The imperfect knowledge gambit
Carl Zimmer over at The Loom has a good post today explaining a favorite technique of groups who need to cast doubt on expert knowledge in order to advance their particular agenda. For example, creationists want to convince the public that most biologists, geologists, and, indeed scientists in general, don't really understand their fields; holocaust deniers claim that professional historians have all been taken in by a Jewish fraud; and greenhouse skeptics say the vast majority of climate scientists are just guessing. I've ground my teeth at this technique for years but never had a good name for it. Now I do.

Zimmer describes it this way:

When I ask scientists what's the biggest misunderstanding people have about their work, they often talk about how they know what they know. People tend to think that a scientist's job is to gather every single datum about something in nature--a mountain, a species of jellyfish, a neutron star--and then, simply by looking at all that information, see the absolute truth about it in an instant....

Many bogus attacks on scientific research play on this common misunderstanding of science-as-revelation. If scientists don't know everything they can't conclude anything. Paleoanthropologists have found less than two dozen species of hominids from the past six million years--therefore they can't draw any conclusions about how humans appeared on Earth. Climatologists don't have a perfect temperature record for the planet--therefore they can't say anything about how man-made pollution is warming the atmosphere. In cases like climate change, these bogus attacks spread from science to policy based on science. To hear some people talk, we should only do something about climate change once we have tracked every molecule in the atmosphere since the dawn of civilization and can predict its course for the next thousand years.

The imperfect knowledge gambit is a particularly nasty and effective rhetorical device because it builds on very common misconceptions about how knowledge is created and because it sets the groundwork for a number of follow-up arguments.

Most scientists and historians do not claim to know everything (the ones that do are, by definition, bad scientists and historians (or coaches hired to teach science and history)). If we knew everything, there would be no need for new scientists and historians and they would all have to get jobs making furniture or mowing lawns. Since there is very little demand for bad furniture and uneven lawns, they would become unemployed and sit around all day whining about how hungry they are. This would be even more annoying than their present whining about how unappreciated and underpaid they are, so be thankful that there are still things to find out.

It should be obvious to most people that we do not know everything. But, by harping on the fact that scientists and historians do not possess pure and complete Truth, that their knowledge is partial and provisional, the opponents create an opening for their anti-knowledge. One follow-up argument is to portray their anti-knowledge as equal to our knowledge and demand equal time. This fairness argument is a favorite of creationists and holocaust deniers. Another follow-up argument is the dark horse gambit beloved of conspiracy theorists. This emphasizes the partial nature of knowledge and insists that their anti-knowledge might be the missing explanation that leads to the Truth (at this point they usually compare themselves to Galileo).

The difference between many conspiracy theorists and leading creationists, holocaust deniers, and greenhouse skeptics is that the conspiracy theorists are usually sincere in their confusion, while the latter three are cynically exploiting a rhetorical device to win supporters and advance their agendas. Most conspiracy theorists just want the Truth. Creationists want to introduce religion into the schools and don't care what damage they do to the educational mission. Holocaust denial is usually just an introduction to the larger anti-Semitic program. The do-nothing conclusion of greenhouse skeptics is to the direct benefit of corporate and political agendas. All things being equal, I'd rather spend time with a Velikovsky follower or amateur Templar historian than any of those three

Note I was probably overly subtle in distinguishing between leaders and supporters in that last paragraph. Aside from their rhetorical methods, I lump creationists, holocaust deniers, and greenhouse skeptics together because I view all three groups as being led by cynical manipulators. The individual followers are often sincere and convinced by the rhetorical tricks of their leaders. Many are open to intelligent counter-arguments and eager to understand. The leaders of these three movements, on the other hand, are patently dishonest and have only my contempt.

Various outrages
Posting has been light for me the last few days because my Mom has been staying with us. Now that she is back in her home and we are back in ours, I’ve had a chance to took at the news and seek out patterns. To my horror and shock, I found that Bush is politicizing the civil service. But he always seemed like such a uniter, not a divider. He’s the very last person I would expect to behave in partisan manner.

1) This one is from Time via those alert eyes at Pandagon:

Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month.

2) This one is from the mighty and majestic Atrios. The original may have changed by the time you go to look at it, so I’ll give you the image.



3) And this one I actually found by myself when glancing over the headlines after getting back from returning Mom to her homestead.

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified….

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.

Kevin W. Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said there was nothing nefarious about the television materials, which he said had been distributed to stations nationwide. Under federal law, he said, the government is required to inform beneficiaries about changes in Medicare.

"The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

An entire agency is charged with finding photo ops to aid their boss' reelection effort. A congressional committee uses their publicly-financed Website to attack the minority party's candidate. Official communications from a department become commercials to drum up partisan support for a controversial policy initiative (during an election year). All three have the same corrupt element in common: the Bush team obviously regards the government as just another advertising medium for them to use in their election effort.

In the last case, Keane, the talking head for DHHS, brings up something that has bothered me for years. When, exactly, did legality become the refuge of choice for scoundrels? It seems that whenever someone—political or corporate—is caught with their hands in the ethical cookie jar, their preferred defense is to loudly quote the letter of the law and announce that they did nothing illegal. Never mind that they may have trampled the spirit of the law and vomited on any relevant concept of ethics, if they are safe within a legal loophole, they can stand tall.

The whole historical point of a professional civil service was to create a body of depoliticized workers whose first loyalty was to performing their defined duties, not to supporting their political masters. The current behavior of the Bush/Rove cohort seems to have the goal of undoing 120 years of political reform for a moment’s advantage. Why am I not surprised?

Kerry – McCain 2004
This is not my dream ticket. It’s not even really in my top ten, But I would consider it, if just to watch them carry Karl Rove out of the White House, on a stretcher, clutching his heart.

WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush.

McCain said he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket -- in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.

"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."

Let's run against DeLay
I like the sound of this:

House Democratic leaders are honing an election strategy to taint the entire Republican caucus by demonizing Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

By running against DeLay, much as they ran against Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1996 and 1998, the Democrats believe they can damage centrist GOP members in potential swing districts that could determine who controls the House.

The strategy, which is based on the belief that DeLay is regarded as an extremist in many GOP-leaning districts, was previewed to lawmakers last week at a leadership luncheon by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

She galvanized colleagues with a promise that Democrats would not let Republicans claim to be moderates at home while taking marching orders from DeLay in Washington, said several sources at the luncheon.

This is good news, but Kos asks the pertinent question: what took them so long? DeLay may not be as nationally well known as Newt was, but he is a blackhearted SOB, hip-deep in slime. Texans know him and the Democratic faithful know him. There are plenty of places where DeLay will make a great poster boy to rally the faithful. DeLay might be safe in his own district, but that doesn't mean Texan Democrats in other districts can't run against him. I would think reminding Texans of the time and cost of the re-redistricting fight with the tagline "Tom DeLay doesn't want you to have a choice" should be worth a few votes. Maybe not. I've never been to Texas, but such a blatant effort to fix the elections wouldn't play well in the places I have lived and visited.

Tom DeLay need his butt drop-kicked into the deepest part of the Gulf of Mexico. Come to think of, that would make a good Democratic fund raising stunt. I doubt as if Tom would loan his butt to the Texas Democratic Party, but maybe a suitable surrogate could be found. A pork butt with a bad hairpiece, maybe?

An offer he could refuse
Is the modern Republican Party, in the era of Bush and the rise of the religious right, a real party, as usually defined by Americans, a machine, or a gang? The evidence from Texas is that they are a machine well on their way to becoming a gang.

Mike Murphy is a thirty year old finance manager, Texas native, and Republican. Disappointed that his party wasn’t producing candidates who spoke for him, he allowed a few friends to talk him into running for congress. The incumbent Ralph Hall had represented the district as a Democrat for more than 20 years until Tom DeLay gerrymandered his district into a safely Republican one. No problem for Hall, he simply crossed the aisle and became a Republican. This pitted Murphy and Hall against each other in the primary. Hall had the money and organization. Murphy had the energy and legs to start hitting the doors of the district.

Murphy’s grassroots approach was working well enough that he attracted the attention of the State Republican organization. They called Murphy to tell him that born-again Republican was a friend of Bush’s and Murphy should get out of the race. They called twice. Murphy chose to keep running.

Next Congressman Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called with the same message. Reynolds tried the carrot, mentioning Rove and DeLay, and promising that they wouldn’t forget this favor. Murphy chose to keep running.

Enter the bad cop in the form of Larry Telford, the "incumbent retention director" for the NRCC. Said Telford:

"Just consider what you're doing now. You don't want to have the freakin' president of the United States mad at you for the rest of your life." And, finally: "It will help you immensely to not do something that won't take you anywhere in a practical manner and that will really screw up your chances down the road...If you step off this cliff, gravity never goes up, it goes down."

Murphy described his reaction to the moment. “[T]hey were going on about the White House and ruining my career, all I could think was, 'I don't have a career.'"

Around this time, Murphy reported these calls to the Dallas Observer. They called the RNCC for comment and got Carl Forti, the communication director. Forti denied that any effort had been made to chase Murphy out of the race. So the Observer played Forti Murphy’s tape recordings of the conversations. Did I mention Murphy was recording the conversations? I suppose he didn’t either. Forti claimed the conversations had been mischaracterized and misunderstood.

Bill Miller, an Austin-based political consultant for HillCo Partners. "On the NRCC's part, that's what you call ham-handed amateur hour. Do people have bad days? Yeah. Are people stupid? Absolutely. And I think this is more of latter than the former.

"The fact that people get threatened in politics is nothing new. But using Karl Rove's name and saying that he would be an enemy of the president for life if he didn't get out--that's a different situation because of the context. I mean, here's a kid, Murphy, who is an amateur, but he acts like a pro. And the party, they're pros, but they act like amateurs.

Thanks to Kos for catching this first.

Bush flip-flops
The readers over at Kos have been collecting a list of Bush flip-flops to counter the claims that Kerry flip-flops. Flip-flopping always strikes me as a fairly disingenuous accusation. In reality, someone who never changes their mind, regardless of the emergence of new evidence, changed circumstances, or their own growing experience, strikes me as just plain scary. Of course the point of such an accusation is to create the impression that the opposition is a unprincipled opportunist or a flake who unthinkingly repeats the last thing he or she heard.

That said, I have to say I like this list, and not just because Bush is the subject. I think in this case, it’s a good tactic. As a counter tactic it’s good to be able to match annoying coworkers, relatives, and talk-radio listeners point for point when they start repeating RNC talking points about Kerry’s lack of character.

But more importantly, Bush’s people have always portrayed him as a man of steadiness and firm moral grounding. For a long time the public has bought this line. The perception of Bush as a “man of character” was one of the two main supports for his general approval numbers when his approval numbers on specific issues were always lower—often far lower (the other support was the rally around the wartime leader instinct). If we can undermine him on the character issue and show him as the callow frat boy that he is, Kerry will be the next president.

• Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
  
• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
  
• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
  
• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
  
• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
  
• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

This is just the beginning of the list. It would be nice if someone did an annotation of the top dozen points or so.

Why do people drive?
Although I’ve had a driver’s license for over a quarter century, I’ve had a car for less than five years. That is to say, I was a pedestrian till I was in my forties. If you live in an Eastern metropolitan area, that’s not worth mentioning at all, but in the West, it is worth mentioning. It’s just weird. I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll mention it again. The reason I though of it today, is that I was driving my visiting mother to a play this afternoon and looking at our fellow drivers. For many years, as a pedestrian, I verged on becoming an anti-car activist (only the fact that I lived in a town with a nearly non-existent mass transit system, and was therefore dependent on freeloading from driving friends to survive, kept me honest). About ten years ago I read an article on why people chose to drive. The top reason given in polls was, not convenience or freedom or time, it was privacy. People who drove wanted that time spent concentrating on something other than work, family, or any other mundane event. They wanted that Zen experience of emptying their minds of anything except the present moment. They wanted the intimacy of them and the road. That is a beautiful statement of the existential dilemma of modern life. So, now that they have carried their damn cell-phones into their cars, what excuse do they use now?

Bush vs. science
My wife just pointed out an excellent article by Robert Kennedy Jr. on "The Junk Science of George W. Bush" in the February 19 issue of The Nation. If you've been following the issue, Kennedy probably doesn't say much you haven't heard before. However, he writes well and it is very powerful to have it all gathered together in a single accessable piece like this. If you're not familiar, this is a great introduction. This is the article to send to your friends and relatives who don't think Bush is that bad.

Kennedy is the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, and, of course, has been involved in politics since his first breath. He wisely brushes past the endangered species kind of environmental argument, which is usually only effective on the already convinced, and starts with the public health argument. Bush's EPA supressed reports of toxic smoke and dust around ground zero in order to re-open Wall Street. Bush's FDA supressed a report on antibiotic resistant bacteria spreading from hog farms. Bush's EPA delayed release of a report on mercury contamination from coal-fired powerplants. When a pesticide was implicated in causing prostate cancer, Bush's EPA took the study away from its own scientists and turnind it over to the chemical's manufacturer. The list goes on and on.

Kennedy is at work on a book length treatment of the subject. It would be nice if everyone who thinks Bush is not that bad would read that, but they won't. The next best thing would be to get them to read this article.

Something nice in the news
New blogger Preposterous Universe (go check him out) describes a story he picked up from public radio this morning.

Authorities in Mexico City "are going to hand out free books to people riding the subway.... Apparently Mexico has the highest literacy rate in Latin America (about 90%), but people don't really spend that much time actually reading, so the program makes it easy for people to read in a context where they can't do much else. Hopefully the reading will catch on, maybe even cut down on crime in the subways."

The responses quoted in this Washington Post article are mostly enthusiastic, though there is some (probably justified) skepticism as to how well it will function as an anti-crime initiative. The books are distributed at the stations. They are specially published collections of short stories and plays that can be read in the time of an average commute. They will put out new collections every two months or so.

This reminds me of the cheerful idealism of some urban activist and protest groups in the late sixties, particularly the White Plans of the Dutch anarchist/pacifist Kabouters (gremlins). The White Plans were a mixture of street theater (one of the leading Kabouters was a performance artist) and serious solutions to urban problems.The most famous of these was the White Bicycle Plan to reduce traffic in the core districts of Amsterdam. Lost and abandoned bicycles in police strage would be cleaned up, painted white, and scattered around town for people to use as they needed. My personal favorite was the White Chicken Plan, according to which the image of the police would be reformed by disarming them, dressing them in white uniforms, and having them ride around on bicycles dispensing first aid, fried chicken, and condoms.

The metro book project brings to my mind that same kind of optimism and creativity. Its sponsors hope to increase literacy by encouraging people to develop the habit of pleasure reading. If they keep it up long enough, they have a good chance of succeeding. They hope to improve the general atmosphere of the metro sysytem. They hope to nudge people out of their alienated bubbles by giving them something in common. The idea of two strangers sitting together, reading the same story, and starting a conversation is completely believable. The most optimistic element, reducing crime, might sound naive to some. There is the possibilty that crime might actually increase at first. People with their noses buried in books could make better targets for pickpockets. On the other hand, if people do begin talking, they will be less likely to sit by and watch someone they know be robbed.

One aspect of the polarization of American politics over the last decade or so, is that politics is mostly a grim and unpleasant business. It's hard to measure the long-term practical effects of groups like the Kabouters, Yippies, and Merry Pranksters. One thing that is certain is that they made the whole process of politics a little more entertaining. I think that's a good thing. And along the way they occasionally came up with some simple optimistic ideas. I'm not sure what kind of people came up with the metro book project in Mexico City, but I would like to see more of this kind of thing in the States. This is the kind of activity third parties need to engage in to gain legitimacy, not quixotic runs at the presidency.

I’m going to be rich
Last week I claimed to have found a new meme in the making. This week my amazing powers of prediction have been vindicated. It is indeed a full-fledged meme. I’m sure James Randi will accept this as proof of my ability to predict the future and send me a million dollars.

The meme, of which I found three examples, went like this:

[T]he liberal media elite is either celebrating, or shamefully silent on, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s act of civil disobedience in deciding to have the city issue same sex marriage licenses. Yet last summer this same liberal media elite couldn’t heap enough abuse on Judge Roy Moore’s act of civil disobedience in plopping a Ten Commandments monument in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. You see, it’s all about hypocrisy. Liberal media elites have no moral grounding, so they can disapprove of civil disobedience one week and applaud it the next. That’s how evil they are.

Martha Bridegam wrote to comment that:

It's not really civil disobedience at all. It's a public official's act based on a legal opinion interpreting state and federal constitutional law. As I say on my site, if gay marriage is "civil disobedience," then so are John Ashcroft's assorted stompings of habeas corpus.

Interestingly enough, many of the meme pushers make the complimentary point, which is that Newsom’s actions are not civil disobedience, they are out and out criminality (suggesting that civil disobedience requires surrender to the authorities and jail time).

Of course, either of these arguments requires that the meme be taken seriously. There are in fact a great number of important differences between Moore’s action and Newhouse’s. My point was simply to ridicule the meme. These kinds of arguments based on sloppy reductionism and equivalency are childish and often no more than insincere talking points, more marketing than discourse.

Today after reading David Neiwert’s piece on Roy Moore and the Constitution Party, I went Moore Googling and discovered the meme popping up all over. Everyone’s favorite objective media watcher, Howard Kurtz, not only made the argument himself, he quoted annoying blonde Laura Ingraham also making it.

Newsom, she says, "is being treated as a modern-day Rosa Parks. He's a nice guy and a very eloquent public speaker, but he's also not following the law. When Judge Roy Moore wasn't following the law, people were trashing him. He was just ridiculed in the press.... If you have a politically correct view and violate the law, you're a hero."

That’s a perfect statement of the meme. Roy’s commandments and gay marriage are equal. The liberal media are hypocrites for applauding one and condemning the other.

Bill O'Reilly mouths the meme in Murdock’s New York Daily News (with the non-spinning headline: “Left-wing hypocrisy: Alabama judge is hit for defying the law, not so S.F.'s mayor”). Lesser conservative ranters are also jumping on the bandwagon for this one. And I predicted it. That makes me a psychic and James Randi owes me a million dollars. Right?