Sock Puppet News: Gun "Debate"

Sock Puppet News--Georgia Gov. Vetoes Religious Liberty Bill

Sock Puppet News--Fox pundit defends Trump's campaign manager.

Ben Shapiro is full of shit and science denial is worse than you think.

Ben Shapiro is full of shit and Right Wing science denial is worse than you think.

Conservative columnist and pundit Ben Shapiro recently wrote about his experiences speaking at Otay Ranch High School in San Diego, having been invited to speak by a local chapter of Young America’s Foundation. According to Shapiro, the Dean of the school interrupted his talk as he broached the issue of long term poverty in America, “focus[ing] on the moral and practical foolishness of a philosophy that prizes fairness of outcome over equality of opportunity.” The Dean suggested that it was his duty to “protect” his students, and Shapiro replied by asking whether it was the Dean’s responsibility to “protect the emotions of students rather than allowing them to hear facts and differing points of view.”

Let me first distinguish between Shapiro’s “facts and differing points of view”. It is true that there has been an increase in stymieing different points of view especially in institutions of higher education in the US in recent years (George Will, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher). While it is true that administrators at these institutions are charged with protecting their students, providing safe places to learn, this should not, indeed, cannot mandate silencing dissent. A safe place should also be a safe place to be challenged (there may be limits, but that is a different point). However, a Dean might reasonably protect students from demonstrable bullshit presented as a different point of view. Specifically, the bullshit in question is Shapiro’s grossly uninformed suggestion that “The reason people are permanently poor in the United States, isn’t because they don’t have money, it’s because they suck with money… That’s not even controversial. If you’re permanently poor [in America] for your entire life, you’re not great with money by definition…” Shapiro seems to see this as the common-sense approach to economics and poverty, and he is, perhaps, correct to suggest that it is not controversial, if what he means by this is that the average American does not question it. The problem is that they should: it is demonstrably myopic at best and completely false at worst. 

The Definition of Poverty:

The definition of poverty is an important question, indeed, the first question a sociologist studying poverty must address (like the question of demarcation in the philosophy of science). One may distinguish between poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines on the one hand, or absolute and relative poverty, on the other. One might use household income to household members as a metric, but one might also use standard of living and access to necessities on the other. I know of no research that defines poverty as “sucking with money”. The definition is important, and the reason that no one defines poverty this way is obvious: you can be poor without “sucking with money”. For example, children can be poor, but are generally not in a position to suck with money.

Children are an important aspect of the study of poverty, especially severe and persistent poverty. Childhood poverty is a problem in the US. And the problem of childhood poverty leads to two interesting observations regarding the factors leading to poverty. Why are children poor? The obvious answer is because their parents are poor. Family conditions are an extremely important variable in discussing poverty. However, those who are born into severe poverty tend to become poor adults. In other words, family conditions can create poor children, who, in turn, become poor adults. 

But there are other factors that contribute to poverty.

Race:  “In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians” (source).

Immigration status: “In 2010, 19.9 percent of foreign-born residents lived in poverty, compared to 14.4 percent of residents born in the United States. Foreign-born, non-citizens had an even higher incidence of poverty, at a rate of 26.7 percent” (source).

Health: “In 2012, the poverty rate for Americans aged 18 to 64 living with a disability was 28.4% (4.3 million) compared to 12.5% (22 million) of Americans aged 18 to 64 who did not have disability” (source).

And, of course, Education: “Without a college degree, 45 percent of the children from families in the bottom fifth of income will themselves be mired in the bottom fifth as adults. By contrast, with a college degree, adult children cut their odds of staying in the bottom fifth all the way down to 16 percent from 45 percent” (source).

Shapiro seems to have taken pride in having been silenced by the liberal forces of American education. He greets the boos of the crowd as establishing his conservative bona fides. But that is because he believes that the crowd is objecting to his inconvenient truth, with emphasis on the “inconvenient”. The objections (I’d think) rather were to the truth of his claim, which is easily falsifiable by anyone with an internet connection. And this brings me to the deeper observation. Denial of social science is an under-appreciated form of science denial. 

It is not unusual to read reports of conservatives in the US denying climate change, evolution or the Big Bang. One Republican presidential candidate even wonders where gravity comes from. Such denials are troubling for a number of reasons, some of them merely academic, others more practical. This is more obvious in the case of climate denial. However, advances have been made in many disciplines, including biology and psychology, from the introduction of the evolutionary way of thinking. But the trend of social-science denial among conservatives is just as problematic, if not more so (perhaps concomitant with the new “fact-free” politicking). Denial of inequality between genders, between races, between language groups, even the “common sense” view that gender is determined solely by chromosomes or genitalia, are all consequences of this sort of science denial. 

One might have little concern over whether a politician or a pundit denies the Big Bang--after all, what are the odds that that dis-belief will affect wide reaching legislation or policy? But the denial of sociology, for example, is extremely irresponsible in a politician (or pundit) who should be able to understand people.

I applaud Shapiro for trying to dialogue (it may be generous to call it that) with those who disagree with him. Nevertheless, those who disagree with him (on this point, at least) do so because he is full of shit.

RedState asks: Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?

I

In a post on Wednesday, RedState contributor Seton Motley asked, "Why Does The Media Hate (Poor) People Having Cheap Food?" His question came in reaction to a series of reports on and criticisms of the EU's decision to reduce the regulation of sugar in Europe. After all, Motley argues, reduced regulation will mean "sugar prices will fall". This is, on the surface, a very good thing, to be sure. Nevertheless, it may come with a cost (literally). If Europe begins consuming sugar the way the US does, might they risk an obesity epidemic similar to the American epidemic (almost 80 million Americans are obese, according to the CDC)? One might think that obesity is not a public problem but a personal problem--that is between you and your doctor, or your family. Nevertheless, the "estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008" USD. In other words, the purpose of such regulations is not "so we can lose weight", as Motley suggests, (although, 'so that we can keep ourselves healthy' would not be an unreasonable response), but, at least in part, to save the money we'll otherwise spend to treat diabetes ($245 billion in 2012, up from $174 billion in 2007), heart disease, and stroke ("In 2010, the cost of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. was about $444 billion").

There are other considerations Motley's analysis has overlooked, including the highly addictive nature of sugar and the amount of money the sugar lobby spends to keep us from being made aware of just how much (or what kinds of) 'added sugar' is in our food. 

However, even on the purely economic level, Motley's question is shortsighted by far. 

Does Pew report suggest gun violence is down? Sort of...

Last Tuesday, Dana Loesch, political pundit and radio and television host, tweeted that gun homicides are down by 30%, citing a Pew report as evidence:

Her followers on twitter were excited to have actual statistical support to bolster their position against gun control, noting that liberal proponents of gun control don't do so well with data and statistics:

The problem is that the Pew report doesn't quite say this. Indeed, one might simply compare Loesch's statement with the title of the Pew report presented at the bottom of her own tweet: "Gun homicides steady after decline in '90s". It is true that the header above the graph specifically says: "Gun violence has declined since the '90s". However, even a brief glance at the actual numbers indicates the myopic lens through which Loesch read the report.

Notice, gun violence is not down merely 'since the '90s', the decline took place primarily in the '90s, and gun violence has largely stagnated since then. In itself, the decline is a good thing, to be sure. But, a curious reader of the report might wonder: 'What was so special about the '90s that led to this decline?" Politifact.org offers a few interesting possibilities. 

First, Bill Clinton was in office during the '90s, and signed two significant pieces of gun legislation, the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Second, the decline followed "the end of the crack epidemic", and, in this sense, this graph does not represent a decline at all, but a return to normal numbers (so to speak) after a sharp increase.

Regardless of the cause (and I am neither interested in taking a stance, nor properly qualified), using the report as evidence that there is no need to even discuss gun control measures is a fundamental misreading of the report altogether.

God is not a he, but god is!

God is not a he, but god is!

It has been a rather busy week for the grammarians of god. Yesterday I shared my thoughts on the question of the capitalization of the word god. In reaction to my post some have asked my thoughts on the question of god vs g-d. I’ll address this question briefly before commenting more fully on an article posted today by the BBC on the question of god’s gender.

In certain traditions it is forbidden to say or to write the name of god. Nevertheless, people (religious or otherwise) want to discuss god and have navigated the path between this desire and respect for this tradition by writing g-d in place of god. The tradition of avoiding writing or pronouncing the name of god is indeed an old one. The oldest complete manuscript of the Septuagint (c. 2nd century AD), for example, consistently replaces the name YHWH with kyrios or theos (lord or god, respectively). When I was first introduced to the study of ancient religious texts (far too long ago) it was most common (in instances where an author avoided the name YHWH) to see god’s name replaced by “tetragrammaton” or “the tetragrammaton”, a term which literally means “the four letters” (I’ve always found it amusing to think that the name of god is the original four-letter-word). I appreciate this tradition, but it also seems to imply that writing g-d in place of god is senseless. After all, the common noun god is used in the Septuagint precisely to avoid writing the name of god, suggesting that god is not the name (as if it were a proper noun) of god. I’ve never told a student not to write g-d, nor do I plan to do so in the future, but I do regularly explain the grammar of god, which allows me to make (what I believe to be) some interesting historical and theological points.

(Now, to the main purpose of this post.) Today the BBC posted an article on the gender of god entitled, “Why is God not female” (note that the word god is capitalized in the original). The topic is a worthy one (and certainly a hot topic in religious conversations--as the article itself makes clear), but requires a rather subtle distinction between theology proper and the grammar of theology--and requires a modicum of knowledge of the history of ancient languages (disclaimer: my expertise is not in Hebrew or the semitic languages, but in Latin, and, to a lesser degree, in Greek). Unfortunately, the BBC article does not make the necessary distinction (though it could have easily done so, as it vacillates between grammar and theology proper throughout), preferring to concentrate on theological traditions.

The BBC article correctly points out that there is a long tradition of rejecting the idea that god (the entity) has a gender, as if god has a penis or a vagina. Some traditions do this by simply rejecting a gender of god altogether, others by suggesting that god is both mother and father. (Incidentally, there are other very good reasons--of ancient provenance--for describing god as mother; the creative power of the ‘mother’ is a venerable tradition.) The primary purpose of reminding ourselves that god is genderless is to avoid anthropomorphizing the deity. Indeed, there is a whole tradition of mysticism and negative theology that suggests no words are adequate to describe god, gendered or otherwise, and the best policy is to remain silent (this is a grossly simplified expression of this mystical tradition).

However, there is also a very good reason for referring to god as he (and this has nothing to do with the question of god’s genitalia). The word god in both Greek and Latin is masculine in gender, theos and deus respectively. And the rule in every gendered language is that a pronoun (e.g., he, she, it, they) must agree in gender (as well as number and case) with the noun for which it stands. English is not gendered in the same way as, say, French, so that, when one replaces dieu with il in French, there is no need to ask why an author/speaker did not use elle--the simple answer is that dieu (the word, not the entity to which the word refers) is masculine. Replacing dieu with elle is simply grammatically erroneous. This also explains the quite ancient tradition of referring to the Holy Spirit as she; Hagia Pneuma (Holy Spirit in Greek; I am not certain why the BBC article gives the Latin spiritus here, when the other examples provided are all Greek) is feminine (again, the words, not the entity to which they refer). (There is also a long-standing tradition of associating the Holy Spirit with Wisdom, Sophia, also a feminine noun in Greek.)

That said, I am not at all opposed to referring to god as she, so long as the purpose is to correct an unfortunate anthropomorphism--that is, the practice is theologically sound, even if grammatically incorrect. However, the BBC should perhaps have explained the origin of the traditional use of he by distinguishing between grammar and theology. Separating the theological point from the grammatical would avoid the inevitable rejoinder of the grammarians (and would have been far more instructive).