Topic Tuesday #66 2013/10/22 - "Cognitive Dissonance"

Topic Tuesday #66 2013/10/22 - "Cognitive Dissonance"

I am running late today on my Topic. It happens, but I dare say it was a slow news day for things that I have not already touched on. I have in recent days been having some heated yet civil discussions on beliefs. You can guess what the topic was, but I'll give you a hint, facts vs. myths.
Now that that simple statement has potentially ruffled your feathers, let me elaborate as why this may have had that effect.
Cognitive Dissonance, From the Concises Encyclopedia

Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. Cognitive dissonance is nonetheless considered an explanation for attitude change.

For some human explanation, Frantz Fanon

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

And Dr. Philip Zimbardo and some footage from the 1950's. http://youtu.be/korGK0yGIDo

I explain it in simple geek terms. "Conflicting orders, make our brains go a little coo-coo. Just like how the HAL-9000 on the Discovery in 2001 a Space Odyssey (spoiler alert) tried to kill everyone."
http://youtu.be/c8N72t7aScY  HAL: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Today we encounter this almost everyday in politics, science and yes, religion. Especially where they meet at crossroads. I will just look at some politicians, frankly because they are easy targets, have large opinions and even bigger mouths that they just don't know when to keep shut.
Rep. Dr. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology drew outrage from the scientific community last year when he declared that "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," Broun said at a banquet for a church sporting club. "And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.... I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old," 
And he's a doctor... 
BTW, he's announced that he's running for Senate. With any luck Charles Darwin will run against him again. One unnamed Republican told The Washington Post that an effort to counter Broun wouldn't be necessary because he's "going to say things that are going to make him unelectable, even in an ultraconservative GOP primary in Georgia." We can hope.
Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill.), According to Shimkus, pointing to biblical verses in Genesis and Matthew, "The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) Although Barton may be most famous for apologizing to the CEO of BP after the company spilled almost five million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico He is also known for his uneducated approach to science, due to faith. Barton characterized wind as "God's way of balancing heat" in 2009 and thus questioned whether wind turbines "slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up." He also described the biblical Great Flood as proof that climate change is not anthropomorphic: “I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.” (Face Palm) He has some interesting ideas about oil and how it got to Alaska... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/04/22/174314/barton-oil-science/ (Double Face Palm)

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) What can I say that she has not already said? I'll just let her speak for herself.
"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, who believe in intelligent design," she remarked in 2006 without providing names.
She characterized HPV vaccinations as having "dangerous consequences" in a 2011 presidential debate and insinuated that they can cause mental retardation. Thankfully she has given us an out, and told us not to listen to her on matters of science. "I just take the Bible for what it is ... and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this." But alas, she continues to speak. OH! and she is on the House Intelligence Committee. The HPSCI is charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community, which includes the intelligence and intelligence related activities of 17 elements of the US Government, and the Military Intelligence Program.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), has suggested that climate change is the product of a mass global conspiracy of scientists -- the overwhelming majority of whom have concluded that burning fossil fuels cause warming -- to obtain grant money. In 2011, he told National Journal he didn't believe climate change was man-made because "I don't think we can control what God controls."

I have said it before, I'll say it again. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Science, contains the facts as best as we know them. They are subject to change as we learn more. But when your belief contradicts the facts, somethings has to give - and it turns out, most of the time, it's the facts.  Unless you are his holiness, the Dalai Lama.  "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." 

Topic Tuesday #58 2013/08/27 - "Water Clock Running Dry"

Topic Tuesday #58 2013/08/27 - "Water Clock Running Dry"

To return to the core of the 'Can We Fix It?' mission, we have a problem and we need a solution (no pun intended since it's about water). In the United States there is a vast water reserve that is being depleted at an unsustainable rate. The High Plains Aquifer lies beneath eight states from South Dakota to Texas and supplies 30 percent of the nations irrigated groundwater (it is also a key source of potable drinking water in the region). A new study, out of Kansas State University and published online Monday in the journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences', has concluded that it will be depleted within 50 years at the current usage rate. David Steward (professor of civil engineering at KSU) said, "It would take an average of 500 to 1,300 years to completely refill the High Plains Aquifer."
This is a complex problem with implications that are stupefying. Bridget Scanlon (Sr. research scientist and lead of 'the Sustainable Water Resources Program' at the University of Texas - Austin) had a few comments about the study.

"We know the aquifer is being depleted, but trying to project long-term is very difficult, because there are climate issues and social aspects that have to be included. Projections are so difficult because I think we're clueless about a lot of things, like extreme weather events. Farmers are trying to make a living, and they're responding to economics," she explained. "Asking them to drastically reduce water might be like asking me to retire now because there are so many unemployed people. This is a very nice study, but we really need to address droughts and socioeconomic issues, and other approaches to figure out the problem, beyond the technical. If we don't know what we're doing, are we just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?"

It's a valid response. It is not dismissive, but urging more inclusion of other factors for strategy, which is a secondary target diverting from the crux of the matter. We are going to run out of water. It's not a matter of 'if'; it's a matter of 'when'.
What can we do? We can continue rationing water supplies. We can improve irrigation methodologies and technologies. At some point, we will need to harvest water from other resources. Desalination and pipelining it to the nation's breadbasket to keep food production going.
What happens when a town runs out of water? The people leave. It's just that simple. If you can't feed the livestock and crops with enough water, they wither and die. Then the farmers leave, and there is a food shortage and then costs rise as demand is shifted. Economies are drastically affected in our global community by a little thing like a drought. It is a fragile situation and deserves attention while there is still a resource to utilize. And... I haven't touched on "Fracking" yet.
Any ideas? Can We Fix It?

Topic Tuesday #57 2013/08/20 - "Running for POTUS"

Topic Tuesday #57 2013/08/20 - "Running for POTUS"

In the news: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is gearing up to take a 2016 run at the big chair. He has been mired in some interesting controversy that I found amusing, and then infuriating. It's all down to the interpretation of "Natural Born Citizen".
Requirements to be eligible to be the President of the Untied States of America (POTUS):

 35 Years or Older.
Have been a permanent resident of the United States of America for at least 14 years
Must not have served more than one previous term as president.
Must not have been impeached by the Senate.
Must not have participated in a rebellion against the United States
Must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

This is usually interpreted to mean you have to have been born in the USA, which is not what it legally takes to be a "natural born" citizen.

* The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". This act was superseded by:
* The Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen. The Act of 1795 was superseded by:
* The Naturalization Act of 1798. This act was repealed in 1802 by:
* The Naturalization Law of 1802. A number of minor revisions were introduced, but these merely altered or clarified details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the admission procedure. The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 256).

To the nature of Texas Senator Cruz, who was born outside the United States to a Canadian father and American mother, Section 4 is pertinent.
 
*SEC 4 And be it further enacted that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribe.

So yeah... That's muddy. Now we have to check with what has really already been decided.

"Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement". Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are 'natural born,' as opposed to 'naturalized,' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."
"Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century,
there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

And there it is. "by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents." In Ted Cruz's case, there are two reasons that he can be harassed. He was one of the very vocal "birthers" during the Obama campaigns making him a little hypocritical. And by not knowing this in the first place and getting it figured out ahead of time. Letting the media run your campaign is a bad idea. They asked for his birth certificate as a joke, poking at him for the "birther" connection. He has been caught with a Canadian maple leaf on his under-roos with this one and is now being forced to renounce his Canadian dual citizenship, but is unfamiliar with the paperwork, and stumbling around blind in a room full of cameras. There is only one other little detail that could keep this ball in the air. There is a misogynistic bend to this act, that should be summarily ignored. The jus sanguinis, law of decent, is traditionally on the male side, and his father was the Canadian. So if you don't pay attention to his mother being a U.S. Citizen, then yes... you still have an argument to make, albeit a horrible one for someone in the 21st century. But given that he has dual citizenship, that argument should be stuffed.

In short, Yes, he can run. Yes he can hold the office if he wins. Will he be able to win? Well, we shall see in 2016.