Presidential Predictions

Doug:
Here we are in November of 2015, and the GOP Presidential race is still a full field. Only Scott Walker and Rick Perry have officially dropped out. Who do you think is next to abandon ship? Who do you think will win the nomination?

David:
They are all apparently banking on the "Santorum Strategy" from the last election. It was an even more crowded field at that time, but Rick Santorum, who was barely on the map, hung on to win in the early primary states and gain momentum to outlast some of the others. Unfortunately for most of the candidates, too many are focused only on Iowa or only on New Hampshire. We may see everyone who is still competing stay until the first 2 primaries / caucuses, and then there will be a huge massacre of campaign deaths.

Doug:
Santorum had a strategy? Who knew! My prediction is that Trump and Carson will eliminate each other in a fiery ball of flames. Well, maybe not fire, but, even though they have positions #1 and #2, I don't see that they can last. Neither has any political experience, and it shows. They seem to have similar messages, only that Trump yells it, and Carson says it softly with his eyes shut. I think they are both in it for the book sales, and other future money-making deals.

After those two (Trump and Carson) have been neutralized, then we'll see a rise of candidates with at least some experience, including Bush, Rubio, and Paul (if he survives). My bet is on Rubio or Bush to make it out of the GOP primaries as the candidate for the GOP.

David:
I'm surprised Trump has lasted this long. When he talks in interviews, he certainly resonates with the ideals of a great many folks, but as we saw in the last debate (which was light on rhetoric, and heavy on specifics), he stumbles and seems to have many inconsistencies.

From my experiences in politics, there is something to be said for a good politician. That may seem to be an oxymoron, but it's true.

Doug:
In what world is it good to have a politician that is bad at their job? No, we all want good politicians.

David:
Not true. Look at the polls. A sizeable number of Americans are looking for a president who has no political experience at all. "Politician" has become a bad word, and not without some reason.

Doug:
I think I see the problem: Democrats define "politician" as someone who runs for office, sometimes wins, and then works in government to serve the people. Republicans ("a sizeable number of Americans")  define "politician" as someone who has no experience being a politician, but now wants the job. After they get the job, they are a politician---unless they don't do anything. Then they are a great politician.

David:
Right....Democrats are wise and good. Republicans are stupid and bad. Nice. You must be paying close attention to President Obama's speeches, because that's exactly what he says. I can't believe that folks would want someone who doesn't promise more of the same. Interestingly, polls among Democrats show some support for Trump as well, for specific issues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-donald-trump-makes-sense-to-a-lot-of-voters--even-some-democrats/2015/08/15/cee648f0-42bf-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

Finding a way to get someone who disagrees with you to come along on a legislative bill takes skill and persuasion, and some wheeling and dealing. Trump might actually be good at this, but it is really all he offers. But it is something, and may break the gridlock of Washington. But, since I believe smaller government is best, gridlock isn't always a bad thing...

Doug:
If you want a smaller government, nominate someone who runs on making government smaller, not someone who makes a gridlock. Wheeling and dealing is not enough to be President. You have to have good ideas, and be a leader.

David:
The biggest problem I have with Trump, is he's spent decades building his "brand". I think he believes that "what's good for Trump, is good for America". With that in mind, I see him acting in a way that will not damage his prospects for Trump, incorporated, in the future. That is likely not what is best for America. It could be dangerous.

Doug:
Amen, brother! I've been waiting to say that.

David:
Many of the other candidates have differing views on tax reforms, immigration reforms, and foreign policy, but even if one's views are right, if you can't get the other side to join you, at least partly, your efforts will fail. Several of the candidates appear to have the ability to work the politics to get results. Others are just a bit too polarized to do that easily.

Doug:
So, let's hear some predictions! Jindal just announced that he is dropping out, so don't put your money there.

David:
I have to agree with your analysis. Bush has money, and in politics, money is everything. You need cash to run commercials and send out mailers, and the Bush camp has an extensive machine, much like the Clintons. But, he's a terrible candidate. He has the Bush name, which works against him, and he's about as appealing as warm lemonade on a hot day. It's OK, but not what you really want. And I think he matches up poorly with Hillary. In a Bush vs. Clinton matchup, it becomes a dynasty cage match, and the Bush name (and the fact he isn't a woman) does him in. But I expect him to be around for the long haul.

Paul is right about a lot of issues, but doesn't present his argument well. He has not really been able to grasp the mantle from his father. The last debate allowed him to highlight some positions, but I don't think he'll win any primary states, and will fade shortly after the first few voting states.

Huckabee and Cruz may surprise you in the Iowa Caucuses and even New Hampshire. Cruz has some staying power, and every debate provides the former college debate champion  some more room to shine. Huckabee is likely  a one-win-and-out campaign.

Doug:
I wouldn't be surprised at that, and would probably predict the same. Santorum did very well last time around in those crazy, never-pick-a-president states.

David:
Rubio is where I'd put my chips right now. He's well spoken, and presents a clear break from the past (Clinton or Sanders) and has consistently made his message about the future. There are many who would just like to vote for the first woman (Clinton), but would also vote for the first Hispanic president. He has a mastery of foreign policy to neutralize Hillary's experience. I'd be happier if he said he'd cut the size of Government. Maybe he can tag-team with Fiorina as his VP pick. She knows how to cut waste.

Doug:
My prediction: you aren't going to ever hear about Carly Fiorina again after these debates. She is worse than Sarah Palin as a candidate.

David:
But let's hear about the Democrats. Hillary is clearly the nominee, unless something like an FBI indictment ruins the day! Or, would you predict that most voters would just look the other way and vote for her anyway?

Doug:
Well, you have Clinton explained-away: either she loses, or people have to vote for her because ... they have no choice? Actually, contrary to your talking points, a lot of people like Clinton's views. She doesn't have the charisma her husband has, but she is thoughtful, has experience, and can win. Sanders has forced her to be a bit more Progressive. That was his role.

I predict Clinton will win the nomination.

David:
Well, this certainly is awkward. We seem to be in complete agreement through this blog. Yikes! We need to disagree about something, don't we?

Oh, wait. You probably predict Hillary will be our next president, right? Ha!

Doug:
I don't know. I think it will be Clinton, if the Republican nominee isn't someone at least somewhat palatable to the left. If I were a praying man, I'd ask god to please support Trump. Or bring back Walker or Jindal. Or support Cruz. Or Carson! Maybe I don't need to pray; maybe the Republicans can make Clinton our next President all by themselves.

David:
If you're a statistics guy, a Republican will be the next president. However, the presidential race may influence the senate seats that are up for re-election, so we could still end up with a divided government.

This primary season is unlike anything we've seen in a long time, if ever. And on that, I think we both agree.

All of this agreement. Good grief! Maybe the holiday season is mellowing us a bit...

Happy Thanksgiving!

Campus Protests

David:
The recent events at the University of Missouri illustrate a disturbing trend.

A student mob successfully ousted a university president not for something he did wrong, but because they didn't think he did enough right.

Doug:
Gosh, those students are really powerful when they stand together and protest. They could really change the world! That does sound like a disturbing trend. Wait, why is that a disturbing trend? Or maybe this is really about race and you don't want to say it?

David:
It is racial, according to the organizers. But what exactly is the grievance? You know, ISIS is a group standing together to change the world. So fighting for something as a group or mob is not always a good thing, eh?

Doug:
I see: for you, it depends on what the message is. Then you can decide if you support a group's right to protest and affect change. If you don't agree with the message, then these protestors are like ISIS. If you do agree with the message, then they must be Freedom Fighters.

David:
You're wrong about that. Protesting is the American way. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The Sons of Liberty? But these students are protesting just to protest. They wanted the figurative heads of the president and the chancellor, and they got that. And yet they are still protesting, but can't really tell you what the new goals are. It reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street protests: Many people who were upset, but each one of them seemed to have a different grievance. Shanty towns full of complainers without direction or goals doesn't make for a movement.

Doug:
In a democracy, we hope that all disagreements are made via standing together and protesting. So, you can't really be against protesting. I'm still trying to figure out why you think that this is a disturbing trend? If you don't know what the grievance is, then how can you judge their position?

David:
Protestors without stated goals, or students who are still protesting after their stated goals are met are just an unruly crowd. They are no longer protestors.

Doug:
So the disturbing trend is: protesters protest, they get what they want, and they continue to meet. Well, that is a first-world disturbing trend!

David:
And at Yale, professors are under attack for standing up for freedom of ideas, even if you disagree with those ideas. Now, if someone says something you disagree with, you are to call the campus police!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426853/yale-student-protest-safe-space-political-correctness

Doug:
If you want to find out what is going on at Yale, you probably do not want to start with an opinion piece in the National Review by Jonah Goldberg. Even in that biased perspective, I didn't see anything about calling the police on people you disagree with. You just made that up. Here is a perspective in their own words:

https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6

David:

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/11/11/aclu-missouri-needs-to-protect-students-free-speech-rights

When the ACLU says you've gone to far, well, for a Democrat that must be a particularly savage slap-down.

Doug:
It is funny that you see the ACLU as a left-leaning organization. They are lawyers that protect Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties are those freedoms that we all should value. The ACLU is pointing out to the Missouri students that you should not stifle the discussion. If that is considered a "savage slap-down" then your analogies are very different from mine.

David:
The ACLU has chosen liberal issue to focus their major efforts, and they do it in a way that is unfair. Rather than sue the New York Public School system (or other large district flush with cash) over the use of the words "Christmas Vacation" on the school calendar, they sue small, rural school systems that have no resources and have to buckle because they cannot afford to mount any opposition. You don't see that, because the ACLU fights for things you already believe should be mandated.

Doug:
New rule: how about I argue my points, and you argue yours. I'll say what I believe in. You can imagine all you want. But, you don't like the ACLU because they don't fight fair? Recall that we are talking about the ACLU here because you agree with them (e.g., slapping down those dirty hippies).

David:
Sometimes the Left violates the constitution in such an egregious way, that even the ACLU has to finally step in and warn them...

It seems we are raising a new batch of young people who have the idea brainwashed into their little fragile heads that anything that makes them uncomfortable (or that they don't want to listen to) should be shouted down and attacked. Their poor psyches can't handle the stress of debate.

Doug:
You are talking about like GOP Presidential hopefuls, right? They wanted to change the way that Republican debates are held, so they protested. And they stood by their principles until the NRC relented.... oh, no they didn't. They caved because they couldn't agree on a set of demands.

David:
No. Everyone agrees that the moderators acted with discourtesy at the event, and their questions were biased and rude.

Doug:
No, not "everyone" agrees that the moderators acted with "discourtesy." That is a Republican talking point to try to make everyone believe that any questions are hostile and that the media is biased. In fact, everyone secretly believes that the GOP candidates are babies and can't handle Fox news moderators, let alone ISIS, or France for that matter.

David:
Perhaps you should read more than the Huffington Post.

Doug:
I read a lot things, but not the Huffington Post. But knowledge is not the enemy. You should read things you don't agree with, and that is not a weakness.

David:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/10/29/cnbc-moderators-ruined-the-gop-debate

The backlash was so overwhelming, that no changes need to be made. Future moderators know they will be held accountable for bad behavior. The problem resolved itself.

Doug:
Great! Then next debate should be on MSNBC! Or Fox for that matter. Let Megyn Kelly have another go. That evil Liberal Media!

David:
But at Missouri, the president and the chancellor both resigned and have been replaced. So, just what are the set of demands now? You said that the issues are all about race.

Doug:
Actually, I asked you if this was about race. See above. Why do they have to have additional demands? Didn't they get what they want?

David:
Yes, and yet they are still protesting. About what?

Doug:
I don't think that a single person stepping down can change anything overnight.

David:
But they still haven't clarified what it is they are protesting for now.

The organizer of the "Million Student March" says the issues are "free education, complete forgiveness of debts, and $15 per hour wages for college employees". No mention of anything racial, but plenty that sounds like Hillary's talking points. This video puts it all in a nice nutshell (emphasis on "nut"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e50fQLyebI

Doug:
This is a different group, protesting different things.

David:
They are the only student group that has actually identified what they are now protesting about.

Doug:
And you are confused because they don't focus on the same issues that other students do? And what a brave student to go on national TV facing Neil Cavuto on Fox. These sound like brave students questioning the status quo.

David:
Brave and stupid. That's not a good mix.

Doug:
Look, you may not agree with them, but calling students "stupid" is not productive. If you want to change people's minds you have to show them a better answer.

David:
If you are the spokesperson for a national march, that is to include a multitude of others (I think it was actually more like the Thousand Student March), you should have a little bit of ability to express your goals in some type of realistic way. She looked foolish in the interview because she lacked any workable facts. She is ignorant of the world around her, and by her own admission, she just doesn't "believe" what is real.

In some instances, these overly sensitive students are being led in their boorish and offensive behavior by their own college professors.

Doug:
I thought that they were arguing with their college professors. You said that college "professors were under attack."

David:
Both are true. At Yale, the students are attacking professors who believe in free speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtXS8y1S6A

And at Missouri, ironically, it is a journalism professor who is asking the crowd to provide "some muscle" to throw a journalism student out of a public meeting space, clearly violating the First Amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPG43X7SDB8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18

I find these videos disturbing.

Doug:
These are students, and professors, learning many lessons. These are individuals, not trained in Civil Liberties law. I certainly don't agree with squelching any debate, and I agree that we should not letting the debaters control the process. She wasn't a "journalism professor" by the way. She was "affiliated" with the School of Journalism but that relationship is under review. No professor of Journalism would tell a reporter to go away.

David:
This is from MU's own website, and lists her as an Assistant Professor.

https://communication.missouri.edu/faculty/click

Doug:
She is an Assistant Professor, in the school of Communication. She is not a professor in the school of Journalism. These are two very different things, as different as Biology and Chemistry. I am an Associate Professor in Computer Science. I am not qualified to teach in Journalism.

David:
Sorry. I always assumed that journalism was a type of communication.

I don't accept that you have to be a civil liberties lawyer to understand civil liberties. It seems that civil liberties are something that should be discussed at length by college students on campus.

Doug:
I would argue that they are discussing Civil Liberties on on campus. That is exactly what they are doing.

David:
And yet, your defense of their actions is they don't understand civil liberties. Apparently these students and professors believe in free speech only for them, and not for anybody else. The poor student reporter wasn't even taking a side. He's just there to report the events, and ended up assaulted under the direction of the assistant professor (who has since resigned.) What has happened to college campuses? Where did the rigors of thought and debate go?

Doug:
It sounds like these students are flexing their protest muscles. We want to create an active student body yes? We want them to make the world a better place through action?

David:
Promoting violence or aggression to make your point does not make for a better world.

Doug:
Protests are not violent. They are the cure for violence.

David:
Hmmm. Assaulting a student reporter to cure violence. That sounds a lot like a line from the book "1984".  Silencing those that disagree with you, to attain goals that are not defined, doesn't make the world a better place. Sorry you feel that is such a noble cause.

Doug:
Sorry that that is what you understand that the protests are about. Listen to what the students are upset about. Don't get distracted by the process.

David:
I'm listening, but the silence is deafening. I'd like to know what the protests are now about. And if the process is disruptive and angry, without any goals, or even stated issues, then it isn't a protest at all, but just an angry mob.

Hopefully, calmer (and more responsible) heads will prevail. Like Purdue University's Mitch Daniels:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-adult-on-campus-1447287400

Doug:
Daniels does have to walk a tight-rope, between supporting students, Purdue, and his politics. The student-led Statement of Values was exactly this, no more, and no less:

http://www.purdue.edu/president/email/2015/We-Are-Purdue-Statement-of-Values.pdf

This is a cheer. It isn't a "stark contrast" to what is going on at Yale and Missouri. If you think that there couldn't be the same kinds of protests at Purdue, then you don't understand what the students want. This isn't about Daniels' ability to control students; this is about student unrest. The noble cause is that people are willing to stand up for what they believe in. It is democracy in action.

David:
Mitch Daniels isn't controlling students. Purdue has established rules of debate with respect for both sides, and for opposing views to have an equal place at the discussion. The students at Purdue themselves have decided opposing thought will not be silenced.  That is not what is going on at Missouri or Yale. Watch those raw YouTube videos again. Purdue's approach is like this blog: Differing ideas presented in a (mostly) respectful tone. That is democracy in action.

Doug:
Mitch Daniels is controlling the students. You think all Purdue students would be happy with their voice being reduced to that cheer? Sorry, but you don't get to dictate how the opposing side makes their argument. They ain't going to blog; they are going to protest. It will be loud and messy. That is democracy in action.

What Have We Learned About Each Other?

Doug:
So, we have been doing these discussions for a few months now. What have you learned about your brother?

David:
Well, we started this blog to illustrate that there are two sides to every issue, and someone with an opposing view can also have very good reasons for holding that viewpoint. A differing viewpoint does not mean the other person is ignorant or crazy. They're just assembling the information and coming to a differing conclusion.

I do think I see a pattern in your arguments, however. If I were to try to summarize, the underlying theme is: No one is responsible for themselves. We are all subjected to the whims of our environment.

Your beliefs seems to be the African-American community is shooting up and killing the African-American community because of systemic racism in the police community. The abortion rate among African-Americans is so much higher than any other group because of systemic racism in America. African-Americans drop out of school at an alarming rate because they are subjected to systemic racism in the public school system. Women can't prevent themselves from getting pregnant, and must have access to abortion on-demand to solve the problem. The government has to step in to make sure someone who has no education or skills gets a pay raise to support their entire family because, well, they just can't get skills or an education in the public school system. No one has to take responsibility for their own decisions, or the outcome of their decisions, in your view. At least, that's how your arguments have played out so far. The government has to step in to remedy societies ills that are keeping people from reaching their potential, even though most of the barriers that are preventing individual success is brought about by poor decisions made by those individuals.

And what have you learned?

Doug:
I did not think that we started this blog to show two sides to every issue, because there aren't two sides to every issue. Some issues have many sides, and some don't have any sides at all, except for manufactured conflicts. In my mind, I am working with you to explore these "different ways of seeing," and trying to find out how we could be simultaneously so much alike, and yet so very different. How did this happen?

I also did not think that we would change anyone's mind. If people read this stuff, and think: "oh, that one brother (or the other) is not completely crazy" ... then great! But we haven't heard from anyone along such lines. People don't seem to change their minds very often these days. Perhaps it is seen as a sign of weakness?

I have learned quite a lot about you that I didn't know before. Here are some, in no particular order:

1. You are very passionate. Many of your positions are not just talking points. Rather you believe them deep in your heart. You get as angry as I do when you discuss such issues.

2. You have a deep-seated mistrust of "science." I put science in quotes because it seems like your idea of how science works (the process) is different from my experience. For example, you have mentioned that you believe that money drives science. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. For me, science is the ultimate democratic process... over time, most biases can be identified and contained. Also, the meaning science gives us can be subtle and not useful for politics. Consider this cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/882/

This is a cartoon about understanding "statistical significance." The finding is "green jelly beans are linked to acne." That is a "true fact" as you say. But it isn't true or false... science doesn't use those terms. It is just a data point. Even if the study was paid for by the Green Jelly Bean Coalition for Truth, it is still just a data point. Time (and repeated experiments) will provide a better understanding of reality.

Science is slow and conservative. New ideas are not received with open arms but must prove themselves worthy.

3. You do not put any weight in "systemic explanations." You don't put much stock in the idea that a person's environment can determine their path in life. This is probably the point that surprised me the most about you.

These are perhaps the three biggest things that I have learned about you, but I have learned many little things. Every post I learn more. Not that I can predict which way you will go on a topic... I'm still trying to make sense of you! Perhaps when I can predict you (and you me), then we won't have a need for writing these things.

David:
It would figure that we don't actually agree on why we started the blog.

I'm reminded of my favorite quote from Mark Twain: "There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics." I just got back from a week-long emergency medical conference in Boston. Every lecturer starts his talk with a disclaimer, whether or not he has any financial interests or conflicts with the information he is presenting. At least in the world of medicine, all studies are funded by someone, either a pharmaceutical company, an equipment manufacturer, or possibly even the government. This does not mean the results of the study are wrong, but studies have shown that the funding source can indirectly taint the results. You may subconsciously craft the study in a way that benefits the desired outcome. Some studies are so expensive, or require so many participants to become statistically valid, that they are very difficult to repeat and verify. There are many examples in medicine where we eventually discover that something that has been dogma for years, is wrong.

Doug:
I see that the pharmaceutical science is pretty different from, say, computer science. Or general academic science. There is not very much money at stake in my areas of academia. But even still, time should expose such lies and statistics.

David:
Agreed. However, medical and pharmaceutical studies are highly regulated by the government, which drives the costs of the final product up, but also makes it very difficult to repeat a study for validation. But until something is validated, or has been out in use for awhile,  I choose to remain a bit skeptical.

Another bias is if you are promised additional funding for research if the results benefit the funding entity, like a government grant, there is great pressure to make sure the data fits the paradigm, or to change the study to match the data, so the outcome is positive. Most scientist do not fall into this category, but if everyone in a certain field believes a certain paradigm, like climate change, results that don't fit the narrative are altered to fit, or set aside with the explanation that "we're revising our theory so the data will fit". But the theory doesn't change. Climate change is a great illustration of how "science" can be manipulated to fit larger political ideologies, on both sides of the aisle.

Doug:
Yes, I know that that is what you believe, and that is not how it works. That is what I have learned about you. You easily map "climate science" onto "pharma science." But that doesn't work. Besides, if someone could show that climate science was wrong, that would be big news, and those scientists would become world famous. But, alas, we have changed the planet already in ways that have set into motion a domino effect.

David:
Not at all. You can measure real-time effects with medications, and compare the results to placebos or other medications in a controlled setting. Double-blinded studies, where neither the subject or the person providing the "medication" knows if they are receiving the drug to be studied or not, is the methodology. Climate change, on the other hand, makes predictions based on the theory, and then looks to see if the predictions come true. The world changes, but how much of an effect we have is debatable, and un-testable. In the same way, there is no way to study if changes we make will have any impact on those climate changes.

Doug:
That is not true. There are many ways to study such phenomena, like planet formation, the big bang, etc.

David:
Um, there are no other planets with human activity. And there is no way to run a global study to see what happens if you manipulate certain variables. There is a theory, and predictions. So far, all of the anticipated world-ending predictions have fallen way short of what should have happened according to the theory, or have just been wrong. That's the basis of the disparity with climate change: It can't be proven either way.

Doug:
"Proven" is another word we don't use in science. Things aren't "true" or "false." There are theories and data. Actually, I believe that most climate effects are happening at a faster rate than what was imagined.

David:
"Imagined" is certainly the correct word. Carbon dioxide levels have almost doubled since the earliest predictions developed, and yet the global temperature increased less than a percentage of what was predicted. Scientists then admitted that they didn't understand why that was, but surmised that oceans were somehow buffering the temperature increases, or possibly accumulating the excess carbon dioxide. But they are still certain that this theoretical buffering will soon run out, and we'll be right back on track. Perhaps you should mention to President Obama that nothing is "proven" in science. Maybe he'll quit saying the science is "settled", and anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation of the facts is a "denier".

Your starting paradigm is that we are the lead domino, and no problems with the data will dissuade you.  Hey, sounds like a new blog is heating up!

Doug:
Is there a difference between being a domino and the lead domino?

David:
Certainly. The lead domino is the cause or instigating event. It is the catalyst. The other dominos topple without any control. Once the lead domino falls, physics and gravity do the rest. The climate changes. The ecosystem adjusts. We don't control it. We are not the lead domino.

Doug:
We certainly transformed the planet, in many ways. But you are right: it is out of our control.

David:
And I do get lots of personal comments from folks who find the discussions very interesting. I know plenty of people who find they lean in your direction on some topics, or towards me on others. Some have even said they think we're both right.....and both wrong. So I do think we may be serving a role in making some ideas more concrete, or phrasing ideas in a different way for some folks.

Doug:
Why don't those people say something here, or in Facebook? Perhaps we do serve a role, but that is not my goal.

David:
So, your goal is just to argue with me? Not to benefit society? Perhaps someone should comment on that.  ( Hint, hint...)

Doug:
I'm largely doing this for my own benefit. I'm a scientist trying to understand myself, and the world.

David:
It might be interesting to ask the question, when did our points of view begin to differ? Sort of a nature versus nurture argument. Oldest child versus middle child? Peer group pressures? Hobbies?

Doug:
I think we headed in different directions in late high school and in college. I think we both found little bubbles in which to safely develop. I found the Indiana Skeptics, and you found the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Two very different groups, but supportive in their own ways. Both of these groups validated deep ideas that we had, and set our frameworks in place for the rest of our lives.

David:
But what drove us to join those very different groups? I sought out FCA in college, because it was a group I belonged to in high school, along with Young Life, and other Christian groups. What led you to the Skeptics?

Doug:
Well, women, for one. But I had questions that were not being satisfactorily answered with "God did it."

David:
It seems that perhaps we were different before our time at Indiana University, although that's certainly where our paths divided. Why did we have differing "deep ideas" when we got to school?

We both grew up enjoying rocketry and water skiing and Star Trek. Often, we would read the same science fiction books we borrowed from our Uncle Jeff. We slept in the same room. We both had a very balanced high school experience, with athletics, band, and many of the same classes. We were both photographers for the school paper and yearbook. In fact, we were both the photo editor for both. I took over that job when you graduated.

Doug:
Yikes, we were nerds! And you didn't even mention "performing magic" or playing with G.I. Joes. What the hell were we thinking?

David:
Ah, yes. Remember sawing our sister in half? We had a good partnership in that magic act.

Doug:
Those were all of the external activities. But what was going on in the inside? I think I was more interested in the questions being asked, and you were more interested in the answers.

David:
Perhaps. And in your role as a computer science and robotics professor, you're now training students to ask the questions that might develop new technologies, and I'm training medical students to find solutions the  health problems that face our patients. Maybe we're two sides of the same coin?  Or maybe you're the "Calvin" to my "Hobbes".

Doug:
Nope :)

In the News: China Ditches Baby Ban

David:
This week, China unexpectedly changed its 30 year old policy of only allowing one child per family. They can now have two.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/15/china-one-child-policy/3570593/

Since a major driver of climate change is purported to be overpopulation, I'm curious how you feel about this policy change, and do you think their former policy (The Federal Government regulating how many children you can have) is an idea that liberals here in the States might find engaging?

Doug:
Do I think that liberals would like having the government involved in planning pregnancies? That sounds like something Republicrats might like to get involved in. Isn't that their area of expertise?

David:
Republicrat? A subliminal slip indicating that Democrats are whom you are speaking of?

Doug:
Nope.

David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicrat

And, to coin a phrase from Inigo Montoya, from my favorite movie, "The Princess Bride":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


No, I'm talking about the left's ideal of eliminating babies for the greater good of……well, I don't really know what your argument for eliminating babies actually is. You have argued that eliminating a baby because it's inconvenient is somehow a noble cause. Here, the argument is eliminating babies saves the environment. That sounds like something the left could latch onto.

Doug:
That sounds like something that your cartoon imagination of the left could latch onto. In reality, the Left seems to be much more consistent about where they want (and don't want) government. I think it is pretty clear that Democrats don't want government in our pants. The environmental problems are real, but we won't solve them through such government actions of a single nation.

On the other hand, Republicrats have passed many such laws: restrictions on abortions, forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, etc. Republicans like to make laws involving reproductive issues; Republicans want to force you into having babies. Why is it that you want government to go away in all areas except this? Isn't that completely inconsistent?

David:
You might want to check yourself in the mirror.

You don't want the government in your pants, just everyone else's.

Doug:
Democrats do not want the government in anyone's pants! No government regulations on anything related to sex or anyone's bodies. You can choose to have 1,000 kids, or none. No forced ultrasound in your uterus. No forced anything related to your body.

David:
So, you're against childhood vaccinations. You, and Jenny McCarthy. That seems about right.

Doug:
Jenny McCarthy is a crazy person. But forcing people to have vaccinations doesn't seem to be the right answer. Isn't education a better alternative?

David:
You're advocating for a return of polio and smallpox, you realize? There are some vaccines that should be optional, but common, life-threatening illnesses like measles and rubella should not be. We still see outbreaks of these illnesses, usually in well-educated, liberal enclaves. And they are still deadly diseases.

Doug:
I can never predict you! You want to force people to have vaccinations to protect the public, but don't want to control handguns, which kill many more people than polio or smallpox? I'd rather ban guns and educate people on vaccinations.

However, if it gets really bad, and polio/smallpox starts killing as many people as handguns do... I'd be in favor of forced vaccinations. I am not advocating a return of smallpox or polio.

David:
Infectious diseases kill people, and people kill people. Guns don't kill people.

Doug:
People with infectious diseases kill people! And you, rightly, are willing to stop them. There is a pretty clear analogy in mind between people with diseases and people with guns (who, you argue, also have a mental disorder). I would have predicted that you'd have opposite beliefs: "The Lord works in Mysterious Ways (say, smallpox) and we should let Him work His magic. On the other hand, Man has created the evil Gun and we should place limits on its spread."

David:
But back to our discussion, you'd like to redistribute the money that some people have, to give to someone else.

Doug:
Yes, you have that right. I want to redistribute the wealth that the top 0.01% have and spread that to 80% of the rest.

David:
Sure, punish people who work hard and are successful, just because they are hard-working and successful. Democrats are looking to raise taxes on the middle class, not just the ultra-wealthy.

Doug:
I don't think restricting the uber wealthy to only have 4 yachts rather than 40 will "punish" them too much. As I just said, I'd like to make sure that the wealth is not concentrated in the 0.01%. That is not the "middle class."

David:
Again, you assume that if I earn a dollar, that's a dollar someone else can't have. That is faulty logic. How much money Mary makes has no bearing on how much money Joe makes.  Spread the wealth! It worked great for Stalin and Mao. It will work just as well for you and Hillary.

Doug:
Can't you work Hitler in there, somehow?

David:
And while were at it, let's take money from small businesses to fund wealthy solar panel companies. Let's tell a small farmer that he can't build a pond on his own land. Let's take the homes of poor people and give the land to wealthy developers so we can bring in even more tax revenue.

Doug:
Nope.

David:
Good. You're saying the Democrats were wrong to have done these things. Glad to see you coming around.

Republicans, for the most part, are about protecting those who cannot protect themselves. In this discussion, that means unborn babies. The left has largely been about having unprotected sex whenever and wherever you want...

Doug:
Yeah, baby! That is a party platform plank!

David:
...but refusing to take responsibility for the life you create with a pregnancy. You can frame abortion in the euphemism of "reproductive issues", but what we're really talking about is what we've now seen, and continue to see, in the Planned Parenthood videos: selling baby parts for cash, and putting unborn babies down the garbage disposal.

Doug:
That is ridiculous hyperbole. But I will frame this as a "reproductive issue" because "that is what it is."

David:
Unfortunately, the ridiculous hyperbole is all on tape.

Doug:
I'd like to see that tape! Putting babies down the garbage disposal? I don't remember that in the party platform... but if you say so. Or, it is ridiculous hyperbole.

David:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/28/banned-abortion-video-leaked-appears-to-show-clinic-owner-advocating-burning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

Doug:
Where's the part about putting babies in the garbage disposal? Oh, you mean that part where they were disposing of biological material in a legal/proper/approved way, didn't want to actually have to say it, and joked that they wished it could be used for heating homes so it wouldn't be wasted? And they were charging money for proper disposal? That doesn't sound so bad, unless you say "selling baby parts for cash and putting babies in the garbage disposal." Then it sounds like the ridiculous hyperbole that it is. It ain't a baby, and no one carries cash these days anyway.

David:
Actually, you're somewhat correct. The P.P. staff discussing disposal of baby parts in the garbage disposal was leaked from the Congressional committees investigating Planned Parenthood. The (reported) text is available, but I do not believe the actual tapes are available for viewing yet, by a judge's order. You'll write that off as a Republican witch hunt. We'll have to wait to see how it turns out.

Doug:
Somewhat correct? I think "exactly correct." How about we call it "ridiculous hyperbole" until it is proven otherwise? "We'll have to see how it turns out" translates to: "We killed Planned Parenthood with non-existent videos and carefully edited tapes! What's next?"

David:
I am very glad to hear that when it comes to global warming, you don't think that our government should take any action that would only involve our single nation. On this we can certainly agree. Unless every nation on the planet follows the exact same rules, we should not get involved. Let the poor, third world countries burn their coal so that their people can have affordable energy and electricity. Great idea!

Doug:
I am glad that you support getting all of the nations of the world to work on the climate change crisis.

David:
I'd be in favor of getting all of the nations of the world to work together on just about anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, it appears "redistribution of wealth" on a global scale is the goal. I'm not in favor of that.

Doug:
It is hard to be in favor of anything when everything keeps getting reduced to either killing babies or punishing those hard-working rich people.

David:
The proposed "fixes" to address global warming punish poor people with higher prices for basic energy, especially in developing countries, not the wealthy.

However, we both agree that the government has no business dictating how many children you can or can't have. If you don't want children, then don't get pregnant. If you feel that having children is going to ruin your life, you may want to exercise a little self-control and avoid sexual encounters in general, just to be absolutely sure.

Doug:
If you don't want children, don't have them. And there are lots of ways to not have them. Sexual encounters are not the enemy. Read our party platform: a chicken in every pot, if you know what I mean.