Christian America Chooses to Self-Destruct by Following 15th century Islam's Anti-Scientism

One of the greatest ironies of our Age is that modern America is arguably a culmination of the ascendancy of the West and it seeks to destroy itself with the very weapon that made it possible. Those who paid attention to history know that as late as 1600, the Arabic world was far ahead of Europe. Arab science dominated European superstition. But the rise of a special brand of Islamic Faith forced the Arab world to turn away from science, lose their advantage, fall further and further behind the West, and ultimately turn over world domination to Western Empires, leading to the ascendancy of the material, technological, practical American version of Western Empire. Our version of the Enlightenment -- one of the practical inventor who drove standards of competition in industry ever upward, reined in by the practical policy maker who insisted that the blessings of the earth be shared democratically -- was arguably our sine qua non.

And now it is being destroyed.

Today, we face the rise of a new brand of Christian Faith that rejects or diminishes science, much as did the Arab world of the 13th to 15th centuries. The Arab world's scientific community today is a tiny fraction of what it rightfully should have been. Religion poisoned their destiny, relegating them in large part to many of the disasters they have endured during the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. We are following in their path.

Today, nearly half of Americans repudiate science, expend enormous energy setting our understanding of the world and universe backward, fight to deprive children of an honest education, and suppress the use, much less the advance, of science. Today, while the CDC cries out that we do not have the funding to fight Zika's invasion of the continental US, many Americans apparently believe that Zika is a "government conspiracy." When the next virus comes along -- and it will assuredly come along -- we may be doomed to prevaricate and sermonize instead of blasting it with the might of modern science.

The enemies of modernity say the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists clamoring about changes in the earth's ecosystem are lying for research funding. Thus the Anthropocene Epoch, so named because we have caused an astonishing implosion of the biosphere, is apparently a political ploy.

Ironically, the very Americans who are, for a host of odd reasons, so anti-Muslim have decided to follow in the footsteps of the Arab World in the 15th century and hand over our leadership of the world, trading it in for superstition and nonsense. We are taking the lead offered by Islam in how to destroy the most advanced society on Earth in short order.

The passing of the American Empire is not the whole price, unfortunately. For with our obstinate passing we may take the biosphere with us. But until then, we get to prove that those who failed to pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it.

Safe Spaces are NOT in conflict with free speech and university discourse, but fundamental to them

The University of Chicago has taken a stand on students and activists demanding that university life protect them from political, racial, gender, orientation, and other forms of verbal assault from which they may take offense.  UC has announced that it will provide no safe havens (so-called safe spaces) for students who wish to limit discourse they deem excessively hurtful. The argument, it seems, is that a higher education demands a rigorous give-and-take and being protected from offense by those who disagree with us is counterproductive to that enterprise.  Perhaps some at UC, and those who support this position, think this is about the first amendment, a right that assures us that the government is limited in the threats it may employ in response to our public disagreement with it.

Confusion in the media -- including social media -- is rampant.  This is apparently a complicated issue.  But it is a shame to see that even UC has failed to work out the nuances before announcing what appears to be blanket policy on the matter.

Notably, the First Amendment is itself a safe space creator.  It says the government cannot shut down our dissent of it without very good cause.  (We cannot, for example, incite violence or revolution without consequence).  The First Amendment thus creates a safe space -- a constitutionally-protected space, in which grievances of our government can be aired without fear of repercussions.  The fundamental protection of free speech in the US Constitution creates a safe political space for criticisms of those in power.  Anyone, anywhere is "free" to say whatever he wishes; one has the legal right to free speech when one is free to speak what is on one's mind without fear of government reprisal; that is, when one is free to speak safely. 

For speech to be free, it must take place in a safe space.

Notably, the First Amendment says nothing about our right to be heard without being challenged, nor about our right to hear or not hear others.  In public discourse we are not obliged to attend to anyone we don't like, but we may have those voices foisted upon us from time to time. So free speech neither guarantees us an audience for our ideas, nor protects us from others' reaction to our arguments.  We are under no obligation as citizens to hear each other out.  The common view that a right to "free speech" affords us to say anything without reprisal from anyone or, even more oddly, the duty to listen to anyone who wishes our attention, is simply right not.  The legal right to free speech allows us to speak freely, safe from government reprisal.  That's about it.  Free speech requires safety, and free speech of any other sort must be protected in other ways.

Notably, universities play a critical role in society that require that university communities obey rules somewhat different from those in civil society generally.

If universities are to meet their goal of open and honest discourse, there are times and places when and where we in fact must be obliged to hear other arguments -- beyond the obligation of the citizen to do so in everyday life.  We cannot teach and learn without hashing out opposing positions, on at least disagreements about salient features of the argument.  How shall we interpret the evidence describing society as it exists today and in history and what it means for tomorrow?  What obligations do we have to ourselves and one another as ethical citizens of a nation and of the world?  How shall we determine the proper roles of government, business, the ordinary citizen?  How shall we determine the truth of scientific theory and the meaning of scientific experimental findings?  There will always be disagreements about what we the meaning of what we are seeing in the world and what best might be done about it, and vigorous debate about values and practice are often both essential for arriving at the best possible understanding of it.

But we are only obliged to hear other arguments within reason. We are not obliged to hear all other arguments, no matter how ill-prepared, anti-scientific, hateful, dysfunctional, etc. This is not a simple dictum that suggests that "one must be nice" although that may be part of an effective, civil society.  There is something more to it than decorum.

There are constraints on the qualities of an argument in university life that comprise the quid pro quo that earns one the right to be heard.  Most people engaged in this discussion in the media seem to miss the fact that university life both requires that (1) we hear disparate and even disagreeable voices more actively than we do in everyday life, and (2) we have the right and duty to constrain those voices far more tightly, demanding that they meet logical, evidential and coherent standards of argument.  This is the point of education -- to take the naturally emotive, illogical, biased, and self-advancing positions of our students and teach them how to shape those opinions into defensible arguments, ordered by logic, supported by evidence, and articulated in a civil manner.  College discussions that fail to get beyond the emotional and illogical tone of social media do students a great disservice; this is especially challenging in on-line teaching, where students seem especially inclined to fall into such awful habits.  One of the most important roles of the educational institution is to teach and demand these thinking and communication skills -- in both their transmission and their reception. 

An often-missed piece of the safe space puzzle is that the academy not only has the right to ask us to listen, even to offensive arguments, but also the obligation to demand that the way in which these arguments be presented, as well as critiqued, meet reasonable standards of reason and rhetoric.  This is naturally challenging -- both emotionally (to hear the ugly) as well as intellectually (to prepare and to critique logically and fairly).  To make it feasible for emotional human beings to engage well in these efforts, everyone must at a minimum feel safe to do so.  Anger and fear may be motivating, but they should be set aside as well as possible by the rules and the norms of the game.  Faculty and other university administrators cannot demand that students "hear each other out" without discharging their own duty: to ensure that the rhetoric employed be both worthwhile and civil.  The quid pro quo for being obliged to listen is that those who choose to address us do so in sensible and productive ways and it is the role of faculty and university administrators to teach and enforce such intellectual and social skills.

Hence, safe spaces are not, as is imagined by many, antithetical to university discourse, but in fact part of the foundation of energetic, honest, and thorough discourse of the most unpopular ideas.  In university life, students must first be assured that they are safe from nonsensical, angry, hateful, invective attacks on one's person or position -- much less time-wasting attacks -- the very sort of behavior that all reasonable faculty forbid in their classrooms -- before the university has the right, and duty I would add, to demand that students hear one another out.  Universities are not caged "octagons," into which students are thrown together to fight in no-holds-barred, death matches.  No one, much less a young adult in college, should be expected to endure aggressive and sustained taunts about their race, sexual orientation, or politics -- nor should students be encouraged to engage in such counterproductive conflicts (which I fear the UC policy and other like it may unleash).  Learning how to participate in civil, educated discourse is one of the fundamental purposes of higher education, and it is the university's challenge to create the milieu in which university residents interact according to these productive behaviors.

We must treat civil discourse as the equivalent of a safe space and provide it to our students.

Of course, the idea of a "safe space" can be, and has been, misconstrued and misused.  Chalk signs of "Trump 2016" should not have been met with official condemnation at Emory (how was this uncivil or threatening?)  The professor enduring the shrieking Yale student is not what we wish for -- but the question is how to promote sense and sensibility instead of encouraging students to endure the tirades of those who disagree with them.  Trigger warnings can be excessive --some learning is admittedly quite uncomfortable (although I have my suspicions that many of those who promote the idea that learning is uncomfortable have not subjected themselves to much identity-threatening discomfort themselves).  Anything can be excessive.  But in a society in which it is still much harder for some people to feel safe -- it is indisputable that a young black man who insists upon his legal and civil right to see a police warrant before having his car or home searched is much more likely to endure illegal violence against him, for example (an eventuality the First Amendment most assuredly tried to protect us against) -- we cannot hope to hear from the marginalized, and have no right to demand that they listen to the majority.  This doesn't mean that everyone will feel perfectly safe when we seek to behave civilly and productively -- most of us don't like being confronted in the public square and young people are prone to consider disagreement with their values and ideas a serious offense, even when they are not communicated inappropriately.  But it does mean that universities are obliged to facilitate courteous discussion and forbid bullying in all forms. And it does mean that safe spaces are not contrary to the form of free speech that must be conducted in university spaces, but fundamental to them.

No one in civil society is obliged to listen to the angry, incoherent rantings taking place in the political rally of one's opponent, and no one in is obliged to do the same on campus merely because of one's status as a student.  Enrollment in a university comes with a social contract (apparently in need of clarification): the university ensures that civil, quality discourse populates the classroom and the commons and in exchange its students agree to engage (speak and listen) with integrity and engagement.  Only once the University of Chicago and other quality colleges and universities deliver their end of this bargain have they the right to demand that students deliver on their end of it.  But the idea that a safe space is somehow in conflict with "free speech" or the mission of a university is not correct.  I believe UC may have jumped the gun, failing to address its own obligation in this critical quid pro quo; it must first ensure civility and safety before it demand its students listen openly to all criticism of their positions.  At that point, they may insist that students endure the discomfort of vigorous disagreement about even their most sacred shibboleths, but until then students do have the right to insist that the university be a well-regulated, safe community in which this to-and-fro is to take place, one in which the civility and decency of classroom discussion shall be carried over into the university commons.

Note that social media and ordinary civic discussion may allow -- and perhaps there is nothing that can be done to stop -- nonsensical, emotive, partisan utterances, couched in invective, that pass for "speech."  But it would be disastrous to allow the nature and sensibilities of social media -- perniciously and massively influential in the formation of public opinion in 2016 -- to infect university life, where our duty is to do much better than this.

Indeed, create and support -- and do what we can to enforce -- an environment in which civil, sensible discussion takes place and its opposite banished. Then insist that each of us listen civilly to what the other has to say.  Do not confuse this with the confused desire to subject members of the academy to crude and hateful attacks under a very confused banner of "free speech" that has nothing to do with either freedom or speech.

Economic Policy Tutorial for the Presidential Campaign

There are basically two economic GOALS: more efficiency and more equity. There is a looming, binding, long-term CONSTRAINT, as well: sustainability. All three trade-off against one another (e.g., more equity is sometimes less efficient) but sustainability constraints must be obeyed or you destroy the ecosystem and/or natural resources needed to survive.

Economic policy must be evaluated against all three:
1. How well does it improve efficiency (what we get out of the resources we are free to use without creating an environmental debt that cannot be paid back)?
2. What impact does it have on equity?
3. Does such behavior keep us alive in the long-term or does it threaten to destroy the system or the environment (or both)?

There is a lot of chatter about economic policy that is nonsensical and/or deceptive.

For instance, there is talk of the US being a highly taxed economy. That's an outright lie. Neither businesses nor individuals are highly taxed in the US relative to civilized economies.

There is also deceitful chatter about how lowering corporate PROFIT taxes would improve economic activity. The logic is distorted and misleading. The maximization of profit leads to the same economic activity with higher or lower corporate taxes, with a few technical exceptions (and they have to do with businesses alternative investment opportunities -- which are actually too low in this milieu to be interesting to them). Do we want more jobs? Incentivize the creation of them by subsidizing new employment. Do we want more investment? Incentivize investments by making the net cost of investment even lower (interest rates are at an all time low, so this would require some form of subsidization). Do we want more domestic employment and investment? Again, subsidize such activity or penalize overseas investment and employment. There is no good argument for lowering corporate profit taxes -- taxes already close to a post-WW2 LOW and profits close to a WW2 HIGH-- as it is. This is simply one more plutocrat or lobbyist or demagogue fooling the trumpets into thinking we are not a pro-business nation -- a mantra that is simply untrue.

There is sometimes chatter about making the tax rates simpler by making them FLATTER. This has the potential to vastly DECREASE equity -- taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy -- and REDUCING overall economic activity at the same time, as the marginal rate of consumption is higher in the lower income brackets. Simpler may be good -- the complexity is inefficient and unfair -- flatter is NOT. It's lose-lose.

Listen to a candidate who says he wants a SIMPLER tax code -- that's win-lose (simpler is good but we lose the capacity to incentivize some important stuff -- like home ownership), but walk when he starts to talk about a FLATTER (regressive) tax code.

This leads some true haters to propose a CONSUMPTION tax. This is a way of both crushing the poor (who spend virtually all their income on the goods and services they need to survive) and further dampening aggregate demand -- and thus hurting economic activity, as well. A consumption tax is a massive lose-lose proposition. It is for those who never read Dickens and secretly like the idea of people starving in the streets, locked up in poor houses, and orphans begging for a second bowl of porridge.

With the exception of Sanders (and Reich on the outside looking in) we hear far too little about what must be done to even put a small dent in the monstrous raping of the 99%. The top 0.1% are in charge and are the recipients of virtually all the gains of our productivity (efficiency) growth for four decades. The rest of the top 1% are their foot soldiers, picking up some scraps. The bottom 90% have been done grave harm for decades. This is grossly inequitable, has caused massive tragedies, personal and community, and terrible inefficiencies, as well. A massive redistribution of income and wealth would be very, very likely to undo only a tiny % of the damage done by the levels of expropriation that have occurred since 1980. Political discourse -- even the most radical of it -- rarely even broaches the truth, as it is so extreme. Were we to undo the expropriation of the 99% that has taken place, we would have to dismantle the entire American system. Few want revolution. So most of us (the clear headed and fair minded and timorous among us) are willing to discuss much smaller compensations. But all economic policy offered by candidates should be assessed against this standard: how far are they willing to go to make this system more equitable? The kids are at the table and one kid has 99 cupcakes and the other 99 kids have one cupcake each. If a candidate thinks the kid with 99 cupcakes needs more cupcakes -- walk. If a candidate says everyone deserves a few crumbs more -- listen.

But remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good -- if you demand that every kid gets two cupcakes, no more and no less, you might get nothing.

Further, because of explicit racism over centuries and inadvertent racist impacts of the past four decades, African Americans are in trouble. Globalization has (intentionally and inadvertently) done grave harm to union workers, and Blacks had found a home in unions that gave them some insulation against outright discrimination. Globalization since the 70s has thus hurt all working men and women, but Blacks were hurt disproportionately more. Further, the financial crisis of 2007+ has caused an enormous loss of home equity -- and this loss has destroyed the vast majority of the assets of African American families. Many were hurt, but Black folks were disproportionately hurt and hurt as a much higher % of their savings and retirement money. As well, massive dislocations of urban economies has led to massive unemployment for young urban dwellers, with Blacks hurt more once again. If a candidate is not willing to offer some compensation and some plan for making good on what has been taken over and over again from the Black community (and are both clear headed and fair minded -- and do not want a revolution), walk.

Perhaps the second most threatening force in the modern American milieu is the militarization of the police. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the military needed "work" and the wrong element in government (those who call themselves "Law and Order" but are, and have always been, "Order without Law") employed them to help arm and train a civilian police force to become a standing army, just the sort of force the Founding Fathers warned us about repeatedly, and tried to protect us from in the Bill of Rights. A confluence of a few horrifying American cultural and political trends -- the white supremacist desire for a replacement for Jim Crow, the infiltration of police forces around the country by the KKK, a protective loyalist culture among police that got transformed from loyalty to one's brother (a good thing) into something insidious (most become acculturated into a culture of lying to protect murderers among their ranks behind the thin blue line), the Pentagon off-loading billions of dollars of insanely destructive war materiel onto local-yokel police departments, the massive growth in the equipping and training of SWAT teams, the vastly distorted and pernicious and racialized War on Drugs that gave these crazies an excuse to go to war against the people they were supposed to "serve and protect," and a for-profit prison complex -- and we find ourselves living in a dystopian nightmare in which Americans, many Black, must live in fear that if they are stopped for a traffic incident they could end up dead. Any candidate who does not address this (expect even the bravest to mumble in craven ways about how much police lives matter, for the American culture now makes that the opening prayer on this matter) must be rejected by fair minded and decent people.

Finally -- and for some of us this may be the good news -- we are threatening ourselves with extinction. That is, we just may admit, at least accidentally, that "we are the virus" and kill ourselves off. The planet (not this biosphere, but something hotter and drier) will survive without us -- and billions of sentient beings will be freed from the terrible suffering we inflict on them and each other. But, if you still cling to hope, then you must demand that your candidate say just what he or she thinks of climate change, the Paris Accords, and just how we are going to massively re-incentivize the economy to invest in and employ sustainable technologies and set aside the brutally destructive oil economy that is cooking us like a batch of boiled eggs. Surely, no personal vendetta against a candidate can free any fair minded and decent person from the moral obligation to vote for someone who is willing to at least stem the tide of global warming long enough for our children and perhaps grandchildren to live out their lives before humans enter the parched, dystopian future that is our destiny.