The Ramifications of Fiscal Fallacy

Dear Team America~

Listen up! This is an important announcement brought to you by the (semi-)public broadcasting crew here at Capitol Punishment. Red Alert. This is not a test. I repeat, this is NOT a test. . .

Yet many people seem to think it's a test, don't they? As if Mother Earth is nothing more than an understudy filling in for our collective dress rehearsal, with the real starlet waiting somewhere in the wings, ready to dive in at a moment's notice and switch out with our ill-equipped amateur once her modest talents have been thoroughly exhausted. . .  Aaaaaaand SCENE. That's a wrap, folks.  

Plastic wrap to be exact...

Blogging over at Texas Politics 2012, writer Shashank Desai offered his take this week on Austin's upcoming implementation of a new citywide ordinance, set to be in full effect by March 2013, which will ban the use of certain types of disposable shopping bags by retailers and customers alike. Though he misstates a few small details, it would seem he is correct in the general premise of the ordinance:

"Austin would be the first large city to enact such a ban. Millions plastic bags are used by the residents of Austin every year. These bags have to be cleaned up as litter and put in landfills by the city which costs lots of money to the city."

 (Note: Cited by Desai as a ban solely on plastic bags, the Austin City Council, NYT and multiple local news affiliates report the ordinance will include restriction of single-use paper bags as well.)

He then goes on to challenge the environmentally conscious motivations that inspired this proposal, and raises the possibility that this is perhaps not a wise move for Austin, with economic justification forming the basis of his argument.

While I do believe that Desai was genuinely sincere and perfectly justified in offering his criticisms that follow—indeed, all good citizens ought to look to public policy with a critical eye; for it is this type of inquiry that facilitates a functional, efficient democracy—I am also of the opinion that the particular criticisms offered are quite misguided.   

"Although the decision is taken towards the environmental issues, we should consider that there are many people involved in producing, recycling and transporting the bags though out the city. So, they would be unemployed since there would be no plastic bags in Austin."

And here we have our first logical leap. Though this isn't attributable only to Desai; he is merely restating the same argument presented to the Austin City Council by Mark Daniels, VP of Hilex, your friendly neighborhood plastic mogul. A loss of 9,000 jobs would surely be worthy of consideration, provided that it were true, but I've been unable to locate a single reference to back up any of his claims as presented. As a matter of fact, I found innumerable sources that seem to refute Daniels' claims at every stop.

First of all, this isn't a complete ban; it does carry exemptions. Among those excluded are all dry cleaners, meat markets, fresh produce suppliers, restaurants, and newspapers. These alone make up a sizable share of potential plastic revenues in Austin, so to say that the ordinance would lead to no bags is factually incorrect.

Second of all, this company, Hilex, that desperately plead their case to the Council—it's not even in Austin; Hell, it's not even in Texas... It's based out of South Carolina with 9 locations spread out across 7 states, one of which is in the heart of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Yet, losing little ol' Austin is enough to "potentially bankrupt" these people? What they apparently fail to realize is that they're square in the center of a Catch-22: the harder they lobby and the more desperately they portray their dependence on our city's trash production, the bigger it seems our problem must actually be for them to need us that much, and the stronger the argument thus becomes for making necessary changes, whatever the costs.

It is also worth noting here two other claims Mr. Daniels made to the City Council:

"[T]he bags pose no environmental threat because they are fully reusable and recyclable.

"There is also no evidence that plastic bags kill wildlife or are an exceptionally large source of litter."

One need not be an ecologist nor rocket scientist to easily see the absurdity of these claims, thus discrediting any and all other statements he might've made. But enough about this guy.

Back to Mr. Desai.

Again, you can read his piece in full here, but in the interest of brevity (if I can still call it that) let me try to break it down here with a hybrid of quotes and paraphrasing so I can get to the point:

• Paper is more difficult and costly to produce and transport than plastic, so retailers overhead will increase. 
• Plastic bags are more convenient to grocery store cashiers, and taking them away can only result in decreased productivity. 
• Given loss of productivity and higher overhead, retailers will inevitably hike prices to offset losses, thus resulting in a two-fold expense incurred by the citizen consumers in the form of both money and time (due to to decreased cashier efficiency).
• It is inconvenient for people to have to remember to bring their reusable bags with them to the store. 
• So, yes, it's better for the environment, but it's costly, inconvenient and only creates more problems, and should therefore be reconsidered. 

Hopefully that's a fair representation. I trust Mr. Desai will correct me if I'm too far off there. Now, the problems with this are many. For starters, paper disposable bags are getting the kaibash, too, so that hardly seems relevant. We are talking about a switch to reusable bags, presumably paid for by the customer directly—but only once. Not the continual recurring costs under our current model. I see no way that works out to anything but net savings across the board.

And while cashiers are undoubtedly hard workers, ringing someone up slightly more slowly hardly constitutes "decreased productivity." But even if it did, what does that amount to? An extra minute or two in line? Is that not worth the million dollars we'll ultimately save—minimum—every year on litter control and landfill costs?

Which brings me now to the most glaringly obvious problem with this entire argument, that you might've noticed I have so far skirted around. The primary reason this argument fails to hold water, I think, isn't so much what it says as what it doesn't say. And I don't mean to pick on Mr. Desai here because he is by no means alone in making this type of argument; but it turns out there is no correlation between frequency of use and quality of content. In virtually every economy-based model I see used to perform such cost-benefit analyses as this, time and time and time again I find that by far the most valuable, irreplaceable, precious commodity in the entire schema has been all but forgotten: OUR PLANET. 

WE ONLY GET ONE, PEOPLE. 

If we were to all wake up tomorrow and suddenly find ourselves in a life-or-death situation in which we had to literally bankrupt each and every country on the face of the Earth in order to rectify a dangerously unsustainable problem of our own creation immediately so that we may survive as a species, I somehow believe that Americans would still find a way to turn it into some sort of knock-down, drag-out, ridiculous partisan warfare with roughly half of the population arguing vehemently in favor of the "conservative" position, declaring that we just can't afford it. Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy??

We simply CANNOT continue this irrational compartmentalization of separating economy from environment as if they are mutually exclusive concepts; as if they are nothing more than separate line items on a budget which we have the luxury of choosing one or the other as the most important item of the day. The day that we poison the last living plankton is the day that we run out of oxygen to breathe and water to drink and that's a FACT. If and when we finally destroy this planet beyond repair—and believe me, we are well on our way—no amount of praying or politicking or pontificating is going to fix it. They are called "finite resources" for a reason, and the operative word there is "finite." And the day we run out of air to breathe or water to drink, it isn't going to make a DAMN bit of difference whether the DOW is up or down or what our unemployment rate happens to be.

So when I hear people say we can't afford to do x, y, or z for the good of the environment because we have P, Q, and R economic issues that are more pressing at the moment, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Contrary to popular belief, fiscal responsibility entails a great deal more than finances and monetary policy alone—or at least it ought to ... because the buying and selling of such insidious fiscal fallacy carries grave ramifications we best hope we never see.

So please forgive me for feeling painfully underwhelmed and, frankly, somewhat infuriated when I read something like,  

"Most people in Austin would prefer using plastic bags over reusable bags. Yes, we are saving the environment and expenses . . . but . . . [it's] really inconvenient."  

News flash: A planet with no oxygen is pretty DAMN inconvenient, too. 

If you aren't sure why I keep talking about oxygen, have you ever wondered where all that plastic ends up? 

Though the next clip isn't about plastic, this is exactly what I had in mind when I suggested we expand our definition of "fiscal responsibility." Here is one way we can do that.

Last but certainly not least, I full realize that very few will, through sheer laziness, lack of interest, or impatience due to length, but should you ever find yourself with a little free time, read this. It is perhaps the single greatest explanation of how the oceanic ecosystem impacts absolutely everything, and it also happens to be my favorite article of all time - on any subject. It's definitely worth the read. To pique your curiosity a bit to further entice you to check it out, a riddle: 

Ever wonder why the ocean appears to be so many different and beautiful shades of blue from space?

Here's a hint: It isn't trash! . . . . (yet)

~ Click here to find out! ~

On the Fallacy of the Self-Made Man

It often seems as if the Texas State Seal ought to be emblazoned with the byline, “Proud Home of the Self-Made Man.” Indeed, according to many, Rick Perry is the walking, talking embodiment of this concept. As the Houston Chronicle puts it, “In many ways, Gov. Rick Perry is the iconic Texan, a self-made man whose rugged individualism has come to define his public life, for better or worse.”

But what does it mean, really, to be “self-made”? This term the Chronicle has coupled with it, “rugged individualism,” seems to fit the stereotype quite nicely. I am inclined to think that the mental image that springs to my mind when I hear phrases like this is not terribly different from what most people envision—particularly my fellow Texans: A salt-of-the-earth, grassroots, tough-as-nails type of man; a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, and through nothing but hard work and individual merit, made something great of himself, in the face of considerable odds. A truly self-reliant, rugged individual, who never took a dime from anyone and doesn’t owe the world a dime. Perhaps even a pair of boots named Freedom and Liberty….

At least this is what I picture. And it does seem to be the very essence of the Great American Dream. If absolutely nothing else, it’s damn sure the Texan Dream, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw parallels between this ideal and the staunchly conservative position that typifies Texas politics, along with a substantial portion of the nation. And anyone that dares to challenge this glorious Texan/American Dream, may the Good Lord have mercy on their soul…

But challenge it he did, our beloved President, and the conservative talking heads roiled with unchecked rage. In a scathing article published in the Dallas Morning News yesterday, staff editorial writer Mike Hashimoto effectively attempts to crucify Obama for comments made last week to a crowd in Roanoke, Virginia; comments which Mr. Hashimoto apparently equates with sacrilegious desecration of the Great American Way. But I shall now let Mr. Hashimoto speak for himself: 

“[Obama] slapped aside the efforts of business builders and owners in what’s supposed to be a free-enterprise system, was it a mistake or a mistaken revelation? As the news business goes, the quote has been reduced to this: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”

My answer would be to track back through his government-vs.-private-sector comments and his policy prescriptions over time. I think it’s pretty clear that this is a president — of the United States — who has little appreciation for the American way and certainly the American Dream. To his mind, if government doesn’t provide it, it’s not worth having.”

He goes on to argue against what he seems to view as the liberal apologist default position, attempting to invalidate various arguments made in defense of Obama’s comments. To better illustrate his own opinion of such arguments, he quotes Reason.com’s Tim Cavanaugh, who says the following:

The president’s supporters have a multipronged counterargument: Either he didn’t make those comments or they were taken out of context or even if they are in context they don’t matter because we should be reading between the lines.

As an example of the former type, he offers up a Tweet posted by Texas State Rep. Eric Johnson, a democrat from Dallas, who apparently posted on Twitter: “U know #POTUS comment is being taken completely out of context, so why perpetuate a lie? Integrity, bro.” To which Hashimoto replies, “Yeah, OK, bro. Clown question.” Um, seriously? Granted, Johnson’s comments weren’t the most eloquent the world has ever seen, but that was on Twitter… What’s Hashimoto’s excuse? Is this seriously a mainstream news Editorial, or are we reading a random Facebook rant?

Anyway. It isn’t until the end that he finally recounts the President’s actual statements in full:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

The article author then closes with the following gem:

So, please, spare me the “roads and bridges” defense. You can wish he didn’t say what he said, but to pretend his words don’t mean exactly what they appear to mean falls far short of reasonable. “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.” In Obama’s mind, obviously, that somebody is the government. And I think most Americans would reject the notion that this is a country where we are “allowed” to thrive by government.

Now, I’m going to refrain from taking cheap shots at the grossly substandard quality of writing offered here because, frankly, he did a mighty fine job of that himself. And why add insult to injury? Instead, let’s just focus on the disassembly of this appalling excuse for an argument—if one can even call it that.

Actually, despite his overt claims that he’s actually making one here, I cannot, in good conscious, even classify this as an argument. An argument requires, at a minimum, two things: Propositions/statements/evidence and a conclusion, which do all seem present here, but there’s a catch: to be an argument, the propositions have to actually offer support in some way to one’s conclusion, and inversely, the conclusion has to be supported in some way by the propositions offered. This is why they’re typically called “supporting statements.” All I see here is a conclusion: Obama is the Devil. I kid. But that isn’t too far from the truth. Hashimoto more or less tries to convince his readers that Obama has opened up a good ol’ fashioned can of Texas whoop-ass on our beloved “self-made” man; however, despite his painstaking efforts to present it as such, this rant amounts to nothing more than a randomly asserted belief—which, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an argument.

But considering how many people in our state and country would wholeheartedly buy into this random assertion, let’s play along and pretend that it is an argument for a moment, in the interest of exposing its inherent incoherency. If we were to break it down into formal logical structure, it might go something like this:

·       Obama said “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that.”

·       Most Americans do believe they build their own businesses.

·       Building one’s own business is the American way.

·       Therefore, Obama must be wrong, because we believe in the American Way.

For starters, this pseudo-argument’s only offering of anything even resembling supportive evidence is that most Americans “believe” something. To use his words, Yeah, OK, bro… 47% of Americans don’t even know how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun... Hell, 29% think that the Sun revolves around us. Forgive me for being cynical (realistic?) here, but I would be more than a little hesitant to trust anything the general public “believes,” simply because they believe it. And even if it were true, it’s a circular argument. Non-argument.  Whatever.

So what did we learn from all this? Absolutely nothing—which is kind of the point. The vast majority of arguments waged in this vein contain little to no worthwhile substance, and no matter how many times they might work in the term “argument,” that does not make it such. If you’re going to claim that you’re making an argument, then MAKE ONE. Convince me. Show me some evidence that refutes Obama’s claim that we effectively couldn’t do what we do or make what we make or become what we will become entirely independent of all external factors, namely, the federal government. I’ll give anybody a shot to convince me that’s not true; I’ll listen to whatever coherent case might be made, and I am not so stubborn or arrogant or pretentious that I’m incapable of changing my mind. But you may as well give up the empty noise and tired hand waving, because that is never going to cut it. And as it turns out, Obama happens to be in very good company on this one—with his strongest support coming from the last places one might expect….

A dear friend of mine, Lovelace Soirez, sent me a letter on this subject a while back titled “Taxes and the Myth of the Self-Made Man.” Because I feel that he states this position much more eloquently than I can, I’m going to quote a bit of what he wrote here, and I do hope that he won’t mind.

We can debate all day about whether or not our current form of government is the best way to address the myth of the self-made man, but what follows is the bare-minimum of what needs to be acknowledged when having this debate.  In my opinion, intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge the role that society plays in shaping who we are.  It's the starting point. The commenter (at the very bottom) sums up nicely why this is so.  We all benefit significantly from public goods... much more so than libertarians are willing to admit.  Sorry there's so much here, but it's worth the read.

He goes on to cite numerous references that collectively serve to decimate this notion of the “self-made man" to the point of virtually irrefutable. I’ll admit I feel a bit guilty for piggy-backing off of his sources here, but I do so only because they are among the best I’ve yet to find. Time and space will not allow me to share them all with you (believe me, I am tempted), but I’ll try to hit the highlights. And like he did, I will apologize for length, along with wholehearted agreement that it’s certainly worth a read.

The first comes from this 2010 publication:

Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in North America say there is no such thing as the "self-made man." With more millionaires making, rather than inheriting, their wealth, there is a false belief that they made it on their own without help, a new report published by the Boston-based non-profit United For a Fair Economy, states. The group has signed more than 2,200 millionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the U.S. inheritance tax. The report says the myth of "self-made wealth is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation.”

The individuals profiled in the report believed they prospered in large part to things beyond their control and because of the support of others. Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world said, "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned." Erick Schmidt, CEO of Google says, "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize that I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant."

Yes, you read that correctly. That was a few of those so-called self-made men—among the wealthiest, most successful businessmen in America—supporting precisely what Obama suggested and refuting the generally conservative counter-position.

And here is another obscenely wealthy media-empire heiress, Abigal Disney, discussing the many ways in which Disney could never have been possible for her grandfather in absence of . . . Guess who!

[M]y grandfather vowed never to let himself be taken advantage of again. He soon registered a copyright on a new character named Mickey Mouse. It was 1928, and it was neither the first nor the last time the Walt Disney Co. benefited from a federal system of protections, laws and taxes that created fertile ground for building a business empire.

In addition to the copyright protections for Mickey, the Federal Communications Commission regulated the airwaves that carried the Disneyland television series and, of course, the Mickey Mouse Club. The transportation and federal highway system built in the wake of World War II took millions of visitors to Disneyland. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild devastated European markets into which Disney poured its products, turning a quaint American company into a global brand.

Let’s read more, this time from The Economist:

DANA MILBANK wrote a snark-suffused piece in yesterday's Washington Post on a conference call by a group of millionaires who'd like to see their own taxes raised. The group is affiliated with United for a Fair Economy, which pushes for a more progressive tax code. The thrust of the meeting was that Barack Obama's plans to cancel an extension of the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 a year are a good first step, but don't go far enough. Mr Milbank quotes fifth-generation paper mill heir Mike Lapham, who thinks he pays "obscenely low tax rates", and notes that the group has pledged to donate the money it saves under the Bush tax cuts to groups pushing for higher marginal taxes on the rich. . . .

 ….Here's the thing: taxes are not charity. It would be a bad idea for wealthy people who feel they should be paying more taxes to instead contribute large amounts of money voluntarily to reduce the national debt. The first, less important reason for this is that any individual's contributions would be meaninglessly small; they can make far more difference by using the same amount of money to advocate for higher taxes, as these millionaires are doing. But the second, more important reason is that even if a million millionaires got together and voluntarily donated money in such quantities that it made a measurable dent in the deficit, it would be even worse, because they would be giving license to other people to continue pay less than their fair share of taxes. It's an invitation to free-riding, with the public-minded rich subsidising the irresponsible and selfish.

If America did not have a severe and potentially catastrophic national debt problem, one could have a legitimate argument in which some people argued for higher taxes and more defense, health care, transportation, etc, while others argued for lower taxes and less defense, health care, transportation, etc. That is not the situation in which America finds itself. For 30 years, we have systematically collected much less in taxes than our government spends; the structural deficit used to be around 3% of GDP, but over the past two years it's leapt up due to the recession. Over the long term, we need to make painful choices to bring expenses and revenues back into line. There are two legitimate arguments one can make here. One is "I think we should raise taxes in the following ways." The other is "I think we should make the following massive cuts in defense, health care, transportation etc." It is not legitimate to say: "Hey, if you feel like paying more to reduce the debts we all incurred together, go ahead; as for me, I'll pass."

And I swear this is the last one, but these are just too great (and important) not to share:

Heimdall wrote:

Apr 9th 2010 3:02 GMT

I rarely see this point brought up, so I'll give it a shot.

A couple of things that you can say about people who are extremely wealthy are pretty non-controversial:

1) They have a lot of wealth.

2) They accumulated that wealth through some mechanism.

Here we get to the controversial part.

Most people who are wealthy credit their situation solely to their hard work, talent, etc. And they credit the situation of the poor solely to their lack of work ethic, talent, etc. Ergo, the wealthy are -- by definition -- deserving of whatever they desire and the poor are equally deserving of their squalor. I think of this as "the Ayn Rand" position.

I'd like to point out that a critical component in wealth accumulation -- possibly even greater than work ethic or talent -- is the infrastructure that the government provides to enable such accumulation: rule of law, the justice system, transportation infrastructure, education, national defense, etc.

Without this infrastructure our wealthy magnate is but a warlord in Afghanistan or Somalia. With them he is Bill Gates or she is Meg Whitman. This infrastructure is a lever by which people can magnify their work ethic and talent.

The wealthy have demonstrably used this lever to a much greater degree than the poor. The poor may get a pittance in food stamps, social security, etc. The wealthy accumulate millions if not billions of dollars by skillfully manipulating this lever.

Shouldn't people who use a thing pay more for that thing?

I submit that an objective measure of utilization of the lever of governmental infrastructure is the wealth that a person is able to accumulate. Thus, the percent of the tax "burden" shouldered by the wealthy should be proportional to the wealth they have accumulated.

Which is not to say that we should have a single "wealth tax". But it is to say that we should recalibrate a diversified revenue stream on occasion such that the top n% as measured by wealth pay approximately n% of taxes.

This is not "confiscation" as some like to say. It is payment for services received in direct proportion to the degree a person uses those services.

In case your typical frame of reference includes a combination of hand-waving pundits and the uneducated powers that be, what you’ve just seen above: these are what arguments are supposed to look like. And unless and until I see something at least comparable from the other side, I will remain of the position that if the “American Way” is synonymous with the “self-made man,” then the American Way is nothing more than a delusion of grandeur.

Unfortunately for those of us in Texas, it is this very myth that fuels the Perry & Co. fire and largely propagates this anti-tax/pro-business culture that the majority of our closest neighbors embrace. We have effectively arranged our state according to a business model based on principles that, so far as I can tell, do not exist. The educated, informed perspective seems to suggest that Rick Perry has it perfectly backwards when he argues that a low-tax/no-tax economic environment is the best recipe for future success. As former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously put it, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” And when it comes to civilized society, most unfortunately for those of us in Texas, we do get exactly what we pay for—with our education system being the prime example.  

So when Mr. Hashimoto said “I think most Americans would reject the notion that this is a country where we are ‘allowed’ to thrive by government,” I suspect he was likely correct; however, unlike Mr. Hashimoto, I also happen to think that most Americans have it wrong. 

And, again, to Lovelace: Thank you—not just for allowing me to shamelessly restate your argument here, but mainly for your friendship and the wisdom that it brings. I am grateful.

Gay Bashing and Bad Science: The Sequel

After quite a bit of further thought I’ve realized that, while it may seem painfully obvious to me, I should perhaps clarify for some of my readers just what exactly my previous post has to do with Texas politics. More importantly, I also feel the need to better explain and emphasize explicitly why this issue ought to matter—and matter greatly—to all of you, regardless of which side of the debate you happen to be on.

Before we begin, if you’re just joining in this conversation and missed the post referenced above, I would recommend that you start there to catch up since I don’t plan to repeat it all here, but I’ll try to give you the quickest-ever recap in history: As reported last week in the Statesman, UT Professor of Sociology Mark Regnerus is currently under international fire for a recently published study in which he essentially claims to have found conclusive evidence that the children of gays and lesbians fare significantly worse than the children of heterosexual couples. Astonishingly poor experimental design coupled with serious conflicts of interest in both funding sources as well as Regnerus’s biased personal ideologies have led to open demands for retraction by hundreds of well-respected scholars along with countless civil rights advocacy groups around the world. The publishing journal’s parent company, publishing giant Elsevier, has subsequently referred the publication to the Committee on Publication Ethics and Regnerus is now under investigation by the University of Texas for scientific misconduct. Extensive coverage of the case can be found here from outspoken civil rights activist and writer Scott Rose, whose series of investigate reports has been a leading catalyst for the inquiries.

Well, I’m not sure about the “quickest-ever” part, but there you have it. Now, where were we? Ah, yes.

The Politics

Many have speculated, and quite rightly I presume, that the Regnerus study will be both used and abused by those championing the anti-gay rights side of the political spectrum, politicians whom are typically pandering to the conservative/Republican/evangelical Christian voting block. One of the central and frequently heard rallying cries that comes from this anti-gay demographic is something along the lines of "But what about the children!?" with their very appalled-shock-and-horror faces. However, the growing body of scientific research conducted over the past decade has, by and large, steadily chipped away at the myth that same-sex orientation of a parent is inherently tragically detrimental to a child. Science had all but debunked this baseless claim being used as a weapon to serve political and social agendas. 

Now enter the Family Structures Study, courtesy of UTs Mark Regnerus and his team of conservative backers. You might be inclined to ask: "If all of this is true, can a single erroneous study at odds with a massive body of literature actually do that much damage? Won't people simply see it for what it is and move on?" To this I would reply with only one question: 

Do you think vaccines are safe? 

Chances are, even in a tiny sample size of 36, at least a handful of you answered "I'm not so sure." Would you like to know from where this equally baseless and equally damaging idea came? From a single erroneous study published in 1998 in which British doctor Andrew Wakefield claimed to have found evidence that childhood vaccinations were "the cause of autism," and the worldwide media frenzy and public hysteria inevitably ensued. However, it gradually came to light—albeit painstakingly slowly—that the Wakefield study was nothing more than egregiously flawed experimental design coupled with radically unsubstantiated conclusions, not the least bit supported by even his own evidence, and severe conflicts of interest concerning funding sources. (Sound familiar? It should.) Despite being abruptly denounced by hundreds of thousands of academics and the entire medical community; and despite the publication's initial partial retraction, followed later (much later, unfortunately) by a full retraction; and despite the fact that numerous ethical and scientific review investigations later found Wakefield guilty of dozens of legal and ethical violations, ruling that he had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant and researcher, acting both against the best interests of his patients, and irresponsibly and dishonestly misrepresenting data in his published research; and despite the fact that he ultimately had his medical license revoked—yes, despite all this, the myth lived on. Or, I should say, "lives on."


We now find ourselves, nearly 15 years later, somehow still living at the mercy of this one stray, bunk study and the incomprehensible groundswell of widespread fear, irrationality and mistrust that it ushered in. We watch in helplessly awestricken horror as childhood vaccination rates continue to decline, bringing with it the inevitable resurgence of many very dangerous, sometimes deadly, childhood diseases, that prior to the decades-long "Wakefield Massacre," as I like to call it, had been all but eradicated in the Western world. 

 Yes, nearly 15 years later, this one stray, bunk study lives on—at the peril of not only the millions of children who now remain unvaccinated, but also at the peril of those whose parents have been wise enough to immunize because they may very well be running around on the playground with many children who aren't. Increased disease prevalence means increased opportunity for random mutation, which means an increased likelihood that one of these diseases will essentially morph into a version (strain) for which our current vaccines are useless.

 So, again, if you are inclined to ask if one bogus study can really do much damage, even if a few politicians and/or the media latch on with their paranoid, fearmongering fingers? YES. Absolutely and unequivocally YES.

What Does This Have to Do With Texas?

Despite his recent open endorsement of equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens, President Obama has stopped short of pushing federal legislation and has instead left it in the hands of the states. As I’m sure you are no doubt aware, our shared state of residence happens to be among the most conservative in the country. And as I am sure you are also aware, civil rights is not merely a social issue; it is a legal one. As with all things legal and political and nature (and everything else on the planet for that matter) there is no such thing as a “final word.” So even though we have already written a ban on same-sex marriage into the Texas Constitution, this debate is far from over, it entails much more than simply marriage, and it will continue to be a central issue in state and local politics well into the foreseeable future.

Why It Matters

I’ve read that many of my classmates consider themselves largely apathetic towards politics, which leads me to believe that there are also at least a few here who would say that their personal opinions on this (or any other) matter makes no difference whatsoever one way or the other in terms of public policy. I am here to tell you that you are wrong. The relationship between public policy and social attitudes is not unidirectional; it is a perpetual feedback loop where each continually feeds off the other. Even if you have never cast a vote in your life, the general ways in which we speak or act towards one another, even the ways we think about things, has this very weird way of becoming a sort of collective dialogue that eventually manifests itself into public policy.  So I care not only how you might vote on something like gay rights legislation, but also—and perhaps more—I care how you actually think about it, too.

Nearly every argument I’ve ever heard waged against equal rights for the gay and lesbian community has ultimately come down to religious beliefs. Come to think of it, EVERY argument I’ve ever heard waged against equal rights for the gay and lesbian community has ultimately come down to religious beliefs. If anyone anywhere has different motivations for holding that position, I would invite you to please share that with me. Does such an argument exist? Whatever you believe, put it aside for a moment and play along in a little thought experiment: Come up with a convincing argument for the anti-gay position that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with tradition or religious dogma. And NO, the Regnerus study does not count. We’ve been through this. But I will now pause and give you a moment to think.

Nothing yet? Sure, I’ll wait.

Really, it’s fine. Take your time.

Still waiting.

Alright, I give up. I can’t wait all day here. And I’m fairly convinced I would be waiting much longer than that, because so far as I can tell, in absence of religion, no such defensible argument exists.

 Which leads me to the million dollar question: Should religious motivations ever be our primary source of inspiration when considering matters of public policy? Public or social policy does not mean general social dynamic, mind you; it means LAW. If, when and to what extent is it reasonable, appropriate or wise for religious convictions to dictate law? Before anyone answers that question, I would like you all to quickly pause once more and first consider this: If we were to have looked only to the Good Book, “American tradition,” and “Christian values” rather than reason and civility when making ALL of our social policy decisions throughout history, at this particular moment in time each and every one of you reading would, in all likelihood, be one of two things: either (a) slave-owner, or (b) slave.

Let that one marinate.

What Are We Doing?

We are writing discrimination into our Constitution rather that out. Instead of focusing our efforts on ensuring fairness and equality for all, we are banning it. Whatever your personal beliefs about it may or may not be, is this really the direction in which we want to be going as state? As a nation? As we have seen with countless other demonized groups of people all throughout history, in a country that prides itself immensely on principles of freedom and fairness with “liberty and justice for all,” it seems inevitable that hateful Prejudice and Discrimination will eventually be trounced by our greatest friend, dear Equality. So why must we continue to cling to our irrational, insidious “traditions” and force each and every single grouping of people that we’ve arbitrarily labeled as "different" to fight and struggle for decades on end to gain access to the those very principles and liberties that this country was supposedly founded on?

Where Are We Going?

Considering his presidential bid can only be described as a complete and utter miserable failure, and considering that we seem intent on keeping him in charge of Texas forever, let’s see how Governor Rick Perry weighs in on the issue.

A New York Times article, tellingly titled “Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Divisive Even to Staff,” sums it up quite nicely, but let me break it down for you. Or better yet, let’s let Mr. Perry speak for himself.

Exhibit A:

And then, as the NYT put it, I give you Exhibit B:

“The ad came a day after Mr. Perry stood out in attacking as “silly” a new Obama administration initiative using diplomatic efforts and foreign aid to promote gay rights around the world and beat back efforts in other nations to criminalize homosexual conduct and persecute gays. This policy, Mr. Perry contended, was an “example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country.”

I’m sorry… What? This may very well be the most logically incoherent line of reasoning I have ever heard in my entire life—and I worked as a psychiatric nurse in intensive care schizophrenia units for a very, very long time. I suppose this isn’t surprising, though, coming from a state whose governor vetoed the initial version of a 1998 anti-hate crime bill put forth in honor of a black man who was beat unconscious, urinated on, chained at the ankles and dragged behind a pickup truck for three miles before getting decapitated by a cement block when the truck took a hard turn, only to then be dumped in mangled pieces in a ditch beside an African American cemetery, at which point his white supremacist murders headed on over to their neighborhood barbeque in Jasper, Texas. And why exactly was the initial version of this anti-hate crime bill vetoed? Because its first version included phrasing that extended protections from these types of hate crimes to gays and lesbians, and that apparently isn’t in line with “American and Christian values.” The bill had to be rewritten twice before it was finally passed into law—I guess to assure that safety and equality were not yet extended too far. To be fair, though, that wasn’t Perry. It was none other than our former Governor and President, George W. Bush. This bill was not amended to include crimes targeted at people based on sexual orientation until 2009 after Obama took office, despite the fact that more than 12,000 such serious crimes had taken place—and those are just the reported crimes; the actual number is undoubtedly significantly higher—in the decade that passed while Bush refused to compromise his highly moral “Christian values.” I wonder if Governor Perry took this move by Obama as an “attack on faith” as well.

What Now?

There is a place for religious sentiment and Christian values, if you like, and that place is in a church—not in a legislative chamber. If these are the types of policies that so-called American tradition and righteous moral values produce, then I, and I suspect a great many others, want absolutely NOTHING OF IT involved in the decision-making processes that take place within the hallowed walls of local government buildings.

I think Americans ought to be free to believe in whatever god or gods they choose, if they choose, and I stand by that position. But when factions of people among us begin implementing policies based on such beliefs, or even gross misinterpretations of such beliefs, that are intensely damaging to the general welfare and well-being of our society, then this is where we have to draw the line.

It is high time that we start seriously evaluating these dearly beloved “American traditions.” We all need to take a long, hard and HONEST look at not just the traditions themselves, but the implications that these traditions carry. We must break down the walls of this unyielding, dogmatic, partisan radical extremism that has entrenched itself in our governing bodies so that we may finally give way to an open and honest, rational and intelligent, meaningful public discourse. And once evaluated, we have to then be willing to actively challenge those traditions that we find are not genuinely in the best interest of our society.

This should be the new American Dream.

Gay Bashing and Bad Science

This morning I remembered why I periodically delete the Statesman app from my iPhone.  Not because I have anything against the Statesman, but because reading purely Texas news is a hazard to my family’s health: it never fails to send my own blood pressure through the roof, meanwhile gravely endangering my husband’s life as I am all too often tempted to catapult my beloved giant coffee cup across the room in a fit of rage. And of course we don’t have health insurance. We are Texans, after all.

Two things I hate most in life: gay bashing and bad science. Leave it to Texas to find a way to squeeze both topics into the same article. Apparently, UT professor of sociology Mark Regnerus has published a study in the journal Social Science Research that reports “adults with gay parents tended to report lower levels of success in economic and romantic pursuits and struggled more with mental health issues.”

Well of course they do. Wait. What? They don’t, you say? Balderdash! Says who? Oh… Virtually every study published since they removed “homosexuality” as a disease from the DSM circa 1986? And virtually every other expert on the subject? And virtually every child ever raised by a loving, committed LGBT couple? Wait, wait, wait. I’m confused. Homosexuality isn’t a disease? Well that’s news to me—and about half of Texas. Okay, so maybe just half of Texas.

Let’s back up, shall we? I’ve heard a wise (wo)man say once or twice that it’s never, ever wise to just blindly trust any old thing I read in the newspaper, so let’s give that a go and see if we can’t sort this mess out for ourselves. Who’s with me? Everyone? Lovely. First and foremost, for my less scientifically inclined readers I will begin by explaining, as a public service announcement, the way in which to properly read a scholarly paper.

           

1.     Read the title & abstract.

2.     Look up the authors.

3.    Determine funding.

4.    Examine methodology/experimental design.

5.     Then, and only then, read the paper.

Please note: Step 3 and 4 are bold for a reason; these are by far the most crucial steps in the process. Still with me? Good, let’s practice.

Step 1-A. The Title. “How different are the adult children of parents who have same sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” Fair enough. Important question, it would seem, since according to the mainstream media “gay is the new black.”

Step 1-B. The Abstract. I should probably include an extended quote here instead of just a link for you to read it yourself since we both know you probably won’t, but I’m going to trust you. Remember, we have our fancy Science Hats on right now. Geeks Honor.

Wow, back so soon? Okay, I’ll paraphrase now, just in case you cheated. (Cheaters!) He basically says, “We have now uber-officially and very scientifically determined: Mom+Dad=Gooood. Mom+Mom/Dad+Dad = Baaaaad.” There is MUCH to be said here, but I think it will be adequately addressed in Step 4 below. So let’s move on.

Step 2. The Authors. Mark Regnerus, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, specializing in research areas of “sexual behavior and family formation,” and the author of two books. You can check out the full bio on his official fan page (?) here. But again: Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. Sounds legit. Moving right along.

Step 3. Funding. Read: Epic fail numero uno.  The New Family Structures Study’s two primary backers: The Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. Granted, these sites if not the entities themselves are incredibly well constructed. As I read each of their mission statements I found myself cheering them on, fighting the urge to click the “Donate!” button. (If you know me at all, you won’t find this surprising. I just gave $40 to a woman who came to the door supporting something called the Jupiter Index. I haven’t a clue what that is, but she said they tried to “help people write better.” I asked her if there was a limit on donations or if she took credit cards. There wasn’t, but she didn’t, so I gave her every dollar I had on me. What can I say? It happens.) But about what’s-his-name’s backers. You have to do a fair bit of sleuthing around these sites to discern what sort of agenda they’re actually pushing, but one needn’t look much further than their respective publication lists to get a clue. For instance, the Witherspoon Institute hosts its own online “journal” called The Public Discourse which hosts a shockingly homogenous (no pun intended) docket of articles with titles such as these: Religious Freedom Under Siege, Planned Parenthood v. Casey at Twenty: The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, Immigration: He Who Is Without Sin, and last but certainly not least, The Newest Front in the Battle over Marriage which carries the byline: “Same-sex marriage should not come in the back door, via an arguably collusive lawsuit in which no one charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law actually defends it.” Back door, eh? (That’s what she said… Oh shut-up, you know you were thinking it too.)

Anyway. So he was bankrolled by a pair of ultra-conservative, Bible touting homophobes. What of it? That doesn’t necessarily mean the good doctor’s data is bogus, does it?

Allow me to introduce you to my friend—a rather loathsome chap, goes by the name “funding bias.” While this was once regarded as academia’s dirty little secret, it is now more or less universally accepted that a researcher’s funding sources, albeit unfortunately, often largely if not entirely predict a given study’s findings an overwhelming majority of the time. It is for this reason that Big Tobacco finds no link between cigarettes and lung cancer, Big Oil finds no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, and Eli Lilly finds no link between Prozac and increased suicide rates. Like it or not, money makes the world go ‘round. (Dolla’ Dolla’ Bills, ya’ll.) It’s not necessarily that every study is designed to deliver the intended results (though that is clearly often the case) so much as it is a refrain from publishing negative results—the ones that don’t say what one wants them to say. This is perhaps not as ominous as it sounds. Or perhaps it’s more. Regardless of your particular perspective on it, though, we can all agree that it at least exists and evaluate outcomes accordingly. Knowledge is power. Now, keep that in mind while you brace yourselves for Epic Fail numero dos, the granddaddy of all granddaddies.

Step 4. Methodology/Experimental Design. One would expect that a UT professor—of sociology no less—would be well versed in the realm of comparable cohorts, meaning that groups chosen for comparison are reasonably equal in all other ways aside from the variable in question. For instance, one would think that when comparing various family structures as Regnerus did, he would vet healthy, stable dual-partner heterosexual homes against healthy, stable dual-partner homosexual homes; and heterosexual “broken homes” vs. homosexual “broken homes.” Is this what he did? If he had, I wouldn’t have wasted a chuck of my day ranting away; I would’ve simply accepted his data as interesting and worthy of further consideration in the realms of both science and public policy.

But he didn’t.

Regnerus implemented experimental design so egregious that I only pray Ben Goldacre doesn’t stumble across it; it will likely give him an instantaneous aneurysm. What the good professor has done in this “study” is compare the outcomes of adult children that grew up in healthy, stable two-parent heterosexual homes in which both parents were biologically related, to the outcomes of adult children that grew up in a random assortment of broken homes in which the single parent left standing alone had had at least one homosexual relationship at any point during the respondent’s childhood. Um… Seriously?

And please do NOT draw the erroneous conclusion here that homosexuality is in any way, shape or form directly proportional to this “broken home” phenomenon. The average divorce rate of first marriages for heterosexual couples is roughly 52%, so don’t go giving the gays all the credit for this one. We are ALL equally likely to both grow up in and be party to broken homes, and we are all equally likely to exercise our “God-given” American right to screw our kids up however we please, regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, a number of recent credible studies suggest that growing up in a dual-parent lesbian household might actually be advantageous over the traditional type for a child. Do we honestly believe that growing up with two loving, committed and engaged mothers or fathers is somehow worse for a child than growing up in the foster care system? If so, then we have nothing left to talk about because you have deluded yourself into believing utter garbage that has exactly zero grounding in reality.

Oh, before I forget:

Step 5. You may now (finally) read the paper. Do it. I dare you.

On a side note, in the Good Professor’s defense (because God knows he needs one), he might’ve achieved the clearly desired results in a scientifically valid way had he done one thing differently. (Okay, several things differently.) Had Dr. Regnerus taken his study sample from Texas alone and not from the rest of the nation, I highly suspect these outcomes would at least be closer to the truth. Why? Because of studies, press, and attitudes just like the ones found in this paper that apparently dominate the Texas citizenry. Can you imagine the additional torment piled on a child of any age growing up even in the happiest, healthiest gay or lesbian household in TEXAS? I shudder to think.

But while results along these lines may have ultimately supported Regnerus & Co’s bottom line, would these findings have actually been a product of any particular family structure? Absolutely and unequivocally, NO. It would have merely been a product of our societal structure—over which parents of any sexual preference have effectively zero control (aside from getting the hell out of the Bible Belt, anyway). Our grand and mighty Texas society must surely be one of the most harshly alienating, brutally discriminatory and subversively prejudiced cultures on earth… Made worse only by the fact that we “do it with a smile,” seemingly justifying our gross mistreatment of our fellow citizens in the name of “morals” and “values.” An awful lot of people perhaps ought to grab a dictionary and remind themselves of what those words actually mean…

I am inclined to agree with Monique Ruffin—gay may very well be the new black.  It blows my mind how very many people are vetting to, once again, end up on the WRONG side of history. Aside from the illegality of discrimination (Equal Protection Clause, anyone?), why is it that the very people who turn their noses up at all forms of governmental interference are the very people championing such extensive governmental over-reach into the private lives of ordinary citizens? And what ever happened to “Thou shalt not judge” or “God loves all his children equally” anyway? You may as well save your breath with the “You’re going to burn in Hell” rhetoric. For any LGBT person living in the Lone Star State, I’m sure they feel that they’re already there . . . .

And in case you missed this:

Or this: