A Welcoming Community
First I listed 30 scientific institutions that are part of the consensus. Then I get called a crackhead and have my life threatened. Then the asshole author deletes my original comment with all of my sources. Check out the comment section:
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-dems-pressure-house-gop-on-climate-change/article/2534215
Check out the comments in the Washington Post article below (the article itself is amusing, but wait until you see the comments). Count how many times overt racism is present. Then count how many times less salient racism is illustrated. Like how many times the argument presented is based on the false assumption that immigrants “cost more in benefits than the tax dollars they bring in”. Or, how “they are taking jobs from us” (as if removing 10 million people from the economy–their solution–doesn’t hurt GDP). Am I over-reaching by seeing this as prejudiced against people stereotyped as lazy moochers?
There are some things I like about Bloomberg, but when I listen to his satellite radio station, I hear the same old conservative crap. If I hear one more of those Masters of the Universe say that liberal governance causes business and consumers to have uncertainty, I am going to throw something at someone. I wonder just how confident these assholes were during the period of conservative governance leading up to the Great Recession? They say that they are strapped by regulations. I would like to hear just one conservative even once admit that some conservative policy contributed even a little bit to the near collapse of the financial industry. But no, conservatism is like their backward-assed, cult-like religious beliefs. It dare not be questioned. Only when people aren’t conservative enough is when conservatism fails. GW Bush was a failure because he expanded the government by adding Homeland Security and gave prescription coverage to seniors. Never a fucking word about the cost of occupying countries (to win their hearts and minds), or about de-regulation, or about lowering taxes for rich people and raising our debt by $10 TRILLION (that somehow magically increases revenue). I no longer think that this debate is about facts. It’s about lacking moral foundations and having delusions. These pompous Bloomberg reporters are no different than the run-of-the-mill backward-assed conservative, bigoted, religious extremists and the hateful greedy people that don’t seem to mind the bigots so much (even the delusional ones with guns who say that regulations are tyranny!!)
Just a question. Is climate change an issue big enough now to leverage to take back the House of Representatives? Water pollution should be included in the debate: rural water quality is abysmal. Simple message: we are polluting our air and water so much that we are hurting the climate of the entire planet.
I would appreciate any advice on how to improve my communication methods to conservative friends and family regarding the need to address air and water pollution as a global crisis.
The following is a copy of a post and comments on my Facebook page from this past weekend.
============
Me:
Facts don’t always matter if your only intent is to justify your position…
The ugly delusions of the educated conservative
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/
Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama’s a Muslim. Here’s why
Saturday at 3:00pm
3 friends like this.
Friend 1: Ted:
That’s a good, if disheartening read Tom. On the selfish side, it’s good to you jump into the fray of posting things that get your conservative friends all mad at you like they get at me 🙂 It’s not easy to penetrate the conservative bubble, but I keep poking at it!
Saturday at 3:26pm
Me:
Likewise, Ted, I enjoy your posts and have decided that the risk is worth it. I am sure that my educated conservative friends will be more mad at the messenger for calling them gullible than being mad at the ones who have been lying to them. Worth the risk, I think…
Saturday at 3:36pm
Friend 2: Dan:
Our minds are strange places. Here’s a great lecture on roots of moral consciousness, liberal v. conservative, why we choose sides and ignore the truth, and the challenge of stepping outside the moral matrix to challenge our self-righteousness:
Sunday at 11:25am
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com
TED Talks Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we’re left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.
Sunday at 11:25am
Friend 2: Dan:
BTW, I’m quite concerned with some of my conservative friends’ ability to disregard climate science; otherwise smart people doing exactly what the article you posted describes. One of them recently emailed me a quote which I think he was using to justify a willful ignorance: “Only intuition can save you from the most dangerous individual of all, the articulate incompetent.” In other words, don’t try to confuse me with the facts when my gut tells me it’s wrong — instead I’ll declare you incompetent.
Sunday at 11:32am *
Me:
Excellent lecture, thanks Dan. Now, here’s the problem (and you touched on it): I really am convinced that a large percentage of people in the world need to understand the need for us to collectively address the problems of air and water pollution. My efforts to persuade with logic, science, and economic facts isn’t working because of the reasons laid out in both of our links. So, I am now forced to either give up, or to try to appeal to moral values and intent. Of the 5 moral foundations described in your link, all but one should lead a moral person to the conclusion that these pollution problems should be fixed.
(1) harm and care
(2) fairness (pollution is caused by some and hurts others)
(3) in-group loyalty (here is what is causing the problem, I think).
(4) respect for authority (unfortunately, the scientific institutions, such as the national academy of science and my alma matter Penn State, are not respected due to #3).
(5) purity/sanctity (clean air and water are virtuous).
So, instead of attacking through logic, I should work on getting my friends and the public in general to take a hard look at their morals and intentions. If I am not in trouble with my conservative friends already, I will be now!
Sunday at 3:48pm *
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
I have two questions for you. I want to know two things. Can you tell me who has the data sets for the last hundred years of temperature? The raw data, including collection points and methods? That’s what science is about, yes? Where is the data? Who has it? Why are they not public record? Do they still exist, or have they been “lost?” For my second question, once you have the data, can we see the source code for the computer models that predict catastrophic results? I ask because the data is the basis of science, and the source code can tell us if the climate scientists are also qualified programmers. My guess is that it doesn’t, and they are not. If you can provide those two things, then you have an argument based on logic and the scientific method. Anything else, and you’re introducing politics and funding into the equation, which changes your argument substantially.
Sunday at 6:31pm *
Conservative Family Member: Jim :
I’ll believe climate change is a crisis when the people telling me it’s a problem start acting like it’s a crisis. Sell the jets and the big homes, get China and India on board, start publishing the data instead of hiding behind FOIA requests, and come up with a global plan that if it’s going to cost $15 trillion does more than slow down the temperature rise by a tenth of a degree. Since none of us are climate scientists, the easy way to find out what is happening is to look at the solutions. And the solutions are always the same. More taxes, more control, and more subsidies to well-connected lobbyists. Green technologies have filtered billions of dollars to failed companies in wind, solar, and alternative fuels. It made some people very rich, and has raised tens of millions for politicians, and has made the career of a lot of journalists. We don’t allow drilling domestic oil or even pipelines now to save the planet, but we’re fine with Brazil drilling? We’re supposed to take the word of people like Peter Gleick? I do believe morals and intentions have a lot to do with it. See, it’s easy to talk about “saving the world.” It makes people feel good to vote based on good intentions. It’s much harder to stand up to people who consider you an idiot for daring to ask where they got their data.
Sunday at 6:36pm *
Me:
The National Academy of Sciences is one of many credible sources. Try here:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
I had you as one person in mind as I wrote this. My Alma Mater, Penn State, one of the leading institutions in the field of environmental sciences, was forced to investigate one of its leading scientists (Dr Mann) in this field, because politically motivated people like you accused him of scientific misconduct. Your unqualified assessments, pedantic at best, were done with what intent, Jim??
Climate Change at the National Academies
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
Sunday at 6:49pm *
Friend 2: Dan:
http://data.worldbank.org/climate-change
Open Data Resources for Climate Change | Data
Free and open access to the world’s most comprehensive collection of economic and development data. Browse, map, graph, or download data by country, topic on over 4,000 indicators. Available in English, Spanish, French, Chinese and Arabic.
Sunday at 7:55pm *
Friend 2: Dan:
I see what you mean, Tom.
Sunday at 7:56pm
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
Dan – that link you provided is a series of models pulling data from the CRU 2003 series. It’s not raw data. It’s the massaged data that is at the center of Climategate. Ask the CRU. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ Phil Jones said the data was no longer available. Except it was. They released different sets finally last summer, 9 years after getting the FOIA requests. So while you’re smugly winking at Tom about stupid conservatives, the data you’ve provided isn’t the raw data at all. it’s the massaged version that has already had a series of problems when compared to the actual data in New Zealand, Australia. You just gave me temperature modeling that is designed to show catastrophic effects of climate change, based on data that has been massaged to hide the MWP. You know – the famous Hockey Stick that was at the center of the IPCC “consensus” that was not a consensus.
CRU Data Availability
www.cru.uea.ac.uk
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) has, since 1982, made available gridded datasets of surface temperature data over land areas and averages for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and the Globe.
Sunday at 10:31pm
Friend 2: Dan:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/climate-skeptic%E2%80%99s-new-climate-study-confirms-%
E2%80%98global-warming-real
Climate Skeptic Sponsors New Climate Study, Confirms `Global Warming Is Real’ | Popular Science
Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climate-gate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look.
Sunday at 10:35pm
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
I’m not qualified to judge the climate data, but then neither are either of you – even you Tom, haven’t looked at the data and studied statistics and software sufficiently to make any claims. You’re working off your research of the matter in your spare time. I didn’t go to Penn State, and don’t know Michael Mann, but I do have a stake in the political decisions made from research into the climate. I have a right to question it, and to discuss it, and to work against bad solutions (like the statism I mentioned before), but I also have an interest in improving the level of discourse. When you start by calling me stupid (having me in mind with the title of that post), can you say that my intent is somehow to attack Mann? Or is it to find the truth? If Climate science is real, then why is Peter Gleick manufacturing evidence about Heartland just as Heartland is suing UVA to get Mann’s original logs? You know about Peter Gleick, right? He’s a climate expert. He’s also a fraud facing possible criminal charges for publishing a fake memo about global warming skeptics. You’ve made the charge that i’m pedantic and politically motivated. I’ll make the charge that to protect your school’s reputation, and that of the scientific community in general, you’re closing ranks around frauds because the thought of them being wrong is too painful to contemplate. One of us is emotionally involved in this decision. The other is just a blogger who reads and wonders why every climate solution ends with massive government bureaucracy and slush funds to connected donors (solyndra anyone?).
Friend 2: Dan:
Well James, as you’re smugly dismissing one link, here’s another, in which a former sceptic reviewed extensive data and realized he was wrong. I’ve got friends who won’t acknowledge the evidence either, so I’ll leave the conversation to you and Tom, but the scientific community at large has agreed on the facts, and they don’t have private planes and big homes to sell, like the entrenched cabal of big oil and energy execs do.
Sunday at 10:47pm
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
Don’t go yet Dan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-prove
d-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Professor Muller’s epic report showed that the temperature has not risen in at least 13 years, contrary to all of the models. But don’t believe me, ask Professor Curry, on Muller’s team. See what happened was you went to Google and pulled a bubble gum article out, without knowing much about it. Professor Muller jumped the gun, which is why he’s sending the papers back to peer review, and the folks like PopSci writer Rebecca Boyle jumped all over it. But if Muller’s data doesn’t show it, and his team disagrees with his statement, does that mean there’s no warming? No, it just shows that I’ve been paying attention longer than you have, and don’t count Google as my primary source. We don’t know what is happening. The lack of warming is now being attributed to the oceans, and to falling clouds, which could be the case. But if the scientific consensus was correct in 2003, why do they have to keep coming up with new theories to fit the facts?
Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague.
Sunday at 10:59pm
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
But remember, there are clear evolutionary reasons why I believe what I do. It’s completely reasonable to suggest that people are Republicans because of their genetic code based on a single study in Nebraska.
Sunday at 11:27pm
Me:
I have several conservative friends and family in mind as I write this. My intention is to appeal to your moral foundations to consider the following:
The most highly reputable scientific organization, during the Bush administration in 2005, has concluded that we must act regarding air pollution.
I assume we share the moral values of not wanting people harmed and that we seek fairness. For example, we do not want to make everybody pay for something unnecessarily if there is not a costly problem. I am asking you to consider the values of purity and sanctity: doesn’t it make sense that clean air and water are things to be valued? Now the hard part. Ask yourself, do you really think that the vast majority of qualified scientists are flying around in private jets and conspiring to make this stuff up?? Yes, you can find some lone examples. But the fact is they are outnumbered by 100 to 1. I have given up trying logic and reason. Instead I appeal to your sense of and respect for authority. Let’s start with the National Academy of Sciences, the largest organization of the best scientists in the World
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences
Sunday at 11:52pm
Me:
An example of how a reputable publication discusses important subjects with authority and good intentions:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-peter-gleick-incident
The Peter Gleick Incident: All Heat and No Light: Scientific American
Me:
How about MIT?? Far more credible than getting information from the (British) tabloids! On which should you base your moral judgments?? The Daily Mail tabloid or MIT??
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC-Outlook2012.pdf
Conservative Family Member: Jim:
I deleted several comments because you’re not actually discussing anything. You’re posting random bits of information and citing authority from them, but your original post was an insult, claiming that Republicans (a political party, not a genetic group) have an abnormality that prevents them from understanding logic. You actually posted that. Examine your own intentions, and the next time you’re going to call me stupid, keep it to just a few words and do it directly. It will save all of us some time.
I think President Obama is highly effective: he is getting the most done that he can, given tremendous challenges, constraints and opposition. He is fighting to keep his accomplishments in place and negotiating the most progressive policies he can, given very organized, consistent and comprehensive attacks from the right. Yes he wants to stay in office, and I want him to also. I think it was on this site that I first heard the “Greatest President since Lincoln” statement. This was by Booman right after START II succeeded in the lame duck session. Why do I agree with this statement? Because President Obama averted a depression, and averted war with Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Russia (remember McCain saber-rattling over Georgia?). President Obama and the Democrats passed scores of bills in just 2 years, helping to fight for equality (Lilly Ledbetter Act), helping our veterans, helping consumers in general, and giving access to affordable health care in the form of hundreds of benefits, many of which have started but most of which are yet to come. I became convinced once I heard some details from the Wikileaks regarding diplomacy. Obama has to undo the great damage Bush and the Neocons did to our world standing. I think the Nobel Peace Prize was unfortunately premature, maybe after START II would have been better, but the rest of the world got it immediately after the election: not everyone in the US is war-mongering, arrogant, greedy, and extremist in religious views. We are facing economic and diplomatic challenges as great as the ones faced by FDR.
I think FDR was great, but it took several years for most of his biggest accomplishments to be established. FDR’s New Deal, the first attempt, failed in many respects over the first 2-3 years of his presidency. Eleven out of 16 of the “Alphabet Laws” were decreed unconstitutional in cases heard by the Supreme Court. For example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was struck down because the SCOTUS declared that it went against the powers given to the states by the Constitution. Even the National Recovery Administration (the first “NRA”?), the primary New Deal agency dealing with codes of fair competition, was shut down by SCOTUS because it infringed on the Separation of Powers. Social Security wasn’t passed until 1935, FDR’s fourth year as POTUS. It is actually one of the few remaining legacies of the New Deal. Yes, I agree that economic recovery started immediately once FDR took office and stimulated the economy, but the economy went into recession again starting in 1937. By 1937, the Conservative Coalition started to abolish most of the federal agencies dealing with economic relief, and it started deregulating business and financial institutions. This deregulation has continued over the years, even after the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80’s. Even after the “Great Recession” we now face.
Is it any surprise that conservatives today are challenging health care reform on constitutional grounds? Is it any surprise that we are hearing about regulations “stifling business”? These are the successful tactics that gutted most of FDR’s accomplishments. Don’t get me wrong, FDR was a great leader during his many years in office, leading us out of depression and through world war. His social programs, agencies and regulations, the ones that have survived, were the greatest policies of the last century. But this is a new century, with even bigger corporations funding our elections, with the threat of nuclear proliferation, with continual disparity between rich and poor, and with the threat of pollution damaging our climate and our health in significant, measurable ways.
Conservatives are very experienced, let’s not under-estimate their ability to frame the debate, to use modern media to get their memes to stick, and their corporate connections to perpetuate their dangerously ignorant policies. If a conservative were elected president now, GW Bush and the Neocons would look moderate. Reagan already does. President Obama has to stay in office. President Obama is exceptionally intelligent and knows how to win – by getting good things done!
I just completed a 24-day road trip with my wife and 3 young kids (all under the age of 10). Now I can get back to work so I can rest! I have to say that it was pretty good when I worked in Europe and had 5-8 weeks of vacation time every year – standard from day 1 of work. My colleagues do a better job of unplugging and taking off entire months, usually July or August. When I returned to the US I felt lucky to get 3 weeks, and I saved up time over the past 6 years to use for this trip.
The Mason-Dixon Line was well signed as we crossed into Hancock, MD. I cannot honestly understand how the confederate flag can be acceptably displayed. To me, it represents how easy it is for social differences to explode when enough people (1) believe that their government is against them and (2) are prepared to over-throw it violently. The Boston Tea Party is symbolic of the Revolutionary War and was about British control, taxation without representation, etc. But the modern-day Tea Party has more similarity with the issues and emotions that started the Civil War, including “Northern aggression” and racism. Those were my thoughts as we spent time in Colonial Williamsburg. I started asking people what they thought were the most important issues right now. Of course, the most frequent response was “jobs”, to which I followed-up “What’s most important for sustained job growth?” This was not by any means a good sampling method, I was just looking for anecdotes and trends. Here is what I noted, though: progressives tended to respond with practical ideas and conservatives with ideology. “Affordable health care;” “Keeping teachers and police officers employed;” “Job training for skills needed in green energy industries.” Very challenging, but still these are specific and measurable things. Contrast that with “More state’s rights;” “Less government in our lives;” and my favorite: “Keep the government out from between me and my doctor so I can decide how to spend my money.” I guess insurance companies are better advocates for…well…themselves. I guess women’s reproductive decisions don’t count in this argument, either.
On our road trip (from MO to PA to VA to SC to FL and back) I saw many disturbing billboards, several with reference to “billboardsagainstobama.com”. When you go to this website it has the new name “Billboards for America”. More positive sounding, I guess. “Take back America in November!” The one that really got me was “God is not a socialist”. How f-ing backward-ass can statements get?? Shouldn’t these types of believers think that their god is a dictator?
I hear France often referred to negatively as socialistic. Our first child was born in France, and I have to say the medical system is excellent. Many rights and benefits are given to women and children in Europe in general. When we arrived in South Carolina to visit with a friend some years after her nasty divorce, we learned that some places in the world are much less friendly to women and children. I do not want to get too specific, out of respect for confidentiality, but the short story is that a millionaire moved his wife and kids from New York state to South Carolina because he could successfully prevent her from getting any money and have more say over the kids’ education etc. Where does this state rank in family values? I forget. Education? Look it up.
I also want to be careful not to generalize “The South” or “religious people.” My wife grew up Christian in Texas and Florida and I have come to respect “Southern Hospitality” as a true regional cultural thing that is good. I do want to generalize conservatives, though. There is some “let them eat their cake” attitude among them all. Some kind of “God will sort it out if we get it wrong” belief. Some sort of “man’s place and a woman’s place” order of things. It is as if we should not have faith in our institutions–that would be sacrilege.
We are headed to Williamsburg for Part II of a > 3-week family drive from Missouri (a bell -weather state??) to Pennsylvania (Keystone?) to our time-share in Daytona for a week. (Anyone want to buy a time-share on the non-oil side of Florida?). Across Illinois, Indiana and Ohio I saw gigantic crosses (like The Effingham Cross in the middle of Effing-nowhere) and Tea Party billboards everywhere.
In some places I am afraid to admit that I am an atheist. Probably because of what I hear on the radio about us.
I saw a church sign that said “Good science agrees with the bible”. Where do I even begin? Is the Law of Natural Selection “good science? I really want to emphasize something here. When we say “Law” in science, we mean that it is logically irrefutable. Like the Law of Entropy, another favorite of mine. Most results in science are not as strong so as to be called “laws” and there is the scientific method that gives us a means to state how certain we are of some hypothesis. Like the hypothesis that we are polluting the air so much that it is affecting the entire planet’s fragile climate. Most (> 99%) of the qualified scientists looking into this problem understand that we are > 99% certain of this.
I am very pissed off at my brother-in-law who is a right-wing blogger and who uses his computer skills to amplify right-wing bat shit. He used his skills and his time and his energy and his soul (he is a Christian who believes we are here to be judged) to help spread around conspiracy theories about science professors at Penn State. He was complicit in costing my Alma Mater financially and in damaging its reputation. I do not understand how his intent could be good. “Scientists are being paid by fringe environmental groups to make this stuff up and we have to cut costs and regulations to create jobs so we can’t be spending money on this”, or something like that. Nope. I don’t think his intentions are bad, I think his logic is bad. And this is where I really get into trouble being an educated, arrogant, atheist: I think that my brother-in-law, and others with backward religious and political beliefs, actually believe some or all of the following:
(1) That God controls the climate
(2) God is watching over us and protecting and/or punishing us selectively
(3) God is giving us Earth to do whatever the hell we want to.
(4) Heaven is better than Earth, so WTF.
The Tea Party and religious conservatives the world over with these types of beliefs are going through their death-throws as logic prevails. God I hope so.
My father is first generation Italian-American, born in Pennsylvania in the 1920’s. He is a Republican, relates to people like Tom Ridge (our Congressman before he became Governor), but doesn’t trust “phony” politicians. Just to state this early, I am an independent and I think Obama and the Democratic Congress have done a phenomenal job. My Dad does not. Where do I begin? How about this: “I just don’t think he was ready. He can’t pass a microphone without thinking that he has to speak into it”. Of course I have to beg to change the channel from Fox News to anything else when I visit. It is his house, and I have to admit. Besides, Fox News keeps him a grumpy old man and I hear they live longer. (Maybe because grumpy old men at least give a shit.) My father is a City Council Member of my home town of about 6500 people, 7500 including the local college. The town is broke, and my father is a “small government” Republican (does that go without saying?). He bitches about the Main Street upgrading, the soccer field, the water plant, and the Mayor (who really is corrupt – too many conflicts of interest with developers and contractors, to say the least).
“What have Obama and Pelosi done?” he asks. I would like to memorize a list in chronological order, starting with the Lilly Ledbetter Act, saving us from the Second Great Depression, helping to insure more people, about a dozen other things, and finishing off with Financial Reform. Somehow I just managed to stutter out a few of these, incredulously, and then I went off on the 10 trillion dollars that Bush and the Republican Congress handed us and reminded my Dad that Bush took one hell of a lot of vacation days. He seemed to miss that memo from Condoleeza Rice, then National Security Advisor, who warned that terrorists could hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings. I mean, I can barely imagine what Republicans would say about Obama if he f-ed up that bad.
I would like to find some common denominators to bridge my Dad’s thinking with mine. I do think that opinions can change, even in stubborn old men. Robert Byrd is an example. My Dad says that Italians were discriminated against in our home town. Blacks and Jews, too. When I grew up I knew only one of 2 black families in town and no Jews that I know of. My Dad thinks that the Tea Party is a bunch of phonies. I didn’t ask him if he thought the Tea Partiers were over-represented by racists. I sure do. I think they are ultra-conservative, religious extremists. I try very hard not to call names or to unfairly portray an entire group with a few extreme examples. But the Republican Party , and the Tea Party they will officially become, is not a party for Tom Ridge, Arlen Specter or for my father. I hope my father comes to realize this.
This is my first web log ever, although I have posted a comment from time to time on political and scientific sites. I decided that I was seeing and hearing too many things that I wanted to comment on. I am driving with my wife and 3 kids (g~9, b~7, g=4) by mini-van from Missouri to Pennsylvania, to Williamsburg, to Daytona and back. I work for a European biotech company and decided to take nearly a month off like many of my colleagues around the world.
To jump right in to the “interesting” things I see and hear, let me start with a t-shirt I saw in a western Pennsylvania bar: “If at first you don’t secede, try try again” over top of a big confederate flag. My wife, from Texas, found it very tacky and laughed: “Well, what can you say about that?”. I found it offensive with every interpretation I could come up with. Here’s one interpretation: I mean, the dude is from the north. Does he want the southern states to secede? I think my wife’s interpretation is closer to the truth. She thought he was making a statement about states’ rights, with a little southern pride, but still very tacky. “You will see a lot more of that as we head south”, she said.
I want my kids to learn that the Civil War was caused by an uncontrolled uprising, and people settling differences with guns and cannons rather than their words. I can easily teach my kids about the Revolutionary War, and my son was born in England (is he one of the “bad guys”?), but the Civil War is difficult to explain to kids under age 10. Who knows, maybe they do understand way more than we think. Slavery is obviously a huge topic, and I want my kids to know that people are STILL discriminated against because of color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
But is there any credence really to the idea that the Civil War was also about states’ rights and “Northern aggression”? Is there a common ground, where a practical progressive can think that states should have some freedom to govern in ways that are contrary to federal policy? Of course, I believe that states should not limit people’s rights so much, and freedom from slavery is such an obvious right. But what about granting rights that are contrary to federal policy? Medical marijuana, for example? (Heck, what about recreational use?).
I am having many conversations in bars this week. Some of my old friends are unemployed now for a year or more. My home town has been depressed since the steel mills closed in the early 1980’s, but this is the worst I have seen it. Democrats here definitely preferred Hillary over Obama — typical throughout Appalachia, I have heard. I remember only 2 black families in my whole town while I was growing up. The kids’ school photos were always taken with too little lighting, making the features of anyone with dark skin hard to make out. I am one of 5 kids, 3 of us adopted, and 2 with darker skin — my Italian brother and my Vietnamese sister. I remember the n-word being used to refer to each of them at least once in their lives. Being back as an adult, I am hyper-sensitive to racism in my home town. A former friend saw me and we went to a bar near a college in town. “This place seems a lot darker than I remember.” He was referring to the college kids — a lot more diverse than I remember. Yup–one less “friend”, I think. This is going to be an interesting trip. I was told that the bars were less full because unemployment benefits had run out and people did not have beer money. I am happy to have a job and my Yuengling lager…