Source Material

The Queen has been out on her annual fall trek through the thrift stores hunting clothing and other apparel for our upcoming trip (hopefully Haweewee if it doesn't get blown off the map by the hurricane currently spinning up in the Pacific). So, she sends me a text at the office with the a photo of the following t-shirt:

She allowed as how it was the perfect shirt for me...since I typically refuse to accept much of anything without critically assessing the facts and source material.

I can't help it. I come by my flaw honestly as I was trained that way by a wise, old, Jesuit priest turned history professor in my history methodology class. The man had to be in his 70s at least at the time, and that was...more than a few years ago. Let's just say, if that man is still creeping around this old mud ball, I'm shooting him in the head on general principle. You can't be too careful to prevent a zombie outbreak.

God will sort it out.

Anyspeculation, there was a point to this post. I'm sure of it.

Oh yes...critical assessment of facts and source material.

That old Jesuit had all us wannabe history majors do a project (a research paper really) the main point of which was an annotated bibliography. He didn't really care what the subject of the paper was as long as the bibliography was annotated with a critical assessment of the source material including whether it was primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. He also wanted us to take it a step further and assess whether the source material exhibited any bias (this came back to bite me in the butt with my African history professor, but that's a story for another time).

Fast forward mumble, mumble years, and that is one the lessons that has stuck with me to this day. Unfortunately, I think this lesson has been lost on an entire generation (or more) of people.

Case on point. The other night, I come home from work to find two, brand new, freshly purchased boxes of Cheerios (M&M's preferred breakfast cereal) on a pile of stuff being gathered for donation. I queried The Queen as to the reason suspecting something was afoot.

The Queen informed me that my father-in-law, Opa, had told her that he had read an article somewhere that claimed Cheerios contained dangerous levels of a particular pesticide residue. Opa is one of those people for whom a little information is a dangerous thing (no, seriously, he's never met an internet scare of conspiracy theory that he hasn't latched onto). He really should not be let loose with an internet connection without a minder.

This revelation, as one would expect, caused my eyebrows to raise and set off my facial tics just a touch.

I set about investigating the claim du juor. Opa was questioned regarding the source of the Cheerios Challenge. After much fumbling about the dustier corners of his memory, we were able to tease out the source of the pesticide proposition. It was a news article from the Detroit Free Press linked to from the Natural News website referring to a study done by a group called Environmental Working Group.

Now we were getting somewhere. I start doing my due diligence on EWG. EWG claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. A laudable goal to be sure. Funding is primarily from grants and individuals. Notable names among the donor list is the Walton Family Foundation (think Sam Walton of Wal-Mart fame) and The Turner Foundation (Ted Turner - CNN Founder). They also have corporate partnerships with many of the bigger names in organic foods.

Nothing about this is particularly alarming. It's not like George Soros or the Koch Brothers are involved. Having said that, did I mention EWG has a lobbying arm? Silly me. That must have slipped my mind. And regarding what issues do they lobby? Environmental, agricultural, food, toxic chemicals, etc.

So, they are environmental advocates. Again, nothing particularly wrong with that, but it could color their findings on certain topics or influence their reporting of facts. We'll get back to that in a minute.

I tracked down the article EWG posted about glysophate levels in foods. Glysophate, for the uninitiated, is the evil active ingredient in RoundUp (created by the nefarious mega corporation Monsanto...yes, I'm being a tad tongue in cheek). It seems that EWG commissioned a laboratory study of glysophate levels in common breakfast cereals. The article published by EWG reporting the results of the lab study started with a link to a recent California jury verdict in which Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million to a plaintiff dying of cancer allegedly caused by exposure to glysophate. They then get into a discussion of the levels of glysophate in food allowed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (1.1 milligrams per day for a 154 pound average person), the EPA (not specifically noted by referenced to be 60 times higher than the CA state allowable level) and the EWG's calculated "one in a million" cancer risk of 0.01 milligrams per day.

The original article I read did not "show their work" on the math, but it seems to have been corrected as they now report that a person would have to eat a 60 gram serving of food exceeding 160 parts per billion glysophate concentration to reach their calculated risk level of 0.01 millgrams per day (which, by the way, is 110 times lower than the  level the state of California says is too much which in turn is 60 times lower than what the EPA says is too much). So, just to put a bow on the math, EWG is saying that the safe level of glysophate in foods SHOULD be 6600 times lower than the level currently allowed by the EPA. They don't make a convincing case for why the level should be 6600 times lower than the EPA or 110 times lower than the state of California. Instead, they seem content to make the argument that it is a chemical linked to cancer and is therefore bad in any quantity.

For the record, I'm not volunteering to drink or otherwise consume 1.056 million parts per billion (that's 160 parts per billion times 6600) concentrations of glysophate in my daily Cheerios; and, truthfully, EWG may not be wrong in their conclusion. I just take issue with the manner in which they are presenting their information.

Back to the report on the study results. First off, the article currently on their website has been drastically revised from the version I read a few days ago, and I really wish I had a screen capture or PDF copy of the original to compare and contrast. The current version shows that EWG took samples of 45 conventional breakfast cereals and 16 organic breakfast cereals and tested them for glysophate concentration. They then report the test results in concentration parts per billion for each sample. All fine and dandy so far. Where things really went off the rails in the original article was that samples results were grouped according to which ones had unsafe levels (color coded in red...for contrast I'm sure). The thing that really bugged me in the original was that  they did not make it clear that the table of results categorized each product according to EWG's much lower concentration level.

To clarify further, the report starts out talking about concentration levels in milligrams per weight before  shifting to parts per billion in the lab results table. The revised article does now provide a brief conversion from milligrams per serving to parts per billions, but the original article did not.

Even in the revised article, if someone is not reading carefully, they might miss that critical distinction. The skeptic in me suspects that was EWG's intent in order to advocate for a new, lower standard for safe concentration levels.

Another, in my opinion, glaring omission from EWG's article is the results of other scientific testing on glysophate, a discussion of the MSDS sheet on the chemical, etc. For instance, it took me literally seconds to find out that the WHO and UN studies on glysophate determined that mammal animal models suggest that concentrations as high as 2000 milligrams per kilogram of  body weight was not associated with genotoxic effects. There's more detail out there than I'm willing to transcribe or cut and paste here. Bottom line is that you would probably have to ingest enough to drown yourself before you'd be at a legitimate risk of getting cancer, and you'd probably puke it up before you got close to those dosage levels.

After I pointed out these little details, the Cheerios mysteriously reappeared in the pantry.

Now, this is just one little drop of questionable information in a practical galactic ocean of information floating around the internet. Why should you care? Well, the president attacks CNN almost daily accusing them of being fake news. Fox News claims to be fair & balanced. Alex Jones gets banned from social media for making wild claims reported as news. For every EWG, there is a company or interest group lobbying for the opposite position. And let's not forget all those companies out there trying to make a buck selling snake oil and legitimate products.

Everyone, it seems, is publishing information at the speed of light. The incredible quantity of information being published everyday makes it impossible to fact check it all. That is why it is so incredibly important to learn to critically assess source material.

So, the next time you hear someone ranting about the latest scandal, conspiracy theory, social justice melt down...etc. Take a step back and dig into the source material with a critical eye. I'd bet that, more often than not, you'll find discrepancies in the reporting that will be most illuminating.

It's Been A While Since I Got Political

As many of you may have figured out already, I'm not a fan of what passes for politics these days. And, when it comes to choosing sides, both major parties can roll in a box of razor blades before a dip in the piranha tank for all I care. Having said that, today's offering (shamelessly stolen from another blog...which one I forget otherwise I would credit) strikes a chord with me.

Click to make bigger for easier reading.

Now, as much of a fan as I am of the concept of Ted Cruz tossing the apple cart over the hill and rubbing the elephant's trunk in it, there is a flaw to this plan. The fly in the ointment is the same one that has been plaguing the Republican party since Reagan left office: the establishment.

The big money establishment wing of the GOP would drop a 24 carat load on anyone with a pulse to run against Ted Cruz and his team. With the complicity and overt support of the liberal media reporting on scandals (real or imagined...see Herman Cain's failed campaign, what they did to Sarah Palin just as a VP nominee), a Cruz campaign would be fighting a three front war (do you think Hillary will stand by quietly and let Cruz get nominated?) by Super Tuesday.

Do I want to see this happen? You betcha. I want to see Cruz and company break the establishment like Moses broke the stone tablets while staring at the golden calf after coming down from 40 days on the mountain. I want to see a rollback of every failed social program and half baked, unconstitutional law, agency and Federal overreach going back to at least the Wilson administration (though credible arguments could be made to extend that back passed Lincoln). I want to see a dramatic rebirth/resurrection of the small government republic that good men and women have fought and died for. I want freedom and liberty to once again reign supreme including the freedom to fail (may there never again be a "too big to fail").

Do I realistically think this will happen? Sadly, no.

The odds are stacked against Cruz. Depending on whose figures you use, 49 to 51% of Americans depend on the government for their livelihood in one form or another. Add in the margin of fraud, the primary process that gives the more moderate/liberal parts of the country the opportunity to "thin the herd" and set the tone, and a conservative estimate of the loons and kooks that seems to crop up every election cycle trying to vote for Lyndon Larouche or some other equally viable candidate. What you are left with is a snowball's chance in Hell's outhouse of Cruz successfully running the gauntlet.

I'll be cheering him on regardless. I'm just setting my expectations low now so that reality doesn't hurt quite as bad.

Liberty in America: A Political Theory

I've been meaning to sit down and write this post for a while now. It just so happens that, today, I am sitting here at the office twiddling my thumbs doing nothing since today is "moving day" and we can't do any productive work since everything is boxed up and shut down. Everything but my trusty iPad that is.

Anyway, let's talk about freedom and liberty for a bit. I am going to try to avoid using terms that come too heavily "loaded" with excess baggage, but I want to take a second here to give a couple of definitions to set up a common frame of reference for the rest of the discussion.

First, let's look at the definition of "liberty" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:

a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

When I talk about liberty here, I am mainly focusing on the first part of the definition above. Specifically, I believe liberty, true liberty, is the state of being free and having the power to do as one pleases (within certain easily definable boundaries...i.e. your freedom of action ends when it interferes with the freedom of action, health or welfare of another). The other aspects of liberty mentioned in the definition are part and parcel with that in my humble opinion. It's hard to do as one pleases when under physical restraint for instance.

Moving along, let's look at the definition for "freedom" (same source):

FREEDOM

1: the quality or state of being free: as

a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
d : ease, facility
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use

2

a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

As you can see, the definitions of freedom and liberty are very closely related; and, in my opinion, one cannot exist without the other. There are a couple of concepts buried in the definition of freedom that should be emphasized though. Those are: independence and privilege. Freedom IS a privilege. It is one that must be guarded and protected. Freedom also requires independence. Once independence is lost and the majority slide into dependence, freedom is gone as well. Keep your thumb here or highlight it or something. We'll be coming back to this concept in a minute.

Finally, for purposes of this discussion, political terms such as right/left, Republican/Democrat, liberal (or progressive if you prefer)/conservative, etc. will be used in the manner consistent with common usage as of this writing as opposed to any historical or rhetorical connotations that may rightly or wrongly apply.

Moving along, let's get into the back story leading to the formation of my theory. I don't recall exactly where or when I read it; however, there was a blog article a while back making the argument that Americans have been duped into thinking that the government has to take a side on any given issue (gay marriage in the case of this particular article but the author later generalized the point to apply to all issues). The writer went on to argue that, in reality, both sides of any given argument were shooting themselves in the foot by insisting that the government get involved in something that was NONE OF ITS BUSINESS.

Think about that for a moment. Take, for example, the issue identified by that article. Where in the Constitution does it say that gay marriage (or straight marriage for that matter) is any of the government's business? I'll help you with this answer: NOWHERE! And, yet, here we have people on both sides of the issue yielding their independence by depending on the Government to take a stand by denying the liberty and freedom of people on the other side of the issue by enforcing one side the views of one over another. How absurd is that?

Whichever side the government takes regardless of the issue, there is corresponding legislation, regulation and government bureaucracy necessary to enforce that position. Look no further than the news regarding the implementation of Obamacare (I am using the popular term here because I am too lazy to write out the full name of the bill not for any pejorative connotations the term may have) and all the rules and regs and people needed to sort that out.

Even Starbucks is smart enough to stay out of issues that are none of its business. Starbucks is in the business of selling coffee, and they have wisely decided that their views on the Second Amendment, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the business of selling coffee. They gain absolutely no benefit from taking a stand one way other the other; and, in fact, they risk alienating a significant percentage of their customer base BY taking a stand. 

To be fair, that's an overly simplistic and non-analogous comparison; but, the point remains that there are things defined by the Constitution that ARE the government's business and things, thanks to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, that ARE NOT the government's business.

Quick refresher for those who have not read the Constitution lately:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, let's back up a bit for some history leading up to the Constitution. I'm sourcing heavily from Wikipedia for this next bit (again, because I am lazy as opposed to any endorsement or condemnation of Wikipedia's greatness).

Prior to the War for American Independence or Revolutionary War (depending on which history book you read), there was a shift in political philosophy thanks to the Enlightenment. In particular, the long held belief in the divine right of monarchies to rule over subjects started suffering from some serious setbacks starting with the notable regicide incident in England during that little dispute between Oliver Cromwell and Charles I.

One philosopher in particular, John Locke, had a huge influence in this area of thought. To quote from Wikipedia:

"John Locke's (1632–1704) ideas on liberty greatly influenced the political thinking behind the revolution, especially through his indirect influence on English writers.[clarification needed] He is often referred to as "the philosopher of the American Revolution," and is credited with leading Americans to the critical concepts of social contract, natural rights, and "born free and equal."[6] Locke's Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689, was especially influential; Locke in turn was influenced by Protestant theology.[7] He argued that, as all humans were created equally free, governments needed the consent of the governed.[8] Both Lockean concepts were central to the United States Declaration of Independence, which deduced human equality, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the biblical belief in creation: "All men are created equal, ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

As we continue rolling forward in history to the revolution itself, we find the rhetoric of the time rooted in freedom and liberty. Notably, Patrick Henry did not say "Give me Democracy or give me death." He said, "Give me LIBERTY or give me death." Even The Declaration of Independence, based on the ideas and philosophy of John Locke says, makes a strong argument for liberty with the line "...the pursuit of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness."

Once the war was one and the leaders of the new nation came together to hammer out a social contract based on Locke's ideas. We see this codified in the Preamble of US Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [emphasis mine]

So, why did I go through all of that, and what do I think it means as far as a political theory goes?

Think of the political spectrum as a bell curve. There are relatively few radicals on either side of any given issue while the vast majority reside somewhere in the middle. Call it 10/80/10 or 20/60/20. It is my theory that the vast majority in the middle of the bell curve just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit while it is the outliers on either side of the curve that see it as, not only their right, their mission in life to make everyone else live the way they think they should.

By doing so, by insisting that the government pick a side where it has no business being in the first place, these radicals on either side have yielded their independence, their freedom and liberty if you will, in favor of dependence upon the government to define their lives.

If a politician wants to really shake things up, it is my belief that they should not promise to take a stand on this or that side of an issue. Instead, they should promise to leave everyone alone and stick to the things defined by the Constitution as the government's business.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon with the way things are going now.

Serious Gas

As promised recently, it’s time that I get back to posting thought provoking content that doesn’t involve guns or M&M. One of the easiest of topics falling into the thought provoking categories is gasoline prices. This is a topic near and dear to my heart being the moron who bought his lovely and deserving wife a gas snorting behemoth SUV. So much for that extra salary money that came with the new job.

Sitting here typing this, I can look out my office window and see a gas station sign proclaiming that they will sell me a gallon of gas for the low, low price of $3.57 a gallon. Being the numbers geek that I am, I have a spreadsheet where I tracked gas prices (for budgeting purposes) over the last five or six years when I was commuting regularly. The lowest I’ve paid in that time frame was $1.45 per gallon at the end of 2008 and early in 2009. The most I paid was $3.94 a gallon in June of 2008.

So, what has the biggest impact on the cost of that gallon of gas you ask? Simply put, it is the cost of the barrel of oil from which the gas is refined. As of today, West Texas Intermediate crude oil is trading at $107.42 per barrel. There are 42 gallons in a barrel by the way, and I am also ignoring the price differences in the various grades of oil. It is my layperson’s understanding that a gallon of oil can be refined into approximately a gallon of gas with some other by products. So, for the purposes of this exercise, we will assume that there is a one to one oil to gas ratio. If that assumption is correct, a barrel of oil costing $100 translates into $2.38 towards the cost of that gallon of gas at the pump.

That’s just the cost of getting the oil out of the ground. You still have to transport the oil to the refinery, refine it, transport it to a retail location, market it, and pay your friendly, neighborhood gas station owner (not all or probably even a majority of stations are corporately owned). Oh, and let’s not forget the state and federal fingers in this pie.

The exact cost of refining is hard to pin down in a quick Google search, but one website I came across suggested that it accounts for 14% of the cost of a gallon of gas. This percentage fluctuates somewhat depending on refining capacity. You can pump all the oil in the world, and it won’t make much of a dent in the price of gas if there is no capacity to refine it. Supply and demand not only applies to the commodity itself but to the manufacturing process as well. Next time you want to get your blood boiling, take a look at when the last time it was that a new refinery was built in the United States. If I am not mistaken, it was 1976 (although one report indicates that a small refinery was built in Alaska in 1993). Environmentalists and government regulation have seen to it that new refineries don’t get built forcing companies to expand and refit existing refineries which hampers capacity quite a bit.

While we are on the subject of the government, you can thank them for another 13% or so (depending on where you live) towards the cost of your gallon of gas. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. State gas taxes vary from a low in Alaska of 8 cents a gallon to a high of 49.6 cents in Connecticut. Texas, where I live, falls in the middle/low end of the spectrum at 20 cents per gallon. The second lowest after Alaska is Wyoming at 14.5 cents a gallon. If you have a diesel, your federal fuel tax is 24.4 cents a gallon. I’m sure truckers everywhere appreciate that, and don’t think for a minute that cost doesn’t get passed along to you in hirer prices for manufactured goods and groceries.

Last, and least, is the combined cost of transport, distribution and marketing. That gallon of gas does not magically appear at your local station, and it is somewhat ironic that a small percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas is the cost of the diesel fuel it took to power the tanker truck to delivered the gas to the station from local storage tank farm.

The one person in this whole mess who is making the least off of this deal is the station owner. Generally, their mark up is between 3 and 10 cents a gallon. If you use a credit card which charges the retailer a percentage of the sale as a transaction fee, you’ve just cost him money not only on your sale but several others as well. That’s why most gas stations make most of their profits on cokes and candy.

Always at work in this process is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of oil exceeds demand, the commodity price generally falls and vice versa. Little things like Iran chest thumping in the Straits of Hormuz or Israel getting into it with anyone tends to make the oil investors skittish driving the price up a touch. A refinery explosion or a hurricane such as Katrina in 2005 that bullseyes a major petrochem area will significantly impact refining capacity which reduces the supply of the end product again impacting pricing in the same way that seasonal driving habits impact pricing through demand.

So, why do I bring this up? Have you listened to the presidential campaign rhetoric? Do any of you believe those horse thieves will be able to do ANYTHING about gas prices? Not bloody likely. Drill here, drill now is a great sound bite; but, without the refinery capacity to do something with it, it’s only hot air.

Now, pardon me while I go look at used car listings for a cheap, econ box to drive to work.

Dilemma

The other day, I received an interesting piece of mail that I had not seen in a long time: a membership “acceptance” solicitation form from the National Rifle Association. Being the proud gun owner and enthusiast that I am, you might expect me to either already be an NRA member or one who is chomping at the bit to accept NRA’s offer to give me a $10 discount on a one year membership and a free duffle bag (let’s not point out the obvious fact that the duffle bag ain’t really free if I have to pay a $25 membership fee to get it…minor point…TANSTAAFL). Not so much.

I was an NRA member at one time, but I became disillusioned with them in the mid ‘90s and let my membership lapse. Thus, my dilemma. Do I let bygones be bygones and “renew” my membership during turbulent times when the president is on record in favor of greater gun control measures, or do I stand on principle and tell the NRA to go pound sand?

Let’s examine, for a moment, the seeds of my disaffection with the NRA.

First and foremost, there is the head honcho at the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. If this guy would spend more time shooting guns and less time shooting his mouth off, I might have a more favorable opinion of the NRA. I am hopeful that my readers recall that Mr. LaPierre was the source of the quote calling members of the ATF “jackbooted thugs” in the wake of the fiascos at Ruby Ridge and Waco. This is the same quote that led former president George H.W. Bush to resign his lifetime NRA membership. Mr. LaPierre’s comments were, in my opinion, patently unfair to the men and women serving in the ATF during a difficult time. Could things have gone better in the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents? Of course. Was it the “jackbooted thugs” on the ground who were solely or even mostly responsible for those incidents? Not likely. Is Mr. LaPierre right to use such inflammatory rhetoric as a scare tactic to raise more money and increase membership? Definitely not.

That brings up my second point of distaste for the NRA: the rhetoric. As I’ve mentioned before, I despise rhetoric. In my opinion, it gets in the way of genuine debate and discussion. Here is a sample from Mr. LaPierre’s latest missive aimed at scaring me into accepting membership with the NRA:

Gun-ban politicians like U.S. House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein stand ready to fight for an anti-gun agenda that will BAN hundreds of commonly owned firearms, MANDATE gun owner licensing and registration, CLOSE gun shops and shows and SEND YOU TO PRISON if a criminal steals your guns and commits a crime.

EEEeekKKKKkk!!! I’m scared now…where do I sign up? Puh-leeze. Does he really think I’m that stupid? There’s no need to insult my intelligence. I know how dangerous the current administration is. I keep tabs on news related to topics that affect me. Why can’t we skip the rhetoric and simply state what the organization stands for and why? Try this instead: “Hi, we’re the NRA. We are a grass roots organization dedicated to supporting your right to lawfully own firearms for sport and self defense. We hope you, as an avid gun owner and shooter, will join us and support our common interests.”

No fear mongering. No rhetoric. No name calling. Just plain, simple and straightforward. I’d be a whole lot more likely to support an organization that approached me that way.

Another thing related to that which really turned me off years ago was that the pleas for money using inflammatory rhetoric never stopped even after you became a member. It was almost like they were saying “Aha! We have him on the hook now. Let’s drain his bank account.” It seemed like every week there was another scare letter in my mailbox attempting to drum up more money to “fight for my rights”. I was always left wondering how much money they spent sending out mailers every week begging me to send them more money so they could send out more mailers next week. It just seemed like bad stewardship to me. Still does too.

Don’t get me started on the whole subject of special interest groups and purchasing influence with the almighty dollar. One word: WRONG. I’ll leave it at that for now.

So now, we have a very liberal Congress coupled with a very liberal president barely balanced out by a conservative leaning, moderate Supreme Court. Now we actually have real threats to our right to own guns, and the NRA sounds to me like the boy who cried wolf too many times.

Sigh. What to do?

Rhetoric vs. Reality

I don't know if there has ever been a time in which debate, civilized or otherwise, hasn't been slave to rhetoric instead of cold, hard, undeniable facts. I guess there would be nothing to debate if everyone had to concede that the facts were undeniable. That would kind of defeat the purpose of a debate, and some folks just plain need something to argue about. Besides, from what I've seen, any "facts" mentioned in a debate are nothing more than self serving fabrications manufactured by the side using them to support their position.


One of the problems, I think, is that people are no longer taught how to separate fact from fiction. We seem to have lost our ability to critically think and assess the validity of information. I mean, if you can find it on the internet, it must be true. At least until you find the next website with completely opposite information. I think Mark Twain said it best: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."


Facts are really irrelevant in debate, though. The side that is able to control of the rhetoric controls the terms of the debate. For example, the end of George W. Bush's presidency saw a rip roaring, howling debate over immigration reform. I personally think it was nothing more than a mid term ploy by the Democrats to get minority groups angered at Republicans in the run up to the 2008 presidential elections in which the American public somehow managed to elect a post turtle with a teleprompter. For those of you who have not heard the term, a post turtle is a turtle that is found sitting on top of a post. You know full well it didn't get up on top of the post by itself, you know it has no clue what to do while it's up there or how to get down, and you have to question the sanity of the person that put it there in the first place.

Speaking of President Obama, I found it profoundly amusing that he dignified Congressman Wilson's "You lied" outburst during Obama's address to Congress on Wednesday by saying "That's not true." I guess he told him. Did we suddenly have a mass regression to first grade that I missed? The only thing that would have made it funnier is if it had degenerated into "did not/did so", "my dad can beat up your dad", "I'm gonna tell my mommie." Now boys, play nice or go play somewhere else.

Anyway, back to our main story. The immigration reform debate got hijacked by rhetoric pretty quickly. If you were in favor of building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, or against amnesty for illegal aliens already here, or for enforcing existing laws and rounding up and deporting illegals; the rhetoric painted you as "anti-immigrant" and against the very melting pot that made America great. If, however, you were in favor of letting millions of people who entered the country illegally have a "path to citizenship" (a.k.a blanket amnesty), the rhetoric painted you as Ceasar Augustus watching Rome burn as the Visigoths raped, pillaged and plundered our great nation. What? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of focusing on real issues, we're going to demonize our opponents and their positions?!?!?

Preachers are getting into the act now, too. I recently started seeing billboards pop up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area with a couple of variations on the theme: "Would Jesus Discriminate? Why Should We?". Well, the short answer is: No, He wouldn't and neither should we. The problem I have with this billboard campaign is the blatant misrepresentation of scripture to support an agenda.

If you go to the website advertised on the billboards (http://www.whywouldwe.org/), you will find that this ad campaign is supported by a group of churches primarily catering to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual community. They cite Matthew 8:5-13 to claim that Jesus "affirmed a gay couple". They also cite Acts 8:26-40 to claim that "the early church welcomed a gay man." As you probably have guessed, this group's position is that we Christians shouldn't discriminate against those of the GLBT persuasion because Jesus and the early church didn't either. So now, if I don't accept homosexuality, I am somehow discriminating against GLBTs and being hypocritical of my Christian faith at the same time?

I don't think so. Let's look at some ugly facts for a moment. The folks at whywouldwe.org would have you believe that Matthew 8 is the story of a Roman Centurion (an officer in charge of 100 men) who comes to Jesus to have his gay lover healed of an affliction. The term in question in this section of the scripture is the word translated in English as "servant" from the Greek word "pais". Whywouldwe.org claims that this word can mean "his master's male lover." According to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it's Greek Dictionary, pais means "a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or a girl, and a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king...).

Similarly, whywouldwe.org says that the eunuch mentioned in Acts 8 was actually a homosexual. They claim that homosexuality was widely associated with eunuchs in the ancient world. Here again, Strong's tells another story. The Greek word translated in English as "eunuch" is "eunouchos". The definition is "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man, by implication a chamberlain (state officer).

Now, I am gracious enough to concede that understanding cultural and historical context is as important to understanding the Bible as anything else. However, just because a Roman officer might have used a male servant as a sex toy or that a eunuch might have been gay does not mean that those verses cited by whywouldwe.org automatically mean what they say it means. Further, you can't take one verse out of context and ignore what the rest of the Bible says. There is plenty of other scripture that condemns homosexuality as sin (just as it does for adultery, murder, and several other things).

The rhetoric whywouldwe.org is using would have you believe that condemning the sin is the same as condemning the person, but that is not the example that Christ set for us. Look at John 8 and the story of how He handled the adulterous woman who was brought before Him for stoning. He didn't tell her that it was okay to be an adulterer. He told her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He had compassion on her and forgave her the punishment prescribed by the Law, but He did so with the strict admonishment for her to cease her sinful ways.

To borrow from Congressman Wilson, you lied whywouldwe.org. Would Jesus discriminate against a GLBT person? Absolutely not. Would He accept them into the church after repentance and baptism? Absolutely. Would He condone homosexuality? Absolutely not. He would love the person but hate the sin. We as Christians (literally followers of Christ) should do the same.