Poll Data Suggests Most Americans Disbelieve Trump's False Statements

The Washington Post just released poll data showing most Americans disbelieve most of Trump's false and misleading claims. That is good news. WaPo writes:

Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans — including fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans — believe these or several other prominent claims by the president, according to the poll.

The poll sought to determine what Americans believe — the truth or the president. The Post has never conducted this type of poll before and it serves as the most comprehensive examination of whether Trump’s false and misleading claims have taken root among the broader American public.

Only among a pool of strong Trump approvers — about 1 in 6 adults in the survey — did majorities accept several, though not all, of his falsehoods as true.

False claims commonly made by Democrats are more widely believed than those made by the president. For instance, 46 percent of adults incorrectly believe there are more people in prison for selling or possessing marijuana than for all violent crimes, an assertion made by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in June. That compares with 22 percent who correctly said violent criminals were more common in prison.

Where Americans get their information is a significant factor in determining what they believe.

Among adults who say Fox News is one of their top two sources for political news, 33 percent believe in Trump’s false claims tested in the poll, on average, compared with 21 percent of those who say Fox is not a main news source.

Americans who count MSNBC and CNN as one of their top two news sources are somewhat more likely to reject Trump’s falsehoods but are also more likely to believe false statements made by Democrats. On average, 44 percent of MSNBC viewers and 40 percent of CNN viewers believe false Democratic claims, compared with 30 percent of those who say MSNBC is not a primary news source and 28 percent who do not primarily watch CNN.

More than 6 in 10 Americans say they believe fact-checking organizations when they conclude that Trump has made a false claim. Just about half are confident in similar assertions in newspapers and on cable news.

If that poll data holds up, it is some evidence that Trump's constant lies and polarizing rhetoric have not made all people gullible enough to believe his constant stream of lies and BS.

What the poll apparently did not ask is how people feel about being lied to or BSed on. It is possible that many or most do not think very negatively about it, maybe dismissing it as politics as usual, but a little worse.

For people who hold lies and BS (disregard for truth) as core moral political sins, the evidence of Trump's lies, deceit and BS should render him as judged to be unfit to serve. Maybe even deserving of removal from office. That pro-truth mindset is one thing the anti-bias ideology is intended to instill in the American people. Unfortunately, the poll suggests we are probably not there yet in terms of moral indignation:

The Post poll also suggests Republicans have grown less concerned about presidents being honest than they were a decade ago. A separate question in the Post poll finds that clear majorities across party lines say it is never acceptable for political leaders to make false statements. But 41 percent of Republicans say false claims are sometimes acceptable “in order to do what’s right for the country,” while 25 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents say the same.

B&B orig: 12/14/18

Taxation and Religious Liberty: The Walz Decision on Tax Exemptions

...The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment [ against separation of church and state ], exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
...Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? ~ James Madison, author of the First Amendment and of Memorial and Remonstrance

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness... ~ Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

...all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

...they say that the civil power may erect and establish what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, I acknowledge...that a civil government is an ordinance of God...

But from this grant I infer...that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people... And, if so, that a people may erect and establish what form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition...

And, if so, that the magistrates receive their power of governing the church from the people, undeniably it follows that a people...have...a power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her, to redress, reform, establish, etc. And if this be not to pull God and Christ and Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge... ~ Roger Williams, A Plea for Religious Liberty

In November, 1969 a case was argued before the Supreme Court in which the appellant, Frederick Walz, sought to prevent the state of New York from exempting churches from taxation. Walz lost his case, and as a consequence it became law in the United States, that religious organizations should be exempted from paying taxes. The Chief Justice in the Case, Warren Burger ( of the famed "Warren Court" ), argued the majority decision this way:

It is sufficient to note that, for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the "establishment" of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. In England, and in some Colonies at the time of the separation in 1776, the Church of England was sponsored and supported by the Crown as a state, or established, church; in other countries, "establishment" meant sponsorship by the sovereign of the Lutheran or Catholic Church...The exclusivity of established churches in the 17th and 18th centuries, of course, was often carried to prohibition of other forms of worship...

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment are not the most precisely drawn portions of the Constitution. The sweep of the absolute prohibitions in the Religion Clauses may have been calculated, but the purpose was to state an objective, not to write a statute. In attempting to articulate the scope of the two Religion Clauses, the Court's opinions reflect the limitations inherent in formulating general principles on a case by-case basis. The considerable internal inconsistency in the opinions of the Court derives from what, in retrospect, may have been too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases, but have limited meaning as general principles.

The Court has struggled to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses, both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a ... logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other.

Justice Berger thus argues, in strict contradiction to the logic of religious freedom as expressed by its Constitutional author and his direct influences, that the state "[ may ] force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment," and that it may "compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors", even to " [ deprive ] him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness...". He does this on the basis that the "utterances on...these clauses...have limited meaning" and "tend to clash" with each other.

There are a number of key aspects of Berger's decision, which beyond the questionable legal view of these Constitutional "utterances" include arguments from finance, from history, from jurisprudence, and reason. The financial argument is perhaps the most transparently false and misleading argument he makes, where he claims:

The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility...It ... has not singled out one particular church or religious group, or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship ...The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest...

and, having argued that exemptions neither advance nor inhibit religion, goes on to say

Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing...Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case...

...The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state...The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

We tend to view the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as being not only definitive, but carefully elucidated, reasoned, and generally coherent if not necessarily agreeable. Americans do not, as a rule, consider the quality of jurisprudence in this regard so much as they side with or against its outcome. This is perhaps the opposite of the apolitical purpose to which the Court is supposedly dedicated, which should above all rely on the quality of its argument to mandate its conclusion. This being the case, it seems straightforward that those decisions which have no such mandate, for which the legal reasoning is weak or spurious or even in contradiction to the facts, ought not be considered prudential but entirely political and thus a questionable ruling especially in terms of stare decisis, or legal precedence.

I think Justice Burger's majority opinion fails to satisfy the test of a reasoned, coherent conclusion arrived at by a process of law rather than by political exigency. His financial argument is only the most obvious failure: it claims simultaneously that tax exemptions are and are not financially supportive of religion, that it does not represent the state transferring revenue to churches - just try arguing that before the IRS and see how far it gets you - and that "direct money" would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, when in fact the only sense in which tax exemptions are not a "direct" payment is in Congressional parlance - not law, not finance, and certainly not in practical effect. Further, the supposition that exempting churches from the same responsibilities owed by all other citizens somehow represents a lesser involvement by the state is to fundamentally oppose the idea of religious freedom as expressed by Jefferson, Madison, Locke, and Williams. Indeed, Burger's finding absolutely contradicts the very argument Madison made which won religious liberty its place in the Constitution, where such a law " violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions."

Q U E S T I O N S :
1) Would you consider it a gift if your landlord or mortgage holder forgave you your rent for a given period? Would you have extra money in your account you might not have had otherwise? Would the landlord have less than he might have otherwise had?

2) If the answer to 1) is "yes", then on what basis can tax exemptions not be considered support for religion?

3) If such exemptions are support, and if the vast majority of churches which receive them are Christian in religion, then is this not " sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity"? Does this not meet Burger's own definition of the violation of the Establishment Clause?

R E F E R E N C E S :
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
Thomas Jefferson, A Plea for Religious Liberty
John Locke, A Letter Concerning [ Religious ] Toleration
Justice Warren Burger, Walz Majority Decision

B&B orig: 12/15/18

The Moral Load of Political Ideology and Identity

Social institutions are a system of behavioral and relationship patterns that are densely interwoven and enduring, and function across an entire society. They order and structure the behavior of individuals by means of their normative character. . . . . Social institutions are important structural components of modern societies that address one or more fundamental activity and/or specific function. Without social institutions, modern societies could not exist.

Regarding the 12% gender gap in the elections last month, the Washington Post writes about how one woman felt after leaving the GOP:

In Kansas last week, state Sen. Barbara Bollier left the GOP after more than four decades, citing Trump’s vulgar comments about women and issues such as the Medicaid expansion and reproductive health.

Bollier said she could no longer “stand up and say, ‘It’s fine to blindly support Trump Republicanism.’ ”

After changing parties, “now I can sleep better — it was a huge moral thing,” she said.

When an ideology comes into conflict over time with personal morals and identity, the conflict usually creates a major psychological burden.

Other women have left the GOP, in part due to ideological differences that are grounded in personal moral beliefs:

‘We are about to bury the rights of over 100 million American women under a heap of platitudes,’ protested Mary Dent Crisp, the co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. Her colleagues assured her that the platform was nonbinding and that reproductive health services were not in danger.

But she was prescient. As pro-choice Republicans, we refuse to support a party that has rightly earned the labels anti-woman and anti-common sense. Our organization, the Republican Majority for Choice, the organization founded by Ms. Crisp in 1988, is shutting its doors. The big tent has collapsed for good.

In a recent blog post, Against Ideology, skeptic Steven Novella comments:

Our [the modern skeptical movement] belief is that you really should not have beliefs, only tentative conclusions. Essentially, our ideology is anti-ideology.

This is because scientific skepticism is not about any set of beliefs or conclusions. It is all about process, just like science itself – question, observe, analyze, repeat.

This approach is both empowering and freeing. One of the most common observations I hear from those who, after consuming skeptical media for a time, abandon some prior belief system or ideology, is that they feel as if a huge weight has been lifted from their shoulders. They feel free from the oppressive burden of having to support one side or ideology, even against evidence and reason. Now they are free to think whatever they want, whatever is supported by the evidence. They don’t have to carry water for their “team”.

At the same time, this is one of the greatest challenges for skeptical thinking, because it seems to run upstream against a strong current of human nature. We are tribal, we pick a side and defend it, especially if it gets wrapped up in our identity or world-view.

Novella points out the ‘huge weight’ that for some ideology imposes. That said, it needs to be understood that for many others, probably more other people, ideology imposes no significant moral burden but instead reinforces personal morals, self-identity and political identity. A reasonable guess is that Novella’s target audience is about 15-20% of Americans.

In this regard, political ideology is very much like religious ideology. Ideology is usually more comforting and self-affirming than troubling.

But amid all the dark free speech and discord, there may be a nascent reckoning is progress. Some people are coming to see the dark side of political ideology, which is a powerful social institution and as such is a powerful driver of political identity. Novella writes:

The end-game of all this is the conspiracy theory, which is the final retreat of the ideological scoundrel. A grand conspiracy theory is an all-consuming narrative that makes sense of the complex world through a paranoid lens, which explains away all disconfirming information as part of a conspiracy. Anything can be interpreted as consistent with the conspiracy, and if you point this out, that’s because you are part of the conspiracy, or at least a “sheeple” who is too blind or naive to see the Truth. It is a mental trap designed to prevent escape.

If there is a ray of light in all this, it’s that we are starting to see some backlash born of increased awareness of motivated reasoning, echo chambers, and conspiracy thinking. A recent essay by Jerry Taylor explains why he abandoned the libertarian ideological label:

I have abandoned that libertarian project, however, because I have come to abandon ideology. This essay is an invitation for you to do likewise — to walk out of the “clean and well-lit prison of one idea.” Ideology encourages dodgy reasoning due to what psychologists call “motivated cognition,” which is the act of deciding what you want to believe and using your reasoning power, with all its might, to get you there. Worse, it encourages fanaticism, disregard for social outcomes, and invites irresolvable philosophical disputes. It also threatens social pluralism — which is to say, it threatens freedom.

Maybe a backlash against irrational political rhetoric and thinking is beginning to form. If so, it may be the case that decades of that irrationality, culminating with President Trump (so far), will turn out to be a silver lining in anotherwise black cloud. Time will tell if a backlash really is forming, and if so, just how far it will go.

If the backash is real and winds up being a powerful social force, there will be an ideological vacuum. Specifically, what else is there other than what there already is? An ideology that tries to be, for example, more liberal than liberalism, socialist than socialism, or conservative than conservatism? Arguably those options are all ideological dead ends because they have all been tried but there still is much discontent. If one accepts that reasoning, then what is there as a possibly viable, less irrational intellectual gas to fill the vacuum?

How about an anti-bias ideology?

The Sea Shepherd

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society: An aggressive environmental movement

B&B orig: 12/17/18

Battery-Free Implantable Weight Loss Device

The journal Nature Communications has published a paper describing a small device that tricks the brain into believing the stomach is full after a small amount of food is eaten. The device has been tested in rats and must now be proven to work in humans before it can be sold to treat obesity. The device shown in panel d below is small and simple but ingenious.

The device is placed on the stomach and two gold-tipped wires are placed near the nerve that communicates stomach food status information to the brain (the vagus nerve). When the stomach churns in response to food, the device generates small electrical pulses that mimic the nerve's food status signals to the brain. Stomach churn causes the device to flex and that natural movement is the energy source for the electrical signal. Stomach movements are shown in panel a below and a trace of the resulting electrical signal is shown in panel b.

Since this has only been tested in rats, clinical trials will be necessary to demonstrate the device, or a variant of it, will be effective in fooling the human brain and lead to weight loss. Typically for drugs that are successful in mouse or rat testing, the chance of the drug ever receiving regulatory approval for marketing is about 0.1% or less. Most drugs that are reasonably effective in animals do not even make it into human testing for various reasons, e.g., toxicity, unknown mechanism of action and thus no obvious way to get regulatory approval, high cost of clinical trials, sometimes hundreds of millions, etc.

The odds of clinical success here are probably much higher, maybe about 40-50%, because (i) electrical signals are not drugs that have to act on a target molecule(s) which may or may not work the same way in humans as in animals, and (ii) similar but bigger, battery powered devices have been effective enough for marketing approval for treating obesity.

B&B orig: 12/20/18

Video Animation of Cell Division

This video is the best animation I am aware of about is going on in a cell when it is dividing. It is both trippy and creepy at the same time. All the little machines are marching around doing stuff we are completely unaware of, unless we watch the video.



B&B orig: 12/21/18

Things A Modern Authoritarian Regime Can Do

The New York Times reports that Hungary's far-right prime minister, Viktor Orban, recently signed into law a provision that allows businesses to require workers to put in up to 400 hours of overtime per year. Prior law allowed companies to impose 250 hours of overtime/year, and gave them one year to pay extra for the overtime. The new law gives companies three years to pay, and in some cases the rate of pay may be the same as the normal hourly rate.

Street protests against the new law have been held, with protesters calling it a “slave law”, but Orban dismisses opposition as “hysterical shouting.”

Bogus logic: A trait that seems to be constant among authoritarians is their liberal use of false information and irrational logic or reasoning. That detachment from reality and reason makes it easy to justify their actions and to criticize political opposition. In the case of the Hungary’s law, the ruling party asserts that the law is good because “those who want to work more to work more, and those who want to earn more to earn more.”

That irrational argument fails to recognize the facts that (i) if people wanted to work and earn more, they could arrange that with their employer voluntarily, and (ii) make sure they received extra pay for the overtime they agreed to work. In other words, the protesters are right to oppose the law.

The NYT comments: “Since re-entering office in 2010, Mr. Orban has made a series of moves that have set off alarms among European allies and others in Hungary: curbing judicial independence, restricting news media freedom and plurality, and blatantly enriching his business allies.”

Presumably this law is intended to enrich Orban’s business allies, and maybe some non-allied businesses as well. Things like this exemplify the rightist authoritarian mindset. The main thing that societies have in their defense against authoritarian attacks on average people are strong independent institutions such as courts and law enforcement, a free press and significant political opposition. When those institutions fade away, tyrants and kleptocrats are mostly free to rule as they wish.

Interestingly, public opposition to other Orban authoritarian moves has been met with limited public opposition. Orban won election to office by vilifying immigration, which made him popular. This new overtime law provoked opposition presumably by affecting people in personal, obvious ways.

There is not much that is subtle or new about how modern day tyrants, oligarchs and kleptocrats go about their corrupt business. The game plan has been about the same for millennia. The question is stark and obvious: What form of government is better, honest democracy or corrupt authoritarianism?[1] Countries like Hungary, China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey and others have made their answer clear, at least for the time being. They want corrupt authoritarianism, not honest democracy.

Footnote:
1. Another authoritarian trait is to claim to be honest and working for the public interest. Despite the incessant contrary claim, authoritarian regimes arguably are usually (~90% of the time) significantly more corrupt than honest, assuming there is a reasonably accurate and objective way(s) to evaluate levels of regime corruption. Authoritarianism and corruption seem to be fairly constant companions through history.

B&B orig: 12/23/18