red fuzzy jesus

Bush's Bosses

How Politics Distorts Science in the Bush Administration

If you could have dinner with any three people, living or deceased, who would they be?  This question used to be the start of a party/discussion game my family would play when I was young.  Participants would name three people and usually one was Jesus.  Other attendees to the hypothetical dinner might include Gandhi, FDR, John Lenin, and I would always invite Madonna because she was just so cool.  There were usually some silly selections but most were profound and people would enjoy explaining why they would have dinner with this or that person to gain from their wisdom or ask uncomfortable questions.

But what if you really could have dinner with anyone you wanted?  What if you were a powerful world leader and just about anyone would be honored by the invitation to dine with you?  And what if instead of just one dinner you had a regular meal of this sort?  Whom would you invite?  Would you assemble the greatest scientific minds and be enthralled by the wonders of the universe?  Would you share a steak and salad with great philosophers and teachers to challenge your assumptions or grow your understanding of the human experience?  Or, would you dine with a group of poorly learned people who instead belittle education, disagree with the fundamentals of Science, and work tirelessly to enact pigheaded discrimination into law?

That third option might seem a bit odd until you learn that our own dear leader does just that - or at least his "brain" does.  For years now Karl Rove has kept a regular brunch with the Arlington Group.  The Arlington Group is a coalition of leaders from the farthest fringe "religious" right organizations including the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Counsel.  The obsession with including the word "family" in everything they do is an Orwellian rebranding of the mission and agenda of these groups.   

A precursory visit to any of these groups' websites reveals a lockstep orthodoxy.  They are well known for opposing any legal recognition of gays and lesbians.  And, they decry stem cell research, legalized abortion, and most even oppose contraception.  That characterization is not a liberal distortion.  The religious right is quite upfront about their opposition to contraception including the birth control pill. 

While these more familiar viewpoints give them most of their attention and fund raising capabilities, few realize they have been more successful at opposing Science than gay rights and abortion.   Their biggest success recently came with Bush's vetoing of stem cell research.  The tepid endorsement and subsequent flop of a federal gay marriage amendment and the Terri Shiavo debacle have been embarrassments for both the religious right and the poor, dumb administration that lends them too much of its ear.  But, their greatest successes have come in their ability to stifle scientific progress and to distort or debunk what we already know. 

Earlier this year, 600 scientists from universities and private enterprise, NGOs and governments around the world released a report declaring it was incontrovertible the planet was warming and we bare the brunt of the responsibility.  Never had so many scientific minds from such diverse sources agreed unanimously that global warming was a real and manmade phenomenon.  The level of scientific consensus was unmatched in other fields of science.  The same number of professionals disagree significantly in various fields of study but the unprecedented agreement among them prompted many to conclude that the need for tougher environmental laws were inevitable and naysayers were effectively silenced.

After the report was released many commentators wondered who could maintain the denial of global warming with a straight face.  It is not a surprise that the strongest dissent about global warming did not come from groups that were Science-based but religious.  From before Galileo's head was lopped off for hypothesizing the Earth was not the center of the universe to the ongoing relentless attacks on the work of Charles Darwin, Science's most vocal critics have usually been religious.  It should come as no surprise that the loudest opponents to the consensus over global warming have come from the religious right. 

"Christian" fundamentalist "news" source, World Net Daily, has run endless bizarre headlines in recent months including, Global Warming Hysteria is New Eugenics, Sizzling Study Concludes: Global Warming Hot Air, and, Mayor Rips Gore's Junk Science.
The American Family Association brags, Critics Seek to Deflate Hype Surrounding Global Warming Report And the Family Research Council warned its viewers not to believe the Science with an oddly worded story titled, Evangelicals Cool to Global Warming Hype.

Only in the world of the religious right is language twisted to the point that the unprecedented consensus of 600 scientists worldwide is reduced to mere "hype." 

The agenda to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming is not the only area in which the religious right relentlessly attacks Science.  To many the idea of researching stem cells is a no-brainer.  Stem cells are human cells that have yet to specialize into functions such as skin cells and white blood cells.  Scientists believe they have the best potential for cures to an endless amount of maladies including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and paralyzing spinal cord injuries.  The research is done on excess fertilized eggs from fertility clinics that are too numerous to freeze and store and are instead tossed out with the garbage.  Researchers believe it is better to use these fertilized eggs to discover cures rather than dispose of them.

There are no scientific groups that oppose stem cell research.  There are no medical associations, no universities, no secular groups and no disease-specific activists groups that think we should be throwing away frozen fertilized eggs instead of researching them.  The only groups that oppose stem cell research are religious groups.  More specifically, the only groups that have actively campaigned against stem cell research on Earth are members of the religious right in America.  To be fair, they also do not argue for disposal of fertilized eggs.  They believe they should remain frozen and stored by the millions indefinitely to be potentially "adopted" and implanted someday.  But with the already millions of living, breathing orphaned and foster care children who can't find homes in the world today, this idea is as bizarre as it is impractical. 

The only people that oppose this medical research are the ones that equate you and me to fertilized eggs in test tubes.  They arbitrarily assign souls and personhood to zygotes without the ability of Science to disprove such attributes.  But the anti-Scientific, anti-medicine aspirations of the religious right do not stop at the cellular level.  These groups have been successful at opposing other treatments as well.

Cervical cancer in women is caused by a virus that is sexually transmitted.  In recent years a vaccine has been developed that prevents that virus from spreading.  It is difficult to imagine anyone opposing a vaccine that prevents cancer and, just like stem cell research, it is overwhelmingly touted by the scientific and medical community.  Only one group of people opposes the vaccine; the religious right.  State by state they have run successful campaigns blocking women's access to the vaccine because, by their logic, anything that makes sex safer encourages it in much the same way airbags encourage dangerous driving.  To the religious right, most sex between consenting adults is wrong.  Disease and unwanted pregnancies are necessary to punish and discourage the practice. 

Without the influence of the religious right it is unlikely President Bush would have ever stridently supported "intelligent design" education programs by encouraging school districts to "teach the controversy."  Among the scientific community there is no controversy regarding evolutionary biology.  These same groups have also heaped praise on the newly opened Creation Museum; a sprawling monument to their obedience to ignorance over scientific inquiry. 

Likewise, the only groups in the country that support abstinence only education in schools are these religious rights groups.  Numerous studies have shown abstinence only programs only delay first sexual experiences and actually increase the chances that those first times will be unprotected.  A report by the Washington Post demonstrated how these programs actually disseminate patently false information including, "abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy." These odd and demonstrably false declarations do not come out of thin air.  They are lifted word-for-word from the propaganda on these religious right web sites including Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America. 

The Bush administration has even gone so far as to remove the encouragement of condom use from the Center for Disease Control's web site and instead post unscientific data about the failure rate of condoms. 

The religious right's influence in the issues of public health has had a remarkable level of success throughout the Bush administration.  In July, former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona testified before Congress that his integrity had been repeatedly compromised during his four-year tenure as the nation's surgeon general.  Over and over again he was coerced by the administration to make political declarations about contraception, global health, stem cell research, and reproduction even when they contradicted his expertise and sound Science.  From the effectiveness of condom use to the potential of stem cell research Carmona spoke against his own convictions in the interest of appeasing powerful political influences in the Bush administration.  And, when pressed, he eventually revealed that this was the influence of the religious right.  In matters of sex and Science, the religious right assured the Bush administration dispersed its distorted faith-based message at the expense of expert authority. 

Others related to the administration have logged similar complaints.  In February of 2004 over 60 scientists released a forty-page report detailing the Bush administration's relentless attacks on Science and penchant for suppressing or distorting research.  The areas most affected by the anti-scientific climate were global warming and condom use.  Overwhelmingly the administration obeyed the religious right's talking points on the dangers and evils of using contraception at the expense of scientific opinion from the foremost researchers around the country. 

It is no secret that the religious right has had enormous influence on the Bush administration.  They have been the staunchest supporters of the mess in Iraq and they handpicked Bush's Supreme Court nominees.  No other coalition of groups enjoys the same access as the Arlington Group's brunches with Karl Rove and history will either record the administration's exploitation of these groups' support as evidence of Rove's political genius or incompetence. 

The religious right's influence has not been limited to separate activist groups wielding outside pressure but has instead permeated and saturated every level of the Bush administration.  In April it was revealed that the Bush Administration had appointed over 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's Regents University to positions in the federal government.  Regents is a "university" founded exclusively on the political proclamations of Christian fundamentalism.  Its stated mission is to enact and enforce what its founder sees as god's laws via the power of the government.  No other academic institution has had more alumni represented in the Bush administration which has been loath to hire graduates from Ivy League and liberal arts colleges.  Poor academic credentials are actually an asset evident in the administration's hiring practices.  The preference for graduates from a school based on religious fundamentalism rather than the humanities explains much about the administration's disdain for scientific research. 

From global warming to evolution, from reproductive health to medical research the Bush Administration has ignored the counsel of doctors and scientists in favor of the propaganda of the religious right.  In the upcoming election, global warming will continue to be an important issue.  To a lesser extent, so will world health, stem cell research, and abstinence education programs.  When evaluating candidates for the presidency it is important to consider not only their views but where their views originate.  It is imperative that the next president respect the fundamentals of Science more than religious fundamentalism.  When considering whom to vote for it is useful to ask, who might our next president invite to dinner?  Would he or she invite the greatest scientific minds to be enthralled by the wonders of the universe?  Will he or she share a steak and salad with great philosophers and teachers from academia and the private sector?  Or will religious fundamentalists wield the greatest influence?  The consideration is not complex.  Neither is the current occupant of the office. 

Hate Crimes: Fact and Fiction

For several months now the Democratic lead Congress has batted around the idea of adding new categories to already existing federal hate crimes laws.  The house approved it but the Senate attached it to a defense bill that had to be shelved till a later date.  The new categories are gender, disability, and sexual orientation.  Predictably, America's professional anti-gay activists have launched into apocalyptic seizures over the idea of including sexual orientation. 

The religious right, however, has not come up with a single argument against hate crimes laws.  After reading the right wing "news" sites and activists propaganda for months I have noticed that not one religious right group has argued against hate crimes laws in their totality.  This is because to argue against current hate crimes laws they would have to somehow explain why religion and race should not be protected categories. 

The strategy they have chosen to follow instead is two fold.  First, they claim adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws would give the government the power to punish thoughts and words.  Second, they argue hate crimes law protect certain classes of citizens over others.  Both of these claims are absurd and would be comical if not for the power and influence of these bigots. 
 

MYTH 1: Hate crimes laws are a new concept currently being debated by Congress.

FACT: To read the materials on the religious right web sites one could easily conclude that hate crimes laws are not a reality already.  The fact is, hate crimes laws have been around for four decades.  The questions before Congress now is whether to add new identity categories to existing federal hates crimes laws.  Since the mid 1960s hates crimes laws have added specific punishments when an act of violence is used to threaten a community based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.  At issue now is whether to add sexual orientation, disability, and gender to the list of protected categories. 

When the religious right argues against hate crimes laws it is important to note that they have enjoyed the protections of hate crimes laws for forty years.  They do not argue against the existence of hate crimes laws, per se, only expanding the protections to people other than them. 

MYTH 2: Hate crimes laws make it less of a crime to attack a straight person than a gay person. 

I have already addressed this ridiculous scare tactic at length in what I call the "grandma delusion."  The religious right stretches the truth to claim that somehow you won't be punished for beating a straight, white person.  It is a pathetic claim.  Nothing in the text of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act ranks people based on who they are. 

If a person breaks spray paints his name on the front of your store they are guilty of vandalism.  If a person spray paints his name and "kykes go home" on the front of your store with swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans then they have not merely committed the crime of vandalism.  They have vandalized a storefront AND used that act of vandalism to send a threatening message to the Jewish community causing Jewish people to live in fear or not do business in that area.  Hate crimes laws recognize the duel crime of the latter situation.

Likewise, if a person mugs someone for money they have committed a violent robbery.  However, if a person is picking off guys leaving a gay bar for brutal beatings with homophobic slurs, that attack is not just against the individual but used to threaten the community as a whole.  A hate crimes law would punish both aspects of the crime. 

It is important to note, again, that this understanding of a hate crimes law has protected Christians and people of any faith for forty years.  Hate crimes laws were originally passed as a response to church burnings in the South.  People recognized then that burning a black church is not a simple act of arson but arson with an explicit threat to the black community.  The religious right has enjoyed hate crimes protections for years and hidden behind them when attacked for their often hateful and bigoted rhetoric.  They do not oppose hate crimes laws, they oppose others being protected by them. 

MYTH 3: Expanding hate crimes laws to include gays and lesbians is equivalent to passing thought crimes laws.

This is a pervasive lie repeated ad nauseum on all the religious right sites.  A small sampling of this hysteria can be seen in the following:
"[T]he bill would elevate homosexuals to a special protected status. So if a pastor stands up in the pulpit and says homosexuality is a sin ... it will be considered hate speech, …and if this law passes, the federal government will go after people who say those kinds of things."  cite
"This is an effort to silence people who want to step up and talk about morals because some [people] don't want to be made to feel guilty,"  cite
"What they're attempting to do here in America, the birthplace of freedom, is to criminalize Christians for simply sharing the truth of God's Word -- and we cannot stand for that," cite

Hate crimes laws specifically address violent crimes; not speech, not thoughts.  Nowhere in the text of the law is there any prohibition on speech or thoughts.  Furthermore, such a law could never survive judicial review even if it somehow got passed. 

It is worth asking why the religious right makes up a reason to oppose adding sexual orientation.  There is no way possible that a law is going to pass Congress or be held up in court that bans specific speech.  There are no good reasons to oppose adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws so in order to keep gays and lesbians from being protected they have to manufacture a threat to speech with no evidence this will or has ever occurred. 

MYTH 4: Pastors who preach sermons giving the "biblical" view of homosexuality could be prosecuted.

What the religious right calls the "biblical" view of homosexuality is their own unhistorical interpretation of select verses that have little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.  That said, they have the right to preach whatever view about whatever god they want. 

No pastor or any person is in legal jeopardy for expressing an opinion about homosexuality or any other matter.  After forty-some years of hate crimes laws it is still legal for a pastor or anyone to stand before a congregation and spew all sorts of hatred.  The KKK can still march down any street in America and hold any rally they want.  Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and any other faith imaginable has the unrestricted right to believe whatever and teach whatever.  The only time a pastor can be prosecuted for inciting violence is when he or she specifically directs an audience to go attack someone and a listener follows orders.  Inciting someone to commit violence has nothing to do with hate crimes laws. 

For four decades there is no evidence that any pastor has ever been arrested for preaching about something that supposedly violates a hate crimes law.  If this had ever happened the religious right would repeatedly tell the story in all their propaganda.  In many states and cities, gays and lesbians already have hate crimes protections.  The issue now is whether to add that category to federal hate crimes laws.  Although no one in the religious right can name a single instance in which an existing hate crimes law in any state or city has resulted in pastors being targeted for their speech, they still espouse the idea that somehow adding gays and lesbians to hate crimes laws puts pastors at risk.

They oppose adding gays and lesbians to federal hate crimes laws because they have an irrational animus toward gays and lesbians.  Rather than just be honest about that animus they make up false threats like the fear mongering about pastors and free speech. 

One could argue against the existence of hate crimes laws altogether.  One could say that having any protected category violates the Equal Protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  I would probably still disagree with that person but at least that argument would be intellectually honest.  However, as shown over and over again, intellectual honesty is not the religious right's forte. 

Cruelty, Poultry, Pork and Pragmatism

As I watch the news coverage of the Michael Vick story I am continuously horrified by the ever-increasing level of cruelty.  With each new development we learn how primitive and unaffected by suffering humans can be.  The debate over Vick's and his accomplices' actions is understandably one-sided with only the dumbest professional athletes willing to provide a defense that is quickly recanted after an agent or publicist advises otherwise.  But, for all the highlighting of cruelty to animals there is much missing from the discussion. 

After fifteen years of being a vegetarian I've learned to keep my mouth shut.  I will usually try to quietly order the non-meat option at a restaurant or find the vegetable dishes at a pot-luck.  But, inevitably someone notices what I've chosen and figures out I'm a vegetarian and then the task of keeping my mouth shut becomes even harder because the usual questions follow. 

At first it's, "Why are you a vegetarian?"  What seems like a polite curiosity is anything but.  People usually have no interest in knowing why I am a vegetarian.  They only want to allow me five words so they can immediately launch into a treatise on why they are not a vegetarian.  This is when keeping one's mouth shut becomes even more difficult.  People say the most inane things. 

I often hear that someone is not a vegetarian because they don't see anything wrong with an animal being killed and eaten.  (They assume, incorrectly, that I have some intrinsic moral quandary with this.)  They also usually say something about meeting a cow or pig once on a farm and how happy the thing seemed and that somehow justifies - to them - the burger they are eating. 

I once had a good friend tell me that since he grew up with cows grazing on farms and pigs rolling around in the mud he could never be a vegetarian because it just didn't bother him.  I resisted the temptation to tell them that if that were the typical conditions of cows and pigs I would have no need to be a vegetarian either.  Fortunately for anyone willing to do even the most superficial research there is well documented information about how the usual cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys really live.  And sadder still, how they die. 

Additionally there is plenty of information out there about the business end of the food chain.  Industrial farming is one of the most environmentally unfriendly businesses out there rivaling more notorious eco-villains like the oil and timber industries.  The treatment of land is destructive often beyond recovery and the amount of waste and chemical additive pollution is overwhelming.  Beyond that, it's exploitative of workers.  There are few, if any, union protections for some of the most grueling work conditions imaginable.  There are several sources that document the plight of the low-level employee in the meat industry including Fast Food Nation which, for those uninterested in books, was recently made into an enthralling movie.  Most people, if they bothered to investigate, might be troubled to know we haven't come that far since the horrors of another book; Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. 

My poor friend who is not troubled by the thought of eating meat because he witnessed cows and pigs dancing on a farm is sadly unaware or in denial about the real conditions of the typical barnyard animal.  The barnyard is a myth.  And for all the nightmare inducing tales of what Michael Vick and associates did to dogs, their actions pale in comparison to the treatment of livestock.  This, too, is well documented and available for anyone.  I, as a very young man, gradually became a vegetarian as a consequence of walks to my local library.  Rather than recount animal slaughtering practices I will simply point out the legal paradox.  Had Vick and company committed the same acts against cows and pigs there would be no legal ramifications. 

This is a paradox because dogs and cows possess some salient similarities.  They demonstrate the same ability to learn simple commands.  They have the same willingness to bond with a human and each other, the same emotional range, the same desire to live in the future, and the same pain response and survival instincts.  Yet, under current law a person can subject a cow to endless torture but a dog is protected from inhumane treatment.  This is because cows are "needed" to support the diets of millions of Americans whereas dogs are seen mostly as best friends.  And, the meat industry could not function at current levels without the cruel efficiency of factory farms.

I happen to be a vegetarian because I don't want to be part of the meat industry.  I don't have some deep moral conviction about the soul of an animal or its right to life.  Rather, I consider the environmental impact, the health impact, the treatment or workers, and, yes, the level of cruelty that's "necessary" to churn out the meat that keeps the coolers stocked in grocery stores and I say, "no thanks."  I have no problem with people choosing to be meat eaters.  But, I respect those that eat meat after being fully informed a lot more than those that say something silly about protein or how god gave them sharp teeth and therefore intended them to eat meat. 

One might think with my concern for animal cruelty I would be a huge fan of PETA.  I'm actually quite critical of the group.  PETA has done a tremendous good in exposing just how disgusting fur killings are.  If you have never seen a video of an anal-electrocution PETA has some for you and if you can watch them without being sickened - seek help.  It is important to note that some of the more cruel accounts coming out of the Michael Vick story tell how dogs that failed to perform well in fights were executed by being plugged into wall sockets.  And yet, anal electrocution of rabbits, foxes and minks is legal.  Michael Vick's actions will most likely result in jail time. 

PETA has also done an excellent job of distributing accurate information about the tortuous conditions in which livestock animals grow up and the even worse ways in which they die.  Chickens are shoved in cages so tight their beaks and feet become fused with the wiring.  When yanked out of those cages those parts are very painfully ripped from them and left behind.  Cows are left hanging from hooks still alive while they die slowly bleeding as they move on down the factory line.  But, in spite of all the good information PETA has provided for those willing to hear, they undo a lot of the good they achieve by backing it all up with flawed philosophy.

My criticism of PETA is not from the viewpoint of a detached observer.  I have some personal experience with the group.  Their headquarters lives not far from where I went to college and as an undergraduate I interned with them briefly.  I say "briefly" because in spite of my best animal rights intentions and vegetarianism I was unable to achieve the level of purity PETA requires.  For one thing I wore socks that were part cotton, part wool.  For another, I ate honey.

Although I couldn't complete my internship at PETA I remained friends with Bruce Friedrich, then the head of the organization.  We kept in touch and I worked with the student activities office to bring him on campus for a couple talks my sophomore year.  He gave me a rather enlightening book titled Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, which still lives on my bookshelves today.  Reading this book and interacting with Bruce gave me the impression that PETA people don't realize Animal Farm is an allegory.  They argue against speciesism; the idea that one species is of more value than another.  From this they have the idea that an animal life is worth every bit as a human life and any use of an animal by a human is discriminatory and exploitative.  Bees should not be "enslaved" to make honey for us.  Oxen should not pull plow.  Pigs should pilot aircraft.  I made the last one up.

From this we get a group that undoes the good they do objecting to actual cruelty by also objecting to women wearing pearls and frequently protesting the Ronald McDonald House where families of kids with cancer stay while their children are treated.  PETA's philosophy has introduced the misguided mindset that to oppose animal cruelty is to oppose animal use.  This mindset makes it all the more difficult for those who only object to the former.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; if only they stopped at ethical. 

I discuss PETA only because I've seen them on the news a lot this week.  During most of the talk-n-shout programs on cable news channels there has been some spokesperson for PETA commenting on the Vick case.  And they argue that what Vick did was cruel and wrong and disgusting - true, true, true - and then veer into equating animal lives with civilians in

Iraq

.  No!  I blame people like this for the years I've endured people telling me why I'm a vegetarian.  "You think it's wrong to kill and eat an animal."  I do?

What I long for is an animal group that actually argues for the ethical treatment of animals and nothing more.  A honeybee doesn't have the same value as my grandmother or even a dog.  Most people, if they really understood the pain and torture inflicted on the animals that become lunch would oppose such practices even if they saw nothing objectively wrong with consuming meat.  Most people would object to long painful electrocution executions whether the purpose was punishment for a poor performing "athlete" or a coat. 

The recent rise and popularity of organic foods - such as eggs from cage-free hens and pork from pigs that aren't fed hormones - demonstrates that raising and killing animals can be profitable without cruelty.  Although the organic practices are not perfect or even well regulated for truth in labeling it's a move in the right direction.  We don't have to equate humans with animals in order to treat human workers fairly and edible animals humanely.  And we don't need to wag a disapproving finger at Michael Vick with one hand while we chow down on a turkey sandwich with the other. 

The Michael Vick story has already turned a harsh spotlight on the brutish world of urban dog fighting.  It is my hope that the light can also reveal a little cruelty toward other creatures.  With the right information campaign people can begin consuming meat more responsibly the way people have backed away from SUVs in favor of more fuel efficient cars.  But, the approach needs to be practical as well as ethical and pragmatic rather than philosophical.  People for the Responsible Use of Animals?  While PFRUA doesn't make a very good acronym, the approach could do wonders to improve the discussion.