Blatant deception on Arizona Proposition 101

Arizona ballot proposition 101, the Medical Choice for Arizona amendment, says this:

Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:

1. Article II, Section 36: Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 36. BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON'S OR ENTITY'S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI, of the Constitution of Arizona.

It prohibits the State of Arizona from passing any legislation that prevents individuals from choosing to purchase or decline to purchase any type of health care or health care insurance from what's available, or that imposes a penalty or fine for doing so. That's it. It doesn't introduce any new taxes, it doesn't ban any state spending on health care programs, it doesn't prevent anything except the institution of a state health care or health care insurance program that requires mandatory participation, and it guarantees your right to privately arrange for health care with your own funds from the health care provider of your own choice.

Now, this does ban some kinds of health care program that some people advocate, such as the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law of 2006, which required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health care insurance or face legal penalties--similar to mandatory automobile insurance. That program, supported by Gov. Mitt Romney, is similar to Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, but neither Obama nor McCain advocates mandatory health care insurance. If they did, however, this proposition would not prevent such a program from being instituted at the federal level.

But the opposition to Proposition 101 has been wholly deceptive. Here's some text from a mailer sent out to most Arizona residents last week:

Top 5 Reasons To Vote No On 101

Is an unclear permanent constitutional amendment that is so poorly written that it will ensure that our health care decisions will be dictated by the courts for years to come.

Makes health insurance so expensive, employers will be unable to provide coverage for their employees.

Jeopardizes Arizona's Medicare and Medicaid programs by destroying the cost containment measures adopted to provide affordable health care.

Is opposed by Doctor groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Will increase health care costs to Arizona taxpayers by $2 Billion.

Most of these items are simply fabrications or non sequiturs put forth without argument, and the mailer conveniently fails to mention anything about what the proposition actually says. Further, this mailing contained a photograph of Gov. Janet Napolitano under the State Seal of Arizona, which is a violation of state law, a class 3 misdemeanor.

The signs by the roadside urging opposition to Proposition 101 are equally deceptive, and include the claim that it will increase health care costs to Arizona taxpayers by $2 billion.

I've also seen claims online (in the comments on about.com's discussion) that Prop. 101 is backed by the insurance industry. That's false--it's opposed by the insurance industry, because they support mandatory health insurance programs for obvious reasons. This was a grassroots effort, led by Arizona doctors Eric Novack and Jeff Singer. (I contributed to the funds for signature collection for this ballot proposition.)

I've also seen claims at about.com that Prop. 101 will deregulate the healthcare and health insurance industries. Again, nonsense--the proposition has no effect on the state's ability to regulate healthcare or health insurance, except that it can't impose mandatory insurance or prevent you from purchasing any legal healthcare service or program. It doesn't say that the state can't ban or regulate healthcare, or determine what constitutes lawful healthcare.

The opponents of Prop. 101 are engaging in the most deceptive campaign against a ballot proposition that I've seen in several years. If you think the state of Arizona should be able to impose mandatory health insurance, then that's a reason to vote no on Prop. 101. If you think the right to opt-in or opt-out of health care or health insurance coverage should be left to the individual, then that's a reason to vote yes on Prop. 101.

Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute has issued a press release about the deceptive arguments against Proposition 101. I've been meaning to write something about it since I received the dishonest mailing, but seeing his press release prompted me to actually do it.

UPDATE (November 12, 2008): Prop. 101 was defeated in a very close race, 961,567 votes against and 950,440 votes for.

Religious makeup of the United States

Good news!

(Via Pharyngula.)

City of Phoenix foolishness

The City of Phoenix's "notes" newsletter for October 2008 (PDF), which comes with the water bill, features a story on the front page about its Glenrosa Service Center receiving the city's first LEED Gold certification for its environmentally sound features, like being "build with wood from responsibly managed forests" and possessing "low energy and water use fixtures, non-toxic carpet and paint, energy-saving lighting sensors, native drought-resistant vegetation, dual-pane windows, an under-floor air distribution system and a heat-reflecting roof."

Page two features an announcement that "The APS Fiesta of Light will kick off the city's holiday activities this season with a long-time tradition--the APS Electric Light Parade." This parade of "illuminated floats, marching bands, performance units [?] and helium balloons" has a theme of "Preserving a Family Holiday Tradition." I wonder how many years of the Glenrosa Service Center's energy savings will be expended this year in preserving that tradition.

The financial crisis via charts and graphs

Colorado College political science professor David Hendrickson has put together a nice resource at his new "Cause for Depression" blog:

Think of it as a cartoon guide to the ongoing earthquake in the world of high finance. Through pictures, we will try to understand the dimensions of the current financial crisis--its origins and causes, its likely consequences, its potential remedies.

The "Labels" in Blogspot allow us to construct a chapter organization that the reader should approach as she would a book. By hitting on the topics under "Labels," the presentation will appear in an orderly fashion.

Blogspot is not made for blogbooks, though it is easily adaptable to that purpose. Ordering within each of the chapters depends on time of posting, so my time stamps are not necessarily indicative of the actual time the material was posted. I have altered them to allow for an orderly presentation. If it seems to matter, I will post the date of composition and updates in the entry. The initial foray of posts was made in mid-October 2008.

In seeking to understand the crisis, we need to begin with the credit mechanism. We are living through the bust of one of the greatest credit cycles of all financial history. In order get a handle on the seriousness of the bust, we must register the mania that fed the boom.

We’ll first look at some measures indicative of the financial turmoil. Then we examine general conditioning circumstances: the role of the housing boom and bust, the general growth of credit market debt, the explosion in derivatives, all of which are relevant in considering how much insolvency exists within the financial system. That question--are our financial institutions insolvent?--in turn is vital in assessing the wisdom of various bailouts and rescues, the opportunity costs associated with the government-mandated maintenance of the "FIRE" sector (Financials, Insurance, Real Estate), and how the global imbalances that have marked the last fifteen years are likely to change. I conclude with some lessons. The final entry is a collection of paper topics for interested students to consider.

Where possible, I’ve tried to indicate where readers can find updated sources of information for the material presented here. Given my harsh view of "derivatives," I'm obliged to say that this compendium is almost entirely derivative. I’m deeply indebted to my blogroll for ideas, inspiration, and many of the charts contained herein.

So, if you've read thus far, go now to "Financial Stress" in the "Labels" section.

(Via Financial Armageddon.)

The amount of public and non-public U.S. debt will inevitably come back down, one way or another. I just hope we don't end up as a third-world nation (or worse yet, multiple third world nations) in the process.

S&P's Enron moment

IM conversation between two Standard & Poore's employees, April 2007, as revealed in testimony before Congress today:

Shannon Mooney: i didn't really notice...but now that i think about it i kindof tune her out when she talks

Rahul Dilip Shah: well she just is too political...and she doesn't have anything of substance to say...but keeps thinking that she does.

Rahul Dilip Shah: (I'm done venting now) :)

Shannon Mooney: k go take a nap

Shannon Mooney: see you later

Rahul Dilip Shah: ok

Rahul Dilip Shah: btw - that deal is ridiculous

Shannon Mooney: i know right...model def does not capture half of the rish

Shannon Mooney: risk

Rahul Dilip Shah: we should not be rating it

Shannon Mooney: we rate every deal

Shannon Mooney: it could be structured by cows and we would rate it

Rahul Dilip Shah: but there's a lot of risk associated with it - I don't personally feel comfy signing off as a committee member.

(Via the Big Picture blog and The Epicurean Dealmaker. The latter has a pictorial illustration that I like, Mark Tansey's "The Innocent Eye Test"; the former has links to the transcript.)

Hallucinatory near-death experiences

Keith Augustine's "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" article on the Internet Infidels website has been updated to reflect its publication as a three-part series of articles in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, where it was published along with commentary from leading researchers of near-death experiences. The online version of the article includes content that was not published in the JNDS due to space considerations.

Keith has done a great job of reviewing the evidence that near-death experiences contain elements that are demonstrably hallucinatory, and therefore not evidence for survival or for consciousness leaving the body.

Bigoted and ignorant McCain/Palin supporters in Ohio

This is no doubt not a representative cross-section of McCain and Palin supporters, but it's a disturbingly ugly set of them. It's fortunate that most of the worst comments are from the older generation--I hope that younger people are less likely to hold such views. McCain has shot down such remarks from supporters when they've been made in his presence, to his credit. (And yes, this is from Aljazeera.)



UPDATE: Here are more bigoted McCain and Palin supporters in Johnstown, Pennsylvania:


UPDATE (October 20, 2008): Sarah Palin says if she heard such bigoted comments she'd shut them down:

"What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like kill him,' " Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. "If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that's unacceptable."

She goes on to break with McCain by supporting a U.S. Constitutional amendment to oppose gay marriage and claim that "Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit."

UPDATE (October 21, 2008): And here's another video, from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (same link provided by Hume's Ghost in the first comment), of McCain and Palin supporters entering Lehigh University (the school where intelligent design advocate Michael Behe is a professor):



UPDATE (October 22, 2008): And be sure to check out this woman's reasons for voting for McCain, at the Secular Web.

UPDATE: And more videos of McCain supporters heckling early voters (most of whom were from an Obama rally) in West Virginia.

TSA airport security is a waste of time and money

Jeffrey Goldberg explains why in The Atlantic. The check for whether you're on the no-fly list is at the time of ticket purchase and check-in; there is no validation of your actual ticket against your ID at the TSA checkpoint (you can easily print and use a fake boarding pass at the TSA checkpoint); there is no check of ID when you board the plane. The checks for substances and items at the TSA checkpoint are easily subverted, with the restrictions on liquids probably the most absurd and pointless.

We're throwing away billions of taxpayer dollars per year on security theater.

(Hat tip to John Lynch.)

(Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.)

A Shared Culture

Jesse Dylan has made a short video about Creative Commons licensing (which is used for the contents of this blog), and how it helps patch the flaws in current copyright law.

Hell House

The Door Christian Fellowship, a creepily cultish Pentecostal Christian sect that's an offshoot of Aimee Semple McPherson's Foursquare Gospel Church, is putting on a "hell house" in Chandler. They're calling it "Hell 101," and, as usual, they are advertising it in a deceptive manner that attempts to hide the fact that it's religious propaganda. I say "as usual" because not only have they put on such "hell houses" for years around Halloween, they're also known for advertising events such as Christian rock concerts while conveniently forgetting to mention the "Christian" part.

Such deception has long been associated with Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944), who was a fraudulent faith healer, alcohol Prohibitionist, and anti-evolutionist who later in life faked her own abduction in order to run off with her lover, Kenneth G. Ormiston, who had been an engineer for her radio station KFSG in Los Angeles. After disappearing for 35 days, she stumbled out of the desert in Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico, just south of the border from Douglas, Arizona, and told a phony story of kidnapping which quickly fell apart when witnesses came forth who had seen her at a resort in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. She ended up dying of an accidental drug overdose from taking too many Seconol sleeping pills, but her Foursquare Gospel Church still exists today with over two million members, mostly outside of the U.S. (Interestingly, as a teenager McPherson was an agnostic who defended evolution in letters to the newspaper.)

The Potter's House, The Door, Victory Chapel, and other Foursquare Gospel spinoff churches are Pentecostal churches that engage in faith healing, speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, and other activities of anthropological interest. They can be very hardcore in the pushiness of their evangelism, and engage in cult-like conversion techniques such as separating people from groups they come with, pairing them off with someone of the same approximate age and sex, and bombarding them with rehearsed questions designed to push someone to a conclusion that they need to accept Jesus and join their group. (The Wikipedia page on The Potter's House describes this particular sect's origins in Prescott, Arizona in 1970, originally officially affiliated with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. The Wikipedia biography of its founder, Wayman O. Mitchell, is also of interest. The sect's origins trace back to Los Angeles, as does the Pentecostal movement in general.)

"Hell 101"'s website calls it "Final Destination III," and describes the hell house as "a twist on a haunted house style attraction that was described by Phoenix Arizona NBC News Affiliate Channel 12 as 'scary, horrifying, suspenseful, sick....' NBC 12 News had a live video feed from our annual event where hundreds waited up to two hours in line to have the hell-scared out of them." Their FAQ has the question "If I quit because I was scared or anything else can I get a refund?" The "anything else" would include feeling defrauded by having paid money for a haunted house, but getting instead Christian propaganda. The answer: "There are no refunds if you get scared, cry, feel angry, get sick, hate it, love it or just want to run!!! Our job is to confront your senses and that we do!"

A Christian hell house can be quite entertaining, so long as you know what to expect and are prepared to exercise your right to walk away at the end when the attempts at conversion go into overdrive (they may suggest that the doors are locked and that you may not leave). George Ratliff's documentary film "Hell House" is a great way to get a preview, and shows some of the unintentional comedy that can be produced when a bunch of ignorant people try to put together a scary haunted house designed to persuade you that you're going to hell unless you believe the way they do. That documentary also shows how ineffectual some atheists can be in their confrontation of Christians, and I highly recommend that anyone planning to visit one of these hell houses for any reason give it a watch before going.

A "hell house" usually follows a common script template which the churches purchase and customize. They go through a writing, casting, and production process similar to a high school stage production. The "hell house" script typically guides a group of visitors through a series of rooms, each of which contains a brief performance by actors portraying some scene that argues for certain practices, beliefs, or actions as likely to terminate with eternity in hell, though that latter point may initially be somewhat subtle. (By the end, it is anything but.)

I attended a hell house at a Potter's House church in Tucson in 1990, from which the flyer image was obtained. (Also see this PDF of an Arizona Daily Star newspaper story about that particular hell house, which got in trouble with the local fire department for fire code violations.) That hell house followed a female character from scene to scene which included a car crash caused by teenage drinking (featuring an actual wrecked car and empty beer cans), a band of demons playing AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" (suggesting that at least some rock music is demonic in origin and consequences), and the ever-popular hanging nun in hell (Catholicism is regarded by this sect as ruled by Satan) and young woman on a stretcher with a pool of blood between her legs shrieking that she's killed her own baby (the anti-abortion segment). At the end, there's a high-pressure call to Jesus which provides an opportunity to argue with someone who may be something like a street preacher in their skill of providing pre-programmed responses to common objections they've heard many times but is unlikely to have actually thought deeply about. If you do choose to visit one of these, I advise not getting involved in such a discussion if you're somebody who is likely to blow up, call people stupid, or otherwise lose your cool--that's just going to be seen as confirming evidence that you're under the control of the devil and anything you say can be dismissed without consideration.

UPDATE (October 31, 2008): New Times has a review of The Door's "Final Destination III" hell house.

Scott McClellan reviews Oliver Stone's "W"

In The Daily Beast:

At best, Stone’s interpretation is educated conjecture. He takes plenty of liberties with the facts, a story-telling strategy he considers justified in order to get at larger truths in a 2-hour movie. As a result, the real-life complexities of the characters and events are left unexplored.
...
Overall, as should be expected from the high-caliber cast, the acting was fabulous. Brolin rightly deserves kudos for his portrayal of Bush. He has the swagger down, and does a decent job on Bush’s voice and gestures. The president’s eating habits were overdone, but not completely off the mark (you will know what I mean when you see the movie). ... The most unflattering portrayal was that of Condi Rice, caricatured by Thandie Newton as a mere yes–woman, which is excessively denigrating but not entirely without basis.

There are a number of inaccuracies in the movie, some grounded in Stone’s satirical impulse. (Maybe I was too close to the real-life situations to laugh at those moments.)

...

Stone also exaggerates in painting Bush as a simple-minded born-again Christian. President Bush is a man of deep personal faith who may have felt a calling to enter politics, but he never came across to me as presuming to know God’s will. Nor does he consider himself an evangelical Christian or fundamentalist Baptist (though along with Rove he placed a high priority on keeping that wing of the Republican base happy).

I also felt it was grossly unfair to portray Bush as merrily oblivious and somewhat smug when visiting wounded soldiers at a military hospital. Having been at President Bush’s side during such visits, I know they were somber, emotionally-draining moments for him. They were also probably the only time I ever noticed self-doubt creep into his eyes, however fleetingly, as he confronted the terrible human costs of his misguided, instinctive decision to rush into an unnecessary war.

But W. is a drama, not an historical documentary. Stone tries to play it fairly straight. Even if he misses the mark at times, he deserves credit for the glimpses of inner truth he provides, which can only be instructive, especially as we prepare to elect a new president.

My guess is the most vocal Bush critics will view Stone’s account as too soft on Bush and his top advisers, while Bush’s chief advocates will ignore and dismiss it. But I think the average Joe just might find it entertaining and thought-provoking. I won’t go as far as to borrow a line from Bush 43 and say, “Heck of a job, Stonie.” But I will borrow one from Bush 41 and say, “It’s good, not bad.”

A measure for crackpots

Last night at a party, a few of us were discussing some recent self-published books by crackpots that we've seen or had pushed on us. We noted that these books seem to have in common a few features. They seem to often have long rambling introductions that are missing key elements like thesis statements or an indication of what the book is about. They use words in non-standard ways, yet don't bother to explain how they are being redefined. They claim that the author has some special knowledge, yet don't provide any reason to believe it is the case.

I had a dim recollection of having come across a "crackpot index" before somewhere, and a little bit of searching yielded Fred J. Gruenberger's December 1962 publication from the RAND Corporation titled "A Measure for Crackpots" (PDF), which offers the following scoring mechanism for distinguishing the scientist from the crackpot:

1. Public verifiability (12 points)
Scientists promote public verifiability; crackpots rely on revealed truth.

2. Predictability (12 points)
Scientists promote predictability and track their record of failure as well as success; crackpots promote wild predictions and count only successes, not failures.

3. Controlled experiments (13 points)
Scientists promote controlled experiments; crackpots avoid them.

4. Occam's razor (5 points)
Scientists prefer the simplest explanation that covers all the facts; crackpots enjoy wildly complex theories.

5. Fruitfulness (10 points)
Scientists prefer theories that generate new ideas and new experiments; crackpots prefer theories that produce nothing of value for further research.

6. Authority (10 points)
Scientists seek the endorsement and validation of known authorities and tend to obtain it if their work is valid; crackpots usually fail to obtain it.

7. Ability to communicate (8 points)
Scientists tend to promote clear (if sometimes dull) communications through approved channels; crackpots tend to be incomprehensible and self-published.

8. Humility (5 points)
Humility is a desirable (if sometimes lacking) trait in scientists; it is rare in the crackpot.

9. Open mindedness (5 points)
Scientists tend to qualify and carefully couch their statements as tentative based on the current evidence; crackpots tend to make absolutely certain statements that may not be challenged.

10. The Fulton non sequitur (5 points)
I'm more familiar with this as the "Galileo Gambit," or the common crackpot claim that "They laughed at Galileo; they're laughing at me; therefore I'm right just as Galileo was." Gruenberger uses steamboat inventor Robert Fulton in place of Galileo. This logically invalid argument is refuted by the Bozo rejoinder, which is that "they also laughed at Bozo the clown." This is a negative test, lack of the characteristic is 5 points, presence is 0.

11. Paranoia (5 points)
Another negative test--crackpots tend to be paranoid about their ideas being actively suppressed by conspiracy.

12. The dollar complex (5 points)
Another negative test. The crackpot claims immeasurable value for his discoveries as revolutionary, worthy of the Nobel prize, and world-changing.

13. Statistics compulsion (5 points)
The crackpot tends to use and continuously explain statistics allegedly supporting his claim, while the scientist tends to use standard methods and assume the reader is familiar with them.

Gruenberger's index is focused on science crackpots rather than philosophy crackpots, but a number of the above features do apply to the books we were talking about.

A more recent "Crackpot Index," also focused on physics, was created by John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California, Riverside:

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
4. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
6. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
7. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
8. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
9. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
11. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
12. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
13. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
19. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
20. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
21. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
22. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
23. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
25. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
26. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
27. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
28. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
29. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
30. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
31. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
32. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
33. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
34. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Here's a nice crackpot response to that index.

Christianity in China

The October 4, 2008 issue of The Economist has an interesting article, "Sons of heaven," about Christianity in China, which reports that the official estimate of 21 million Chinese Christians (16 million Protestants, 5 million Catholics) is probably a vast underestimate. The Centre for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that the number is 70 million, while the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, former Communist Party official turned Christian Zhao Xiao, and the China Aid Association all think the number may be as high as 130 million. This is compared to membership in the Chinese Communist Party of 74 million.

The reason for the underestimate is that many Christians in China are unaffiliated with any official church. The government doesn't allow more than 25 people to meet in a gathering without official permission, so Christians in China have formed thousands of "house churches," similar to the way Pentecostalism has grown through small groups across South Korea. Just as private meetings in homes were how Christianity spread in Rome, the result has been a proliferation of more and more smaller groups in China. These house churches tend to be unaffiliated with any denomination, with "no fixed liturgy or tradition," and run by recent converts who themselves are not expert on Christianity.

The article points out that in China, Christianity is not associated with tradition and ritual, but with modernity, business and the market economy (where it's seen as a necessary check on the market to provide ethics in business), and science. Six of the 30 leaders of the student protests at Tiananmen Square became Christians, and the article states that "One Confucian Chinese says with a rueful smile that most of the pretty girls at university were Christians--and would date only other Christians."

Christianity has spread in China as a result of rural Christians migrating to the cities, and students who travel to the United States and become Christians and then return home.

I look forward to seeing a similar article in the future about the spread of atheism, skepticism, and pro-science groups in the United States through Meetup groups and student groups.

Return of the canal ducks

As of last Tuesday (October 7), the ducks have returned to the Highline Canal. They left sometime after May 18.

The Economist's poll of economists

The Economist conducted a poll of 683 research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 142 responded, of whom 46% self-identified as Democrats, 10% as Republicans, and 44% as neither.

80% of respondents, 71% of those who did not identify a political affiliation, and 46% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that Obama has a better grasp of economics than McCain. (Only 23% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that McCain had better understanding of economics.)

81% of respondents, 71% of the unaffiliated, and 31% of the Republicans said that Obama will pick a better team of economic advisors to run the country than McCain.

The full results can be found at The Economist's website.

Prosperity theology created foreclosure victims?

An article at Time magazine suggests that those following the "prosperity theology" of some Pentecostal ministers are more likely than average to have obtained mortgages they cannot afford, leading to foreclosure:

Has the so-called Prosperity gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants -- and hence, victims -- of the current financial crisis? That's what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California at Riverside, he realized that Prosperity's central promise -- that God will "make a way" for poor people to enjoy the better things in life -- had developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe "God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house." The results, he says, "were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."

Yet another case of religious trust being exploited to victimize those who have it.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Bailout bill bonuses

The bailout bill has a few extra features:

* Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
* Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
* Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
* Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
* Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
* Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
* Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
* Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
* Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

It also includes tax credits for solar and wind power, a requirement that health insurance companies cover mental health the same way they cover physical health (so look for some huge premium increases on your health insurance).

And during all the bailout bill discussion, Congress quietly authorized another $612 billion defense authorization bill.

(Via The Agitator.)

Bush and Palin anti-intellectualism

Radley Balko on Palin's performance in the VP debate:

Palin was rambling, didn’t answer the questions she was asked, and the folksy stuff felt contrived. I suppose Palin did okay in that she didn’t come off like the train wreck she was in her Katie Couric interview, but Jesus, is that the standard? Is the bar that low for vice president of the United States? That seems to be the way the conventional wisdom is playing out. Oddly, the Couric interview may have actually helped her, then.

Palin seems to have crammed just enough so she could toss out key phrases here and there to give the veneer that she’s informed. But it’s pretty clear she was in way over her head for most of the debate. Pick her apart with follow-up questions, as Couric and Gibson did, and she falls to pieces.

This growing anti-intellectualism on the right is alarming. It isn’t that Palin is dumb. I don’t think she is. It’s that she has no interest in learning, no interest in reading or experiencing anything that might challenge what she already knows she believes. She thinks with her gut, as Steven Colbert might put it. She’s a female W. And they seem to love her for it. The GOP has gone populist. Knowledge, worldliness, and learning are to be shunned, swept aside as East Coast elitism. It’s all about insularity, earthy values, and simpleness. Remember the beating John Kerry took in 2004 for daring to use the word “nuance?” There’s no room for complexity on the right anymore. It’s good and evil. Black and white. Us and them.

Maybe a good butt-kicking this November will bring about some soul searching.

And Ed Brayton on Bush, quoting this ABC News story:

After some more give and take, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says.

He might as well have said, "I ain't never had no need for book learnin'."

I agree with Balko--Palin seems exactly like a female "W" in this respect.

Mexico to try again to decriminalize drug possession

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon has sent a proposal to Congress to decriminalize possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, opium, and marijuana for personal use. This is similar to a proposal that actually passed Congress in 2006 which then-president Vicente Fox said he would sign, but then backed down from after pressure from the United States.

The purpose is to free up police and court resources to go after the major drug gangs, which it would certainly do.

Barney Frank and the financial crisis

The New York Times, September 11, 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'" said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

The Washington Post, November 7, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing." Committee members were ready to support legislation that would give the Treasury Department oversight of Fannie and Freddie, as the administration has sought, Frank said, not power over the companies' housing activities, which are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Now he seems to have forgotten what he said back then, and the fact that he was encouraging the moral hazard created by the GSEs encouraging and buying up bad loans.

UPDATE: A friend points out this post at the Big Picture blog by Barry Ritholtz arguing that the Community Reinvestment Act and GSEs had nothing to do with the housing bubble. While I think Ritholtz makes some excellent points that demonstrate there were other factors, he doesn't really address the GSE moral hazard issue and he makes this statement that seems to me to offer a striking disconnect from reality:

"The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvestment Act ?" All of those cities have very large non-affluent minority populations. I'm most familiar with Phoenix, where the housing bubble was marked by expansion of housing into South Phoenix (where I live), Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek, Surprise, and other outlying areas around Phoenix which have very large Hispanic populations. Also see my comment below about mortgage broker telemarketing targeting low-income areas of town with minority majorities.

He wants to place the blame on deregulation, but if you need to find a single cause, I think the Fed keeping interest rates too low is a better root cause. My own experience regarding telemarketing showed that there existed regulations that could have been applied to the sleazy telemarketers that simply weren't being enforced. When you have an enforcement problem, all the regulations in the world won't help, in fact adding more regulations is likely to increase the severity of your enforcement problem.


UPDATE (November 21, 2011): Barry Ritholtz argues persuasively that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  He also downplays the role for the GSEs, though I think they had a contributory role (which is also what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded) to play in increasing the size of the bubble--they purchased half of the U.S. mortgage market by 2008, $5.1T in loans, including $90B-$175B/year in subprime and Alt-A between 2002 and 2006.  But the above analysis overlooks other important factors including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the 2004 SEC decision to reduce capitalization requirements on investment banks, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which allowed credit default swaps with little regulatory oversight, and inaccurate credit ratings from the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations.  Wikipedia's entry on "Subprime mortgage crisis" has a good referenced list.

FutureKind CD release show

If Einzige and I were not going to be in Pasadena for the Skeptics Society conference, we would be attending the CD release show for FutureKind's "Surround," Friday, October 3 at the Last Exit Bar and Grill, 1425 W. Southern Ave., Tempe, AZ 85282. There's a $5 cover charge and it's a 21 and over show, and other bands performing are DJ Seduce, Human Mirror, Talk Fiction, and Random Karma.

Here's FutureKind's video for their song "Hideaway," the first song on the new CD:



UPDATE (October 6, 2008): The show apparently went well, and I agree with the New Times reviewer that Thalia's singing is sometimes reminiscent of Björk.

Another military religious freedom case

Dustin Chalker, stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas, has filed a lawsuit about being forced to attend Christian proselytization events in the military, including a presentation which claimed that Christianity and creationism give life meaning, while evolution and atheism remove hope. The complaint describes this event, which took place at a U.S. military base in England, delivered by Chaplain Christian Biscotti (!) and was approved by Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop (!) who spoke afterward:

Another slide titled "Contrasting Theories of Hope, Ultimate Theories Explaining Our Existence," has two columns, the first titled "Chance," and the second "Design," comparing Charles Darwin, creationism, and religion are also part of a chart comparing the former Soviet Union to the United States, concluding that "Naturalism/Evolution/Atheism" leads to people being "in bondage" and having "no hope," while theism leads to "People of Freedom" and "People of hope/destiny." After several more slides like these, the presentation continues with a slide titled "Christian's Message," and a slide with an image of a man looking upwards with his hands outstretched and the caption "Please open up both of your hands to receive this powerful tool."

This lawsuit, like that of Jeremy Hall, was filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Chaplain Biscotti is a real person, currently stationed at the Joint Warfare Centre in Stavanger, Norway.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Jeremy Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he's out. Chalker's case continues.

UPDATE (January 7, 2009): Chalker's suit has been updated and expanded to add further examples of "the noxiously unconstitutional pattern and practice of fundamentalist
Christian oppression" in the military, including the Air Force sponsoring "Team Faith" motocross stunt shows, promoting attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to Christianity, and the Army's 2008 manual on suicide prevention, which promotes "religiosity" as a necessary component.

ApostAZ podcast #9

ApostAZ podcast #9 is out, and it's something new and different--atheists Brad and Shannon in conversation and debate with evangelical Christian hip-hop artist Vocab Malone and Omri Miles.

Episode 009 Atheism and Evangelism in Phoenix! Go to atheists.meetup.com/157 for group events! What can be euphemistically termed a conversation between two non-believers, an evangelist, and a non-denominational Christian. Guests Vocab Malone and Omri Miles. How long can a civil conversation last? Brad's brain turns to mush (even more than usual)!
Additional info from Susan Jacoby's History of American Secularism (great book, buy it!)

There's an interesting followup exchange between Vocab and Brad at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group forum.

The ApostAZ podcast is also now available through iTunes.

I'm looking forward to listening to this one, and may add some commentary here and at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group forum when I do.

Google to close Arizona office

Google is closing its office in Tempe, Arizona on November 21. It's also closing offices in Denver and Dallas.

Alan Eustace, SVP of Engineering & Research, writes at Google's blog:

At Google, engineering is everything - no great engineers, no life enhancing products, no happy users. So we've spent a lot of time structuring our engineering operations to make the most of the exceptional talent that's available across America - developing local centers that give engineers the autonomy and opportunity to be truly innovative. These principles have served us well as we've grown, so when the model fails, it's doubly disappointing.

We opened our Phoenix office in 2006 and hoped that it would develop to support many of our internal engineering projects, the systems that make Google, well, Google. But we've found that despite everyone's best efforts, the projects our engineers have been working on in Arizona have been, and remain, highly fragmented. So after a lot of soul searching we have decided to incorporate work on these projects into teams elsewhere at Google. We will therefore be closing our Arizona office on November 21, 2008.

We'd like to thank everyone involved in this project for their energy and enthusiasm: our engineers; the engineering community in Arizona; Arizona State University; the city of Tempe; and the greater Phoenix area. We are now working with the Phoenix Googlers to transition them to other locations, or to identify other opportunities for them at Google.

I've been expecting to see Google start cutting back on expenses in various ways, as it seems to me that their model of business, with huge per-employee expenses, isn't sustainable for the long term. Apparently it's also the case that it's not cost-effective to put separate engineering centers in many locations--they probably need a critical mass of engineers and profitable projects that they didn't get here. This is probably good news for other high-tech companies and startups in Phoenix, as those Googlers who wish to stay in the Valley become available talent.

Comparing Obama's and McCain's economic advisors

McCain's economic advisors:

Doug Holtz-Eakin source
Holtz-Eakin is a formerly respected academic and government economist who has been reduced to making distortionary arguments to paper over the massive deficit black hole McCain's tax cuts would create.

Arthur Laffer source
Laffer is the originator of the Laffer curve, the fringe view that claims government revenue increases when tax rates are lowered. There is zero empirical evidence this is true at current tax rates. McCain has repeatedly said that he believes this foolishness, but Holtz-Eakin has said (also repeatedly) that McCain does not.

Phil Gramm source
Gramm is a lobbyist who was vice president of one of the investment houses most heavily implicated in the mortage industry scandal. As a senator he pushed for the banking deregulation that contributed to the current crisis. See more here.

Kevin Hassett source
Hassett has been widely ridiculed for writing the book Dow 36000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market in 1999, predicting that the Dow would hit 36,000 within five years, if not sooner.

Donald Luskin source
Luskin has been repeatedly named the Stupidest Man Alive by Brad Delong. See here for an example. I can attest based on my own interaction with him a few years back that in addition to being not the sharpest tack in the box, he is also an extremely unpleasant person.

Nancy Pfotenhauer source
Pfotenhauer is a pure distilled product of Koch Industries, an oil company which funds much of the right wing message machine. See here for details.

Carly Fiorina source
Fiorina was spectacularly fired from her previous job as CEO of HP. According to the Times,

... Republicans say Ms. Fiorina is using the McCain campaign to rebuild her image after her explosive tenure at Hewlett-Packard. They also say it is hard to see why a woman widely criticized for mismanaging one of Silicon Valley’s legendary companies is advising and representing a candidate who acknowledged last year that he did not understand the economy as well as he should.

Regarding Fiorina, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the Yale School of Management, says "What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way. You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”

Obama's economic advisors:

Jason Furman (director of economy policy) source bio
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia

Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia

My comment on the Laffer curve--Laffer's basic point is obviously correct, that there are points at which raising taxes further would cause revenues to decline and points where lowering taxes further would cause revenues to increase (most obviously at a 100% tax rate), but to the best of my knowledge he never did any empirical or mathematical work to show what the Laffer curve actually looks like and what factors play into it. If you don't know the shape of the curve or where we currently fall on it, you don't know without testing that raising taxes will reduce revenue or lowering taxes will increase revenue. Factcheck.org looks at the actual effects of some U.S. tax cuts in this regard.

I do think that we can speculate that reducing U.S. corporate taxes (currently the highest in the OECD with the exception of Japan) could increase corporate tax revenue, given Ireland's experience with just that happening. Multinational companies will do their best to book their profits in the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates, thus increasing the tax revenue in those countries. Of course, there are other factors, such as regulatory environment, cost of labor, risk of litigation, etc.

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and elitism

Sam Harris has a great op-ed piece at Newsweek:

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

...

What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

...

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

Read the rest at Newsweek.

UPDATE: A letter written to The Economist (September 20, 2008, p. 26) from Sue Crane of Johns Creek, Georgia, expresses the anti-elitist pride in ignorance Harris condemns, when she writes:

Sir - Lexington (September 6) lapsed into the same mode of thinking that exists in the powdered-wig political salons and among the media twitterati in his assessment of Sarah Palin, which stopped him from understanding why she strikes a chord with America's heartland. Mrs. Palin connects with voters because she is one of us, not some elite politician entrenched in Washington's ways. John McCain had a problem with energising the Republican base, hence his choice of Mrs. Palin. I, along with many other Republicans, was prepared to sit this contest out had he chosen either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.

This contrasts with a letter on the same page from Michael Golay, professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, who writes:

Sir - Alaska is very different from the rest of the United States, and this difference affects the fitness of Mrs Palin to be vice-president. Fundamentally, Alaska is a pre-modern welfare state, where the economy is almost purely extractive (with the exception of defense and tourism). If you don't kill it, dig it or cut it down you don't get it. From that perspective "bridges to nowhere" are simply further extractions, or tokens for transfer payments from the rest of us, as are the annual payments to residents from North Slope oil revenues.

Not surprisingly Alaska is largely an innovation-free zone. It is also the only world that Mrs Palin has known. Along with her chronological and career inexperience this background renders her unprepared to lead the country.

In the same issue of The Economist, the Lexington column, "Richard Milhous McCain," points out that the McCain strategy in selecting Palin "is perfectly designed to create a cycle of accusation and counter-accusation. The 'liberal media' cannot do its job without questioning Mrs Palin's qualifications, which are astonishingly thin; but they cannot question her qualifications without confirming the Republican suspicion that they are looking down on ordinary Americans." It attributes this strategy to Richard Nixon, who "recognised that the Republicans stood to gain from 'positive polarisation': dividing the electorate over values."

Largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history

At Trading Markets is a story about the largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history, with the recent Chapter 11 filing of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. at the top of the list.

At #9 on the list is my employer, Global Crossing Ltd., about which the article says:

Hurt by a sluggish demand and declining prices for bandwidth capacity, and burdened by a heavy debt load, telecom company Global Crossing Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 28, 2002. At the time of filing, Global Crossing had $30 billion in assets and $12 billion in debts.

In December 2003, Singapore Technologies Telemedia acquired a 61.5% equity share in Global Crossing for $250 million, paving way for the troubled telecom company to exit Chapter 11. In addition, Singapore Technologies Telemedia agreed to purchase $200 million in senior secured notes that were meant to be distributed to former creditors. Global Crossing used the $200 million cash to pay off its creditors.

The company emerged from bankruptcy on December 9, 2003. By the time, Global Crossing exited bankruptcy, its debt was reduced to a mere $200 million from $11 billion at the end of 2001, including $1 billion of Asia Global Crossing debt. As of the most-recent quarter ended June 30, 2008, Global Crossing's total debt was $1.45 billion and for the past 52-weeks, the shares have been trading in the range of $14.54 - $24.75.

There's much more that could be said about that. For some of the other companies, the article reports on employee layoffs. Global Crossing went from a peak of nearly 15,000 employees down to just above 3,000, a process that was painful for both those who were laid off and those who remained and had to pick up the slack. The process was much-needed, however, and forced consolidation of acquired assets that had been operating in separate silos with separate management structures, eliminated many middle management positions, saw the departures of almost all senior management, and resulted in improved network performance and customer satisfaction ratings and subsequent growth in number of customers and customer traffic on the network. Global Crossing remained a tier 1 network provider through the bankruptcy, and is now #3 on Renesys' list of the top 25 Internet service providers by customer base.

John Morris exposes his ignorance about horse fossils

Troy Britain gives John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research a thorough debunking regarding his article in the September 2008 issue of the ICR's Acts & Facts, demonstrating that Morris really has no idea what he's talking about.

Palin's Christianity

I've previously written to critique claims that Sarah Palin is a Christian reconstructionist or dominionist, or that she's a young-earth creationist or tried to put creationism in the public schools.

I still stand behind the former argument, but I think there is now some evidence that she is a young-earth creationist and supported Mat-Su Borough School Board candidates who aimed to put creationism in the public schools, but never got a majority on the school board. There's also now evidence that Palin is an advocate of pushing an allegedly secularized version of principles from Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, which I previously wrote about here when serial killer Matthew Murray blamed them for his problems.

Palin's Creationism
David Talbot's article at Salon.com about Sarah Palin's clashes with Rev. Howard Bess over his book about how churches should deal with homosexuality contained a passage that stated that she is a young-earth creationist:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger said the same thing on his own blog:

In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. I directed the Mat-Su College Community Band, which played music, and she gave the commencement address. It was held at her [former -jjl] church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Palin had recently become Wasilla mayor, beating her earliest mentor, John Stein, the then-incumbent mayor. A large part of her campaign had been to enlist fundamentalist Christian groups, and invoke evangelical buzzwords into her talks and literature.

As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon "during MY lifetime," were obvious. "I can see that, maybe you can't - but it guides me every day."

I spoke with Philip Munger by telephone on September 17, hoping to be able to find others who could confirm Palin's creationist views. Unfortunately, he said that there weren't other witnesses to his conversation, but he did give me a lot of background information about Palin's political career. He said that the Wasilla government had been dominated by Democrats until 1994, when it shifted to Republicans and John Stein became mayor. Stein was Palin's original political mentor, but she decided to run against Stein in 1996, under the tutelage of Alaska State Rep. Victor Kohring, Republican representative from Wasilla, who began a 3.5-year prison term for corruption in July. Munger described Kohring, a member of the Christian Businessman's Association, as a member of the religious right. Stein, while a Republican, was vulnerable to attack as being not sufficiently conservative, due to the fact that his wife is a pro-choice Democrat who hasn't taken his last name.

Munger told me that Palin also supported a slate of religious right candidates for the Mat-Su Borough School Board, including Cheryl Turner, who he described as a creationist. But he said that the creationists didn't win a majority on the school board, and as a result made no attempt to push that agenda.

Munger said that he called in a question to Sarah Palin when she appeared on the Don Fagan program around October of 2006, and he asked her if her views on creationism had moderated since the Dover case. Her response indicated that her views had not changed, and that she had no idea what the Dover case was. Munger offered to explain it to her in detail if she contacted him, but she never did. He said that she didn't say anything to explicitly endorse creationism, instead resorting to the same tactics suggested by the Discovery Institute of protecting academic freedom, allowing "both" views to be taught, teaching the controversy, etc.

My impression is that Palin is likely a young-earth creationist, but not one who knows much about it or has it high on her agenda for political change. She's probably smart enough to see that such could be a liability for her future political career and so will avoid questions about it or answer in generalities.

Palin and Bill Gothard
Sarah Posner has a new article at Salon.com titled "Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor." This article points out that the Wasilla City Council passed a resolution in April 2000 at her direction declaring Wasilla to be a "City of Character" and a supporter of the International Association of Character Cities, run by Steven Menzel. This organization promotes a secularized version of the principles from Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is a sort of Christianity-lite cult that promotes the prosperity gospel and a whole lot of craziness like this:

Wives who work outside the home are to be compared to harlots — Bill Gothard

It is a total insult in Scripture to be called uncircumcised, and the only moral choice parents can make is to have their sons circumcised in order to follow in the footsteps of Jesus — Bill Gothard

“Unmerited favor” is a “faulty definition” of grace. Grace for sanctification is merited as we humble ourselves before God — Bill Gothard

Females who enjoy horseback riding have a problem with rebellion — Bill Gothard, from testimonies of people who use their real names who have heard him say this in person

Unbiblical submission taught — Abigail was WRONG to do what she did in saving Nabal and his servants — Bill Gothard

Tamar was partially at fault for being raped, because she wasn’t spiritually alert and didn’t cry out — Bill Gothard

Rock music is evil because it is evil — Bill Gothard

Cabbage Patch dolls are demonized — Bill Gothard

Palin learned about the IACC at a conference held at Gothard's IBLP International Training Center in Indianapolis in April 2000, a conference at which speakers included Bill Gothard and crackpot pseudohistorian David Barton, who argues that the separation of church and state is a myth.

It appears that the IACC features actually implemented in Wasilla are pretty mild and unobjectionable--giving out certificates of good character to citizens who do things like return lost wallets, as an example given by the executive assistant to Wasilla's current mayor.

Palin's also clearly no hardcore advocate of Gothard, at least with respect to the first rule listed above about women not working outside of the home. And I still don't think the fears of theocracy, dominionism, and Christian reconstruction have any substance. But what is concerning about her IBLP involvement is that she looks very much like another George W. Bush. As Posner's article notes, Gothard promotes the idea of "confidence that what I have to say or do is true and just and right in the sight of God," which seems to promote the idea of moving confidently forward in decisions with blinkered ignorance and disastrous consequences that are simply ignored. Palin seems to have governed Alaska in such a manner, acting above the law in "Troopergate" with her husband refusing to show up to testify and claiming to support the environment while implementing policies that have left both lakes in Wasilla devoid of life. She also seems to be submissive to her husband in ways which do not seem appropriate for a governor, such as allowing him to play a role in making government decisions, adding some real substance to the concerned questions raised at Debunking Christianity:

• Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

• Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?

• If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

(As I've already noted here, there are some evangelicals who oppose Sarah Palin because they don't think a woman should be in such a position of authority, which is more consistent with Gothard.)

UPDATE (September 24, 2008): David Talbot's "Mean Girl" at Salon.com confirms several things that Munger told me, including Palin's betrayals of former mentors and (something I didn't write about here) her allusions that John Stein wasn't really a Christian, but a Jew, as part of her campaign to defeat him as mayor of Wasilla.

UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Palin's book shows that she's certainly a creationist.

HUD zero down payment mortgages

Craig Cantoni has pointed out the following January 19, 2004 press release from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.

Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal."

Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone.

"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

For those that choose to participate in the Zero Down Payment program, HUD would charge a modestly higher insurance premium, which would be phased down over several years, and would also require families to undergo pre-purchase housing counseling.

So, how's that program working out?

If you're not in a position to be able to save funds for a downpayment, you're also not in a position to be able to have an emergency savings account for all of the unexpected expenses that arise with home ownership.