The Role of the Government

Doug:
We, the people, can do some amazing things through our government when we work together. But it seems that the Tea Party would like to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps we can find some points of agreement on the role of the government.

David:
It seems the only tea party supporters you have ever seen are in liberal comics. The tea party has always been about making government fiscally accountable and responsible, not to eliminate the federal government. We want to see the federal government stay within the bounds outlined for it by the Constitution, the rule-book for government. It appears liberals, or socialists like Bernie Sanders, want to toss out all of the rules, and offer ever-increasing programs under the guise of "helping people", despite what the Constitution allows, or what the cost.

Doug:
The Constitution is indeed where we can start, but that isn't all that we have. We have some amendments, called the Bill of Rights, additional amendments, and a series of laws and court rulings at the federal, state, and local levels that make up the rules of the government. If you aren't including all of our rules, then you aren't really talking about our government. "It isn't in the Constitution" isn't a valid argument, because we are governed by so much more.

David:
The Bill of Rights, and all other amendments to the Constitution are parts of the Constitution. They are part of the rule book. Court rulings are interpretations of the rules, and can become rules we play by, but they are not part of the Constitution. The Dred Scott Decision found that slaves remained "property" even when they were in an abolitionist state. In other words, runaway slaves could not be considered free if they reached a free state.  They were still the property of the original owners. This interpretation of the law was wrong and was subsequently overturned. Laws can be found to be "unconstitutional".   The Constitution trumps these laws, and the federal government must abide by the Constitution.

Doug:
What some might call "government overreach" is common sense and saves lives and money. I'm thinking about the rules that government puts in place for many things, including wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

David:
What you consider common sense, and what is considered constitutional are not necessarily the same thing. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to save us from ourselves. If you are going to make an argument for motorcycle helmets to save lives, why not mandate that everyone can only have 3,000 calories of food each day? Why not ban alcohol? Oh wait, they did that, and it didn't work out so well.

Doug:
Are you saying that you are against mandatory use of motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts? I don't mind those types of laws, but not because I think that they are designed to "save lives." I am for them because they help me save money.

David:
Yes, I am against the federal government granting itself authority over our lives that it doesn't have.

I see a great many people every day who have been involved in auto accidents. Very few are "idiots", (which is how you described people who get into car accidents, before you apparently edited it out) and many were able to afford their premiums before Obamacare put them out of their reach. but, that's a tale for another blog.

Doug:
If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are an idiot. And many more people have health care now than before. Millions more people have heath care. The uninsured rate is at an alltime low. More people have health care (as a raw number and as a percentage) than have ever had health care before. Ever. And that makes it so I don't have to pay for other people's health care.

David:
I agree that you should wear a seatbelt. But, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force Americans to wear a seatbelt, in my opinion. That's the difference. I believe you should have the freedom to be an idiot. Even a nobel idea, if it is not allowed by the Constitution, is not allowed for the federal government to enact. The states may enact that idea (if their state constitution allows for it), but not the federal government.

Regarding healthcare, you are mixing and matching your apples and oranges. People always had access to health care. Everyone. It's health insurance that the federal government decide it had the authority to mandate that you purchase. The Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 majority that the government could tax you if you don't buy a product (insurance) they want you to buy. If someone else brings up a legal case (and there are currently dozens of court cases against various parts of Obamacare), The SCOTUS may rule differently. Obamacare is not part of the Constitution, and therefore, parts, or all of it, can be ruled unconstitutional.

Doug:
Obamacare was already ruled Constitutional.

David:
So far, based on the cases that have been presented to it, the SCOTUS has found those aspects to be within the guidelines of the Constitution. That may not always be the case. Parts of laws can be constitutional, while other parts of massive, 15,000 page laws may not be.

Doug:
Of course. Anything can be found unconstitutional by a future court. Banning individual gun ownership may be found constitutional by a future court. This just shows that the interpretation of the constitution is part of the process.

David:
Based on the precedent of Obamacare, the federal government could tax you (penalize you) for not owning a gun, if a different Congress passed  a law that requires you to purchase one. That would be wrong, in the same way it's wrong for the federal government to force you to purchase anything  else from a private vendor.

Doug:
Perhaps those most basic rights, such as the right to be able to live, and not to have to pay for other people's health care are self-evident? Maybe they don't even need to be mentioned in the Constitution because they are so obvious? In fact, that is exactly what the founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." They are self-evident. Not needing to be explained. Obvious.

David:
Glad to see you acknowledged the Creator as providing our rights.

Doug:
I'm glad you finally believe in evolution, our Great Creator!

David: There is nothing that says you can't get sick. You have a right to not be killed, but you have no right not to die. We all die sometime. Perhaps we should include within this discussion the fact the government requires me, as an ER doctor, to evaluate and treat everyone who walks through the door without even being able to ask them if they have a way to pay. That sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me. "You must provide services without compensation". That seems to violate my right to liberty. Seems obvious. You might also want to share your "right to be able to live" argument with the pro-abortion crowd, Mr. Obvious.

Doug:
It is called "pro-choice" and it is the Constitutional law, stamped with approval from the Supreme Court. But once you are really alive, we must do everything we can to keep people that way, even if they have no health care. Are you claiming that it is your Constitutional right to let people die if they have no way to pay?

David:
Euphemisms don't change reality.

Doug:
That is correct. But why do you consider your term reality, and my term a "euphemism"? Abortion is legal, and is about a woman's choice. That is reality. And letting someone die because they don't have health insurance is not legal. We have to pay to keep them alive.

David:
And you can see now how issues of Constitutionality are not black and white. Can the government force an individual to work for free? Can the government force you to purchase a product from a private vendor, if the government determines it is for the "greater good"? Who determines what is the "greater good"? Can the government silence free speech if it feels that speech is offensive or inappropriate?

Doug:
Yes. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Yelling "Liar!" can be slander.

David:
No physician is going to let anyone die, if they can help it. But there is still the issue of payment after the fact. You're purposefully confusing that fact.

Doug:
What is confusing? If they don't pay, then we all have to pay. You can't use "we're going to let you die" as pressure to make them pay.

David:
So, this is how the government works around the Constitution. They come up with ideas to "help" people.  They mandate and regulate businesses, instead of letting the market forces work. And all of these interventions limit freedom. Often, the very "solutions" that big-government politicians enact make those problems worse.

Doug:
The mandate for having car insurance also seems to make sense. So, shouldn't a mandate for health insurance also make sense? Certainly we want to make sure that everyone receives appropriate care in the hospital, even if a person can't pay for it. So, who does pay when an injured person can't? A mandated health insurance seems like a responsible, even conservative, perspective.

David:
There is no national or federal mandate for car insurance. That is a state-by-state decision, and should be. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to require car insurance, and it certainly doesn't allow for mandated health insurance. The founders specifically limited the power of the federal government, and insisted all other powers reside with the states, or with the people themselves. We've seen a steady erosion of our own freedom and responsibility.

Doug:
Mandates force responsibility. Which used to be a Republican talking point, until they moved further Right.

David:
Not bailing people out when they make poor or irresponsible decisions also forces responsibility. The government should have very limited power to mandate that we do anything.

Who pays when an injured person can't? The individual must take responsibility for themselves.

Doug:
And there it is. "Not bailing people out" means letting them die. You are saying that if a person needs medical attention, but does not have any money, or health care, then they must die. Otherwise, someone must step in to save them.

David:
No. We save them, because that's what we do. But the question is who pays the bills afterwards. Who pays when your car runs out of gas? Who buys you a new tire when you get a flat? Individuals pay for all of these things, without crying for a government program to save them. Is healthcare expensive? Yes. Is it too expensive? Yes. Should you buy insurance? Yes. Should the federal government force you to buy it? No! Claiming that the government must pay for something because it is expensive is not a Constitutional ideal, and it's nowhere in the Constitution.

Doug:
Death is not just an inconvenience, like having to walk to a gas station. If they have no money, they can't pay. So everyone else has to pay. If we require everyone to pay, then it is better for us all. Again, I like car insurance for everyone to keep my costs down. This seems to be a fine idea in exchange for the government making sure that you have basic support in health.

David:
And there it is: You think it's a fine idea for the government, not the individual, to make sure they have basic health support. Not Constitutional, by any measure. Another key difference you continue to overlook: car insurance is not paid for by everyone, only by those who own and drive a car. Health insurance is now mandated for everyone, even if you choose not to use the healthcare system.

Doug:
I think it is. It is self-evident. The money put into public K-12 education is certainly not enough by everyone's estimate. Teachers often have to bring their own materials (paper, crayons, legos, etc.) for classroom activities. Shouldn't we do more to support education?

David:
Again, are you talking federal government, or state government? There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to insert itself into education. The Department of Education was initially created to manage the school-lunch program.  Since then, it's become a bloated, political machine that continues to expand and use up tax dollars. All of that money would serve better if just left to the states. For every dollar states like Pennsylvania or Indiana send to the Department of Education, they get about ten cents back. You're right, we should be making quality spending on education a priority. Involving the federal government does not accomplish that goal. And, I'd disagree that "everyone" equates more spending with better educational outcomes. Some of the worst-performing districts spend the most per student.

Doug:
Public schools are run by the government. I don't know any school that believes that it has enough money to teach the students. I don't know any research that shows a negative correlation between money spent and student outcome. We put too much money into prisons, and not enough into education.

David:
Public schools are run by state governments. States could do a better job if they had all of the money being squandered by the federal Department of Education.

There is also no study showing a positive correlation between money spent and educational outcome. That means there is no correlation.

Doug:
That is crazy. You are saying that a school that gets no money can do as well as a school that has infinite money.

David:
You are crazy if you believe that's what I said. I said school performance does not reflect the amount of money schools spend. Some excellent schools get by with a fraction of the money some other schools are spending, and some of the costliest schools perform poorest in the measures that matter most: the education of students.

Doug:
You said that they weren't correlated, so it shouldn't matter how much you spend. Teaching kids well takes money for teachers and materials. That, too, should be self-evident.

David:
What is "self-evident" to you is not to self-evident to others. Many home-schooled kids are educated better than public-school educated kids, with a fraction of the resources.

Doug:
If you count the teacher's time, the cost of the home, the food, then home schooling costs much, much, much more than public education. The fact that we don't actually pay teacher/parent doesn't mean that it doesn't cost a lot. It uses many more resources. If they are better educated, then that proves my point: there is a direct correlation between money spent and quality of education.

David:
So, do you claim all of that money you make teaching things to your kids on your taxes as income? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. Here in Indiana, the Republican legislature passed a law enabling parents who homeschool to apply for tax refunds to help cover expenses. The Democrats and the Teacher's Union were vehemently opposed, arguing it would take money from failing public schools. I'm glad to see that you place some value on homeschooling.  And since parents don't get paid for their time, your argument is amusing, but holds no water.

Doug:
What happened to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? These self-evident Rights get trumped by your narrow view of how to run a prosperous country. In your imagined world where no one paid any taxes for these services, what would our country look like? No safety regulations? No mandatory insurances? No licenses? No consumer protection? It seems like we do have a very adaptive government that tries to balance freedom with social responsibility.

David:
Again, you're missing a rather big point. There is a distinction between state governments and the federal government. States are free to require permits, licenses,  certifications, etc. for various needs. The federal government is not.

There are certainly some jobs that are allowed by the Constitution for the federal government to control and execute.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pay taxes. The federal government can't function without collecting taxes. Taxes are allowed within the Constitution. What the federal government does with the taxes is what I often find to be wrong. Whenever the federal government grants itself a new power or duty (usually in the name of "helping"), it is invariably individual freedom and liberty that suffers.

Doug:
I see: millions of people getting healthcare (and living) is actually liberty suffering. The Civil Rights Act, allowing millions of people to just live their lives without being discriminated against, is actual causing their liberty to suffer. Now I understand your view of the Role of Government.

David:
No, you obviously do not understand at all. Civil rights are certainly listed in the Constitution  in several places, most notably in the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment. It looks like you're just throwing all kinds of arguments at the wall, hoping something will stick. Or perhaps it's just your bias leaking into the discussion that all tea-party conservatives are racists.

And once again, health care and health insurance are different things.

Millions who are signing up for expanded Medicaid, which is a majority of the numbers used to promote Obamacare as a success, are getting "free" insurance. But you and I are paying for that. So, it seems that you are still paying for idiots (your words), if they have Medicaid.

Doug:
Idiots don't wear seatbelts, whether or not they have healthcare is another issue. They may be poor, but they can still wear seatbelts.

David:
You mean health insurance....

All of the rest of us are not getting anything. We are being forced to purchase insurance to cover the costs for everyone else. So, you're still paying for idiots (your term) who have accidents.

Doug:
Health insurance gets you health care. When most people have health insurance, then there are fewer people that need the taxpayer to cover their costs.

David:
Except for the millions who have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. We cover those costs. Whether that's right or wrong for the government to provide, it's still a huge driver of the costs you wrongly claim it is decreasing.

Real liberty allows each of us to make our own decisions. We should be able to purchase insurance that fits our needs. Young people should be able to purchase catastrophic care at a huge discount, because they don't need much healthcare. Instead, they are paying some of the highest rates, to cover the pool of elderly and sick, as mandated by the government.

Doug:
Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone dies. But we should not let people die because they can't afford insurance.

David:
You continue to spout nonsense. No one dies in America because they can't afford health insurance. They go to the ER, where doctors and nurses care for them the same as they would Bill Gates. Surgeons and other specialist will treat their emergency regardless of their ability to pay. I've personally treated thousands of people and children who didn't pay me a cent. One of the Catholic hospitals I worked at eventually closed, because it offered too much free care.

Doug:
Taking care of all people is the way that it should be. The point is, that costs money. The more money we can get out of each individual for healthcare, the better for all of us. Which is why the mandate is constitutional.

David:
The SCOTUS never ruled that a mandate was constitutional. They ruled the penalty was actually a tax, and the government has the power to tax citizens. Justice Roberts skirted the issue, so you can't actually claim that mandates are constitutional, although they remain a constitutional issue.

You can choose to refuse care. At least for now, until the government mandates you must use the system, even if you just want to be left alone. We agree that everyone eventually dies. And Obamacare is actually limiting treatments that it finds too expensive, that might help even more people live. And I find it amusing you still think there will be people out dying in the streets if the federal government doesn't step in to prevent it. I find it self-evident that this is not true.

Doug:
The government has stepped in to make sure that people get treated. If you want to make sure that Obamacare does not limit the treatment based on cost, I'm right there with you. Just remember, when they can't pay, everyone else must do so. And that makes it a constitutional issue.

David:
Show me where the Constitution says that everyone has to pay when someone cannot. The US Constitution doesn't. Maybe you have a defective copy...

At the end of the day (or blog, as it may be), big-government expansion not only infringes on liberty and freedom, it just makes me sick.

Doug:
It makes me proud that we have fewer people dying, more people covered with insurance, and less taxpayer money spent on it. Life, liberty, and happiness. But the greatest of these is life. This should be self-evident.

Political Cartoons: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Doug:
Recently, I shared a political cartoon on social media, but not everyone appreciated the humor:

One reason that I find it funny is that it builds on sentiments that are real, a grain of truth. Political cartoons have a long history in the US. Benjamin Franklin's "Join, or Die" is generally considered to be the first in America:

David:
As you just illustrated (figuratively and literally...) political cartoons have been around from the  beginning of print media. Old cartoons were usually very busy and complicated drawings, and it wasn't until WWII that the drawings became simpler, but still carried a powerful message.

Many people don't realize Dr. Seuss started as a political cartoonist.

A picture is truly worth a thousand words. A well-crafted cartoon can give life and vision to an idea. Of course, cartoons are only funny when they convey a bit of truth. The first comic you show illustrates that Americans voluntarily give vast amounts of data to big corporations, and will accept aggravation from these same corporations, but don't tolerate the same from the government. That juxtaposition in the final scene is funny. There is an element of truth in that. Of course, with corporations, we voluntarily do business with them, and can change companies if we are unhappy with their service. The government takes your money by force, and leaves you with no options when it fails (and it fails often).

This cartoon covers a plethora of topics with very few words: Bernie Sander's popularity  and enthusiastic support (as opposed to Hillary's own),  and the multiple scandals that plague her campaign. A lot is left unsaid, but the joke works well.

Doug:
Thank you, Dr. Good Humor, for the brotherplaining. Perhaps jokes work better if they are not explained? Perhaps readers can judge for themselves if the "joke works well"? Personally, I enjoy a comic more if it is subtle, and makes you think about your own biases, rather than just poking fun at those who see the world differently than you do.

David:
Sorry. I thought your goal was to eliminate dissenting opinions. Don't you and your colleagues in higher education call that "hate speech"?

Doug:
No. Disagree is all that academics do. Do you even know any academics?

David:
I know you. I guess you don't consider yourself an academic?

I met Gary Varvel when I ran for office a few years ago. He's the cartoonist for the Indianapolis Star, and his comics usually show up on the national scene. In general, cartoonists are editorialists, but they come up with imagery to make the case, instead of writing an opinion column. It's a different skill set, for sure, and one that many of us lack. I enjoy Varvel's style, which is very cleanly drawn and uncomplicated. A well-done political cartoon says a lot, sometimes without using any words at all.

Doug:

Here is one that appeared in your Facebook feed this past week:

This comic is so bad in so many ways that I can't stop looking at it. Let's explore this. First, what kind of public restroom is this? Don't women's restrooms in North Carolina have stalls? No wonder they are in trouble! Or perhaps these people are outside the bathroom... or is the sign on the wrong side of the door? I'm not sure, but I think that bald person with the mustache is actually a man! As you said, political cartooning is hard and not for everyone. Although this started as comments on your Facebook page, it was re-posted (in part) to reddit. Normally, I would say "don't read the comments" in any social media post, but this thread in a subreddit is full of very insightful comments. One of the comments pointed out that the man is just peeing. Horror!

David:

Of course, the partial FB post is out of context. Makes it look as though the discussion is about transgenders. The cartoon above illustrates that there is often a clear difference between professional cartoonists and FB memes. 

Doug:

I'm not sure what else the conversation could really be about, but this part of the conversation was about transgendered people. And what context would make this conversation any better? 

David:

The discussion was about rapists and other male preditors being able to hang out in women's restrooms and locker rooms, calling themselves "transgender", and no one being able to do anything about that.  Last week you didn't want to talk about transgender issues at all, yet now you're re-introducing it into this week's blog.  But you're loosing focus. We're talking political cartoons this week. So, in regards to the "cartoon" above, drawing skills for most folks stopped at about the third-grade level. It seems photoshopping is helping some people. At least the cartoon above is diverse: it mixes an anime-ish lady with a character from The Legend of Zelda, with a person who may be visiting from an Adult Swim show on The Cartoon Network.  Which genre is suffering from "cartoon-privilege", and who needs a "safe-space"?

Doug:

We're talking about political cartoons addressing transgendered people and issues. Here is another exploring the same issue from a different perspective:

David:

Ah, now you're back in the conversation. This cartoon is simple, clean, and amusing. Not a deep message, here, but still well-drawn and enough to make you think.

Doug:

I think it is deep, but subtle. It is a real question, because there really are "sporks" in the world. And laws. What is that poor spork to do?

David:

These all are fairly typical tea party cartoons from the left. To the media, tea party people are racists, morons, and Hitler nazis. Pure, unadulterated propaganda. The following explains why they feel this way:

When your stated goal is to decrease the size of government, and reign in wasteful spending, liberals see that as a direct attack on them. So, you attack the messenger.

Doug:
I find the "AAAAAAAAAHH!!! TERRORIST TEA PARTIER!!!!!" cartoon to be a fairly lazy attempt at humor. Of course one can always imagine your own people as being reasonable (meek little fellow carrying a small, reasonable slogan) and the "others" as yelling crazy things. But "GOVT IS TOO BIG" doesn't apply to many of our problems, such as lack of affordable healthcare, rotting infrastructures, too-low hourly wages, and poorly funded schools. The Hitler cartoon is also too lazy for my liking. Good humor takes talent, and a subtle brush.

David:
Agreed.

Doug:
But how do you decide if something is "propaganda" versus "a well-done political cartoon"? I guess we don't need to figure that out---you can just tell us. But I presume you believe that there is a grain of truth to all of these.

David:
Don't jump to conclusions, Mr. Sanctimonious.

Doug:
Please! That's Dr. Sanctimonious, to you.

David:
Here are some examples of propaganda from the other side:



Doug:
I like how you imagine that there are just two sides, and that comics either come from one side, or the "other side". That makes it easy to categorize, and easy to think about. No complications. And it makes easy to dismiss "the other side" because they are not us. And their argument is not valid because it is just an "attack of the messenger."

David:
Perhaps you can share that sentiment with the close-minded students and administrators who try to shut down free speech on campus. You do realize you are making the same argument I've made in prior blogs? Maybe I'm rubbing off on you.

Doug:
Please! That's Dr. Satire, to you.

David:
"Satire" implies you don't believe anything you just said.  Er....I mean, wrote.

Doug:
By George, I think you are onto something.

David:
Carrying on:





It's sometimes easy to demonize the other side. These cartoons (from both sides of the political spectrum) are often based on a few individual outliers, but the mainstream cartoons are powerful in that they contribute to a general concept of these groups, right or wrong. As to the Occupy  Movement, this comic is more accurate:

Doug:

Accurate? How do you measure that? I thought that these were just poking fun at grains of truths, not some attempt to capture reality.

David:
Some comics barely graze the truth, like some bloggers, but others capture the essence of large realities. Apparently you don't think Obama is riding a wave of corporate cash just like everyone else in Washington? Here's another comic that may appeal to a broad audience.

Doug:

The problem with that cartoon is that it puts the teacher in on the evil conspiracy. Most teachers I know hate the implementation of "no child left behind." They want to teach and inspire. teaching to the test is not the goal. But maybe that cartoon is really about the Rapture, and then I'm with the little girl: leave me behind!

Cartoons don't have to be well-drawn though. One of my favorite cartoons is xkcd. Here is a nice example:

https://xkcd.com/1122/

The cartoonist, Randall Munroe, is smart, funny, and so creative. He is also an author ("What if?", highly recommended), and a teacher. I just heard him this past Sunday (4/17/2016) on NPR's TED Radio Hour talking about teaching math. But his comics are typically minimalist. He often combines data and analysis with his comics, like he did in the above "Electoral Precedent" from 2012. The next election could up with the first woman president, the first Jewish president, or the first president to govern from the Whitehouse Towers (TM).

David:

I see. The Democratic candidates are ground-breaking pioneers, but the Republicans are more of the same? You apparently are letting your ideology fog your vision again. Cruz would be the first Hispanic president, and Trump would be the first president who's never held elected or appointed office or served as a military general.   Quite the accomplishment.

Doug:

You mean that Cruz would be our first Canadian president, and Trump would be our first president that had no idea what he was doing.

David:

Sure. And Hillary may be the first president to go directly to jail after the election, and Bernie would be the first president to drive us into bankruptcy within a single term. (Although the Democrats seem determined not to let Bernie even make it to the convention.)

So, you prefer your cartoons to be an editorial column, broken up into little boxes, with stick figures? To me, that doesn't really appear to be a political cartoon. 

Doug:
Maybe you didn't read the words? They aren't all panels. I think the point of this one is that in every election, the winner will always be the first of something. Some of Randall's cartoons are intricately drawn, but others are stick people. Sometimes, the message is enough.

David:
Well, I shouldn't be surprised that you prefer your message at a stick-figure level. After all, stick figures have only the barest resemblance to real life, just like the Democratic agenda. Maybe if it were drawn with crayons....

Perhaps this cartoon is one we can agree on, to wrap up this edition of Blank Versus Blank...

The Art of the Argument

Doug:
So here's the context of this week's discussion: David would like to discuss a "position paper" but it looks to me like this is just a small group of people trying to inject their political opinion into a scientific argument. I've agreed to discuss this, but in no way want to give the impression that this is anything other than what it might be (pure political opinion). So, David's proposed title "Gender Ideology Harms Children- It's Official" has been changed, and now we start with David's introduction:

David:
Well, you certainly are starting off poorly, and in bad faith. Does this mean that from now on, we'll be starting the blog by stating the other brother's discussion is complete hogwash, and not deserving of our time, but, well, let's just go along with it, but with the understanding it's just foolish and a waste of everyone's time? And just to emphasize the fact, let's change the heading to a topic I feel represents my total dismissal of the topic my brother introduced.

Doug:
Ok, that wasn't David's introduction. And I want to use your argument as an example of how to make an argument. Here it is:

David:
You may prefer not to address the topic, but it remains true that...

Doug:
And that wasn't his intro... here it is:

David:
...in a stunning science-grounded report, the American College of Pediatricians published a position paper last month taking a strong stand against the increasingly popular notion of promoting gender ideology among children. In fact, the group finds that the most recent studies indicate that gender-identity dysphoria, and the political desire to promote it, harms children.

Doug:
Ok, so let's break down this description. In case this is a foreign phrase, a "position paper" is:

an essay that presents an opinion about an issue , typically that of the author or another specified entity; such as a political party. Position papers are published in academia, in politics, in law and other domains. -- wikipedia

So these are clearly a separate category from scientific papers that have research and conclusions based on data. Position papers could be described as "stunning" if there was something unexpected revealed, such as an Oil and Gas position paper came out in favor of tighter environmental controls. You used the word "published" but this isn't published at all, unless our blog is also "published". The position paper just appears on their web site.

David:
Multiple professional groups assemble scientific papers to reach best-practice conclusions, and then produce position papers based on that research. This is the essence of creating best-practice guidelines. Perhaps continually improving quality is only something we use in medicine, and not in the academic setting.

Doug:
Sure, this paper represents the best medicine has to offer. But let's get to the paper and authors. The "American College of Pediatricians" sounds very professional. I have no idea what "gender ideology" is. But whatever it is, David had indicated (before editing) that liberals are going to hate it. I believe you said that "liberals will have a stroke." But you edited that out. That's too bad, because I wanted to look at the style of your argument. This was a not-so-subtle hint to allow you to see the paper in the "right perspective." Ok, so continue:

David:
Wow. So far you have started the discussion by first, totally dismissing the paper as nonsensical tripe, that no one should have to suffer through, and then attack the messengers presenting the paper. All of this before the discussion has even started. Did the spirit of Saul Alinski take over my brother? Or is the topic so discomforting that you feel a need to squash it before any discussion of the facts can even get presented? "Nothing to see here. The messenger is a crazy loon! Just walk away before he gets violent! Don't listen to him, because he's a crazy loon!"

So, you may not have had a stroke because of the subject of the discussion, but you've pulled out every Alinsky trick to change the subject from the actual subject.

Doug:
Who is "Saul Alinski" again? Oh, right, you mean Saul Alinsky who "conservative author William F. Buckley, Jr. said in 1966 that Alinsky was 'very close to being an organizational genius'." He must be a real demonized person on the right, and mentioned as a dog whistle.

David:
Ah, now you're even diverting attention to typos, without giving me a chance to correct them. Your style of argument leaves a bit to be desired. So far, you've tried several means to avoid the topic altogether. Readers who follow liberal discussions might want to note that these tactics are often followed by the Left. Remember, Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky's work.  I always laugh when you pretend to have never heard of him.

Now, if you're actually ready to talk about the subject at hand....

The American College of Pediatricians is a group of board-certified pediatricians. It was founded by the former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the most populous of Pediatric professional associations. It has members from 47 states. One of the contributors to this position paper is Dr. Paul McHugh, the former chairman of Johns Hopkin's Psychiatry department.  That doesn't sound like crazy loons to me.

Doug:
I didn't even say anything about the authors. Yet. 

David:
Oh, but you have. Before we've even started, you've described them as a small group of people (rather than physicians) who are trying to hijack science with political beliefs. You've already tried to establish that what they say doesn't represent science.

Doug:
That is just the general context. I'm going to have something to say about them, because it does matter who they are and how they have come to their "stunning" conclusions.

David:
But what does the paper actually say?

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

It's broken into several different points. Let's discuss each point.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait:"XY" and "XX" are genetic markers of health, not genetic markers of a disorder.

  

Doug:
Not sure where this is going. But we start with some Biology that you may, or may not remember. Again, wikipedia may be helpful for their section on XY sex-determination system. Are there more important "declarations"?

David:
Perhaps you slept through that lecture. I'll help you to understand, because I do understand biology. The paper is establishing that your sex is a fact of nature, not a malleable idea. Every cell in your body contains the same genetic material. Surgery, medications, the way you dress,  or the way you see yourself doesn't alter that fact.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a social and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

Doug:
Ok, now we start to see where we are headed. This "declaration" seems to be very black and white for a biological system that is very complex. Of course, chromosomes are instructions for building brains and bodies. The insertion of the word "objective" seems very unscientific. Neither the chromosomes nor the resulting sexual structures are strictly binary. And those, of course, don't need to necessarily align with brain structures or resulting behavior. Continue.

David:
So far, what they've said in both of the first two statements is identical to what you yourself said in an earlier blog about gender disorders. You should be happy; These board-certified pediatricians actually agree with you. Unless you are now arguing with yourself...

Objective is the opposite of subjective. Objective is indeed the scientific term.

And, with very rare exceptions (and there are always exceptions in nature) Chromosomes and sexual structures are, in fact, strictly binary.

3. A person's belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

Doug:
Ok, that doesn't sound scientific at all. They are saying that you are not what you believe you are, but what your biology dictates. "Confused thinking?" Is that a scientific psychological term? Who are these people? But let's hear the rest of their "declarations":

David:
I'll agree with you there. The group must have felt it was too much of a leap from that point moving forward, but the language is a bit "loose".

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.
5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys, and 88% of gender-confused girls, eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including, but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

Of course, the reason these statements are included is that the most recent and up-to-date research argues against the use of these drugs to change children physically, or to change their physical attributes to match their perceived gender, rather than their natural biology. As mentioned, when left alone, the vast majority of these children return to their biologic gender after puberty.

Doug:
Impersonate? They really don't use any neutral language. Testosterone and estrogen sound dangerous!

David:
Ah, now your starting to see the big picture. When you use these hormones in children, you may block or mask normal changes of puberty, or cause development of traits associated with the opposite sex. You may resemble the opposite sex, yet your biology remains unchanged. Hence the term "impersonate". But these hormones have very significant risks, especially when used long-term.

7. Rates of suicides are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex-reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQT-affirming countries.

Doug:
Wow! Using hormones and having sex-reassignment surgery causes suicides! If they would just stop doing that, I'm sure they would be fine.

David:
That doesn't strike me as quite the laughing matter. Children going through puberty are often emotionally labile (as we can all attest to!). Promoting gender confusion, and especially adding cross-sex hormones appears to make the matter much worse. The current political thinking of the left is that if only society would accept these individuals, they would be happy and not suicidal. The studies do not bear this out. As the paper mentions, even in Sweden, where transsexuals are accepted and protected, the suicide rates are the same.  Of course, you probably do know better than the former chairman of Johns Hopkin's psychiatry department.

Doug:
No, I believe that their argument is laughable. They are arguing that it is the attempt to deal with their situation, rather than the bullying, violence, harassment, and being generally treated as outcasts, causes their suicides. Many can't even use the restroom in North Carolina without showing their papers.

David:
You're bias is plugging your ears and eyes. The studies (which this position paper is based on) show that the suicide rate doesn't change in Sweden, where transgenders are as accepted as they are ever going to get. The problem is not acceptance in the real world. The data indicates the problem is they  are struggling to accept themselves in the real world.

Doug:
Why is it that the former chairman of the Johns Hopkins psychiatry department can't be wrong about this? There are many people that do argue with him, such as the rest of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the respected group.

David:
Right. Back to attacking the messenger. I would expect  the AAP to be the "respected" group in your eyes, as their position papers recommend banning guns, mandating that guns in private possession must be locked in a safe at all times, and recommend full implementation of all aspects of Obamacare. Who would possibly argue with that?

Doug:
You could have made your argument without attempting to invoke the opinion of a minority group that has been characterized as "Christian lobbyists". But you didn't. You tried to use them to make the argument seem legit. Speaking of legit, I don't know anything about the AAP except that they have 60,000 members, and that they have denounced what the American School of Pediatricians claims.

David:
Curious. You know nothing about a group, but if they agree with what you believe, they must be legit. If you don't agree with what they say, they're illegitimate. Nice argument. Now, moving on...

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.

This is certainly strong language, and very concrete language, that should finally bring some sense to this ridiculous debate.

Doug:

Which debate is this? You forgot to mention that there was a debate, nor what the "other side" actually says. You did suggest that the "other side" must be liberals, and that anyone that doesn't agree with these "declarations" must be liberal.

David:
When it comes to transgender issues, I would argue that those who insist on  the creation of laws protecting this group are liberals. As we gain more knowledge, we are finding that these individuals do not become mentally healthier with cross-sex hormone therapy or gender reassignment, especially in pre-pubescence.

Doug:

You can't just claim that if you believe X then you must be Y. If one does that, you don't get a chance to understand what the issues really are. As we gain more knowledge, we see that is a complex issue.

David:
At least you are now acknowledging the issue is complex. You've gone from a total dismissal of the subject, to arguing that we need to work to understand and gain knowledge for this complex issue. That's much better than your previous efforts to eliminate and shut down dissenting views, which is the current trend in Universities across the country.

One thing that makes this issue complex is the introduction of ethics. There are many economic studies that show that Medicare and Medicaid could save lots of money by rationing care to the elderly, or for rare cancers that are expensive to treat, but affect very few individuals. But ethically, no one would argue we should enact the results of those studies. In medicine, the ethics involved changes the way that the hard data is used. If you find it unethical to give a child dangerous medications (off-label) for a disorder that will resolve itself almost 90% of the time, you should speak out against those who are promoting that action.

Doug:
So, let's take a look at who the "American School of Pediatricians" is. It does sound professional! They describe themselves:

The American College of Pediatricians is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children. --- http://www.acpeds.org/about-us

The children... of course, the children. We must protect the children at all costs. Cool. But they have a particular method of how that must be done that isn't surprising: one father, one mother, no adoptions, and married. But they even go further: "This group knows that human life begins at conception and should be protected from that moment until the time of natural death – no abortions and no euthanasia. They also are aware that a child is best reared in a home that has both a mother and father who are the biological parents, love each other and love their children."

David:
So, you're arguing that there is no evidence and there are no studies that indicate that children do better in every measure in a two-parent household, where there is a mother and father who are married? Are you arguing that there are no studies that indicate a child does better (again, by almost any measure you choose) with their biological parents? You are wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. This does not say that there are no children that do well outside of these parameters, or deny that there are children that fair poorly living with their parents, but as a whole, children do best when they are within these parameters. I'm not sure why you would feel that a group of board-certified pediatricians would not be interested in protecting children. Once again, your attacking the messenger.

Doug:
We'll come back to their evidence shortly. But note that they don't say anything about the death penalty. Surely that must be an "unnatural death."

David:
Well, they are pediatricians, so they probably don't feel a great need to produce a position paper on the death penalty. I'm not aware that the death penalty affects children to a large degree.

Doug:
Maybe they are pediatricians. But they feel that they can comment on abortion, but not the death penalty? They feel like they can comment on euthanasia, but not the death penalty? That seems strangely specific, and completely arbitrary.

David:
Even Hillary noted unborn babies are "Unborn" children. That sound like a pediatric constituency for sure. You're right; Abortion is the death penalty for children.

Doug:
Ah, no it isn't. Like many of their "conclusions". They also oppose gay marriage. There aren't even any children involved in gay marriage, but they oppose it. Remember, they represent pediatricians. It does seem that they stray from their subject of supposed expertise, but only in some circumstances.

David:
Um, not to be too obvious, but it is usually children who get adopted. I'd like to offer you to another family, but I doubt we'll get any takers.

Doug:
So, let's look at how to make an argument based on very little, if nothing. This is the Art of the Argument. First, let's take a look at your original title "Gender Ideology Harms Children- It's Official." That sounds very conclusive. The use of "official" is the most interesting choice. "Official" frames the argument in a manner that places it above disagreement. But as we now see, this idea is only "official" in the sense that anything that this group writes on their blog is "officially from them"... which has no meaning.

David:
Your "argument" is not an argument at all. According to you, no one or any group can ever use the word "official" for anything. If the White House or the president enacts a policy, well, it isn't official. It's only what the White House says is official. That's nonsensical.

Doug:
Second, your original opening paragraph does a number of things. It gives the reader the framing for understanding the argument. It is "stunning". So, if you had any doubt before, it is ok, because this is shocking. And it is true that it would be stunning if it were true. It says that the "report" is based on "science." But of course it isn't. There is no data in this position paper. It is pure opinion. You give their opinion importance by claiming that it is a well-respected group ("American College of Pediatricians"). And you end with a "fact" that is far from a fact.

David:
You obviously have not taken the time to read the very short position paper. (You must have been spending too much time doing your exhaustive research on Wikipedia.) The paper has extensive footnotes on each of the bullet points. The conclusions were not assembled by some guy sitting in his Mom's basement. The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The FDA, The World Health Organization, and the American Psychiatric Association are all sources for the data used in this paper. I suppose they are all quacks and nut-jobs?

Doug:
Who is the "American College of Pediatricians"? Well, they are "American" because they are apparently made up of Americans. We could put "American" in our title too. Are they a "College"? Not in any sense that we understand it. They are simply a not-for-profit corporation. That's it. We could be a college too. Are they all pediatricians? No, anyone can join for $50. And you don't even have to be an American. Nor a pediatrician. So, they are not all pediatricians after all. How many of them are there? Their membership has been estimated "between 60 and 200 members." So when you complain that all of these people are really "physicians", you are wrong.

The supposed well-respected group is far from well-respected.

David:
It would appear they meet all of the same requirements of professional groups that you yourself belong to. And I believe the ACP has more members than some of your professional associations. They have a large Board of Directors, which is the photo you've included. Using a statement declaring them "far from well-respected" as your final comment seems to fall into the same  problem you just commented on: Using a fact that is far from a fact.

Doug:
But you are right: one can't dismiss the message based on where the message comes from. On the other hand, if the group were well-respected, the message can't be dismissed without examination. How does a group become well-respected? Can you get respect because you have a degree? No, of course not. You earn it: you get respect through your past actions. This group was created because they have axes to grind:

Have you felt a sense of frustration lately that your current professional medical association is investing your annual dues to promote social agendas that do not reflect your personal values and convictions? Have you felt that recent policy statements have emanated more from political persuasion than from evidence-based science?

All you need is a feeling, an opinion, a gut reaction to your current association, and you can join (with $50).  But are they well-respected? No. If you read their wikipedia page, you'll find many links to disturbing behavior from this group.

David: 
Before, this discussion seemed a bit contentious. Now, I'm just laughing. You're really going to use Wikipedia and the Huffington Post to support your case, to dispute cohort-studies from scientists in Sweden? (snicker)

As I have already mentioned, this group split from the AAP when that group took a decidedly liberal turn with their positions on gun bans and the like. I'm sure that if a professional organization you belonged to began promoting conservative values you'd go looking for another group to join.

Doug:
Now that there is a group, we go looking for data, anything, to support our gut reaction. One report that the group uses is the New Family Structures Study. This data has been criticized by academics and medical organizations. You can claim "the evidence is overwhelming" but that is absolutely false.

David:
It seems you have followed the same argument game plan you were just criticizing. You've searched through the footnotes of the paper to find anything  that supports your gut reaction.  I note you are not critiquing the FDA, the DSM-V, or WHO. Their studies and data are also used to reach conclusions in this paper.

You seem to be making an argument that a group of scientist, with a political agenda, can use scientific data to drive a political narrative. Hmm. We may have to revisit this topic when we discuss global warming.....

Doug:
How can one defend an argument? You could try to dismiss your critics by putting words into their mouth. For example, you could claim that your opponent too-easily dismisses your argument. You can claim that your critic thinks your argument is "nonsensical tripe" when they really did weigh the claims carefully. You can invoke dog whistles to taint the argument ("you are a Saul Alinsky").

David:
Or, you could try to change the entire discussion (including the title) to one about how to argue, rather than focusing on data that indicates medicating children with gender-identity disorder is dangerous, harmful,  and in the long-term, unnecessary.

Doug:
But in a big sense, you won the argument because we are giving this small group of angry people a platform to spread their unscientific views by discussing them. We shouldn't do this. It doesn't help understand the issues at all.

David:
And that is how the liberal left argues:  "Silence dissenting or differing views so we can better understand the issues! The issue is decided! Anyone who disagrees is a science denier! Your argument isn't valuable to me, so I won't consider it. That way, I can become more enlightened."
This is how we've ended up with a new generation of college grads who feel "physical pain" if anyone disagrees with them. Well, I hope you're in your safe-space, because this is the point in the argument where I introduce all of the same data, but from a traditional, liberal source. A source beyond your reproach:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/

In this story, PBS lists the dangers of these drugs, including some that were not even mentioned in the ACP position paper (like sterility). The doctors prescribing these medications (which it is noted they are using off-label) feel there is more benefit than risk to these children, but then repeatedly state that they have absolutely no idea what the risks even are. No studies have been done. These doctors, at the "Gender and Sex Development Program", are experimenting on these children.

So, it seems that the ACP isn't just a crazy, loony group of old, angry people spouting bad information. The data is out there. The data is real. But liberals who are enamored with the idea of transgenders are willing to bypass traditional medical research, and just move ahead and see what happens.....to children! I say that's wrong, and a group of pediatricians decided to take a stand against it as well.

Doug:
I don't want doctors "taking a stand" based on their feelings; I want doctors that do good research, and follow where the science leads them. Otherwise, it is easy to see that their biases cloud their judgment. Who to trust: 60,000 unbiased doctors? Or 60 biased ones? You decide.

David:
Nice argument summary. You try to frame the argument that this group uses no science to reach their conclusions, even though that clearly is not the case. You appeal to "good" research, and insinuate this paper doesn't use any, even though liberal news sites use the same data.  And then you unilaterally claim the group you agree with is unbiased, yet the group you disagree with is, of course, biased. Finally, more than 75% of Americans believe in God. Only 2% are atheists (mostly white males).  So, by your standard, who does that make right?

Doug:
I take these groups at their word: the AAP (66,000 members) is unbiased because that is what they claim. The ASP (60 members) is biased because that is what they claim ("trust your feelings"). Actually, U.S. unbelievers are up to 23%, and rising. But I don't doubt the ASP because they have fewer members; I don't believe them because they are biased. Their small number of members is a side-effect of their fringe beliefs.

David:
Well then, I claim to be unbiased. I didn't realize it was that easy to win you over.

Rather than rely on the infallible Wikipedia, I called the ACP. The numbers are wrong and outdated, by a long shot. The other interesting thing I learned, and validated, is that the AAP has 15 board members that decide what positions they take. The ACP has their entire membership vote on the issues, and  requires 75% approval before taking a position. Assuming the entire AAP agrees with their positions is wrong, but the majority of members of the AAP (which has only been around for 14 years, rather than 87) believe in the science behind their positions. Most are also members of the AAP, so some of the ACP numbers are duplicates. If your claim is that the ACP is a bunch of loons, then the AAP also has a bunch of loons as members. Neither is the case.

You don't believe them because you choose not to believe them, and therefore, they shouldn't be discussed. Your argument style is consistent with what we've seen coming out of colleges and universities of late: If something doesn't fit with your ideology, then it is not only wrong, but shouldn't be allowed into the debate at all. The goal is not to teach young adults "how to think", which is the common claim of higher education. The real goal is to teach them "how to think correctly", which means "like a good liberal". Why else would you choose to eliminate debate?

That may make for an effective argument style, but in the end, it actually hurts honest debate.

Blank Genealogy

David:
You've done considerable genealogy work on the Blank family, and both of us have collected a great deal of momentos from the family. I thought we might discuss some of our history, and how others might investigate their own family heritage in this week's blog.

After all, who you are can often depend on to whom you're related to.

Doug:
True, genealogy is a favorite hobby of mine. Although there are lots of places you can pay to sign up to connect to genealogies created by others, I have never paid for online genealogy services. I see lots of bad information on the web.

I use (and work on) a free and open source program called Gramps, available for free from gramps-project.org. It doesn't help with research directly, but is a program for you to use on your own computer to record the conclusions of your research.

David:
What do you think of websites like Ancestors.com?

Doug:
Wouldn't touch it. Rather, I'd go to the library. The internet can be a good way to find hints, or to make connections with other researchers, though. The picture below is of the trunk that our Blank ancestors brought with them from Germany, stamped (inset) with the region's name (Urloffen). I did find an online community of people discussing this region.

David:
I'd add that you spent a considerable amount of time just talking to many of our relatives. The Blank family is fairly large (Dad was one of seven children, and our grandpa was one of eight). Many of those relatives stayed close by. Close enough for you to be able to interview them extensively for nuggets of information about the family, and where many branches lead. Older relatives are a wealth of knowledge that cannot be obtained any other way. It's one thing to identify a name, but it's something else altogether to hear stories of their lives, and funny or interesting things they did.

Doug:
One of the surprising things I found was that it was easier tracing some of our female ancestors (even though they almost always changed their names when they got married). I would have thought that that would make them hard to track, but not necessarily so. It also helped that our grandmother's family (Scott and Cooper) and her ancestors were well connected in politics.

It is often convenient to think of this as the "Blank" genealogy, but the truth is that at every generation we are merging two complete family trees. We just happened to end up with the surname "Blank."

David:
I particularly like the number of names one of our ancestors had, on Mom's side of the family tree (The Bamfords). Her name was Mary Sarah Elizabeth Jane Edna Tina Margaret Francis Fortney Wheeldon. It seems her folks couldn't decide on a middle name.  Interestingly (and ironically),  she went by "Tiny".  According to the story from Granny Bamford, it's because they pronounced the name Tina as "Tie-nah".

Doug:
I couldn't verify all of those names, but I did find her (she is our great great grandmother) listed as Tina Frances Fortney, and she did marry Jonathan Wheeldon, so it generally matches.

One thing I have enjoyed is finding items created by our ancestors. For example, here is a painting made by our great grandmother on our father's side, Lucinda (Lucy) Cooper:

I imagine that it was the scene of her Indiana home, but don't know. I find it very beautiful and serene.

David:
Some might find it interesting that four generations of Blank's have graduated from the same High School, Ben Davis H.S. although none of them had classes in the same building. Here's the letter sweaters that belong to me, Dad, and Papa Blank (all size 38).

Doug:
I was surprised to find that we have had a couple of distant relatives teach at Bryn Mawr College before me:

Paul Leland Hayworth - was the sibling of the wife of a first cousin, three times removed from us. Pretty remote, but did teach History at Bryn Mawr College in 1910, and served in the Indiana House of Representatives in the 1920s.

Woodrow Wilson - had a daughter that was briefly married to a Cooper. Precisely, he was the father of a wife (briefly) to a first cousin five times removed from us. He was the first professor of History at Bryn Mawr College in 1885. He left Bryn Mawr because he said that he found the female students "too literal and unimaginative." Obviously, he was not a good fit for the all-women's college, to say the least. Of course, he was also President of the U.S. for a time. Recently, his legacy has been re-examined because of his racist views. In fact, a new exhibit opens this week at Princeton examining his legacy.

David:
Not to diverge too far off topic, but it may be true that women at Bryn Mawr in 1885 were, in fact, too literal and unimaginative compared to college men of the time period. And, I'd bet that most of the faculty of most American colleges and universities of that time period believed that minorities were mentally inferior to white folks.  But beliefs change, and so do people.

Doug:
Deciding to go to a brand new college? I think those women were brave. Regarding racism, I think you mean that racist views were more generally accepted then than they are now.

David:
Racist views were actually supported by some of the sciences of the era. I'm also certain that these scientists considered the science "settled" and beyond debate. I think this supports  my take that you should not judge the motives and actions of our ancestors through the lens of today's paradigms, and it also supports my view that social sciences and psychology can sometimes be directed through a prism of current ideologies, rather than hard data like other sciences. Caution should be used with Social studies and the "truths" they decree.

Now, back on topic, we also had an ancestor who attended Bryn Mawr College as a student. The little girl in the far left of this photo of a Blank family gathering (1923) is  Francis Blank. She became an "owl" in later years.

Talking about ancestors, we would be remiss not to mention a not too distant relative through marriage,  well-known author Kurt Vonnegut. And at one time (before a divorce), we were also related to Geraldo Rivera. Which just goes to show you that with enough digging, you never know who may turn up swinging in your family tree.

Doug:
Indeed, Kurt Vonnegut was one of my favorite relatives! He was our third cousin once removed. I felt that I had a real connection with his perspectives on life, and a deep appreciate for his sense of humor. By the way, it was Kurt's daughter who was briefly married to Geraldo. Well, we all make mistakes.

David:
But, the Blank's have not moved very far from our family's original American roots, have we? The first Blank's who immigrated from Germany settled in Wayne Township, Indiana. They came up the Mississippi River from the port  of New Orleans. The George Blank farm can be seen in early Indiana maps at the Indiana Historical Society. Several of us still live within 20 miles of that original farm.

Doug:
Some of you haven't moved very far. But there are some of us that have gone out into the world.

David:
But that's how it is with many families.  Some stay put, and others plant roots in new locations.

I note a new version of the book Roots, by Alex Haley, is being filmed for release soon. This will likely create a whole new interest in genealogy. It's important to learn as much about your family's history as you can. Spend time with your relatives, and discover interesting stories about your relatives, past and present. With the resources we have today, it's easier than ever to record all of these amazing, humorous, and cultural stories for future generations.