Wednesday, April 26, 2017

March for Science?

Doug:
I guess as a scientist, you'll be marching for science this weekend?

http://phdcomics.com/


David:
Why would I be marching for science? Are artists marching for art? Are plumbers marching for plumbing? Electricians marching for electricity? Do you think everything needs a march or a protest?

Doug:
As you could see from the above flowchart from PhD comics, there are reasons to march.

David:
Right. You're literally getting your marching orders from the comics.

So, if I'm not out marching, I'm against science? Or could it be that I'm still for science (as I always have been) here at home? According to government statistics, there are roughly 6.2 million scientists in America. According to Reuters News, tens of thousands marched (split over numerous locations), and a good portion of marchers were there to protest Donald Trump, not to support science. It would seem a good number of scientists were not out marching, but were carrying on with their everyday lives.

Doug:
600 hundred marches over 6 continents (and some underwater). I had no idea that the March for Science was a worldwide event. I see pictures from all over the world. I thought it was just a US protest to the current Republican administration's actions against science-based agencies. Who knew?



David:
I'm really not sure what you mean. Seriously, I don't know exactly what your beef with the current administration is about regarding science. I do see that you're trying to frame Republicans once again as being anti-science, which isn't true. Reducing the scope and size of government is a conservative theme for sure. But equating that with being anti-science is a falsehood. Because of massive deficit-spending during the last administration, Trump is cutting costs at essentially all government agencies. He hasn't taken any actions against science.

If people want to encourage more young people to get involved with science, math, and engineering, which is where the jobs of the future may be, and it's a world-wide movement, I certainly encourage that. March on, science nerds! We are the future! Live long and prosper!

Doug:
Your argument is this: "I don't know why you believe the Republicans are anti-science. And, even though I don't know why, I know that it can't be true. And Big Government is bad." In any event, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was just wondering if you joined the thousands and thousands of people marching? I guess not. So, it happened last weekend. Let me show you some pictures to try to answer your questions about why people are marching. Which is your favorite?

"Show me your evidence."

"Einstein was a refugee. No science. No Health. No Technology. No Progress."

"Basic research drives innovation."

"March for Science, Greenland. Science not Silence."

"Got polio? Me neither. Thanks Science."

"Pretty absurd that this march is necessary."

"We're so mad even the introverts are outside with people!"

"I knew to wear this because science predicted rain."


"Don't mess with science. We have lasers. The Optical Society."

"'Science is magic that works.' Kurt Vonnegut."

"I can't believe I'm marching for facts."

"At the start of every disaster movie there's a scientist being ignored."

"Science is greater than poop you read on Twitter."

Ben Franklin at the March for Science, Philadelphia, PA.

"I'm not a mad scientist. I'm absolutely furious."

"Linear regression (left). Societal Regression (right)."
There are millions more pictures. I think my favorite that I saw was a sign that said "Because we're not stupid." Short, simple, sweet.

David:
Once again, you've interpreted my points, filtered through your liberal kaleidoscope. So much for your efforts at understanding what I think. Perhaps instead of rephrasing what I say into your own words, you should just stick to speaking for yourself.

There are millions of pictures? There were only tens of thousands marching. Did they just keep taking photos of each other, over and over?

Many of the pictures on-line indicate this was pretty much another liberal anti-Republican, anti-Trump, I'm-really-mad-I-didn't-get-my-way march. Many were still wearing their pink vagina hats. That really weakens the point of the march, I think. Once again, when you make an issue appear even a bit partisan, the issue is watered down. Here's a nice piece pointing out why mixing politics and science is a bad idea.

Doug:
Most scientists I know don't want to march. But they feel that science is under attack and they want to do something.

David:
And, to the larger context, science doesn't need government funding to survive.  One of the speakers at the march in Washington was on the research team that figured out how to create human insulin through recombinant DNA using E.Coli bacteria. That research and process was developed here in Indianapolis at Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company. Aerospace science R&D comes out of companies like Boeing. The government is not only not necessary, but again, due to our current financial state, all government agencies (the discretionary spending portion of the budget) need to be trimmed. If the prior administration had not increased our debt more than all the administrations that came before it combined, we might not be in a position where we need to cut funding to differing agencies.

Doug:
Science doesn't need the government? Yes it does! If you believe otherwise, you don't understand how academia works. Even Eli Lilly runs on government money. All of the scientists there got their training working on government-funded research. If you let commercialism run science, you'll only get "science" that makes money for those companies. Imagine if Microsoft had invented the internet rather than our government. It would cost $250 a year subscription, and you'd have to use Microsoft Explorer. Of course, Apple would have their own, incompatible version. The internet was developed by our scientists and our taxes and given back to us, and the world. Our Big, Great Government did that! We can make the world a better place. That is what scientists do. If you try to make science about money, then that is what you will get: things that you don't need that cost a lot of money.

David:
Al Gore invented the internet. He said so. Right before he said California and Florida would be under water by 2008. Here's another well-balanced article about why you should not mix science with politics. (It's surprisingly balanced, as it's from the NY Times.)

Doug:
Imagine that you are a company working on cures for cancer. You have two pills: one that cures cancer with a single dose, and the other that keeps you alive, but doesn't cure cancer, and you have to take a pill every month. What are you going to do? How much are these pills going to cost? You have to recoup your costs! And keep the jobs flowing. Maybe the scientists could refine the pill so you have to take it every hour... now you are thinking!

David:
That last comment shows a complete misunderstanding of how pharmaceutical companies work. They have real scientists as well as the government, who work to come up with the best solutions, not to maximize profits.

Doug:
You been hanging with Martin ‘Pharma Boy’ Shkreli? Trust us. Sure. If he hadn't been sooo greedy, it would have worked.

David:
You're going to denigrate an entire industry of scientists over one man? If you believe that scientists working for private corporations work for their own benefit, why do you not believe that government scientist would also work for their own benefit.

Doug:
I was just pointing out that there are at least some greedy players. But there are some scientists that fake their data. There are some scientists that make honest mistakes. I don't believe every scientist... I believe the science venture. We repeat science experiments to make sure that we ferret out bad science.

David:
Government science is pure, and science in private industry is bad and faked. Got it.

Doug:
I just said that there can be bad science anywhere.

David: Your bias against corporations blinds you to your own inconsistency. If you don't trust the science coming out of corporate America, you should be able to see why some don't trust the science coming out of Big-Government. When scientist join a partisan political rally, it cements that thinking.

Doug:
I'm arguing to not trust any single source, but trust the collective, the consensus. A single drug company can pick their price. They can focus on treatments rather than cures. I don't blame them, but that can't be the entire playing field.

David:
Yet you've lumped all pharmaceutical scientists into one bag. Corporate scientists fake their findings, and government scientists just make honest mistakes? Why can't it be the other way around?

Doug:
It is neither. Imagine that a company that can sell you stuff that makes you sick (think sugary drinks, or air pollution) and that same company sells things that can make you better (think medicine or air ventilation systems). This is win-win! This is Corporate Think at its best!

David:
Imagine government workers producing data showing the world is ending before our very eyes (without allowing anyone to see the data). Then, they produce regulations that they must enforce to "cure the world" of those dangers. Their jobs are secure, and they can hire their friends to work with them, because they need more help to do the job. If you say that's a nonsensical argument, I'd say it's the same argument you're selling about corporations.

Doug:
A worldwide conspiracy?! It is not the same argument. Science is made to be tested. If it doesn't hold up, throw it out. We may need to do another march because if you understood, you would realize that a worldwide science conspiracy is impossible.

David:
And yet most climate science is governmental, here in the US and abroad at the UN.

Doug:
You just said that science doesn't need government funding, and now you say that most climate science is funded by governments. But you claim that we need more study.

David:
Climate science cannot be tested.

Doug:
You don't believe in climate science?! It isn't that you doubt one conclusion or another; you don't even believe that there could be a science of climate because (you claim) that it can't be tested. Well, at least you admit it. Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. How could I? If you deny that science even exists, then there is no argument against that.

David:
We can check to see if temperatures change, sure, but what is driving the change cannot be known or tested. How do you test the greenhouse effect? On a global scale? You cannot. My questioning of climate science is their conclusions, and the predictive models, which is where I believe they over reach. My point about the continued shortcomings of their predictions proves they don't know enough about what's happening to draw the conclusions they have.

Doug:
Do I want to leave my health and prosperity to be determined by corporate greed? No! We need to support general science exploration; you don't know where it will lead. Are all companies evil? No, of course not. But Big Government can level out the playing field by supporting research without commercial constraints. This has impacts on the ethics of science. For example, if the commercial world won't cure cancer (or any other disease), federally-funded research will.

David:
Are you kidding? Dozens of companies' have thousands of scientists and doctors working very diligently to cure cancers of all types. (Not all cancers are the same. It isn't cancer, it's cancers) You talk as though they could cure all of these diseases tomorrow, but they just refuse to do it.

All of these companies are engaged in basic research. Personally, as a diabetic, I'm grateful that Eli Lilly invented the process of recombinant-DNA to create human insulin.  "Are all companies are evil. No...". That's quite magnanimous of you, but insinuates that you believe most companies are evil.

Doug:
The march was pretty non-partisan. Scientists, largely, did not want to march. They like to keep their fields free of bias. But pro-science is not a political stance. Perhaps you see something in these pictures that others don't. I'm sure that there were signs of all kinds.

David:
I have to admit that every march of any kind from now on should have science nerds make their signs. Here are some of those other signs that show the cleverness of science-minds:








Doug:
I see people all over the world marching for science, and the joy of science. I think I even saw some Republicans marching for science. That really strengthens the point of the march, don't you think? Regarding why people are marching, here is a nice story on how some Republicans came to embrace anti-environmentalism. Here is a list of the top 7 ways the Republican administration is attacking science, just at the EPA. Here are 5 ways that the Republicans attacked science in just one week. Or this one: Donald Trump's Science Denial Is Becoming National Policy.

Here is a nice quote that sums up many people's feelings:
"The March for Science is a response to the Trump administration’s distaste for science — or at least the kind that gets in the way of profit — but it is also a celebration of those among us who have devoted their lives to understanding how the world works." - Why they March
Of course, many people---scientists and poets alike---are devoted to understanding how the world works. Science is a worldview, a way of seeing the world. We celebrate that worldview. To attack that view is to argue for another dark ages. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

David:
Yes, I'm sure your left-wing web-sites feel that Trump is a very bad man, and Republicans hate the environment. Most of us still live in caves. Seriously, a distaste for science? Only for profit? Arguing for the dark ages? Hyperbole at it's finest.

Doug:
Republicans value coal miner jobs over the environment. If we continue such policies we are headed to a dark ages, literally. Everything will be covered in soot, and there won't be enough electricity to power our needs.

David:
Um, perhaps you have forgotten the very recent past. Coal and natural gas still account for most of the energy we use in this country. Wind and solar? They combine for a whopping 7% of our energy needs. Whoop! And yet, we aren't covered with soot. Relying on solar and wind is a sure way to guarantee our energy needs won't be met.

2014 chart - Wind energy production has increased 2%, but the rest of the chart has remained fairly stable.

Perhaps the EPA misused it's authority, passed regulations based on studies sponsored by groups that stood to profit from those regulations, and hid all of the data from the public. The EPA is a paragon of waste, fraud and abuse.

Doug:
The EPA has made our world safer and more clean, while creating jobs in new industries like solar power and other renewable energy.

David:
It is not the EPA's job to create jobs in new industries.

Doug:
Sorry! That was an unintended side-effect. But it is true: Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal.

David:
Because coal was regulated out of business. It was Obama's goal.

That's part of the over reach I'm complaining about. The EPA is supposed to make our water and air quality better. They have done that, but somewhere along the way, they became a regulatory bureaucracy. They are not there to pick and choose winners in the marketplace. While they're busy regulating the mud puddles in your back yard, they completely failed the people of Flint, Michigan. Perhaps they should be scaled back to perform their most basic tasks?

Doug:
If the EPA is going to be testing the water in every city, they need expanded funding, not cuts.

David:
Perhaps we should have a blog just about how you can support science, yet reach different conclusions about raw data. (Of course in the instance of the EPA, they don't release the raw data.) Here's a small study that illustrates that scientist have not even come to a consensus about how to measure the amount of carbon released by forest fires. They also don't know why their predictive models have not matched actual data. Carbon levels doubled, but the temperatures didn't change at all within the margins of error. Why not? We need to figure out what variables are in motion, and how they work, before we claim the science is finalized and beyond debate. Science isn't perfect. Obama may have poisoned the well when he claimed it could not even be questioned.

Doug:
Scientists overwhelming agree that climate change is human made, is getting worse, and we can do things today to help ameliorate the situation. You are calling for more research into climate change, and I agree. But how can that happen if you cut funding? You can't, and so we march!

David:
Again, for your last comment to be true means that all climate change research is funded by the government. I say that alone makes the science suspect for bias. If the only research being done about cancer was from one company, you'd probably say the science was biased to reward that company with profit. If most scientists said they had a certain view about cancer based on that company's research, anti-corporate Americans would say those scientists are being spoon-fed tainted data. More climate change research needs to be privately funded. Studies from the private sector would negate the taint of research being paid for by the UN or Big-Government regulators. Government research is not unbiased if researchers get rewarded for findings that support a certain political party's narrative. If your funding gets renewed only if you find a certain way, your results will be questioned if your research supports that narrative, even if it's 100% on the level. If most scientist get their data from a single source, they are only able to see that point of view.

Let me tell a quick story, to make sure I'm making myself clear on this point. A scientist performs an experiment to see how far a frog can jump. He sets the frog down and yells "JUMP". Then he writes down in his records,"a frog with four legs jumps 15 feet". He cuts a leg off the frog, and once again yells, "JUMP". He records, "a frog with three legs jumps 10 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP" once again. "A frog with two legs jumps 8 feet". He cuts off another leg and yells, "JUMP". The result he records is, "a frog with one leg jumps 2 feet". He then cuts off the frog's last leg, sets him down and yells, "JUMP". Nothing happens. "JUMP!" Again, nothing. He writes down in his log book, "a frog with no legs is deaf".

While it is true that the frog did not jump, and you can certainly conclude that a legless frog does not jump, the scientist is in error in concluding the reason why the frog did not jump. It is a reasonable theory to propose, if he doesn't know anything about biology or physiology, but we know it is false.


Right now, climate scientists may be able to say that temperatures are warming. And they can also say that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere appear to be rising. But the conclusion that carbon dioxide causes warming cannot be determined. It is a plausible theory, but it cannot be tested or proven. It may be completely wrong, as even climate scientists admit they don't understand all of the variables at work. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Two things happening at the same time may have no effect on each other, or they could be related. In this case, there is no way to know for sure. To say that because the greenhouse gas explanation makes the most sense is still not enough to conclude the debate is over.

PS: Have you decided what this week's anti-Trump march is going to be about yet? Some new banner about something else, when in reality it's just a march of bitterness against everything Trump.

Doug:
You noticed that there have been a lot of protests! I like your idea: weekly marches. There does seems to be a lot of energy in the streets. We'll see if this gets turned into election activity in 2018. Of course, that is the goal: let politicians know that science is important, and we vote.

David:
I disagree with your paradigm. The issue isn't science in general. I've met many politicians. I've spent time with all of Indiana's current Congress-people, and former Senator Dan Coats. I shook hands with folks at polling centers next to Democrat Andre Carson for a few hours when I ran for office. Mike Pence held a fund-raiser for me and several other State-House candidates. They all believe in science, and I feel they all believe that the best science should direct policy. The current issue is how to fund it all. How to fund all of the programs, and at the same time get the economy going again so average Americans can get jobs. Some programs are going to get cut back. Should that be programs at the EPA or a program to feed poor children? There are priorities that will need to be made, and the decisions on what to cut will be hard to make. Abusive agencies with a track record like the EPA will certainly take a hit, and they should. Other agencies, like HHS or HUD, likely will not.

Doug:
Of course: it is the EPA or feeding the poor! I think the greatest nation in the world can do both! If those Republican administrations believe in science, they better start acting like it. Else, they will be the ex-administration.

David:
Spoken like  true Democrat. We'll just pay for everything, without doing the hard, adult work of making any priorities.

Doug:
Fund everything? I thought it was a choice between Meals on Wheels or clean air. I think we can have food and air. But that is just me thinking that I can have it all!

David:
And if you decide you can't afford something, then you don't believe it's worthwhile? That isn't true. We all make those hard decisions at the dining room table every month when we pay the bills. We prioritize what's most important, and when we're done paying those bills, we decide what we can do with our discretionary money left over. Unfortunately, if you've accumulated a huge mountain of debt, you have to use that money to address that mountain. Obama built a massive mountain. And now we're forced to cut back our spending.

Doug:
If you are playing Blank v. Blank Bingo at home, put a marker on "Blame Obama for Opposite of What He Did". You can also put a marker on "Just Argued the Opposite." It sounds like you are picking winners and losers.

David:
Not at all. If you regulate a business out of existence to fit a policy agenda, and divert funding to  competing businesses to shore them up, you are picking winners and losers. If you recognize you only have a certain amount of money, prioritize the government programs according to their value, and cut the ones at the bottom because you cannot pay for every idea that politicians come up with, you are not picking winners and losers. You are managing a budget, something that Democrats failed to do for years under Harry Reid.

If the economy improves and more people get back to work, have lower taxes, and more disposable income, this science march, and any other protests you think up, will have no meaning. If those things don't happen, Trump and the Republicans will go the way of the Democrats during the past 8 years. In the end, results matter, both in politics and in science.

Doug:
I agree with your last few words: results matter, both in politics and in science. Negative results in science are called "science"; negative results in politics are called "backlash."

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Meetings at the White House

Doug:
Sometimes, the Vice President should be able to have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues, don't you think?

David:
Certainly. Especially when it comes to strategic planning for military actions. There are probably lots if things the President and VP would talk to various individuals and members of Congress that are reasonable discussions to have in private.

Doug:
Actually, the reason why I mention this is that Mike Pence has claimed that he follows strict rules: he would never meet with another woman alone (the so-called "Billy Graham Rule"). Doesn't that seem like it would interfere with his job, or the job of a woman who was attempting to work with him? I guess he couldn't meet with Angela Merkel over lunch? Some have seen this as an admirable stance, but to me it sounds like it just makes it difficult for women to work with him. Maybe that is his goal: keep woman out of the work place. How could he hire women for key jobs (that might involve private lunches)? He can't do it. He can't even have a female friend that he could have a lunch with.

Billy Graham and some random woman he was having lunch with. Just kidding; he couldn't have had lunch with a random woman... that was his wife.

David:
He didn't say he wouldn't meet with a woman. He said he doesn't dine with women alone, or meet with women where alcohol is being served without his wife present. Not the same thing. And his Lieutenant Governor back home in Indiana was a woman. So much for your diabolical theory that he's secretly trying to keep women down.

As a professor, if you are meeting with your female students in a private setting, or with your office door closed, you are taking an unnecessary risk. If any of those students made an accusation against you for sexual harassment or assault, I'm afraid your job, and possibly your career might be over. That's the reality of the world we live in. And due to Title IX guidelines, you'd likely have no legal due-process to protect you. My advice is to meet with all of your students in a public space, or with the door opened at all times.

Doug:
I do take care when I meet with any student. But it is not because I am scared of them or lawsuits; I want to make sure that they feel safe. Situations where all of the power is on one side can be intimidating, and there have been some in power that have taken advantage of it. But how does that relate to the Vice President not wanting to meet with a woman alone? He is not doing it for her sake... he is doing it for his sake. He can't trust himself. Maybe he would do what his colleague would do, if only he had more confidence (and a Tic-Tac) he might grab them by their private parts.



David:
But it goes both ways. You cannot get into any  type of trouble, if you take precautions to make sure there is not an opportunity for any type of trouble.

In the ER, we're faced with the challenge of creating an environment where patients can tell us their most intimate information, and subject themselves to a physical examination, while at the same time making them comfortable with that process. We have to provide them with a welcoming environment, but at the same time be able to have a very honest discussion about their condition. Oftentimes, we have to provide all of that in an instant. Patients do have an expectation of that encounter and what it entails, and that helps quite a bit, but it can still be a challenge. The opportunity for the discussion or portions of the exam to be misinterpreted is huge.

I've known physicians and physician assistants who have been accused of sexual assault while performing their duties, which includes examining patients in the hospital or medical office setting. If you don't have some way to prove nothing happened, your career can be severely damaged. I never perform any aspect of an interaction with any patient without a chaperone in the room. That could be a nurse, a medical student, or a scribe, but it would almost never occur with only me and the patient.

Doug:
I meet with female colleagues all the time, and of course we don't feel like we need to do it in public. If we had to have another person there, we wouldn't be able to get our research done. We aren't talking about Mike Pence's patients... we are talking about colleagues and heads of state. Because he treats women as sex objects when he dines with them, this is sending a very objectifying message. If he were a stockboy, that might not interfere with his job (actually, maybe it would). But as an executive, and some one who must "have private meetings with someone to be able to plan, and discuss issues" this would really be problematic. Should they be able to meet? You answered "certainly" above. This seems inconsistent.

David:
Again, you are projecting your own definitions upon what he said.

Doug:
I tend to do that when I am attempting to understand what people mean.

David:
If you wanted to understand what someone means, you'd try to understand what they mean, not project your own meanings onto them.

Doug:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." 
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." 
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
David:
But you see that Alice is trying to understand what Humpty Dumpty says, and asking him about his meanings. You are not.

Pence meets with women all of the time. Half of the state office holders in Indiana were women during his tenure. There were no problems that arose during that time. No women were denied any positions or had any issues with the Governor. This is a problem that only exists in your head. Mike Pence has been in politics for decades. If there were some issue with him and women, it would have appeared before now. The fact that there are no issues with Pence and women might very well be because he doesn't put himself, or the women he works with in circumstances that might invite potential (or imagined) problems. He treats women with respect. How can that possibly be construed as a bad thing? Choosing to avoid private dinners with women is not that hard to do. I think it is terribly disconcerting that you assume he is treating women as sexual objects because he chooses to keep his professional interactions professional.

Indiana Gov. Pence flanked by Lt. Gov. Sue Ellsperman and staff at a meeting
Doug:
Not being able to work with women on an even setting with men is exactly what Pence said. I'm not making anything up. He said that. He treats women differently. He can not have drinks at a meeting with a woman. With a man, yes. With a woman, no. Can he have a private dinner with a man to discuss policy? Yes! With a woman? No. He treats them differently. Diabolical? No. Making it impossible to be treated the same as a man? Yes.

David:
Dearest brother, what you fail to understand or acknowledge is that Mike Pence is a known commodity. He was a congressman for several terms and rose to Republican leadership. He served two terms as Indiana's Governor, and now he's the Vice-President of the United States. He's been in the public spotlight for decades. While governor of Indiana he was under intense scrutiny. And yet, no one has ever claimed he treated women in any way that was unseemly, or disrespectful, or failed to hire women for any positions, or prevented women from succeeding in any way. It's only now, that he's voluntarily stated that he doesn't hold private dinner meetings with women or place them and himself in compromising positions that you are somehow full of outrage. But you're accusing him of something that no one has accused him of in the decades he's been in office, and stating that his treatment of women is somehow harming them when it never has.  I know that a white, Republican, Christian man treating women with respect doesn't fit your narrative. But geesh, give it a rest. His policy certainly appears to have served him and all of the women who have served along side him all of these years very well.

Doug:
"I can't have drinks with you because if I do, I might rape you. You see, I am not meeting you out of respect for you. Thank me! I respect you!" That is my narrative. I'm not "outraged." I just think that he is better suited as a busboy rather than an executive. You say that he is a "known commodity" but we are just finding out about this peculiar rule of his. My fault! I was using my definitions of words rather than yours.

David:
Ah, now Pence is a rapist. Your words are very inflammatory, biased, and totally unnecessary. He has a code that he lives by, that was only known to himself. No one has complained, as no one was affected in any visual or real way. His personal policy had no untoward effects on anyone. Period. You may believe that Humpty Dumpty is a real person, but if no one knows you have that belief, and it has no bearing on anything at all, then what does it matter?

Diverging on a slight tangent, I am curious what you think of the sexual-assault proceedings across the nation's college campuses where dozens of young men and women are having their lives ruined without any of the due process protections provided in our legal system. Someone makes a claim against you, and you are presumed guilty without being able to defend yourself, being able to provide evidence in your own defense, or even question your accuser? How to you feel about that? Is it fair? Does the rule of law stop at the gates of a university?

Doug:
Have you been watching Fox News? What have they been telling you? That the world is unfair to white men? Oh boy. Poor Bill O'Reilly? He was found guilty before the trial?

Bill O'Reilly (right) may not return to a regular show. Juliet Huddy (left) is one of the many women who has been awarded money for his harassment.  From: http://people.com/celebrity/fox-news-quietly-settles-sexual-harassment-suit-former-host-juliet-huddy-bill-oreilly/
David:
That's your response? Attack television personality Bill O'Reilly? Seriously? (And using People Magazine as your source?)

Doug:
I used People Magazine for their pretty picture of Bill and Juliet. People Magazine has lots of pretty pictures of people. You doubt that O'Reilly is a serial sexual, predator, and you want better sources? Here is a Google search that has over 1,000,000 hits.

David:
How did Bill O'Reilly enter into the conversation? I have no idea how your mind made the jump from college campus inquisitions to a television personality. Talk about diversionary tactics. Do you believe Google hits equate with a guilty verdict? Maybe we should start talking about Bill Clinton and his sexual aggressions? Or, we can get back to answering questions that I thought you might have an opinion on, since you work in a University setting.

Doug:
We were talking about Mike Pence and his inability to meet with women alone. Then you got "curious" about sexual assaults on campus. But rather than focusing on sexual assault, you focused on "due process." I presume that Bill O'Reilly would agree with you that he was not afforded due process, which also includes the option to just pay for any troubles to go away.

David:
Here are some articles about the topic I asked your opinion on.  It's no wonder you don't want to talk about it.

Doug:
If by "it" you mean "sexual assault", we could talk about it in this context. I presume that it is relevant here because you are afraid that Mike Pence would sexually assault a woman if he were left alone with her. I presume that is why he is afraid to be alone with a woman.

David:
My question was how do you feel about the process colleges have now put forth to deal with a real problem. Why do you feel that Pence is afraid? He keeps his interactions professional. That doesn't reflect fear. But you again digress...

Colleges have been put in a tough position by the Obama administration's Department of Education. Create a farcical pseudo-judicial system or lose federal funding. Unfortunately, the system they have created does not withstand actual judicial review:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/01/campus-due-process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.55c79ba80243

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/22/campus_sexual_assault_and_a_modern_crucible_128508.html

http://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-american-college-campuses-have-become-anti-due-process

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445476/yet-another-college-loses-due-process-case

"Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” ~ Opinion of U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts.

Doug:
Oh, you want to talk about "due process." It is funny that you want to bring up "due process" now. Of course, we can talk about due process with any issue. But if you wanted to talk about sexual assault, then that would be understandable; there has been an increasing number of sexual assaults across campuses. Every 98 seconds an American is assaulted.


One out of every 6 American women has been the victim of a sexual assault. Campuses have a problem, but it is even worse off campus. This is a cultural problem. Our culture. Of course, protecting due process is always important. But sexual assaults are a crisis in our country, and the world. Mike Pence's solution is to just stay away from women? No. He should recognize that the solution is to treat women with the same respect that he treats men. If he did, then he should have nothing to worry about.

David:
Again, Mike Pence doesn't avoid women, or put them down, or prevent them from working wherever they want. You are completely misleading the conversation to fit a narrative that Conservative Christian, Republicans have a war on women. It isn't true. No matter how much you really, really, really want it to be true.

While sexual assault is a real problem, eliminating due process is not an answer.

Doug:
My point about Fox News is that you might get the idea that the "due process problem" is much worse than the "1 out of every 6 women assaulted problem" if you watch them. It isn't.

David:
But you refuse to even acknowledge that eliminating normal due process is a problem. Why would you put it in scare quotes, unless you truly believe that the elimination of a fair process isn't a problem? It's not a which-is-worse argument. You don't fix the real problem of sexual assaults by convicting some innocent people without trials or a fair process.

Doug:
Since we are talking about meetings what do you think about Trump's plan to prevent us from knowing who was visiting the White House? This isn't very transparent, is it?

David:
No, it isn't transparent at all. And I don't really understand why that policy would need to be changed.

Doug:
So, if someone called "Obama the least transparent president ever!" they might be wrong. Why would that policy need to change? Don't you think that the Republican administration is attempting to hide something?

David:
Transparency in government is a relatively new phenomena. Until Watergate, it really wasn't even thought of. People accepted that the government had secrets that it needed to keep, and no one really asked questions. Nixon changed all of that in a dramatic fashion. (Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see the private, nocturnal  visitor logs during the JFK years.)

Doug:
JFK's logs would be interesting as political porn. There would be many young women on that list, I'm sure. But more importantly, who would be on that list that may have been working for another government? This shouldn't just be curiosity. This is important as it indicates who is meeting our representatives, and what are they attempting to influence.

David:
We uncovered the entire Bill Clinton-selling-the-Lincoln-bedroom-to-Chinese scandal because of the visitor log books.

Doug:
Exactly! We need to know who is making these visits.

David:
Obama was probably the most transparent POTUS we've had, because transparency continues to improve with each new administration.

Doug:
What?! Trump once said that "he is the least transparent President--ever..." And you claim that he was the "most". That is quite a lie Trump has told then. But the trend of transparency seems to have stopped with Trump.



David:
Please. He hasn't even been in office for 100 days yet, and you've already decided that transparency is dead? This is only the White House visitors log were talking about.

Doug:
I just pointed out that you said the exact opposite of what Trump said. Someone is wrong, bigly, and it is you or Trump.

David:
You're accusing Trump of being an exaggerator during the election? Duh.

Doug:
"Most" vs. "least." Sure, we can call that an "exaggeration," Humpty.

David:
Obama clearly had some episodes where transparency was completely lacking. He ran on the promise he would be the most transparent ever, and yet had some major failings in that department. Lois Lerner never did testify about her IRS dealings, and Congress has never seen any of the documents regarding the Fast-and-Furious program at the Justice Department. And the impression that I'm left with was all of his agencies fought tooth and nail against Freedom of Information requests during his entire tenure. The courts ruled against the administration over and over and over again, eventually even mandating a timeline for the Clinton State-Department email releases. That obstruction of transparency may have hurt Clinton as much as anything that was actually in the emails.

Doug:
So, you say that Obama was probably the most transparent President ever, and yet he could have been more transparent. And yet, Trump is heading in the wrong direction. Don't you think we need laws to force a President's transparency? This obstruction to transparency is really going to hurt Trump, if it hurt Clinton?

David:
That's probably why this issue of the visitor logs is getting so much attention. It's a small thing, but it completely bucks the trend of increasing transparency. Does it mean someone's hiding something? You can't say that, but it does beg the question, "Why are you making this change?" It gives the appearance that someone's hiding something. The issue is already hurting him, and distracting from much more important issues. We're in agreement here that it is wrong. How often are you and I in total agreement?

Doug:
Total agreement! Woot!

David:
But I think we need to be careful by creating more laws. We already have Freedom of Information laws on the books. There may be some things that need secrecy that could inadvertently be swept into some new legislation. Just having ordinary citizens like us talking about it should help to pressure elected officials to come clean.

Doug:
What happened to total agreement? I thought we were agreement that we need tough, new laws to ensure transparency?

David:
No, we agreed that changing the policy is wrong, and transparency is good. Just be happy with that much agreement....

Doug:
The meanings of these words are hard to keep track of. Does obstructing transparency mean that one is hiding something? You just said that it hurt Clinton, but now you claim that it does not mean that Trump is hiding something. Don't you think that that seems inconsistent? Obstructing transparency can only mean one thing: you are hiding something. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or a Democrat. Do you see how consistency works?

David:
Lack of transparency didn't mean that Clinton was hiding anything either. I said it leaves it open to interpretation, and the interpretation is likely to be that someone looks like they're hiding something. Although it doesn't apply here, but there may be some things that are just difficult to be fully transparent about. When Hillary set up her own server to stay off the grid, that was a move to hide things. If Trump staffers start meeting at a coffee shop across the street from the White House (as some reports have stated), that appears to be a move intended to get off the grid and avoid disclosure and reporting laws.

Doug:
So they are like Hillary? We need hearings! Lock them up! Hillary was hiding things, you say. But Trump isn't. Consistency is a real problem if you try to see difference here.

David:
Hillary appeared to be placing her records in a place that could not be recovered, and that was wrong. If Trump staffers are doing something similar, then that is also wrong. That's what I said. I don't know why you see that as somehow being inconsistent. You do a lot of mis-reading between the lines to fit your own narratives.

Doug:
I think that is just you projecting your own meaning onto my words. Right? Total agreement!

David:
It's up to individuals and groups to keep a watchful eye on our public officials and demand records when needed to maintain transparency. It's one of the things that makes democracies better than dictatorships.

Doug:
Watchful eye? I have to go to work. How about we just makes some damn laws? That is what makes democracies better than anything else.

David:
North Korea, Russia, and China have plenty of laws. I don't want to live in any of those countries.

Doug:
That is our choice? Either we have laws (and are, therefore, like North Korea) or we live free? I think you threw the baby out with the bath water. No wonder you see "due process" issues at the heart of everything... due process is only relevant when there are laws.

David:
Hey, how'd we get here. I thought we were talking about who's coming to dinner, and is there a guest list...

Thursday, April 13, 2017

I am David; Ask Me Anything

David:
Doug, in a follow up to your initial interrogation blog, do you have any questions you'd like to ask me?

Doug:
It isn't supposed to be an "interrogation" exactly. But, sure, I have some questions from me, and also some culled from social networks.

It doesn't seem that you believe any any systemic problems in the United States. When it comes to humans, you never seem to be swayed by problems with the system, but just individual choices. Is there any system that you would blame in causing issues in the US?

David:
Big Government. Not Constitutional government, mind you, but the bloated bureaucracy that the US Government has become.

Individual choice is a hallmark of freedom, and it's what makes our country great. Government too often gets in the way of that freedom. Big Government and Executive-Branch agencies are the systemic problem.

But, to paraphrase Spiderman, with great freedom, comes great responsibility. Individuals should have the freedom to do and say what they want with few exceptions, but you must also take responsibility for your actions and words. You must take responsibility for yourself. The government should not  pass restrictions to protect you from yourself.

The EPA, the Department off Education, Health and Human Services, the VA...these are all government agencies that don't work as they should and place more burdens and restrictions on Americans with little to show for it. There are many other examples of Big Government agencies and regulations run amuck.

Doug:
So you don't see any systemic racism (for example), but you don't see the value of any of the government agencies designed to protect us? Would you be happy living in the Wild West before there was a strong federal system? (By the way, the quote is from Spider-Man's uncle Ben.)

David:
Technically, the quote originated in the Bible, and then was popularized in the form we use today by Voltaire. I appologize, but I digress...

I believe there are racists within every group. That doesn't make the entire group racist, does it? If the justice system is systematically racist, and the justice department is a government agency, then our entire government is racist by your argument. I just don't believe that to be true.

There are of course some services that can only be provided by a centralized government. There are specific powers and missions that are enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, such as the military and the treasury.  But even the military can function better, and at less cost. We've already seen that Trump pointed out just a few examples, such as our next generation of attack jet fighters, and the cost is now less than what it was.

But many of the services you laud should not be the government's responsibility. In many instances, the states should be responsible, and would do a much better job than the Federal government. In other instances, individuals should be responsible for themselves. The government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves by outlawing Big-Gulps, for example.

Doug:
Many people might say that you lack empathy. You are a well-off, white doctor who doesn't support the government where it tries to protect people from the environment, give people health care, deny a woman's choice, etc. You believe that you got to where you are because of individual choices, and you can't imagine that being born black, or poor, or a woman, would affect you at all. What would you say to those who think that you have no empathy? Do you understand why they would think that about you?

David:
How about you not assuming what I can or can not imagine.

I wasn't born a well-off doctor. I made decisions, worked very hard, and lived in great debt for many years to get to where I am. I have an expectation that others could do the same. They may have greater challenges in some aspects, and greater obstacles to overcome, but they still must be the ones to decide what happens in their lives. There are people who grew up in our very neighborhood who are not doctors or professors. They made choices and went on to have careers of their own, in fields of their own choosing.

To say I can't imagine the struggles that others have endured indicates you have a low perception of my abilities to empathize. I work in the ER daily with people who are out of work, uninsured, struggling to pay their bills, and homeless. I have a much greater interaction with the people you are talking about than you or most of your liberal, private-college attending, well-educated and well-healed friends do. I actually work with case managers and social workers every day to help these patients find resources. And most of the time, these people will admit that it was their own poor planning or bad decision making that got them to where they are.

If you are arguing that some neighborhoods disadvantage some people, I'd argue that they are not forced to live in that neighborhood. They can go anywhere. They can live anywhere they can afford. If a neighborhood isn't safe, they should encourage the police to come in and help them clean it up, but lately, we've seen people chase the "racist" police out of the very neighborhoods where police could make the biggest difference. That's people making choices as well. Bad choices.

As I said before, it is not a role of the government to provide you with health insurance. (You often use insurance and health-care interchangeably; they are not.) The EPA should monitor air and water pollution, but it should not be able to regulate a mud-puddle on your land or my land. It failed to protect the people of Flint Michigan at it's most basic task, but it wants to focus on eliminating the coal industry. Big Government is an unquenchable monster that has lost it's way.

Doug:
So, to answer the question, you don't understand how someone could see you as lacking empathy?

David:
I certainly understand why they might think that, but I also think they are wrong. If you believe people are victims of fate, with no say in their lives, and the government must take care of them like a mother feeding a helpless baby, then you might believe I have no empathy. Having an expectation that people work for what they want is not a bad thing. Asking people to show responsibility for their decisions and actions is not wrong.

Doug:
Now on to some questions from social networking:

Brian (via Facebook):
What is a reasonable restriction on abortion? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? Full term? Partial birth? Before the cord is cut? Before kindergarten? Surely there's a cutoff somewhere. If there is a cutoff, why?

Lisa (via Facebook):
Yes, what day do you become a human?

Elle (via Facebook):
I like the question of when life begins. It would be interesting to hear from each side; what are your convictions on the subject and what thought processes brought you to those conclusions.

David:
I should first admit that I have read Doug's response to these questions before I wrote this answer, so I'll specifically identify some of his factual assertions. If everything he said was true, then it might make sense to reach his conclusions. But most of the important things he said are not true.

Even without reading his response, mine would still pretty much be the same. I believe life begins at conception. There actually is quite a magnificent change that comes over the egg when a single sperm enters it. A few million sperm enter the vagina and uterus during intercourse, and a few hundred thousand sperm travel up the fallopian tube and come into contact with the unfertilized egg, but only one will enter. Instantly, the egg's membrane changes and becomes impenetrable to other sperm. The egg contained half of the genetic makeup of a person, and the sperm contained half as well. But in the instant that the single sperm penetrates the egg wall, the DNAs combine to form a new and unique set of DNA. And I do mean unique. The DNA is not the same as the mother's or the father's, but a blend of each. If the parents have more children, those sets of DNA will not be the same blend, but other unique sets. And the process of cell division and differentiation begins immediately. For these reasons, I believe that life begins at conception, and that a unique human is created in the process.

3D ultrasound image of developing baby
Doug claimed that the embryo belongs to the woman. "It is the woman" is how I believe he phrased it. That is not true. The developing baby is unique. It is not the mother at all. There's a 50% chance it will be male, and it may have different colored hair and different colored eyes. It may even have a different blood type. While the baby and it's placenta is growing within the uterus, it is not a part of the uterus. In fact, it attaches to the wall of the uterus like Velcro: tightly adherent, but not actually bonded in any physical way. Oxygen and nutrients pass from the mother's blood across the placental barrier to be picked up by the baby's blood, but the two circulatory systems' blood supplies do not ever come into  direct contact. If they do, it could cause a dangerous auto-immune reaction (Rh-incompatibility). That's why pregnant mothers receive Rho-gam injections if they have any bleeding during their pregnancy. The baby belongs to the mother, but it is a unique and completely separate individual within her uterus. This is not magic. It's science called embryology, biology, genetics, and obstetrics.

The rest of Doug's comments cloud that basic information with other issues. And even those assertions are incorrect talking points. Does the younger generation support abortion? No. Actually, people greater than 65 years old are the group most opposed to abortion, but those less than 35 years of age are the second most opposed group. And that number has increased in the past few years to become the fastest-growing group of pro-life proponents. Do pro-life proponents want to restrict anyone's rights? No. If you believe that life begins at conception, which I have illustrated is a logical conclusion that has been drawn by both scientists and non-scientists, then to promote the killing of that life because it is inconvenient is both wrong and socially immoral. The government and society have stepped in and condemned murder as long as there have been societies to condemn it.

The most common defense of abortion is "what if" the pregnancy is from rape or incest, or is a health threat to the mother". I work in a Catholic hospital, and if the mother's health is at risk, even the Sisters of Saint Francis have no issue terminating the pregnancy. If Mom dies, the baby will also die. So, it is acceptable to most that the pregnancy cannot continue. The health of the mother accounts for about 8% of abortions in this country.  Rape and incest account for less than 0.5% of all pregnancies. What is the reason for the other 91.5%? A full 25% of respondents in multiple surveys over many years indicate they had an abortion to hide the fact they were sexually active. 75% indicated they just didn't want to have to change their life, and a baby would do that. Overall, the vast majority of abortions could be categorized as abortions for convenience.

Getting pregnant is a big responsibility. But if you don't want to have a baby, then you should do everything you can to prevent a pregnancy. (There are actually things that can be done (or not done) to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.) Once you are pregnant, it is too late to think about these things. Thad is right to recommend we educate young adults better about sex. Understanding that a pregnancy creates a living, unique person that shouldn't just be "terminated" because you are irresponsible is a valuable message. This is a message for both young men and women. It takes two sets of DNA to make a complete set. Making sure young adults recognize that with the power to create life comes great responsibility in caring for it is also an important message.

Does society have an interest in caring for unwanted children? Should we care for children in poor families? Do parents have some responsibility for the children they create? These are other serious and difficult questions, but have no bearing on the question of when does life begin. If life begins at conception, many other difficult questions may have answers that are unwanted, but the answers themselves become easier.

Doug:
You seem to give more power for making a choice on terminating a pregnancy to a group of nuns rather than the mother. On the other hand, you vary carefully didn't mention God, religion, or souls in your answer above. Instead, you attempted to make your position defensible from something that tried to look "scientific." Don't you think that many scientists would argue with your claim that "life begins at conception"? Did your purposefully try to hide the fact that this is really a religious argument? If a poll of scientists disagreed with you, would you change your mind?

David:
I didn't mention religion because religion didn't have anything to do with the scientific argument I just presented. The Bible does say that God has planned for you, and knew you in the womb before you were born, and He knows every hair on your head, and I believe these things are true as well. But I believe the science makes a very strong case that life begins at the very moment a sperm enters the egg. A unique individual is created at that very moment.

Doug:
Reading over the last year of blog posts, it seems to some that you are very inconsistent in your opinions. For example, if Obama did something, you claim he is a dictator; if Trump did it, then you claim that "he is just doing what he said he would do". Do you think you are more like a politician in your manner (e.g., you are always looking to "spin"), or do you really believe what you write? You seem to have a more conciliatory tone when you write to your Facebook friends versus when you write here. Is there a difference?

David:
I'd argue you are inconsistent as well. Some science gets credit as truth, while science that doesn't fit your argument is cast aside. I believe my writings are very consistent. If someone does something outside of what the Constitution allows, he could be said to be acting as a dictator. If he stays within the bounds, he isn't.  Writing an executive order that expands the reach and power of the Executive is not the same as writing an executive order changing the rules of an agency. Not all executive orders are the same.

On FB, I'll often pose a question or make a statement to start a discussion among people who follow my posts. I'll argue with them when they start making illogical statements, and I'll moderate if two people start attacking each other. It is my FB page, after all. We often purposefully choose topics for the blog that put us at odds. It is Blank Versus Blank, after all. Here, we debate as well as discuss.


Doug:
Speaking of changing your mind, has Doug ever changed your mind on something that you have discussed in the blog? If so, what? If not, why not? Do you think Doug has changed his mind on anything?

David:
Speaking in the third-person, David has not been swayed by Doug. When it comes to issues like choosing a different gender than you really have, David thinks Doug's argument was completely nonsensical and unscientific. He also thinks Doug is unlikely to have changed his mind on anything based on what David has argued.

Doug:
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, do you think women that have abortions should be punished? What do you think the punishment should be?

David:
No. Just as it was before Roe v Wade, the person performing the abortion was the guilty party. It might also be noted here that in 1973, when Roe passed by a 5-4 majority, abortions were illegal in 46 states, and the vast majority of Americans were opposed to it. Even medical societies maintained an official stance that abortions should only be allowed in the case of a genetically defective baby (it was the age of Thalidomide) or risk to the mother.

Doug:
If a person can't afford health care (and never will be able to), do you think that they should get the same health care that you have? If you say "yes" then wouldn't you argue that there would be no pressure for them to buy health care if they can get quality health care for free? Who pays for health care for those that can't?

David:
That's why Obamacare failed so spectacularly. Anyone can walk into any ER and they will get the best health care on the planet. They will get a bill after-the-fact, but no one will ever deny them care. Again, it's health insurance that you continue to use interchangeably with health care. They are not the same. If you don't want to get a bill, then you should get insurance that will help cover the costs when you need care. The downfall of Obamacare was to charge young people, who are unlikely to require the care, the highest rates for the insurance. Or, they could pay a paltry tax / fine. Poor people come to ERs around the country whenever they are sick, and we provide them care. Before Obamacare, hospitals received charity funds form the government to defray those write-offs. Obamacare eliminated those funds. The authors of Obamacare made foolish and unrealistic estimates that defied human nature.

Doug:
Some people might have trouble reconciling the ideas of Christianity with your expression of Republican values (cutting support for government programs (such as Meals on Wheels), denying climate change, not taking care of poor, environment, etc.) How do you explain these discrepancies? Even the Bible quote you make above says: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." That sounds like a progressive tax plan to me. How do you reconcile these two views?

David:
That's the most biased and loaded question you may have ever asked, and I think it may say more about you than me. Do you believe that it is Christian values or Republican values that promote not taking care of the poor or the environment? The answer is neither. Christians and Republicans believe in taking care of the poor, in taking care of our environment, in making sure that government programs actually work, and that programs should be turned over to the states or other groups if they can do a better job. Both Christians and Republicans believe in science, but may disagree with you as to what extent certain findings may be believed or weighted. Then there is the question as to what to do with scientific information. There is usually more than just one solution to a problem, and there are often more unseen variables in action than what you see.

You see, if you simply pay people a wage to remain comfortably poor, they will remain poor. If you provide them with all of the things they need, but don't require anything of them, they will take what you give them as long as you keep giving it. Studies show this to be true. If you create a system that punishes poor people for getting married by taking benefits, you end up perpetuating single-parent households, and they remain poor.

You insinuate by your question that Democrats take care of the poor, believe in science, take care of the environment, and care for seniors, while Republicans and / or Christians do not. But there are different ways to reach those goals. Republicans make the harder case that you shouldn't just give people stuff. Government should make sure people have the freedoms to get the stuff themselves. It's a much more complicated discussion than we have space for here, but teaching a man to fish really is better than just giving him a fish.

God only cares about money to the extent that money can corrupt your heart and soul. He really doesn't care about taxes. Taxes are a man-made thing.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

I am Doug; Ask Me Anything

Doug:
Are you familiar with Reddit's Ask Me Anything (AMA) series?
AMA stands for “Ask Me Anything,” which is basically just a trendy internet term used to describe an interview that occurs between one user who hosts it and all the other users who want to ask questions. - lifewire.com
So, let the interview begin! Ask me anything. You can solicit questions from others, if you wish.



David:
I may ask you several questions.

On a scale of 1-100, with 50 being the most middle-of-the-road politically speaking, and the most liberal being 1 and the most conservative being 100, where would you place yourself and why?

Doug:
I would probably put myself around 75... I am, by far, not the most liberal person I know. I'm not even especially liberal. I believe that the government can help with many problems, but I don't mind too much that social programs often rely on capitalistic systems. For example, I didn't mind too much that Obama constructed "health care for all" on top of commercial health care. I don't mind too much that there are some charter schools. But I do believe that there needs to be health and education for everyone, and if that requires getting rid of the commercial interests in health and education, then I am all for that.

I am ashamed at how little we pay public employees like firefighters, police, soldiers, and K-12 teachers. If it were up to me, I would make these people as well paid as doctors and lawyers. I am ashamed at how poorly we treat our poor and homeless.

David:
I can see we've missed out on some opportunities for some blogs. You're a 75? Many of my co-workers are Democrats, and you are far, far more to the left than any of them.

Doug:
Well, imagine trying to be a Democrat in Indiana: it isn't easy! In any event, I think it fair to say that you know me better than you know your co-workers, and I would wager that some are at least as progressive as I am, maybe more. They are also polite, and probably wouldn't bring that up at work. But I hardly think that my self-identified progressive rating is worth talking about in the future. We could talk about what progressives value, such as wages for public employees.

David:
I'd like to respond to your comments now, but we have several questions for you from our FB followers.

Doug:
Well, that's good because in an Ask Me Anything, you are not supposed to "respond." You just ask. Now, the questions from others:

Brian (via Facebook):
What is a reasonable restriction on abortion? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? Full term? Partial birth? Before the cord is cut? Before kindergarten? Surely there's a cutoff somewhere. If there is a cutoff, why?

Lisa (via Facebook):
Yes, what day do you become a human?

Elle (via Facebook):
I like the question of when life begins. It would be interesting to hear from each side; what are your convictions on the subject and what thought processes brought you to those conclusions.

Doug:
Really? All of the questions from Facebook (so far) have to do with abortion?

David:
That means they would like to have you answer the differing aspects of the question. You see, this issue is very important to a great many folks.

Doug:
Huh, I didn't get that. You see, it is very important to me too! But I'm a little shocked that three people want to ask this question (and only this question) in three different ways. The different forms of the question show the main issue: is there a point where a developing human should not be terminated? If so, what is that point? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the same answer that many people (scientists and nonscientists alike) have also come to.

Does something magical happen when the sperm meets the egg? No. It isn't even the beginning, as both the sperm and the egg have made quite a trip so far. And, there is quite a trip to make before becoming a person. Many things can happen along the way.

Is there a magical point along the way that one can proclaim that the developing fetus is human? No. Any point would be completely arbitrary to declare that it is now human. What about when it becomes "viable"? No, as that point continues to get earlier and earlier, thanks to science. And the only way to test is to remove it from the mother's body and see if it survives.

To me, because the fetus is in the woman's body, it belongs to the woman. It is the woman. No government, or other person, can dictate what happens when the growing fetus is in the woman's body. Only the mother can decide.

I have a certain amount of respect for those cultures that consider the newborn infant not fully formed until a specific point (say, first birthday, or thirteenth birthday). But these days, once the baby is born (i.e., removed from the woman), I think that science, and culture, can consider the new baby a person, and make sure it deserves to be treated as an independent soul. (Of course, I use the term "soul" metaphorically.)

But once it is born, then we need to really rise to the occasion and make sure (as a society) that is it fed, educated, taken care of, and moved into society.

So, to answer the questions: the mother can decide to terminate the pregnancy at any point before the fetus is born. "Partial birth" is not a medical (nor scientific) term, and doesn't have any meaning. Why do I consider the birth the "cutoff"? Well, it seems that once the baby is out of the mother, then that is a clear distinction. If the baby isn't viable, then of course we would still leave any decisions in the hands of the mother (and father).

What day do you become human? Well, much, much later. And it is a gradual process. You gain certain rights, and abilities, as you develop. But, for many legal points, as soon as you are born you gain many rights. I'm fine with that distinction.

When does life begin? That is not  very well-defined question. But I would say that it started many billions of years ago. It is a baton that we pass on to our children. And, if we don't destroy ourselves and our planet, it is something that they will pass on to their children.

As Thad Blank mentioned, if you try to define a legal timeline for "becoming human" or "becoming alive" then the government needs to know the date of conception. Do you really want the government that involved with your sex life?

But what about the "life" of the "baby"? Go ahead and try to make that argument to the mother, but it is her decision. Period. Many of the women I know have had abortions. Many have not. But it is not your business (nor mine). We live in a great country that allows many religions and cultures. The right for a woman to have control over her own body is seen by the younger generations as a fundamental right.

So called "pro-life" people want to take away the rights of the mother. I don't find many such "pro-lifers" very believable because their care for the fetus seems to stop when the baby is born. Food for the poor? "Get a job!" they say. Many of them don't want to let Syrian children into our country, but they are happy to bomb Syria, complete with collateral deaths. Why are the "pro-lifers" so concerned about preventing a mother's choice then? I think it is about control. They often complain about "Big Government" but they are all in favor of government when it forces their beliefs on others. If you want to control a mother's choice, then you are in the wrong country.

David:
To clarify some of your answers, I think you should elaborate on your comments. You indicated you are not human when you are born even though you do have some rights. What, then, makes you human, and when do you get to join the species? You also completely glossed over the fundamental question that is being asked: When does life begin? Not when did life in general begin, but when does an individual's life begin. That is the question being posed. Is there an answer you can give?

Doug:
I'd be glad to elaborate, but I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding my answers. You are trying to put my responses into your framework, and that just might not work.

Becoming human is a continuum. It isn't that one second you are not-human and the next second you are human. It is a process. Humanity isn't a club that you are in or not-in. It isn't a country club that you get to "join." Over time, you gain more functionality, more rights, and become more human. You can see the "humanity" in Koko the sign-language-using gorilla. We share a lot with chimpanzees and gorillas. They are more like us than different.

Life is a similar concept to me. I think it would be silly to try to describe a fetus as "not alive" one second and "alive" the next. Life is a continuum handed down over the millennia. But a fetus gains a new status when it separates from the mother. It isn't that birth makes it now "alive"... but birth now gives it independence. Once it gains independence, then it has taken a big step along the continuum of becoming human.

Thanks, everyone, for your questions! I appreciate them, and (if you made it this far) I appreciate taking the time to read my responses. Next week, we'll Ask David Anything. Feel free to ask your questions in the comments below.