Friday, April 25, 2008

Abstaining From Evidence

Rationality and reason were under attack again this week on many fronts.

In Phoenix on Monday night, thousands of people reported seeing some eerie red lights floating in the sky, and many assumed it must be some sort of alien spacecraft. By Wednesday, a man came forward and admitted that it was all a hoax he'd perpetrated. He had used fishing line to attach road flares to helium-filled balloons, then lit the flares and launched them a minute apart from his backyard.

Although witnesses have confirmed his story, including one who saw him launch the balloon-flares, lots of Arizonans don't believe him. For them, it's easier to buy that some life form from distant space traveled all the way to Earth to hover over Phoenix, than it is to accept that a human being was responsible. Occam's Anti-Razor: maybe the aliens came to watch the Diamondbacks beat the Giants that night.

Meanwhile, in Washington, health groups testified to Congress -- again -- that abstinence-only sex education in schools continues to be ineffective. Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the House committee, "There is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active." Other experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have found that abstinence-only teaching does not work, that it does not reduce pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or the age when sexual activity begins.

But facts don't matter to some members of Congress, like Tennessee Republican John Duncan, who wants to continue funding this failed program: "it seems rather elitist that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate."

The elitism defense: those pesky people who bothered to get an education and spend time studying what works and doesn't work, what do they know? Evidence doesn't matter, only opinions do, and nothing's gonna change mine! Why should I listen to experts? To paraphrase Randy Newman, smart people got no reason to live.

Of course Duncan is in favor of a program that denies vital biological information to America's students -- because having information is "elitist," and we can't have that. If you keep'em stupid, they'll never know how stupid you are.

Congressman, if you truly believe in abstinence, you can do your country a great service whenever issues like this come up -- by abstaining.

Finally, there's this, from the website of the GOP presidential candidate, who wants to institute a Summer Gas Tax Holiday: "Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain calls on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day."

You can always get Americans to love you by reminding them how hard-working they are. Otherwise they forget. But let's look at this on a personal level.

Say you fill up your 20-gallon gas tank once a week. At 18.4 cents a gallon, you're saving $3.68/week. Over the fourteen weeks of summer between the two major holidays, your total savings will be $51.52. Sure, it would be nice to keep those bucks in your pocket, but for that relatively small amount, should we buy this cheap political pandering ploy?

The downside is that, when you tell Americans that gas will be cheaper because the federal tax will be suspended, you take away the incentive to conserve (that's conserve, as in "conservative"). In doing so, you increase demand, which the speculators see as a positive for the oil market, which results in high prices for a barrel of oil, which in turn means prices at the pump go up. Then, instead of the money being collected as a tax -- about $10 billion, which is used to rebuild our highways and other infrastructure -- the increased expenditure ends up in the coffers of ExxonMobil And Friends.

Would you rather have that $51.52 go to their shareholders, or towards fixing that bridge on your commute that's in desperate need of repair?

There I go, being elitist again by using information to gain perspective. As we've seen time and time again, it doesn't matter what's right and what's wrong -- it only matters whether you can sell the story. If enough people want to believe aliens have visited us, you give them that. If people want to believe that simply telling teens to keep their legs crossed will keep them from having sex, you give them that. If people want to believe that the government can solve the gas price problem with a tax holiday, you give them that.

While we're at it, maybe we should ask those aliens how they got so many light years per gallon with their space fuel, and how they kept their youngsters from reproducing on the trip.

5 comments:

Cheryl said...

Paul, we sure do miss you! ust think what a topic for discussion this would have made ...!

Rick said...

Fans miss your show. Hopefully any non-compete clause was either shortened or eliminated since they "jilted" you. If not...that contract seems to be unfairly slanted toward the formerly mighty KMOX. (Sorry Mr. Hyland...1120 is not what you groomed it to be!)

Elvis said...

The "expert" Dr. Blythe stated "There is evidence to suggest..." but that is hardly conclusive. It's not difficult to find an expert with an impressive title to testify to any side of any issue. In fact, it happens all the time.

As someone who studies official government economic statistics, I can attest to the fact that any statistics gathered by, or gathered with funding by, the government should automatically be suspect. Ask any survey taker about how much phrasing of the questions matter.

Moreover, parents have a right to what they want their kids to be taught.

But it is a bit surprising that Rep. Duncan voted for funding a something like this. I suspect that in terms of the federal budget, it's probably cheap. Duncan is one of only a few Republicans who consistently votes against "frivolous" government spending (others include Jeff Flake and Ron Paul).

Duncan was one of only six Republicans who voted in 2002 against the AUMF in Iraq, and has subsequently voted against continued funding. Almost all the "experts" said at that time that his position on that was wrong, too. But Duncan doesn't look so wrong now, does he?

To understand Rep. Duncan's vote on abstinence-only sex education funding, consider that he represents a very socially "conservative" district in near Knoxville, TN.

So, you are being way too hard on Duncan here. Your statement that Duncan "can do [his] country a great service whenever issues like this come up - by abstaining" is not only uncalled for, but reveals your ignorance of his other votes.

While St. Louis urbanite Paul Harris may not like Duncan's vote on this issue, I'll bet most of his constituents do.

By the way, the link in your article directs to a book about John Duncan, "the influential underground conceptual and sound artist" rather than the congressman.

Paul Harris said...

First, I have no control over the Duncan link, which is inserted by an Amazon widget automatically.

Secondly, the fact that Duncan's constituents like his vote still doesn't make it right.

Thirdly, if Duncan's record shows that he votes against frivolous government spending, then by definition, he shouldn't be voting for funding abstinence-only education, which is not just frivolous but actually harmful.

Fourthly, in school districts where comprehensive sex ed is taught, parents do have the option of shielding their children from the curriculum -- but in districts where it's abstinence-only, there is no such alternative offered. So if we're going to err on the side of parental choice, then you have to actually offer them a choice!

Finally, while statistics can certainly be manipulated, where are the researchers with proof that abstinence-only education does work? The only thing supporters ever offer is the same claptrap from social hyper-conservatives who are so sure they know best, but can't back it up.

Elvis said...

It probably doesn't help if, as this article suggests, most of the abstinence-only programs dispense false information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

"The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins."

This article cites federal funding of $170 million/year. But I'd agree that if Duncan was as fiscally conservative as Ron Paul or Jeff Flake, he should have voted against it on that basis. But the question may not have been about funding, which likely had already been appropriated, just how it would be spent. (This is the same reason Ron Paul puts in earmarks for his district - they just direct HOW the money is spent, but do not affect total spending. Want to let the executive branch decide how to spend all the money? Then ban all earmarks.)

If the comprehensive sex-ed programs also dispensed false information, they might not be effective either.

Also, are you sure that in every school district where comprehensive sex ed is taught, parents have the option of shielding their children? Or maybe it isn't actually so easy to do that in some cases? Is the "option of shielding" a federally mandated & universally complied-with policy? And even if it is, how do you know how well it's implemented in every school district in America?

But I'm "just guessing" that some people would suggest that abstinence-only is inherently flawed, regardless of how factually accurate the information might be (or not be).

As far as, "the fact that Duncan's constituents like his vote still doesn't make it right." - Duncan is not a Senator. That's what Congressmen do - represent their constituents. If they don't like what he does, they'll have a chance to express their displeasure every two years.