Heart vs. Brain... a most difficult struggle

It is so terribly difficult to be objective. Our throbbing hearts feel so strongly that our cool, rational heads just don’t stand a chance. 

Case in point – the ACLU is preparing to sue Northeastern University in Boston on behalf of the Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP). The university stands accused of violating the free speech rights of the pro-Palestinian students who disrupted a lecture being given by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) representatives.

WGBH radio describes the incident as such:

“Back in April, the group Students for Justice in Palestine staged a walkout of a presentation by Israeli soldiers inside a lecture hall at Northeastern. Their goal, they say, was to protest human rights abuses in the Middle East. More than 20 students marched out. Some captured video with their smartphones. Others heckled the soldiers, calling them criminals.”

"They’re not welcome on our campus," some shouted. "Free! Free! Palestine!"

The Boston Globe, WGBH, and the blogosphere are alight with outrage over Northeastern’s sanctions which include putting the SJP on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. The common theme is that the university’s actions constitute a “chilling effect on free speech." Apparently the free-speech rights of the SJP protestors trump those of the IDF presenters and the interested folks in the lecture hall.

Why is it so tempting to side with the SJP protestors? Because they are small and Northeastern is large? Because the Palestinians for whom they toil are few and Israel is many? Is there no application of logic to balance a knee-jerk sympathy?

Let’s take this situation and tweak the actors a bit. In a hypothetical situation, imagine New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, presenting a lecture at Northeastern University. As he begins a full-throated call for increased gun control, an assemblage of Student Republicans stand to shout him down, waving signs which depict Bloomberg as a modern-day Hitler. The university sanctions the student group, putting them on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. What will the ACLU do? Where do you stand?

Or this…

Planned Parenthood is delivering a policy lecture at Northeastern University. Within moments, a delegation of Catholic pro-life students rise up, displaying signs depicting aborted fetuses and decrying the murder of children. The university sanctions the student group, putting them on probation and asking them to draft a civility statement. What will the ACLU do? Where do you stand?

Freedom of speech does not depend on the popularity of various positions. It is not limited to only aggrieved groups. In the foregoing real and hypothetical examples, it extends to not only the protestors, but to the presenters and the audiences (yes, the freedom to listen is part of free speech). So before maligning and suing Northeastern University, perhaps the principles being applied should be elevated over political sympathies.

It is so terribly difficult to be objective. But we must try.

First, do no harm

Belisarius begging for alms

“Primum non nocere,” (first, do no harm) is a fundamental law drilled into medical practitioners and emergency medical technicians around the world. The principle dictates that, when faced with an existing issue, one must carefully select an action that does not cause more harm than good, even if that means doing nothing. It is intended to make the practitioner consciously consider the harm that any given action might cause.

A core principle of medical ethics, this dictum is equally applicable to a wide range of governmental policies and husbandry (the management and conservation of resources). A prime example: for many years we had a zero-tolerance policy regarding wildfires. Smokey Bear warned us to be careful and all fires were fought to a standstill. As a result, the natural process of undergrowth thinning was thwarted resulting in larger and more dangerous “crowning” fires. Further, certain species require fire as part of their lifecycle, the Giant Sequoia being a case in point. When it was observed in the 1960s that no new Sequoias were germinating due to fire suppression, it was determined that our fire suppression policies were causing harm. A more open-minded view now has us allow fires to proceed as a natural ecological process except where human lives or property are threatened.

In the political arena, we are not nearly as enlightened. Many government policies have been shown to inflict harm on the very constituencies they were intended to help. Some famous examples include housing policy which fueled the Great Recession of 2009, college grants and subsidies which fund a roaring inflation rate of tuitions, and generous welfare benefits which have led to a spectacular breakdown of the nuclear family, especially within the urban poor. These programs were all well intentioned; it is simply that the negative consequences were not adequately factored into the political calculus.

Why might this be? In a thought-provoking paper published earlier this year (“Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2013), researcher Barbara Oakley describes the concept of pathological altruism, that is, behavior that is intended to help but results in foreseeable harm. At root, as should be no surprise, is our very human desire to help combined with an almost innocent neglect of potentially harmful side effects.

We are wired to be empathetic, altruistic; the desire to help is in our DNA (with the exception of a relatively rare number of sociopaths amongst us). Early human clans survived more readily when they assisted each other. Altruism, therefore, is a natural tendency reinforced by evolution and subsequently enshrined in religious values. (Christianity, as one example, extols philanthropy and is well-known for its many charities).

But when it comes to the political process, when programs to help the poor or subsidize this group or that are debated, we tend to be overtaken by the emotional need to help and neglect the cold, scientific analysis of the reverberations our actions will actually create. Further, this altruism bias causes us to demonize anyone who dares suggest such an analysis. But in the end, it is the greatest good with the least harm that must be our goal, and reasoned analysis, without recourse to ad hominem attacks, is the only way to achieve that end.

Pathological altruism can be very dangerous. Dr. Oakley refers to the tens of millions of deaths caused in the twentieth century by appeals to altruism (Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all cynically garnered support for their policies in that manner). She closes by proposing that pathological altruism is of such import that it should be the subject of focused scientific research. It is hard to disagree with that.

A Duty to Retreat

Sir William Blackstone, 1723-1780

Florida has been taking it on the chin. In addition to luxury vacation condos collapsing into giant sink holes, it seems that the media and political left are piling on because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to the NAACP, stated that such laws “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” and “undermine public safety.”

Unlike Alinskyites, whose strategy it is to capitalize on heightened emotions, it might be good to step back and take a breath.

The right to self-defense is a time-honored legal precept. Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist, traced the concept of justifiable and excusable use of deadly force from Roman and Judaic law and codified it into English common law (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765-1769). Since most US states adopted English common law as a basis for their own, it is not surprising that all of them allow a person to use force in defense of self or others. The details vary a bit, but the concept is universal.

Where the states begin to diverge is on the concept of “duty to retreat.” Blackstone identifies a duty to retreat in the event of a sudden brawl or affray, and only in the absence of the possibility of such retreat would defensive homicide be excused. The “stand your ground” states do not require a duty to retreat, if and only if a number of requirements are met. From Florida law (Chapter 776.012 para. 3), here is the heart of the matter:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

For the person using defensive force to have no duty to retreat, the following must be true:

• Have a right to be in the place where the attack occurs
• Must not be engaged in illegal activity
• Must believe that deadly force is reasonably necessary

The Tampa Bay Times, in a paroxism of self-guilt for being Floridean, documents what it calls “stand your ground cases” from around the state. Reviewing the very first one is very instructive.

In a narrow courtyard of the Liberty Square housing project, Damon “Red Rock” Darling and Leroy “Yellowrock” Larose got into a gunfight, allegedly due to an argument over drugs. Darling said he thought Larose was going to pull a gun on him so he pulled his and fired first. Neither Darling nor Larose were killed in the fusillade, but, unfortunately, 9-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins was killed in the crossfire while playing with her dolls. An extremely sad story, but does it support General Holder’s revulsion with “stand your ground”?

Not at all. None of the elements of “stand your ground” exist in the crime. The purported aggressor (Larose) was not killed, and Darling was engaged in illegal activity (drug trade). The court denied Darling’s attempt to use “stand your ground” as defense to the death of little Sherdavia, as well they should. Both Larose and Darling were convicted, with Darling getting 50 years.  Sounds like the “stand your ground” law operating as it should.

Here is another case. Anusha Bissoon, female, stabbed to death a man who was attacking her boyfriend after a road rage incident. Witnesses told police that the boyfriend would have been killed without Bissoon’s intervention. Based on evidence and witness testimony, prosecutors declined to press charges. Bissoon was spared the grueling trouble and expense of a trial, and was protected from civil suit by the aggressor’s family and estate. Again, seems like “stand your ground” operating as designed in the interest of justice.

Make up your own mind. But please, inform yourself and don’t be influenced only by lofty rhetoric. Our justice system deserves no less.

Let’s all be poor together

A wealthy woman.

American CEOs are much too rich, live in monstrous, gaudy mansions, and we hate them for it. So whines  Dan Thomasson, a columnist for the Scripps Howard New Service (“Not quite your great-great-grandfather’s log cabin”, July 22, 2013), openly declaring his blatant jealousy. Of a similar philosophy, an NPR commentator, recently opining on the purchase of a $250 million work of art by a wealthy banker, complained that that purchase was only possible because the banker was taxed far too little.

What an odd bunch of economically illiterate hypocrites we are. For while bemoaning the wealth and spending ability of capitalists, we never seem to complain about the affluence of the Hollywood elite or star athletes. Who grumbles about Dustin Pedroia’s recent $110 million contract with the Red Sox? Not I, not you – we love Dustin!

But honestly, folks, while Hollywood and Major League Baseball admittedly generate a few jobs, those pale in comparison to the hundred million jobs created and maintained by our nations bankers and CEOs. Yet we hate capitalists. 

Here’s an idea. Let’s deny the rich their trappings. Huge taxes on yachts, mansions, works of arts. Make it so punitive that we’ll see the end of the $20 million castles that give Thomasson such agita. 

Yay! The anarchists, anti-capitalists, and wealth redistributionists will have won. But who loses? No, really, who loses?

Imagine what goes on in building a $20 million home. Here is a short, incomplete list of losers should we successfully thwart its building.

• The landowner who would have sold the lot and the realtor who managed the sale – both losers.
• The architect and general contractor who would have designed the home and planned the building project – losers.
• The excavator who would have cleared and leveled the lot and dug out the basement – a loser.
• The concrete man who would have built forms for the foundation and poured the concrete – a loser.
• The asphalt guy who would have paved that long, winding drive – a loser.
• The landscaper who would have planned and planted the lawn and shrubs and gardens – another loser.
• The framing carpenters and sheetrock hangers and roofers and electricians and plumbers and HVAC guys – all losers.
• The interior designer, cabinetmakers, carpet layers – all losers.
• The local town, whose assessor's office is forgoing a significant property tax revenue stream – a loser.
• And finally, the grocers and hairdressers and launderers and restaurateurs to all of the above losers – all losers, too.

While our national pastime is to revile capitalistic wealth, we seem terribly shortsighted in not realizing that wealthy people create the vast majority of our jobs. And in addition to that, they spend their money – lots of money. We stifle them at our own economic peril.

So instead of jealously, perhaps Thomasson should stick his neck out. Invest in the market or start a new firm. Hire some employees and make the payroll week after week. Learn what it’s like to manage an international firm where business goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. See what it’s like to spend scant time with his family.

Either that or shed the hypocrisy and write scathing columns about the wealth of Julia Roberts and Dustin Pedroia, too. After all, if we hate wealth, let’s hate all of it. And then we can all be poor together.

United Mine Workers want their engagement ring back

Professor Freeman Dyson

Climate change is a highly charged emotional issue. It should not be. Anything as deadly serious, with such huge potential human peril and economic impacts, must be analyzed only with the sharp, cutting edge of cold reason. Religious fervor has no role. But we, and our children, are being proselytized that carbon is an evil pollutant, and that human-caused carbon emissions are wrecking the climate. This is a hypothesis, not settled fact. There are very smart people who believe otherwise, but they are dismissed as crackpots. Or worse.

Freeman Dyson is a brilliant physicist who taught for decades at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies after Albert Einstein’s death created an opening. Dyson was considered the only physicist capable of filling Einstein’s enormous shadow. There is just one problem – Dyson is an anthropomorphic climate-change skeptic, and climate warriors have demanded his head – literally. Professor Richard Parcutt of Australia seriously proposes the death of heretics such as Dyson, provided they do not repent (much like Galileo). This is no way to conduct a scientific debate.

Dyson thinks that the computer models used by climatologists are faulty and do not account for the climate cooling effect of clouds. His hypothesis may be credible in that there has been no significant warming in the past sixteen years. Even the august New York Times has said “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that” (“What to Make of a Warming Plateau”, June 10, 2013).

As Dyson puts it, "there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects." In spite of that, your president is pursuing policies to impoverish you.

In a recent major policy speech on climate change, President Obama drew a keen bead on the nation’s coal miners. In so many words, he said, if you are a coal miner, it’s time to find another line of work (or sign up for food stamps).

This was not a complete surprise to them. In 2008, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) voiced whole-hearted support and proposed marriage to then-candidate Obama. But by 2012 they had seen the handwriting on the wall and chose to withhold support from either candidate, a shocking turn of events for a staunchly Democratic union. But they had overheard the whispers of the president’s environmental base and were worried.

In April 2013, fulfilling the UMWA’s fears, the president’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reclassified carbon dioxide as a hazard to human life. Shortly thereafter, they revealed a major policy shift buried in the fine print of a regulation on electrical efficiency. The agency raised the “social cost of carbon” from $22 to $36 per ton. The administration was saying that the costs of global warming would be greater than previously thought and that these costs were exacerbated by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

By executive fiat, the president initiated a major, wrenching change in the nation’s energy infrastructure with no legislative deliberation by your elected legislators. While generating electrical energy with wind mills or solar panels is a lovely idea, these are nascent technologies. Energy costs, if sharply increased, will cut though the economy like an inflationary great white shark. How would grandma like to buy $15 corn flakes?

Taking the next logical step, what's to prevent the EPA from assessing a fine to parents of each newborn child? Using the administration's current projections, an American child will cause $52,000 of "climate damage" during his or her lifetime, both from simple exhalation and from consuming the fruits of the economy. Instead of a dependent tax deduction, parents would owe the IRS a huge penalty on their next tax return. 
  

Here’s another viewpoint. While our children are being brainwashed that carbon is an evil pollutant, perhaps they should also be taught that they are, themselves, carbon based life forms, and that carbon dioxide is crucially necessary for the growth of plant life on earth. In other words, we would not exist without carbon, and plants could not grow without carbon dioxide. There are demonstrably two sides to a very one-sided story.

What we need is a reasoned debate, with scientists properly playing the role of skeptics and the media, objective investigative journalists. The time for mindless religious cheerleading and witch hunts is past. There is too much at stake.