You Must Agree . . .

Some of my conversations with certain friends have become annoying because at the point where I say, "Look, I disagree with you on the very premises you are asserting", they respond by saying, "But you have to research this thoroughly." And when I respond, "I have looked into it enough to satisfy myself that these premises are false," they then respond, "Well, you haven't researched it enough!" Often they then begin explaining very loudly what the premises are again, although I already know what they are, as if I am dense and if it can just be explained loudly enough and slowly enough, I will have to agree. This makes me very impatient because I have a life to live outside of entertaining ab endless supply of pet crackpot theories.

The current crackpot theory that has become a series of annoying stand-offs is the cherished myth among some patriots that a group of some private individuals incoporated the United States without the knowledge of the government of the people, and that this legal maneuver renders us subjects to Corp USA rather than citizens whose rights are protected by the Constitution. They tend to assert a great deal of case law that may or may not be related to what they are saying.

Now I have very little training in the subtleties of case law, but my education as a scientist has trained me to look for problems in the logic of an argument as well as in the evidence presented. And when someone makes the statement "But you have to research this topic, whatever it is, to my satisfaction before you can disagree with me on it," I recognize that we have moved from any well-constructed presentation of facts and/or theory to a desperate attempt at coercion. In other words, this is another way to to force the argument to continue beyond reason; to hammer away at it until the other party can be pushed to concede by sheer exhaustion.

In my work as a scientist, I did not consider it my obligation to research and refute every crackpot theory that someone with no background in the particular discipline can dream up. Such distractions from the work at hand would have been a waste of my time, because in order to actually convince such a person of the problems with the idea, I would have had to give them an education in the basic science of the discipline and any related ones as well. And most of the time, the person would have simply refused to listen, or would refuse to accept the basic laws and scientific principles, leaving us no place from which to build agreement based on knowledge.

For example, there are those people out there who are desperate to convince the world that they have discovered the secret to a perpetual motion machine. And they can and will argue ad infinitum that such machines have been invented, but have been supressed by "establishment science" because the advance would destroy their monopoloy on "big oil" or whatever. The point that if such a thing were possible it would not only overturn all of Newtonian physics, as well as the laws of thermodynamics, but would also be impossible to hide is impossible to get across to such a person. And he will run kicking and screaming from any demonstration of the validity of these rock-solid scientific principles or claim that he is being snowed by "book learning." And yet, those who advance such arguments have never been able to produce the machine itself or explain how it would work to bring something out of nothing. It is always out there "somewhere", hidden by some persecuted genius, an amorphous claim without any real physical or theoretical evidence.

Such a claim is based on faith rather than reason. There is no way to have a rational argument about an object of someone else's non-rational faith. It is as futile as entertaining an argument about whether the head of a pin will hold 10 or 20 dancing angels. And if the weary recipient of such an argument says, "I have examined the evidence to my satisfaction and I do not agree that there are angels dancing on the head of the pin," she will be treated to the loud assertion that if she would only research it properly, she would would change her mind and "believe" in angels. But belief is not predicated on evidence, and requires no research.

With respect to any such argument, I really don't have to do very much research at all to dismiss the claim. All I have to do is suss out the the premises upon which the claim is built. In the case of the perpetual motion machine, one premise is that the large-scale universe does not operate by Newtonian mechanics. And since Newton's three laws of motion are scientific laws--that is they have been not only demonstrated over and over by observation, but mathematically supported--the premise is false. If the arguer wants to continue to believe this false premise, he must do so without the help of science or reason. And if he desperately tries to force such an argument, that only indicates the non-rational nature of the claim.

So to with the argument about the claim that a private corporation has taken over the United States, although the argument here does not hearken back to scientific law, but rather legal principles. I do not have to be a lawyer to know that the Constitution of the United States is the Charter that any legislation, statute, or ordinance must not violate. Further, the Constitution itself is a guarantee of the natural rights of individuals declared to be unalienable in the Declaration of Independence.

The premise of the "Corp USA" claim is that it would be lawful to secretly enslave the entire population of the country, so that by filing a birth certificate or obtaining a driver's license, one is automatically subject to a corporate contract that he must then go to court to become free. The premise is false, because it would be a violation of the natural rights of the individual, as well as a violation of the Constitution of the United States to so enslave an individual or subject him to an unknowing contract. In a word, such action would be unlawful. Therefore, even if a group of people actually formed a conspiracy to turn the United States into a private corporation, and even if all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted, and the papers were filed, they would be null and void. And even if the courts were in on the conspiracy, the proper action of the people of the United States would be to impeach the courts, not to plead with them.

I do not need to waste any time reading pages and pages of arguments about case law or precendent in order to satisfy myself that the claim is false because I disagree with the basic premise. Thus the proper answer to the assertion that I need to do any research at all, is:
"I don't have to do anything. I am a free human being with a life to live. And if that is your only argument, you are wasting my time and yours."

CC2009: Like a Pinhead Pearl Prized from a Dragon Oyster

I love my country.
And in my heart, I think I would die for the principle of a republican form of government.
But, oy vey ist mir!
Must we argue every word and comma?
And must we bring up issues calculated to divide the body beyond reconciliation?

I guess we must.

But I am reminded once more Marge Piercy's Poem, Report from the Fourteenth Subcommittee on the Formation of a Discussion Group. As you read, note that "when the Pliocene gathers momentum and fades" is not even about the deliberations of the discussion group, but rather about the motion to form one.

Piercy writes in part:

This is how things begin to tilt into change,
how coalitions are knit from strands of hair,
of barbed wire, twine, knitting wool and gut,
how people ease into action arguing each inch,
but the tedium of it is watching granite erode.

Right now we are arguing about reconsidering a change of a word: government to governance. I know that words are important and that law is built on words, and I believe that we should be concerned about them. And yet, and yet . . .
"the tedium of it is watching granite erode."

Our founders were wise. They understood that their own version of Robert's Rules would make the deliberations of our governing bodies inefficient. And they wanted it that way.

But, oh, it is so hard on those of us who grow weary of the grandstanding of would-be orators, those who do not read before they amend, and even (G-d forgive me) the careful reasoning of scholars.

The Body becomes restive and the groaning and gnashing of teeth increases. We shift our bodies, flex our knuckles, mutter under our breaths. Cups are slammed and foreheads are rubbed. Another ice age will come and go and we will sigh in frustration.

"We are evolving into molluscs, barnacles
clinging to wood and plastic, metal and smoke
while the stale and flotsam-laden tide of rhetoric
inches up the shingles and dawdles back.
This is true virtue: to sit here and stay awake,

to listen, to argue, to wade on through the muck
wrestling to some momentary small agreement
like a pinhead pearl prized from a dragon-oyster.
I believe in this democracy as I believethere is blood in my veins, but oh, oh, in me

lurks a tyrant with a double-bladed ax who longs
to swing it wide and shining, who longs to stand
and shriek, You Shall Do as I Say, pig-bastards!
No more committees but only picnics and orgies
and dances. I have spoken. So be it forevermore."
From Mars and Her Children by Marge Piercy

My inner tyrant is pushing against the chains. But I will keep her firmly in hand.

Our founders wanted it this way.

Seduced by the Dark Side?

Someone who has commented on some of my blogs also posted a note on Facebook lamenting that I have been seduced by the "dark side". This is because I posted information about the Citizen's Continental Congress, which is to be a peaceful and legal response to the encroachments on the Constitution and upon our natural rights to life, liberty and property.



Part of the problem is that I posted a slide show (also posted below). It is what it is, but it not the slide show that I thought it was. That one was the one that Bob Shulz showed on his 50-State tour last winter and spring, a slide show that educated attendees about the 14 years of petitioning for Redress of Grievances that have yielded no response. (As I wrote in an earlier post about this, a petition for redress requires a response, but it does not dictate the terms of the response. The petitioner may not agree with a response, but if he in fact receives one, then the petition has been addressed).



In any case, I thought this new slide show was a souped-up version of Bob's slide show, but it was not. And I did post it without previewing it, something that a responsible blogger should never, ever do. After viewing the slide-show, I wished I had viewed it first. It contains some of the slides from Bob's original power point, but also has a good many others than present some of the subject matter of petitions as unsupported claims but does not explain the petition process and purpose. This is a good object lesson about checking every source, no matter how well known. (I know Bob and he has posted it at the Continental Congress website, but I do not know the Idaho coordinators that put this particular version together).



I am not going to spend a lot of time on all of the claims, but I do want to highlight two of them.

One was that we are living in a Communist country. I do not agree with that. I do believe that President Obama is Marxian in his philosophy, and that he subscribes to something called black liberation theology, which like other forms of liberation theology, draws heavily on Marxist ideology. However, what I see our Republic being transformed into is not communism; rather it looks to me like a corporatist statism, which I would call fascism (with a small 'f' to distinguish it from Mussolini's fascism). This is not something new, for the Republic has been morphing into statism for more than 100 years, how ever the pace picked up during the Bush II administration, and that pace has increased to an all out run since September of past year.

The other issue I want to briefly comment on is the President Obama birth certificate issue. Obama has refused to allow the publication of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, relying instead on an affidavit. This persistent refusal has fueled an internet meme based upon rumors started by some of his Kenyan family members combined with some true and some false statements about how Hawaii handles birth certificates. Currently, what we are given from the administration are statements from those who claim to have seen the original birth certificate. This is hearsay which will not erase reasonable doubt. There are also those who claim that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would not be a natural born citizen of the United States. This second claim is certainly false. The first claim is more problematic because reasonable doubt has been planted in the minds of enough people. For example, although I am inclined to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I cannot say that I know that for certain. President Obama could and probably should release the original vault birth certificate as this would erase any reasonable doubt in the minds of most citizens.

Of course, there will always be those who will not accept any response except the one that confirms their theories. That's life, as Frank Sinatra would say. However, this does not mean that everyone who is concerned about the issue is a "conspiracy theorist." On the contrary, if the evidence were to show that Obama was not born in the United States, then we would have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands. This is why We the People Foundation brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The foundation, on behalf of the citizens, wanted the question definitively answered. Like all petitions for redress, the people require an answer to their concern. It would best be answered by disclosure of the birth certificate. This is not an unreasonable request. I have had to show my copy of my birth certificate, the one with the Bureau County Clerk's seal on it, in order to enter school, get a driver's license, get a passport, and get married. It is not unreasonable for the president of the United States to show a birth certificate to demonstrate that he is constitutionally fit to serve.


What is even more problematic about this commenter's accusation that I have gone over to the "dark side" is that it betrays a certain belief about the nature of any political controversy. It is the belief that those who do not support his "side" are not just factually but morally wrong. This is the Vision of the Annointed that progressives use persistently to avoid arguments based on fact and reason, in order to smear their opponents as not only wrong, but as stupid, "loony" and unenlightened, and therefore evil. There can be no rational argument between those who hold the Vision of the Annointed and those who are deemed by them to hold the Vision of the Benighted. The reason for this is that the Annointed make no argument, but use innuendo and insinuation against their enemies in place of an argument. This smear tactic is nothing more than the logical fallacy of the Ad Hominem attack, but it is made particularly vicious by the use of catch phrases such as "conspiracy theory" and "tin-foil hat crazy" in order to shut down any discussion about the issue at hand. What is it about the program of the annointed, one must wonder, that would make them so anxious to avoid any reasonable discussion?

From my perspective, therefore, it is irrational to attempt to respond directly to smears such as this. Rather, I have decided to begin to address the ethical basis for my libertarian stance against collectivism and statism. I will do this in a series of forthcoming posts, addressing the ethics of individual rights, and the economic system that makes liberty possible, capitalism.

Have I gone over to the "dark side?" I would note that in the Star Wars series, Luke Skywalker and the Jedi fought on the side of freedom against a statist empire. I would note that it is much "easier" to believe what those in power want you to believe so that they can control you, than it is to take a stand for the Rule of Law and for Liberty.

I would say that on the contrary, my journey has been one of coming into the light of life. I am using the force that is inherent in every person, the knowledge that human life on this earth is good, and that a person must work and choose the good in order to live it.

An Aspie Approach to an Unending Controversy

I think the flag of the United States is beautiful.
Upon returning to the US from foreign lands, I enjoy most hearing "Welcome home," when I go through the passport check, and the sight of Old Glory, bright and bold, gracing the skies of my homeland. There is a place in my heart that swells with love and pride when I see it, waving in the wind. It is the love of the ideals upon which this country was founded that moves me, as well as pride for the genius of the founders who crafted this intentionally oppositional system of government in order to safeguard my liberty.

And at the same time, I have never considered that flag to be more than a symbol of something else. "It's a flag," I think, "It's not a god, it's not the Constitution, and it's not the nation itself." I think about this every time a new flap about the flag or the pledge of allegiance to the flag in reported in the news.

It is not that I want this symbol of liberty to be treated with contempt. I get it when a fellow teacher who served in battle for the United States Army says, "I risked my life for what that flag symbolizes, and it angers me to see it treated with disdain."
But what I do not get is that disagreements about the flag and the pledge of allegiance can cause otherwise peaceful neighborhoods to go at each other's throats with an insane amount of venom. The Aspie in me wonders how in the world either "side" could be that important.

Today, I opened my Sunday Albuquerque Journal to the Dimension section to read about a Vermont school where this has happened. Neighbors are up in arms.
"Wouldn't it be more productive if you all spent your Tuesday evenings strategizing the remodel of your bathrooms and kitchens?" I want to ask.

Sometimes, I wonder if my study of the behavioral neuropsychology of ASD is really about psychopathology; this story seems more fraught with psychopathology than does the inability to lie effectively seen in AS.

In my years as a teacher in New Mexico, I had a wide variety of experiences concerning the use of "the Pledge" as we called it. Although it is part of the New Mexico Code (i.e. state law) that the pledge of allegiance will be given at the beginning of each school day, it was completely ignored in the state capital school district. The public address system did not work at the Santa Fe high school where I did my post-baccelaureate licensure internship, and I never saw any flag flying from the flagpole. On the other hand, at Rio Rancho High, the morning advisory came with "the pledge" to the flag, viewed by closed-caption TV in every classroom. At the private Catholic school where I was the only non-Christian teacher, I led my class in the pledge and then invited one of the students to come up and give the "Our Father" prayer. The kids tended to say it all in a perfunctory manner that fooled me into thinking that it was rote, until I asked them once what it all meant to them as part of a Socratic Discussion in their Advisory period. They were quite serious about the importance of both. But even though they said " . . . and to the republic for which it stands. . ." every day of their school careers, most of my students had no idea that they lived in a republic, not a democracy.

As a result of that discussion, we determined that in our class, we would not only give the prayer and "the pledge," but that we would recite the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, in order to remind ourselves of the mission statement of our government.
That was eye-opening for all of us, and led to some very interesting discussions about current events.

When I taught gifted education at an Albuquerque public school, I continued this tradition, sans the prayer, and again, that led to some very interesting discussions about the role of the federal government in our lives as Americans. It was particularly germane, given the content curriculum my 4th -5th grade gifted kids were studying with me, the William and Mary Curriculum about the founding of this nation.

Then I stopped teaching other people's children and began homeschooling the Boychick. We decided to hang the flag outdoors every morning that the weather allowed. We then had a discussion about "the pledge." Together, we decided that to us, pledging allegiance to a flag made no sense at all. It is not the flag that we owe allegiance to, nor the servant government that established the flag. Rather, it is the US Constitution that guarantees our liberty and is intended to secure our rights as human beings.

So we continued with the tradition begun by my class at the Catholic school of reciting the Preamble to the Constitution, sans the prayer and "the pledge." (We did have prayer in our homeschool--but we did the flag ceremony after the morning service). At first it felt a little ridiculous, the two of us, Boychick often still in PJ's, hanging the flag and standing at attention while reciting:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

But just as it did among my high school class, and my gifted class, this custom sparked conversations about the role of the Constitution, the role of the people, and the proper bounds of government.

So here is my solution to all those neighbors going at each other over "the pledge."
Stop it.
Replace "the pledge" with a daily recitation of the Preamble to the US Constitution.
Instead of fights over the words "under G-d" and "indivisible," you can begin having interesting discussions about the role of government in the lives of We the People. And as teachers of our children, it helps to listen more than we talk. It's amazing how well kids can consider these things.

And anyway, the flag is merely and ultimately a symbol of something much greater than a colorful, if beloved, piece of cloth. It is the symbol of an idea. The idea that governments are instituted among us to secure our rights at our consent.
What a concept!

Sarah Palin's Choice

There has been quite a furor in a small part of the blogosphere over the past two days.
The furor erupted over an article at The Rule of Reason in which Nick Provenzo condemned Sarah Palin's choice to "knowingly give birth to a child with Down's Syndrome." The meat of Provenzo's argument was that, given the publicity celebrating the morality of Palin's choice, it was necessary to state that it is moral for a woman to choose abortion in such circumstances.

However, the fury that was expressed in many of the comments to Provenzo's argument added more heat than light to the issue at hand.
It seems that many of the self-described pro-life commenters have no problem threatening the lives of those who support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her health and family.

I have made no secret of my views on the morality of abortion. I do respect a woman's right to make all decisions regarding her health and the welfare of her family without government interference. I also recognize that for most women, the decision to have an abortion is one that is of the gravest moral and personal importance. I wrote about my personal ideals and my religious views on the matter in my Blogging for Choice entry, here.

That said, I do think that in his article Nick Provenzo came very close to stating that a woman carrying a Down's pregnancy is morally obligated to have an abortion. He begins by saying:

"Like many, I am troubled by Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down Syndrome."

This sounds like the problem for Provenzo is that Palin made a different choice than he would have made. She chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, rather than have an abortion. It would be easy to respond that Provenzo does not support a woman's moral right to make her own choice, unless that choice agrees with Provenzo's; that is, women really do not have the right to make a choice at all. Many of the comments did indeed make that response. Indeed, my first reaction was that Provenzo was arguing that a woman has a moral duty to have an abortion in such a case, but when I re-read his second sentence, I saw that this is not what he was saying. Rather, he makes this argument:

". . . it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny."

I take this statement to mean that choosing for an abortion is moral. And I agree with that. However, Provenzo did not actually say that choosing against abortion is also a moral decision in this post, and so I put in a comment to discuss it among other exceptions I took to his post. I think my comment got lost among the hateful comments, because Provenzo did not clarify his position, which left him open to the charge that a woman has a right to choose as long as her choice is the one that Provenzo thinks is right.

Today, Provenzo did clarify his position in another post at the Rule of Reason. He said:
". . .a woman has the unqualified moral right to abort a fetus she carries inside her in accordance with her own judgment" (Emphasis added). It is clear then, that although Provenzo might personally disagree with Sarah Palin's choice, he does recognize her right to make it.

And that is the crux of the matter. Sarah Palin did make a choice. There are those who celebrate it for their own reasons, and there are those who condemn it for other reasons. But she made a choice in accordance with her own judgment, giving consideration to her means and ability to raise such a child and her desire to take on that responsibility.

I take exception to those who would see to it that other women have no such choice--those who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy that is, in her own judgment, detrimental to her own life and that of her family. And I also take exception to the many pundits and commentators who profess to be in favor of women making their own choices, but who condemn Sarah Palin for doing just that. Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion or not in these cases is of the gravest moral importance. A woman must consider her own life and circumstances, as well as the impact on her husband, and on any existing children in the family. She must also consider her religious affiliation and her moral convictions. None of these considerations is trivial.

Now, I do have a bone to pick with Nick Provenzo. It is his statement that a woman who knowingly chooses to give birth to a child with disabilities is a worshiper of disability. (His actual words are "the worship of retardation.") This hyperbole goes too far. Sarah Palin's decision to carry her child was a private matter. She has not discussed it in detail, nor should she be required to do so. Provenzo does not know how long Palin deliberated on this matter, nor does he know the reasoning that she used. He may guess based on her religious affiliation and public statements, but that guess could be woefully far from the mark.

An Aside: People often make ridiculous assertions about my stances on issues based on my religion. Actually, it is more that these guesses are based on their ignorance of my religion. I had one extremely ignorant supporter of "objective government" who was convinced that since I am a Jew, I must be a creationist. That one clearly knows nothing about Judaism: even the most orthodox of Jews are not biblical literalists or fundamentalists.

There are many reasons that a woman might bear and raise a child with disabilities: a sense of responsibility is one; love of the child is another. It was clear to me that, whatever other reasons Sarah Palin had for carrying Trig to term, the most powerful was love. As I watched her speech a few weeks ago, I saw her looking again and again at her child. At one point she smiled that mother's smile and mouthed "my baby."

Finally, to those of you who made a disgrace of the art of rhetoric with your name-calling and threats, I would like to close with this quote from my January 22, 2008 blog entry:

"There are those among us who would like to think that they have a particular entitlement to determine the extent of liberty allowed the rest of us. They would like to tell you and me who we can marry, how many children we ought to have, what health care decisions we must make, and what world-view we must hold. Whether they are on the left or on the right, they are tyrants. Whether they seek to rule us in small matters or large, in personal decisions or public policy, we have the obligation as free men and women to resist them."

You are the tyrants!

And finally, I do not ask anyone else to practice my religion, or to abide by its laws and customs. I recognize that others have the right to practice their own religion in peace. But I expect that those of other religions respect my right to practice mine as well. American patriotism begins with respect for the right of each individual to self-determination in all matters, including those of moral choice.

Participating in the Homeschool Blog Awards--with Some Trepidation

I have decided to nominate some of my favorite blogs in the 2007 Homeschool Blog Awards, with some trepidation.

Why do I have some trepidation?

It is not because of the rules, although some of those might be cause to disqualify my blog, in the unlikely event that I am nominated. I do not know if my blog will be considered "nice to other bloggers," especially since I do discuss controversial topics and I state my opinions forthrightly. And although I consider my blog 'family friendly' I do not know what that really means, so it may not be 'G-rated' according to someone else because I do not toe the line on matters of conservative politics. But the people who have spent many hours putting this together have their standards and 'those that do the work get to make the rules,' as my grandmother (z"l) would say. So I have decided to participate anyway.

For more on the controversy over rude language please go over to Dana's post at Principled Discovery. I think she has very good insight into this concern. Personally, I do not like to put nasty words (according to my standards) on my own blog, as I am responsible for the content. I have edited comments a few times myself for this reason.

My concern is a new policy this year that a blog must have three nominations in a category in order to be short-listed as a nominee for an award. I can understand the justification given for this policy change. This policy is an attempt to get people to think about the blogs they nominate and then to read those in the categories that they vote on. In other words, it is an attempt to make this something other than a popularity contest. And that goal is admirable.

But I don't think the policy is going to make the goal attainable. For a blog to be nominated three times in a single category, it must already be a popular blog among those readers who will be doing the nominations. And the readers must all like it for the same reason. That makes it unlikely that new and interesting blogs will make it to final voting because good blogs may fit into several categories. So we are likely to get 'the same old, same old' when it comes right down to the winners.

Last year I found some really good blogs that I have since added to my list of "must reads" from the final cut. Such blogs were often new and different, and few of them were nominated more than once. But I had the chance to view them and vote on them. Now, the representation in the final voting will be limited and the voters will be precluded from choosing them as best, even if we think they are, in fact, better than the ones chosen by the committee. Personally, I'd prefer a more democratic approach and I think it would be more encouraging to diverse bloggers in the homeschool world.

But I still like the idea of the awards in general, and I think the committee has done much to reassure those of us who are not in the mainstream for our political views or religious practice to participate. So, despite my trepidation, I'll play.

If you want to know the truth, I really want the opportunity to honor some really interesting blogs.

If you want to play, go to the link above by Saturday and make your nominations. You can nominate yourself--I am just to too much of a Midwesterner to consider that Kosher.