

Despite a nation-wide effort by conservatives to turn back time (say to about 900-1400 AD?), Oregon Sen. Ben Westlund (R) is part of a small number of Republicans lining up behind a measure to create civil unions within the state. This somewhat bipartisan action comes on the heels of an Oregon Supreme Court ruling that invalidated nearly 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued during a wedding whirlwind inspired by the Massachusetts ruling on the same issue. No doubt that somehow, before passage, some other inflexible conservative senator will tack on language to the bill reaffirming the state’s commitment to usurping the authority of Webster’s New English Dictionary in defining such words as ‘marriage’ and protecting the souls of good Christian Americans within their borders. Homophobia, like cleanliness, is next to godliness, apparently.

I don’t want anyone to think that I condone in any way the spreading or publication of false stereotypes about certain demographics. That being said, Christians have a recurring tendency towards being bigots on the issue of homosexuality. Recall I said ‘false stereotypes.” It’s not a stereotype if it’s true. A member of a religion like Christianity can’t consider themselves separate from the kind of behavior I am talking about when they choose to ignore this issue. Silent consent is consent nonetheless. And while we’re at it, let’s remind ourselves what silent consent has brought to the world. In Germany, of course, it was the Nazism. The citizens went along to get along. In American, it’s brought us the war on terror. In the world at large, nations bow to America’s will to reap economic benefits despite questionable acts committed by our soldiers that verge on being crimes against humanity.

When a recovering Catholic and sometimes-Buddhist like myself is the one reminding Christians that their Lord and Savior encouraged countering senseless hate with unconditional love because those Christians forgot, the world has become a pretty screwy place, my friends. I find it ironic that we can be force-fed a stream of cable news “interviews” about the hijacking of Islam by the fundamentalists that blow our soldiers up without once stopping to see how other extremists have climbed to power within religions that influence the highest members of our government. Fundamentalist Islam? I’m more worried about Fanatical Protestantism or Zealous Evangelism, to be honest. More on the Dominionists later, that’s something scary enough for its own article.

In the meantime, I’m calling on moderate or progressive Christians to take back their faith. Reclaim your religion and return it to its principles. Show the world that while gays were attempting to redefine “marriage” that some small section of ignorant fanatics didn’t succeed in redefining “love”. You religion is based on love, supposedly. Right? God’s love for you? And me? His gift of His Son to redeem humankind from original sin? All humankind? IS ANY OF THIS RINGING A BELL, DAMNIT?? Do yourselves and America a favor, and don’t let corruption happen to your religion. Or will you just sit back and let some rabid zealot put those words of hate into Jesus’ mouth?

Love your neighbor. Love your black neighbor, love your white neighbor. Love your old neighbor. Love your creepy-guy-with-a-lazy-eye neighbor. Love that ex-con neighbor with the tattoos up his arms and all over his back that you find so intimidating. Love your pagan Wicca neighbor who’s religion is thousands of years older than yours because she already forgives you for the millenia of repression her religion has suffered. It’s even OK to love that gay neighbor too. Love all your neighbors, everywhere, every day, because it was (and is, last time I checked the Bible) Jesus’ will that everyone show love to each other.

“I could never date a Democrat,” my future girlfriend warns me. We weren’t even talking about politics.

I learned two important things from that conversation: First, don’t let statements like that deter you from pursuing a smart, beautiful woman. Second, being a jerk only hurts your cause.

See, my girlfriend is not an intolerant right-wing loyalist that instantly writes off every liberal as some insane asshole. But she did let one angry and bitter man with a shove-down-your-throat approach to debate make her wary of leftists. It’s possible that this guy could have represented the same ideals I believe in, but he certainly didn’t deliver them well. After some rational and civil conversation, it turns out that she and I aren’t so different after all.

That’s what I hope The New Wisdom can bring to the national discourse. I can’t listen to political talk radio (even when I agree with their views) because it’s filled with hate and bashing rather than persuasive arguments and civilized debate. The instant you sling an insult, you’re initiating a series of subconscious defense mechanisms in your counterpart that immediately closes off all open-mindedness to new ways of thinking. I don’t want to erect that barrier. It’s hard to convince them if they’re not listening.

Please listen and talk back to us. Comment on our posts, participate in the forums, email us your thoughts. I can’t wait for you tell me I’m a jackass imbecile who should be shot in the groin. My subconscious defense mechanisms are ready.