On the Pyramid and the Scaffold

A few days ago, once it became clear that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination, I posted this to my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/tosranorm/posts/10157077264890217?comment_id=10157089664240217&notif_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1465616938192320

Yes, it was a little snarky, and that may have obscured what I consider to be the main point. I have seen many of Sanders' supporters positing outlier scenarios by which he could still win the nomination (and the party resources that come with it), but to me, Sanders is much better positioned to spearhead the movement his campaign has jump-started without all the trappings of the Oval Office. The presidency is a high profile position, but whenever the election draws nigh, and candidates start making grandiose pronouncements of what they will do in office, we all seem to collectively forget how severely limited its powers can be (especially in terms of domestic policy) in the face of an unfriendly Congress.  As my post reminded everyone, the Congress that will be elected this fall will not be friendly to a Democratic president, as the House districts that we currently have are structured such that the GOP can retain its majority there even if their candidates collectively receive far less than 50% of the total House votes cast. In the sort of polarized environment we currently find ourselves in, any Democrat in the Oval Office will need a solid base of support to stand firm in the face of the restoked conservative hate machine. Clinton has an experienced, well organized, battle tested, and determined army of professionals and volunteers in her corner. She also has strong ties to many Democrats currently in Congress as well as others in positions of power and influence. In short, she has a pyramid. 

Also, as those of us who have seen all those memes from Sanders' supporters well know, Clinton is a master of the dark political arts that will be needed to get anything at all done until new districts take effect prior to the 2022 mid-terms. Rather than a mark against her, to me this makes her the quintessential Rooseveltian "woman in the arena": one who is not afraid to get her hands dirty if it will accomplish something worthwhile, and who does not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. 

Sanders, on the other hand, has...a good start. He has something, that is certain, but exactly what that something is or what it might become is unclear. What he really has is a scaffold. Around eight years ago Obama also had a scaffold, but unfortunately the building it attempted to construct had a weak foundation and as a result the energy and enthusiasm that attended his victory in 2008 did not carry over when he was not on the ballot two years later. This missed opportunity ensured his presidency became one of maintaining a wedge under that not-quite-Sisyphean boulder of progress rather than trying to push it further up the hill. What will Sanders try to build with his scaffold? Hopefully a new skyscraper that is transparent, democratic, and less influenced by money. 
  
If you want the ideal office holder, you first have to create the system that will produce one, and as I and many other have noted, the current system does not do this. So for now let Clinton fight the (almost) hopeless battles; she is well trained for it, and may even enjoy it to a certain extent. More importantly, she gives Sanders and his supporters the cover they need to do the nitty gritty, state level organizing and lobbying that must happen to enact the necessary systemic changes that will de-polarize our political discourse, and enable us to meaningfully tackle the issues that we collectively face. Clinton's pyramid may not be everything that you want, but it is the bulwark you will need to safeguard you as you create whatever it is that will replace it.  

So you are frustrated with the primaries...

To anyone out there who may be frustrated with how the two major political parties run their nominating processes, please remember the following:

1. Nothing in the federal or state constitutions dictates how political parties are managed. The parties are entirely free to conduct their internal affairs as they see fit. You have every right to complain if you think those affairs are managed poorly or their processes do not reflect the will of "the people", but they are under no obligation to listen to you.

2. The reason party "insiders" can control the nominating process is because they have been there for years and have accumulated the expertise and influence to either work the existing party system to their advantage or change the system to such a degree that their interests have a greater say in what goes on.

3. Systems do not change overnight, so if you are just beginning to realize 1 and 2, you have a couple of options: a) get involved in a party and put in the time and effort necessary to become an insider; b) start your own party from scratch, where you can have an immediate influence on how it is structured and what positions it campaigns on.

4. If you choose b), realize that the way our current electoral system is set up is a huge factor in why things currently are the way they are. The dominance of the two major parties is a result of how we conduct our elections. In our history "third" parties have either i) been flash-in-the-pan movements (often coalescing around a single charismatic personality) that quickly petered out, or else ii) gained such momentum that they ended up displacing one of the existing major parties. That process may take a decade or two, but then you just have two major parties again. If you choose to start a "third" party without also working to change the rules that define our electoral system (primarily single-member districts and plurality voting) the odds are overwhelming that your party will end up in category i). (How many of you remember Ross Perot?)

5. Changing those rules is a daunting, but not impossible task, and much of the work to accomplish it will need to be done at the state level. Pulling the lever for Sanders on one side or Trump on the other will not be sufficient. Neither are "insiders" and neither will be able to wield much influence over the other levels and branches of government that will need to be on board to implement their agendas. You can piss and moan all you want about this on social media, but that will not change the facts on the ground.

6. Regardless of whether you choose a) or b) above, know that it will likely take at least 20 years for your work to produce any tangible results, but either is preferable to c) staying uninvolved and uninterested in the matters that will determine what sort of life is possible for you and for future generations.

Good luck!

On Gerrymandering and how to fix it

I've made a few Facebook posts recently about how one of the two major reforms (with the other being ranked-choice voting) that will make our government more representative and allow for a greater diversity of views is non-partisan redistricting. Congressional districts are redrawn by state legislatures every 10 years based on the results of the most recent census, and for a long time whatever party happened to control a state's chambers would draw district boundaries to maximize their ability to win future elections, a practice known as gerrymandering (after a 19th century politician from MA). Over time this has resulted in most districts being "safe" ones by lumping voters together into districts based on their partisan leanings and likelihood of voting, a process that has become more and more sophisticated and precise as the data and the computer programs analyzing it have grown exponentially. The results of this have been an average re-election rate above 90% for incumbent representatives, and the continued stranglehold of the two major parties on our electoral process through the primary system, where potential candidates are vetted by a narrow slice of extremists in both parties rather than the general voting public.

When you have district boundaries drawn to enable more competitive elections, people will correctly conclude that their individual vote will have more of an influence and will thus become more likely to vote, and may even pay more attention to the issues at stake leading up to it. So if one of your priorities is increasing voter turnout, becoming an advocate for non-partisan redistricting absolutely has to be on your plate. Since redistricting occurs at the state level, this means 50 separate efforts to make sure independent or non-partisan groups control the process when it will next take place prior to the 2022 election cycle (the first after the 2020 census is complete), but thankfully they are already underway in many states and a few have made substantial progress. Here is a good rundown on what the present condition of reform efforts are in states where they exist, and just a few days ago there was a very promising ruling from the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals on a particular egregious bit of gerrymandering in North Carolina. I am hopeful that these efforts will continue to grow, even if there is not much that can be changed before the election this November, where it is almost certain that Republicans will maintain their current sizable majority.

For decades the moneyed interests and their conservative allies have been playing the long political game and are presently reaping their rewards. Progressives would do well to adopt a similar perspective and realize that transformational change will not happen overnight, nor will a single candidate, even if they become president, be enough to make it come to pass.

Some thoughts on the Democratic race

I haven't waded much into the Bernie/Hilary debate as of yet (note: because I am a sane person, this is the only question that interests me when it comes to the presidential race) because I honestly do not have a strong preference for either, and they both have qualities I admire. But from my perspective gained from years of study at the undergrad (poli-sci major) and graduate (Masters in Public Policy from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs​ in 2010) levels I am more in the Hilary camp for the following reasons:

- As the Obama administration should have taught anyone, you can have all the lofty ideas in the world as president, but without a Congress willing to work with you, your chances of implementing your agenda are greatly reduced. Due to the failings of the present electoral system (gerrymandered districts and plurality voting) it is nearly certain that the GOP will retain control of the House this fall. The Senate could tip either way, but likely not strongly toward either side. Thus getting any meaningful legislation passed will continue to be an uphill battle, and I think that Hilary has a better chance of success with this due to her experience and existing connections. For better or worse, she knows how to manipulate the levers of power as they are currently constructed, and, importantly, will be more willing to compromise to get things done.

-In a very personal sense, Hilary has lived with the GOP hate machine for 20+ years and knows what is coming. All of her negatives are, at this point, out in the open and she has learned to artfully deflect the inchoate rage her very existence inspires among the RWAs* to make them look like the blubbering fools that they are. I have no idea what skeletons are lurking in Bernie's closet, but I am not so naive to think that he does not have them and that they won't be brought to light in classic "October Surprise" fashion should he be the nominee, with potentially disastrous results.

-Not that Bernie would drag us back, but I do respect Hilary's foreign policy experience and am pretty certain she will build on the accomplishments Obama has made in restoring respect for the US around the world. Having been Secretary of State, Hilary is already used to dealing with the shady characters that have leadership positions in other nations and knows their pressure points. She is also well acquainted with both the potential and the limits of diplomacy in protecting our interests.

None of this is to say I dislike Bernie, or that I think he would be a bad president, but his election would not be a panacea for all of the problems we currently face as a nation. I get that Bernie inspires a lot of people, so did Obama. But the people who showed up for Obama in '08 and '12 sabotaged his presidency by not showing up in '10 and '14. And in order for Bernie's agenda to be fully implemented there would need to be changes at all levels of government, changes that would take several years to implement even in the most favorable of political environments, and sustained work from people committed to bringing those changes about. Showing up at the ballot box every four years is not enough, and while I am willing to give Bernie's people the benefit of the doubt, Hilary's people have a bit more of a track record for doing that out-of-the-spotlight grunt work that gets things done. Also, since a lot of Hilary's people are Boomer women on the verge of retirement, this means they will have a lot more time to devote to the activist work that can bring about better futures for their grandchildren.

Lastly, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, do not, I repeat for the love of Ted Kennedy DO NOT ask Elizabeth Warren to be your running mate. As a progressive I love her, but as a pragmatic progressive I love her most where she is right now: holding the fraudsters and crooks accountable from her increasingly powerful perch in the Senate. Making her VP would effectively hamstring her formidable expertise by putting her in a position where she would not have nearly enough influence on the issues when and where it matters, and it would remove one of your most important allies from Congress right when you need them most. Do yourselves a favor and pick one of the Castro brothers (Julian preferably) instead.

*Right-wing authoritarian

Carl Sagan Day 2013: Making peace with uncertainty

Once again it is the day to remember and celebrate the life and vision of Carl Sagan. Along with Isaac Asimov and Gene Roddenberry, Sagan was one whose works had a profound impact on my younger self and opened my eyes to what an immense, fascinating, and dangerous place this Universe is. There is not a day that goes by when I do not remind myself that we live under the most precarious of circumstances, and that the conditions which support our existence could change drastically with little notice. Neither of these realizations paralyzes me, though, mostly because there is little I can do to alter this situation and spending energy worrying about gamma ray bursts, potential asteroid strikes, or black holes is not terribly productive. What they do promote, however, is first a great sense of gratitude at the fact that I am here, living life, and still have the chance to make a difference for the better in the lives of the people and other creatures with whom I share this narrow strip of biosphere; and second a coming to terms with the undeniable fact of uncertainty.

We do not have all the data, we cannot predict the future, and in those limited areas where we do have some ability to make a relatively educated guess about how things really are, it is only because people like Carl Sagan spent their lives in long study, observation, experimentation, analysis, and synthesis. The scientific method in action often entails going down lots of blind alleys and dead-end streets, lots of painstaking trial and error, and lots of staring at your results until at last that flash of insight hits. It also means humbly accepting the possibility that you might be wrong. But the great thing about science is that of all human institutions it has by far the best track record of figuring out its mistakes, admitting them, and correcting them. Scientists are proven wrong on a pretty regular basis, but you know who proves them wrong? Other scientists! Not some guy typing in his basement at 2 AM. And just because one hypothesis doesn't pass muster it doesn't mean that any competing one is by default correct. Irish comedian Dara O'Briain summed it up best:  "Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

In his life and writings, Carl Sagan exemplified this openness to possibility and acceptance of uncertainty. He cultivated his sense of wonder but also applied the rigors of the scientific method to weed out the ideas that could not pass the evidence test. As the saying (often attributed to him, but likely coined long before) goes, he had an open mind, but not so open that his brains fell out. Like any person, he had his faults (some say he smoked too much weed, but I don't consider that a negative), but if you are looking for someone who actually lived to put up as a role model, you can't go wrong with Carl Sagan. Happy birthday, far traveler. You left us too soon, but your life and work continue to inspire and motivate those of us who appreciate science to stand up for it amid the cacophony of ignorance that dominates most of public discourse today.

From the stars we came, and to the stars we shall return.

But of course it also helps to keep this in mind as well: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2690#comic      

What a week, man.

So like most of the rest of the country, I followed the events that played out in Boston this week with great interest. I have both family and friends living in the city and its surroundings, none of whom were directly affected by Monday's tragedy, but were definitely inconvenienced by Friday's lockdown. While I am glad that both of the identified suspects are now accounted for, the hunt for the younger brother that consumed most of the daylight hours yesterday left a very bad taste in my mouth, particularly after I learned that the suspect would not be read his Miranda rights.

I have little sympathy for Dzokhar Tsarnaev, who appears at this point to have been the willing accomplice to his older brother's plans for mass murder. He may not have been the primary instigator, but he went along with it and whatever a court of law finds him guilty of it will be well deserved. However, as the first "terrorist" attack on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001, this offers us the chance to do things correctly when it comes to the legal process and to show to the rest of the world that the blundering and overreach that followed in the wake of 9/11 will not be repeated. Unfortunately, the shutdown of a major American city to apprehend one suspect, and to then state the intention to not read that suspect (who last I heard is still in serious condition), who is a U.S. citizen, the rights he is entitled to as an accused person under the law if and when he recovers tell me that the police state is still alive and well in the supposed land of the free. I hope cooler heads prevail here, and that we eventually do stay true to our principals, but events thus far have not inspired much confidence.

Camp Quest blows up the internet

So the internet (or at least my particular corner of it) has been blowing up since about this time yesterday about an incident involving Camp Quest Oklahoma and a Tulsa area restaurant that agreed to host a fundraiser for them, but then aborted it an hour into the event (it was supposed to go from 4-8 PM) when the owner claimed to have just found out that the camp served children primarily from non-religious families and that most of its volunteers identified as (gasp!) atheists. As many of you know, I have for many years volunteered on the board of Camp Quest of Minnesota as well as the national organization Camp Quest Inc., so this has really touched a nerve with me. To see a fellow camp franchise treated in such a poor fashion is incensing and serves as a reminder of exactly why I devote so much of my free time to the Camp Quest movement. I am not sure what was going through the restaurant owner's head when he decided to pull the plug on the event (and as always in a controversial situation like this there are conflicting reports of what exactly was said to the CQ OK organizers), but apparently he claims that he had no idea of what Camp Quest was really all about until he saw the flyers that patrons were bringing in to take part in the fundraiser. Flyers that he (or his staff) had approved weeks before the night of the event. And of course the owner has gone on the record saying that he was motivated to abort the fundraiser by his "Christian philosophy".

Appropriately this owner is now neck deep in a PR shitstorm of his own making because, as anyone who has been paying any attention at all to recent history knows, that is what now happens when you openly engage in anti-atheist discrimination. If he had called the CQ OK folks the day before the fundraiser, or even a couple of hours before it started to tell them he had issues with letting a bunch of paying customers who also happened to not believe in any god through his doors, that would have been defensible (but just barely). The true cravenness here is squashing the event after it had already begun, when some people had already come to the restaurant, had eaten and paid for their meals with the expectation that 10% would go to CQ OK, and had left; and people who had already invested time and energy to attend the fundraiser were arriving and had to be told it was not happening. Now I am not sure how good the food is at Oklahoma Joe's BBQ in Broken Arrow (note that there are other restaurants in other cities that have the same name, but are NOT affiliated with this one), but I imagine most of those planning to attend had scheduled their evening around the fundraiser and were at least expecting a decent meal as part of the bargain. So not only has this guy shortchanged needy kids (the money raised was to help fund scholarships for campers), but he has screwed up a bunch of people's dinner plans and proven himself to be a lousy businessman in the process. He deserves everything that is coming to him.

Finally, while it pains me that the CQ OK folks had to go through this, and I and other volunteers try our best to keep Camp Quest as a whole away from the front lines of the culture wars (camp is nothing if not a safe haven for kids from just this type of assholery, many of whom have to endure some version of it on a daily basis), there is at least the silver lining that because of the publicity this is generating, CQ OK is going to take in a massive amount of money (including a $5000 matching grant from the Stiefel Foundation) that will dwarf what the proceeds from the original fundraiser would have been had it not been marred by this act of idiocy.      

Camp Quest on Geeks Without God!

So if any of you have read my contribution to the Atheist Voices of Minnesota anthology published earlier this year (makes a great holiday gift, by the way!) you know what a great influence volunteering for Camp Quest of Minnesota has had on my life. Recently I sat down with fellow contributor Tim Wick and his co-hosts at the Geeks Without God podcast to talk with them about camp and kick off their holiday fund drive. Listen to the episode (be advised, that while all the subject matter is clean, the hosts do use some colorful language) then help the crew meet their goal to raise $500 by the end of the year. This will be enough to provide one scholarship at current rates. You will also learn a few interesting things about me as I answer the hosts' standard Five Questions. Geeks Without God is also part of a new Twin Cities collective called Fearless Comedy Productions. They are having a launch party early next year, so you should go and "like" them on Facebook or something to keep up with all the latest happenings.

And seriously folks, go donate. You'll be glad you did. I know I was.

The Great Space Gospel, A Meditation for Carl Sagan Day

As many of you know, especially if you were a reader around this time last year, today is the birthday of Carl Sagan, one of the most influential and well-known scientists of the 20th century. He would have been 78, but, as one more piece of evidence that we live in an undirected, uncaring Universe he succumbed to a rare blood disease in late 1996 at the relatively young age of 62. You can read last year's entry to learn more about the influence he had on me as a boy and teenager as I struggled to figure out the world. During the ages of about 10-16, I was engaged in a long process of questioning and research, and one of the results of this was a gradual letting go of the religious beliefs that my parents and others had tried to instill in me. It was also during this time, largely due to the influence of Sagan's writings as well as how he engaged with the world, that I adopted an outlook on the Universe that I have since come to call the Cosmic Perspective. Here, as a little refresher, are the six tenets:

1. The Universe is incomprehensibly huge.
2. Humanity occupies no privileged place within it.
3. Our existence is the result of a convergence between a number of random processes, one that may or may not have occurred elsewhere.*
4. The continuance of that existence is not guaranteed.
5. The development and settlement of outer space and other worlds is the best strategy for continued existence.
6. All else being equal, existence is preferable to non-existence.

*Of course one of the processes we owe our existence to is evolution, which contains the decidedly non-random feature of natural selection. But since natural selection only acts on what random mutation produces in the context of environmental variation, one cannot ascribe any purpose or goal to it, which to me preserves the random element.

All of these conclusions are pretty easy to arrive at after even the most rudimentary dabbling in astrophysics, biology, and geology; and once you finally grasp the reality that there is no supreme being holding the reins (or at least not any that is evident) any barriers to accepting and incorporating them into your worldview swiftly crumble. At least they did in my experience. But once you have fully integrated these conclusions, what comes next? Last year I expounded somewhat on each of the six tenets, and to me the answer to what one does with this information is that you become an advocate for bringing about the goal presented in #5. That, my friends, bring us to the Great Space Gospel.

Over the years since I began living openly as an atheist, many religious people have asked me how I have dealt with what they perceive to be this sort of existential dread they think should come with accepting the reality that there is no afterlife to look forward to and that death is the final end of your tenure as a sentient being. Sometimes they phrase it as "How can you still get up in the morning when you think that this (emphasis mine) is all there is?" Well, see #1. The brute fact expressed there is that, even when just talking about normal matter (which to the best of our knowledge only makes up about 5% of it), there is actually quite a lot of this. So much this that it is nigh impossible to really wrap our heads around it. Thus I find there is more than enough of this to satisfy even my own outsize curiosity about it. I also know that I am part of this, and even though my consciousness will be around for barely a blip in the life of the Universe, due to the conservation laws everything that has, is, and will be part of me will never be completely destroyed, which is an immortality of sorts. And if I happen to do something that gets remembered by consciousness that comes after me, then so much the better. It is true that the comings and goings of my daily life are completely confined to the relatively narrow sphere that is the surface of the Earth, but just knowing that there is so much more beyond and that there is the strong possibility that at some point humanity will step out into it fills me with a great deal of hope, even if I may never get the opportunity myself.

Against all of this, religion doesn't really stand a chance with me, because the people who ask me variations on that question always assume that I am operating under the same limited scope that they are, and which prompts them to ask it in the first place. Their perspectives are small, and therefore their gods are too. The vastness of the Universe was not revealed to us by any religion, and as such no religion that I know of has truly absorbed that reality and adjusted its teachings accordingly. Some people may talk about how big and unknowable their god is, but they betray their arrogance and selfishness when they talk about having a personal relationship with it. Sure, I love the Universe, and want to understand more about it, but I don't expect it to be my therapist.

One of my favorite quotes of Sagan's is "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." (The Demon Haunted World, pg. 12) To me this sums up why religion as it is now no longer appeals to me. Its petty concerns are as nothing when compared to the grandeur of the Universe, and they have to this point been only distractions from what needs to be humanity's overarching goal: getting off this damn planet. Now, I have nothing against Earth, and actually happen to like it quite a bit, but everything indicates that its days as a suitable environment for our species (and most of the other ones, frankly) are numbered. Even if we suddenly become the most responsible ecosystem managers tomorrow, gradually increasing Solar output will have Earth looking like Venus outside of a billion years or so, and that's if something else doesn't finish it off first. And when you realize that humanity as a species is a lot more fragile than the Earth as a whole, the need to spread ourselves around becomes even more urgent. Yet religion's priorities appear to be a) what's going on in your bedroom, b) headgear, and c) some stuff about maybe treating your neighbor like a human being, but only if they conform to arbitrary and often contradictory rules in some collection or other of ancient writings. None of these actually contribute to us leaving orbit, and in many instances religions hinder it, first by not recognizing the need exists, and second by actively working to inhibit the research and development necessary to accomplish the goal. And that is a shame, really, especially when you consider that if the evangelistic ones were really serious about it (evangelism, that is), they'd be the ones most chomping at the bit to leave, because who knows how many trillions or quadrillions of other intelligent beings are out there in need of salvation?

Religion may have the Gospels, but I have the Great Space Gospel, and it wins hands down in providing true hope and freedom for humanity, not to mention it being based on actual evidence. That is why I do not despair, that is why I get up in the morning (assuming a crying child doesn't do it first), and that is why I spread the word. Now I'm going to go stream me some Cosmos.

Peace.

Election post-mortem

I admit I am still basking in the glow of this Tuesday's election results. After several months of vitriol, hate-mongering, and a near constant stream of statements from Republican candidates that made me seriously question what century they were in, the American electorate for the most part rejected their desperate attempts to sow fear and division. And that makes me feel pretty darned good, especially with how things turned out in Minnesota. Continuing our tradition of having among the best voter turnout in the nation (something like 75%, meaning there is still plenty of room for improvement) we soundly rejected both the badly written Voter ID amendment and the spiteful Marriage Amendment, and threw out the Republican bums in the state House and Senate that wasted our time and money by putting them on the ballot in the first place.While true marriage equality will still require legislative action to change existing law, with the DFL controlling both chambers and the governor's office the hurdles to this are now much lower than they might otherwise have been. Indeed by putting the Marriage Amendment on the ballot the Republicans not only badly hobbled their own electoral chances, they may hasten the exact thing they were (in theory) trying to prevent. The irony is quite delicious. And while I am pretty sure Minnesota will not turn into a progressive paradise overnight, the next two years present a golden opportunity to put the state's fiscal policy back on sound footing and make badly overdue investments in infrastructure and education.

Nationally, there were also many great strides made. Obama will get the chance to fully implement many of the reforms he set in motion, as well as potentially pick a couple more Supreme Court justices. The GOP Rape Brigade was sent home with their tails between their legs in a trouncing that will hopefully make sure attacks on reproductive freedom are never again a winning proposition. The Senate will be getting a true financial cop on the beat in Elizabeth Warren, where she can use her bully pulpit to make Wall Street play by the rules and ensure that the fraudsters get iron handcuffs instead of golden parachutes. And while the House remains in GOP control, which given the advantages of incumbency and the relative safety of gerrymandered districts was not surprising, they now have fewer Senate allies and will face an emboldened president who knows he no longer has to take their shit.

Most important of all though, is that the writing is now clearly on the wall for the White, conservative, fundamentalist brand of politics that has dominated the Republican party for the past decade. Race-baiting, fact-denying, rights-restricting, and inequality-exacerbating are no longer going to win them statewide (except in the old Confederacy) or presidential races, so in order to remain relevant the GOP will need to, in classic Darwinian fashion, adapt or die out.

I have seen a fair number of election cycles, some of which have left me satisfied and others dejected, but this is the first time I am coming out of one with true elation. Politics, they say, is the art of the possible, but after Tuesday's results those possibilities have become much more hopeful, and make me proud to be both an American and a Minnesotan.   

Something for "small government" conservatives to ponder

So as Frankenstorm Sandy pounds the east coast I am once again facepalming as our nation continues to bury its head in the sand regarding climate change. Some people may explain this as a "freak occurence", but I've seen way too many freak occurences in the past decade to accept these things as just black swans. Pretty much every rigorous climate model predicts that the warming we are causing will lead to severer and more frequent storms, more instances of extreme weather (like this summer's drought, for instance), melting of sea ice and glaciers, and eventually large changes in ecosystems and species distribution. While the last of these items has not had enough time to get underway, everything else we are seeing today. Not 20 years from now. Not 10 years from now. Today. Storms like Sandy are no longer outliers from the general pattern, they are the new normal, and anyone who says different has a financial interest in making sure our practices do not change.

The one thing that continues to puzzle me, however, is the relative lack of silence from those who have a financial interest in actually addressing climate change, namely insurance companies. Their risk models are being thrown all out of whack, they are paying both a higher volume of claims and greater dollar amounts on them (or else paying more lawyers to fight them in court and underwriters to create ever more bare-bones policies), and while premiums are going up, especially in high risk areas, there is a practical ceiling to that beyond which people will be priced out of the market. Last I checked, the business model for most types of insurance was based on a large amount of people paying affordable premiums so that they could make the occasional claim when necessary, and that only a few people would be making claims at any one time. Charging higher premiums to compensate for increased chances of risk is a reasonable short-term decision, but taking in ever-higher premiums from ever-fewer customers, while at the same time reducing what sorts of events and damages those premiums cover is a death spiral for that model. This leaves ever-greater numbers of people who will either need to foot the bill themselves to rebuild their lives when disaster strikes (something few will be able to do), and eventually the government will need to step in to provide insurance (as it already does in the case of floods) and associated relief programs since the private market will no longer be able to. Will big insurance finally wake up and grow a spine to take on the fossil fuel industry? I hope so, since if not they will be shooting themselves in the foot.

In one sense I love the irony: people who believe the government should be smaller and vote for candidates who have similar goals, but who will because of that belief will not enact any meaningful checks on the forces that cause climate change, actually will end up causing government to be larger in order to deal with the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, as with pretty much every tenet of conservative ideology, it is the masses that get screwed. 

Reminder: Reading tomorrow

Just a quick reminder to you all that tomorrow evening at 7:00 PM I will be appearing with five of my fellow contributors to Atheist Voices of Minnesota at the Barnes & Noble in the Har Mar mall in Roseville. We will each be reading excerpts from our essays and participating in a panel discussion about the book. There will also be time for questions from the audience, and an afterparty at the Chianti Grill, which is a short walk across the parking lot. The other authors on the panel will be August Berkshire, Kori Hennessy, Robin Raiainiemi, Tim Wick, and Stephanie Zvan. Fellow author Eric Jayne will be moderating and there may be a few more in the audience. This is the perfect chance to meet and talk with several people featured in this wonderful book, and, let's face it, what else do you have to do on a Wednesday night? Hope to see you there!

Space Week 2012: On Hiatus

55 years ago today, the Space Age began with the successful launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. Today there are thousands of satellites in orbit, an International Space Station, rovers on Mars, robotic probes in orbit around Mars and Saturn, and others on their way to Pluto, Jupiter, Ceres, and the far reaches of the Solar System. 45 years ago next Wednesday, the United Nations Outer Space Treaty went into effect. This agreement helped lay the groundwork for the peaceful use of space and the growing level of cooperation among nations in space related activities. While national rivalries are not going away anytime soon, the theater of space remains non-militarized and powers that cooperate on little else (Russia and the U.S. come to mind) will often work together on space issues. These two events book-end one of my favorite annual celebrations, World Space Week.

Starting in 2000, the second year Space Week was recognized, I started an article series in honor of it which has continued with some modifications every year since. This year, however, I'm going to have to put it on hiatus since there is just too much else going on in my life right now to devote that amount of time to research and writing. The one exception to that will be my meditation on what I call the Cosmic Perspective, which will appear sometime during Space Week proper. But even tough the article series is on hiatus Space Week remains and we can all do fun things to acknowledge and celebrate how space activities effect our lives as well as the great promise space exploration and development holds for the human species.

The official theme this year is Space for Human Safety and Security, and highlights the role that satellites play in emergency response, weather forecasting, law enforcement, and other pursuits where having eyes in orbit helps to protect lives and property. So next time you notice a spy satellite passing overhead, make sure to smile and wave for the cameras; the intelligence analysts huddled in their underground bunkers will appreciate the gesture of goodwill.  

Another something for your calendars

It has been just over a month since Atheist Voices of Minnesota hit the bookshelves, and in that time my 35 fellow authors and I have been pounding the pavement to get the word out about this groundbreaking and eye-opening anthology. A couple of weeks ago nearly half of us were the main event at the Minnesota Atheists' September public meeting, reading excerpts from our essays and signing books for those in attendance. But if you happened to miss that, never fear. In just under two weeks I will again be reading from my piece "The Best Thing I Do All Year" and be part of a panel discussion with five other contributors at the Har Mar Barnes & Noble in Roseville. The event is on Wednesday, Oct. 10th and starts at 7 PM. Since there are only six of us, we will be able to talk more in depth about the experiences that inspired our essays as well as answer questions from the audience, so it will be well worth your while to attend. Click here for more info, and I hope to see you there!

It's not the man (ok, some of it is), it's the ideas.

Like most people, I was thoroughly disgusted by the video leaked earlier this week by Mother Jones which showed Mitt Romney speaking at a private fundraiser and disparaging nearly half of the American population as "dependent on government" and "think they're entitled to food, housing, and health care". Specifically, he referred to the 47% of Americans who did not pay any federal income tax last year. As many have pointed out, this 47% is a pretty diverse group, and most of them, whether they are seniors collecting Social Security payments, disabled veterans who need health care and other support after serving our country with distinction, or working families that are paid such a pittance by their employers that they qualify for the EITC and other credits so they can at least put food on the table, are neither dependent nor entitled and actually exemplify the American work ethic much more than Romney and his silver-spoon contributors.

But for better or worse, much of American domestic political coverage fits into the "horse race" model. It is fed by near-constant polling and focuses mainly on whether or not a candidate is up or down. Movements can be attributed to news events, statements made by candidates, or even just by what stage it is in the campaign, but while many viewers find it exciting or interesting (otherwise they would just switch to something else) it has a huge flaw in that it tends to be very narrowly focused on the personalities of the candidates, with their ideas rarely if ever coming into the picture. As a result, much of the coverage of the video has centered on how badly it hurts Romney's electoral chances, how it showed fatal flaws in his ability to relate to the "average American", and speculation about how he might try to pick up the pieces and mount something resembling a competent campaign. While I certainly love how all this is exposing Romney for what he is, it will likely now also give the GOP a convenient excuse when he loses in a few weeks. Once again they will be able to focus on the fact that they picked a bad candidate to be their standard-bearer, without once asking themselves whether or not that standard is one that even should be borne. And that is a shame, because while Romney certainly is a bad candidate, everything he is saying is pretty much on script with the GOP platform.

If there is one thing I have learned about observing the GOP over the past several years, as it has gone from a respectable political party that intelligent people could support to one that is now dominated by the most extreme partisans and is on the verge of both moral and intellectual bankruptcy, is that introspection does not appear to be its strong point. Whenever something does not go its way, the GOP will always search for explanations outside of itself and its ideas, because even broaching the possibility that those ideas might be wrong is now heresy to the highest degree. More thoughtful conservatives, such as David Frum, who have tried to make the party have this internal discussion now have little influence among the faithful, even if they appear respectable to the rest of the world, and those faithful continue to remain in their evidence-proof echo chamber. Will another electoral defeat jolt some sense into the few GOP-ers who have some, and lead them to the conclusion that maybe it isn't bad candidates or non-existent voter fraud that makes them lose, but the fact that their policy ideas from 12 years ago were disastrous when actually implemented and they haven't offered anything substantial since? Maybe, but I'm not counting on it. In fact, the GOP pushing themselves further into irrelevancy is probably just what this country needs. 

Shameless plug

So you all remember the new book right? Well if you are interested in seeing some of the fabulous contributors to it (myself included), or getting any of your hard copies signed, please attend the Minnesota Atheists monthly membership meeting on Sunday, Sept. 16th at the Southdale library in Edina. I and 15 of my fellow authors will be reading short excerpts from our essays and answering questions about our experiences. Naturally, you will also be able to purchase copies of the book, with all profits going to support Minnesota Atheists. We are anticipating a packed house, so arrive early to get a good seat.

Book Review: Atheist Voices of Minnesota

Nearly a year after I initially submitted my essay, the book Atheist Voices of Minnesota will finally appear on store shelves nationwide. The electronic version is already available in various formats, so if you prefer that medium you can follow the link above, but for those of you who prefer a physical object you can show off to all your friends or have signed by one or more of the authors, the long wait will be over on Tuesday*. A few weeks ago I attended a special gathering for everyone who had contributed an essay or helped in some other aspect of the book's production, and there picked up a few copies for my own use. Though I knew some of the other authors, up until that point I had not read any of the other essays that appear in the book. But now that I've had the chance to absorb the entire collection I imagine you'll be wanting my take on it all, even though as an author I can hardly be considered unbiased.

The first thing you should know is that this is not a parade of arguments about why it is highly unlikely that any of the various divine beings thought up by humans over the past few thousand years actually exist. Nor will you find arguments about why the many forms of organized religions are harmful to individuals and society. There are plenty of great books that already do that, such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great. So if you want to bolster your atheist convictions I highly recommend you read those. The purpose behind Atheist Voices of Minnesota is altogether different and is twofold: First, it aims to showcase the wide variety of atheist perspectives and how they inform the way each individual atheist lives his or her life, and second, that amidst this diversity there are many common struggles that atheists often face, most of which stem from having to live in a larger society where the great majority is either ignorant of your views or actively hostile toward them, and where the default assumption is that a person is religious.

The book fulfills this purpose remarkably well, and while I must admit that not all of the essays are Pulitzer-worthy explorations of the human condition, many of them (including mine, I hope) will stick with you long after you read them and contain moving accounts of dealing with life's big questions and issues. Birth, death, gender identity, substance abuse, parenting, work, family conflict, diet, marriage, culture shock, and childhood trauma are all covered in one or more of the essays. Many of them also contain some kind of coming out story (there is a whole section devoted to this) or a narrative of how the author came to embrace the atheist perspective. In reading them you will find honesty, humor, frustration, joy, confusion, sadness, determination, and wonder, but one thing you will not find is despair.

If this book does anything, it is to convincingly dispel the myth perpetuated by many of the religious that atheists live without hope and are morally bankrupt. While none of us featured in the book could be called complete paragons of virtue, all of us are trying as best we can to live decent, ethical lives, and consider courses of action based on how they will potentially affect other people and the environment, not on whether they conform to arbitrary standards from a book written long ago by people with no knowledge of modern life. And while we have all experienced pain and grief and anguish, we continue to have hope for the future and each in our own way work toward making this world a better place for ourselves and those who follow us.

So if you are an atheist, you need to read this book to hear the stories of your fellow atheists in their own words and know that it is possible to have a happy, meaningful, openly atheist life, even if it is in a society that often expresses contempt at the fact of your very existence. And if you are a religious person, you need to read this book to confirm whether or not all of those things you have heard about atheists from your clergy and fellow believers actually hold water. But whatever your stance in life, you will come away from Atheist Voices of Minnesota with a better understanding of who atheists really are and the convictions that shape our lives, and realize that if we pose a threat to anyone's beliefs, it is only because those beliefs pose a bigger threat to us and to society and thus need to be challenged.

This book was not created to change minds (although if it does, more power to you), but to show the rest of the world that atheists are not just isolated individuals hurling rhetorical fireballs at religion from their perches in the ivory tower, liberal media, Hollywood studio, or other supposed bastion of secularism. We are in your community, working jobs across all fields, on every rung of the social and economic ladder. We celebrate, grieve, question, laugh, suffer, love, and live. We are your neighbors, classmates, co-workers, sisters, brothers, spouses, and (though you may not know it) friends. We are here, we are sincere, get used it.

 *All of the profits from sales of the book are being donated to Minnesota Atheists, a 501(c)3 organization, and none of the authors are receiving any financial benefit from appearing in it.

The Shadow of the Past

Today is the 150th anniversary of the start of the conflict now known as the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. While there was certainly involvement by federal troops and officials, the conflict was fought almost entirely within the borders of the four-year-old state of Minnesota, and most of the combatants on either side had lived there for at least a few years. In one sense, the conflict was simply among the more bloody episodes in a systematic, decades-long campaign of forced relocation, material and cultural deprivation, and at times outright genocide perpetrated by the United States against the American continent's first settlers. But it was also unique in many ways, most memorably in the number of civilians, of both native and European heritage, who were killed, and it's scars remain among their descendants to this day. In its aftermath, the city of Mankato witnessed what is still the largest mass execution ever conducted on U.S. soil, where 38 Dakota men were hanged for their roles in the conflict, and in the years afterward the tribe was driven almost entirely from Minnesota.

My own ancestors did not arrive in the state for another generation, but they benefited from the conflict because, at least on my mother's side, they were able to farm land that had once been Dakota. And in a larger sense anyone who is a citizen of the United States has also benefited because the territory we occupy and the resources we use came at the expense of the prior inhabitants who were killed or driven out. Of course those prior inhabitants were no saints, often fought among themselves before and after the Europeans arrived, and were not so great stewards of the environment as modern myth would have us believe, but their suffering was (and in many places still is) real, and their anger is just.

While the atrocities of the conflict cannot be undone, they should be remembered and recounted in a way that makes sure everyone's story is told and that recognizes that the actions of the Dakota were a response to years of ill treatment by the federal government and the territorial and state governments of Minnesota. So wherever you are this weekend, take some time out to reflect that while our country was founded on some noble ideas, it was also created through a whole lot of theft and murder.

A proclamation from Governor Dayton on the anniversary: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=102-46359

A PBS documentary on the conflict (which was really my first exposure to it when it aired nearly 20years ago): The Dakota Conflict

Coincidence on an anniversary

Later today I will be going to a nice little soiree for the authors of the essays featured in the soon to be released book Atheist Voices of Minnesota (you've already pre-ordered your copy, right?). I am looking forward to meeting the other contributors to this greatly anticipated anthology and to reading the other essays. It is an interesting coincidence that this event occurs today, since I consider August 4th to be the anniversary of my own deconversion, way back in 1994. While, as my piece in the book describes, my leaving Christianity was more of a gradual disassociation as I discovered more and more about it that I could no longer square with my growing understanding of both science and ethics, as opposed to a clean and sudden break, I recognize today because it was when I realized that not only was Christianity not for me, but that all religions, as products of historical contingency and purely sociological forces rather than having any grounding in physical reality, suffered from its same flaws.

Though the book will officially be available in stores on August 28th, you can buy a copy early next weekend at the Regional Atheist Conference in "Mr. Paul". And if any tickets are left, come with us to the 'Aints game this coming Friday.

Five years ago today...

I was riding the light rail to my then girlfriend (now wife) Katie's apartment after work and saw a long line of emergency vehicles near the Metrodome. When I arrived there the news that the 35W bridge over the Mississippi had collapsed was already on every media outlet and I sat dumbstruck that such a horrific event could happen so close to where I lived. At the time it seemed to be a metaphor for everything that going wrong at both the state and national level, as GOP politicians twiddled their thumbs while the country was literally crumbling. I hope then that it would be the wake-up call the public needed to finally remember that investment in infrastructure is essential to maintain a well-functioning economy, but so far the level of commitment necessary to make any meaningful dent in the number of bridges and miles of roads in desperate need of repair or replacement has not yet materialized. Some folks get it, and there has been no lack of effort to create and pass the legislation to authorize funding for all of the projects that are waiting to be done, but unfortunately we are still being held hostage by that small slice of people who will do anything to avoid having to pay their fair share of the upkeep for this project we call civilization, but nonetheless continue to profit massively off of a system that they have rigged in their favor.

In Minnesota I am hopeful that the current electoral cycle will bring in a crop of legislators who understand that the provision of infrastructure is one of government's primary responsibilities and will raise the revenue necessary to make it happen. Nationally, I am not so sure, which is a shame because last I checked interest rates remain at historic lows, so it is the perfect time to finance projects that will reap benefits for a generation. Not only would the economy suffer less loss from delays and inefficiencies in the transport of goods and people, but all of the people hired to work on the projects would have some money to spend for a change, and that can't be bad for the economy, can it? At this point anyone with an R in front of their name has their fingers in their ears to prevent any such heresy from penetrating their thick skulls since, as Upton Sinclair once said, it is difficult to get somebody to believe something when their paycheck (in this case, campaign contributions from the .01%) depends on them not believing it. Just one more reason why in the short term we need to use the system that exists to remove the people blocking meaningful action by their kowtowing to the wealthy few, and then reform that system to ensure that the paralysis that is currently its defining characteristic never plagues us again.

I didn't know anyone who was injured or killed in the collapse, and that number was thankfully much lower than it could have been. But we owe it to them to make sure we don't have any bridges that fall down again.