Wealth inequality... it’s a growing problem

While there are community safety net programs (band-aids) put in place for most every country out there, we witness the wealth schism continuing to grow between the world’s very rich and very poor.  Finding that elusive/collective “happy medium” tends to get harder to achieve with each passing year.

As most of us would agree, fixes only happen when root causes are identified and successfully addressed.  So, for example… 

The cause of being poor is usually the result of conditions like: being under-educated, feelings of hopelessness (e.g., being poorly-connected, family cycle of poverty), and negative soft-wiring (e.g., abusive upbringing).

The cause of being rich is usually the result of conditions like: a higher education, opportunities (e.g., being well-connected, family inheritance money), and positive soft-wiring (e.g., nurtured upbringing). 

While these contrary conditions are not set in stone, I believe they are more true than not.

Granted, no one answer can fix the world, but left to our own devices, our baser, more primal instincts tend to rule us (e.g., greed, selfishness, fear, self-preservation).  With that intro, now for the question: 

If you agree that wealth inequality is a problem, should there be additional policies put in place to resolve the gap between the rich and the poor?  For example, government subsidized higher education and universal health care, to name two fixes.  (Yes, that would mean proportionally higher taxes.)

1. I completely agree
2. I somewhat agree
3. I’m neutral
4. I somewhat disagree
5. I completely disagree

Identify the country from which you hail, and then explain your answer.

Thanks for participating and recommending.

Meet the New Judge: Amy Coney Barrett

Say hello to your new moral enforcer,  

whether you like it or not

Judge Barrett is a real Christian cult freak. America is in for decades of self-righteous moral outrage and vengeful fixing of things that she believes evil secularism broke, especially legalized abortion and legalized same-sex marriage. The New York Times writes: 

“Judge Barrett is from the South and Midwest. Her career has been largely spent teaching while raising seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and one with Down syndrome, and living according to her faith. She has made no secret of her beliefs on divisive social issues such as abortion. A deeply religious woman, her roots are in a populist movement of charismatic Catholicism.

From her formative years in Louisiana to her current life in Indiana, Judge Barrett has been shaped by an especially insular religious community, the People of Praise, which has about 1,650 adult members, including her parents, and draws on the ecstatic traditions of charismatic Christianity, like speaking in tongues.

The group has a strict view of human sexuality that embraces once-traditional gender roles, such as recognizing the husband as the head of the family. The Barretts, however, describe their marriage as a partnership.

Around the time of her appeals court confirmation, several issues of the group’s magazine, “Vine & Branches,” that mentioned her or her family were removed from the People of Praise website.

She has made clear she believes that life begins at conception, and has served in leadership roles for People of Praise, and her children’s school has said in its handbook that marriage is between a man and a woman. Her judicial opinions indicate broad support for gun rights and an expanded role for religion in public life.

‘Amy Coney Barrett is everything the current incarnation of the conservative legal movement has been working for — someone whose record, and the litmus tests of the president nominating her, suggest will overturn Roe, strike down the A.C.A., bend the law toward big business interests and make it harder to vote,’ Elizabeth B. Wydra, the president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, said, referring to the Affordable Care Act. 

After a course on constitutional criminal procedure, Ms. Coney discovered a legal approach that resonated: originalism, or the practice of interpreting the Constitution according to what it meant when it was adopted. 

‘I wasn’t familiar when I entered law school with originalism as a theory,’ she said last year in a speech at Hillsdale, a Christian college in Michigan. ‘But I found myself as I read more and more cases becoming more and more convinced that the opinions that I read that took the originalist approach were right.’”

Abortion

Among other ugly things, it looks like the new radical conservative supreme court court will probably overturn the 1973 Roe abortion decision and the 2015 Obergefell same-sex marriage decision. In the case of abortion, if the court adopts Barrett’s belief that life begins at conception and abortion is murder, it could make abortion felony murder in all states. Before Barrett it seemed that conservatives wanted Roe overturned, with the decision to allow or regulate abortion left to individual states as a matter of state’s rights. 

If the new radical Christian right court goes beyond that traditional conservative position and adopts the fertilized egg and the human fetus is a human being and all abortion is murder, that would be the end of nearly all abortions in America. I do not know how plausible the abortion is murder outcome is compared to simply reversing Roe and leaving the decision to the states. Either way, a national civil right under Roe to have an abortion looks to become extinct in the next couple of years. This change in law will come despite a majority of Americans who support the Roe decision and want it to remain the law.

Same-sex marriage

It seems likely that the 2015 Obergefell decision that created a national right to same-sex marriage is also going to be reversed in the next couple of years. Reversing Obergefell would create a real mess for the people involved in the approximately 293,000 same-sex marriages since Obergefell. The rights of those people will be ripped away. How that will be handled is an open question. This too is a matter of sacred religious belief that the radical Christian right is going to force on the American people against their will.

Lies, authoritarianism, Christian Nationalism & originalism

In terms of lies and deceit, Judge Barrett is starting off with a big bang. She failed to list her affiliation with the People of Praise Christian cult. That is a lie of omission. The cult itself has removed references to her affiliation with the group, which constitutes another lie of omission. One of the things about Evangelical Christianity vs. Catholicism seems to be how the biblical Commandment to not lie is treated. Most Evangelicals in politics seem to have absolutely no moral qualm whatever about lying and deceiving the public. On the other hand, most Catholics in politics seem to have at least some moral regard for truth. Of course, that is just a personal opinion that formed over the last 20 years or so. Some searching did not turn up any published data on this point, so that is just an unsubstantiated personal opinion. 

Regarding authoritarianism, Judge Barrett appears to have the authoritarian mindset. In the name of her infallible,  sacred moral values, she probably will not hesitate to vote to overturn abortion and same-sex marriage laws that most Americans currently support. That fits with my conception of anti-democratic authoritarianism. How else can one describe willingness to engage in extreme judicial activism that a majority of Americans oppose?

The Oct. 6 discussion here on American Christian Nationalism (seems like months ago) described the Christian nationalist mindset. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) (a group I financially support) wrote this in an article, FFRF Warns Barrett would complete Christian Nationalist takeover of Supreme Court: 

“The Freedom From Religion Foundation says that President Trump’s new presumed Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, if confirmed, would be 

‘a disaster for the constitutional principle of separation between state and church’ and would complete the Christian Nationalist takeover of the high court for more than a generation. Both The New York Times and CNN have reported that Barrett is Trump's choice, even though Trump is not scheduled to make the announcement until Saturday afternoon. Barrett, by far the most ultra-conservative of the nominees on his short list, is the one most admired by the Religious Right. .... Barrett’s biography and writings reveal a startling, life-long allegiance to religion over the law.”

Christian Nationalists stand for mixing of the Evangelical church and state and for the dominance of white people over Catholics, atheists and racial minorities. The group Christians Against Christian Nationalism wrote this about Christian Nationalist ideology:

“Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our Christian brothers and sisters to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation. We believe that:

• People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square. 
• Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.”  

That ideology sounds at least significantly bigoted, if not mostly racist. Obviously, Christian Nationalists will deny any bigotry or racism is a motivating factor in their belief system. Their actions contradict their denials. Also, white unease with racial demographic and social changes was by some research the single most influential factor favoring the president in the 2016 presidential election. One researcher described the phenomenon like this in a 2018 paper:

“Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education. Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status.”

Given her radical Christian background, it is reasonable to believe that Judge Barrett is going to protect white Americans’ sense of dominant group status, and she is going to do that with an unflinching, self-righteous moral vengeance. 

Finally, regarding Originalism, it is an excuse that conservatives dreamed up in the 1980s as a basis to reverse the ongoing legal and social trends that they hated. Originalism holds that the interpretation of the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This idea is sheer blithering nonsense. The original constitutional authors, and Americans generally, were at each other's throats over disagreements. More or less those same disagreements are still bitterly debated today. One sees it in the urban-rural divide which existed at the time the constitution was written and ratified. 

The constitution is filled with ambiguities and bitterly fought compromises. The ambiguities were necessary as the only way to achieve agreement. Arguing in the 1980s or in 2020 that it is possible to divine intent from the people or the authors is a fantasy that only a rigid ideologue could take seriously. To be blunt about it: Originalism is a radical partisan ideologue excuse to freeze time and society and then to remake society into what conservatives what it to be right now. The historical record on the disagreements among both the Founders and the American people at the time is rock solid and undeniable. That Judge Barrett has latched onto this kind of reality-detached crackpottery is evidence of just how radical and blind she really is.  

Judge Barrett is very likely going to be a disaster of literally Biblical proportions and the American people are going to get it good and hard whether they want it or not.

Covid Brain Fog: ‘I feel like I have dementia’

Nurse practitioner Lisa Mizelle has Covid brain fog 

The New York Time reports on a growing number of what appears to be long-term brain damage in patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is responsible for the pandemic. This is scary. The NYT writes: 

“After contracting the coronavirus in March, Michael Reagan lost all memory of his 12-day vacation in Paris, even though the trip was just a few weeks earlier. .... In meetings, “I can’t find words,” said Mr. Reagan, who has now taken a leave. “I feel like I sound like an idiot.”

Several weeks after Erica Taylor recovered from her Covid-19 symptoms of nausea and cough, she became confused and forgetful, failing to even recognize her own car, the only Toyota Prius in her apartment complex’s parking lot.

Lisa Mizelle, a veteran nurse practitioner at an urgent care clinic who fell ill with the virus in July, finds herself forgetting routine treatments and lab tests, and has to ask colleagues about terminology she used to know automatically. “I leave the room and I can’t remember what the patient just said,” she said, adding that if she hadn’t exhausted her medical leave she’d take more time off. “It scares me to think I’m working,” Ms. Mizelle, 53, said. ‘I feel like I have dementia.’

It’s becoming known as Covid brain fog: troubling cognitive symptoms that can include memory loss, confusion, difficulty focusing, dizziness and grasping for everyday words. Increasingly, Covid survivors say brain fog is impairing their ability to work and function normally.

‘There are thousands of people who have that,’ said Dr. Igor Koralnik, chief of neuro-infectious disease at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, who has already seen hundreds of survivors at a post-Covid clinic he leads. ‘The impact on the work force that’s affected is going to be significant.’

Scientists aren’t sure what causes brain fog, which varies widely and affects even people who became only mildly physically ill from Covid-19 and had no previous medical conditions. Leading theories are that it arises when the body’s immune response to the virus doesn’t shut down or from inflammation in blood vessels leading to the brain.

But research on long-lasting brain fog is just beginning. A French report in August on 120 patients who had been hospitalized found that 34 percent had memory loss and 27 percent had concentration problems months later. 

In a soon-to-be-published survey of 3,930 members of Survivor Corps, a group of people who have connected to discuss life after Covid, over half reported difficulty concentrating or focusing, said Natalie Lambert, an associate research professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, who helped lead the study. It was the fourth most common symptom out of the 101 long-term and short-term physical, neurological and psychological conditions that survivors reported. Memory problems, dizziness or confusion were reported by a third or more respondents.”

If this preliminary estimate of one-third of Covid survivors having some degree of brain fog holds up, that would mean that of the 7.7 million Americans who have been infected so far, about 2.6 million will experience some degree of Covid brain fog. The people who experience this are not all elderly. 

A 31-year old attorney was so disoriented that she washed her TV remote with the laundry and returned a dog she was fostering because she no longer trusted herself to take proper care of the animal. The NYT quoted her: “One morning, ‘everything in my brain was white static,’ she said. ‘I was sitting on the edge of the bed, crying and feeling ‘something’s wrong, I should be asking for help,’ but I couldn’t remember who or what I should be asking. I forgot who I was and where I was.’” 

Doctors simply do not know when or if this brain fog sickness will go away, of if it might worsen over time.

Thirty-one year old attorney Erica Taylor

 “I forgot who I was and where I was”

Our toxic president

In the last few days, the president blithely but falsely stated that people just get over the infection like he allegedly did. His advice: “Don’t be afraid of it.” Not surprisingly, he was wrong about all of that. Not only will none of the roughly 215,000 Americans the virus has killed so far never get over it, it now looks like a significant number of survivors will be mentally impaired to some degree for some period of time, maybe seriously impaired for the rest of the lives of some. 

Is it just me, or does it seem that just about everything our toxic, incompetent, liar president touches gets botched or poisoned and damaged or destroyed? That millions of Americans still support this incompetent, callous president is mind-blowing.

Some Reasons to Vote Against Trump

I know, this is redundant. I just can't help myself. The excitement of the impending election is frying some of my brain circuits. (Strange, it smells like singed hair in here) 

Pro-Trumper: Why would anyone factor into their decision making process information that has not, and may not ever be proven when there is plenty of well documented and proven information upon which to base a conclusion? For that matter, why would you try to use unproven allegations to attempt to persuade others to your point of view when, again, there is plenty of evidence upon which to make that case?

Reality: There is not close to enough documented and proven information on which to base a conclusion that Trump is honest, competent, decent or moral. There is far more than enough well documented and proven information on which to base a conclusion that Trump is dishonest, incompetent, indecent, cruel and deeply immoral, arguably evil.

Pro-Trumper: With so much well documented misbehavior and willful misrepresentation by Trump, why harp on unproven allegations of tax evasion? That some voters are willing to tolerate Trump's actions and antics says a great deal about how much they oppose and fear what the left wing of the Democratic party would attempt were they to come to power. Trump at least professes to support issues and principles that are important to them, even as the Democrats threaten those same values.

Reality: It is reasonable to include unproven allegations of tax evasion in one's assessment of the president. Americans have to vote by Nov. 3 and Trump has successfully stonewalled all legitimate inquiries into his taxes so far. That delay was intentional and 100% his doing. He promised to show his tax returns but refused to so do, despite nothing holding him back from keeping his promise. No, people do not have to accept his lie about an audit preventing him from showing his returns. That audit applies only to a couple of years and even with the ongoing audit, that does not prevent him from showing his tax returns.

Based on evidence in the public record one can accord the chronic liar Trump no benefit of any doubt that he has been honest about his taxes or most anything else he says in his own defense. Why should anyone accord Trump one shred of credibility when he is a proven chronic liar? Do you trust chronic liars? Do you like being lied to? A constant stream of intentionally divisive and hateful lies from a sitting president is a deep betrayal of democracy.

His constant lies and deceit alone arguably amounts to impeachable behavior. But it isn't just the lies and deceit. There is the 4 or 5 incidents of obstruction of justice the Mueller report clearly laid out, which are also separately impeachable acts. And, there are other almost equally horrific behaviors in Trump's presidency that render him grossly unfit and/or not worthy of support.

Regarding democracy and lies and deceit, consider the quote by Sissela Bok in this discussion on the fundamental basis of democracy. It casts the immorality lies and deceit is a very clear light:

“[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.” 

The courts have already held Trump's fake charity to be a criminal enterprise and shut it down, making Trump pay a penalty for his criminal acts of cheating on his taxes using his fake charity. Here is what the Attorney General of New York state said about the Trump charity:

“Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain. Charities are not a means to an end, which is why these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law. Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.”

Some other rock solid reasons to oppose Trump or disbelieve the propaganda and lies he and his supporters use against the American people to confuse, disinform and divide them:

1. His rhetoric intentionally divides Americans and it needlessly sows hate, bigotry and distrust, including distrust in government, democracy and elections. That is anti-democratic authoritarianism.

2. He is attacking the legitimacy of the election with no evidence to support it. That is anti-democratic authoritarianism.

3. He wants the Department of Justice to indict and prosecute democrats he hates (Obama, Hillary, Biden) without evidence to support proper indictments. That is anti-democratic authoritarianism.

4. He supports massive voter suppression by the GOP in the name of non-existent massive vote fraud. That is anti-democratic authoritarianism.

5. He has been grossly incompetent in dealing with the pandemic but continues to (1) lie about how great a job he has done (and plenty of evidence shows he has been a failure), and (2) downplay the pandemic or take it seriously. That is gross incompetence and malicious mendacity that amounts to evil, not just mere deep immorality.

6. Trump supports and encourages right wing thugs, racists, fascists and white supremacists. That is anti-democratic authoritarianism and malicious evil.

7. The left wing of the dem party isn't fascist, authoritarian kleptocrat like Trump and the GOP now are. Trump and the GOP scare the dickens out of millions of Americans. The prospect of another 4 years of movement toward some sort of an intolerant demagogic Christian dictatorship-kleptocracy under Trump is terrifying to many people who oppose Trump.

8. The left wing of the dem party is not going to convert America to socialism because it doesn't have that power. (a) The GOP is not going to go away and it will bitterly fight tooth and claw to keep pushing America farther toward far right authoritarianism. (b) The center of the dem party and most independents are also not socialist. There is nothing to fear from them. (c) Powerful wealthy people and interests will bitterly fight tooth and claw to keep pushing America farther toward laissez-faire capitalism. Worries about socialism or socialist tyranny are reality-detached fantasies.

9. Any allegation that democrats seriously threaten one or more conservative values is false, radical right wing propaganda. Allegations of serious attacks on religious freedom from the same-sex marriage decision in 2015 are gross exaggerations. If one looks carefully at exactly what effects on religious practice and free speech there have been, one finds almost nothing. Business owners who discriminate against same-sex couples in commerce can be fined into bankruptcy in the 22 states that allow such lawsuits. However, that does not limit any right to private religious belief or practice. The other states allow business owners to discriminate against same-sex couples, thus infringing on their rights in commerce. This persecution of conservatives fantasy narrative is based on decades of radical right propaganda that foments grossly exaggerated persecuted whites and persecuted Christian myths. There are no truly serious threats to any conservative value. 

10. Trump's claim to an economic miracle is based on underlying flaws in the miracle narrative. The claim is a mirage. The 2017 GOP tax cut law (i) transferred over 80% of the benefits to wealthy businesses and people, including golf course owners, and (ii) added about $1 trillion/year to federal debt, while (iii) generating GDA growth similar to growth under Obama, e.g., 2.3% in 2019 and 2.9% in 2018. Trump promised higher growth rates than that but he did not deliver, despite massive cost to the US treasury. The first two quarters of 2020 were economic disasters due largely to Trump's grossly incompetent, failed pandemic response.

11. Trump has eviscerated the Department of Justice and the FBI. Federal investigations of Trump's activities, and the activities of others, have been quashed and swept under the rug as much as possible, e.g., the prosecution of the crook and traitor Michael Flynn. Trump continues to operate with massive conflicts of interest from his ongoing commercial business operations.  

Barr still withholds the full Mueller report 

from both congress and the American people -- 

each day without that report being released is another 

insult and another lie to the American people

12. Trump has publicly stated that he admires dictators and their power. He has stated that he wants to have dictator power for life. His actions are in fully accord with all of that. For example, he and his enablers are undermining the 2020 election as much as they possibly can, despite no evidence or rational basis other than a desire to be dictator for life. Some people saw this vicious trait right from the get go, e.g., Russia observer Masha Gessen wrote this a couple of days after the 2016 election: 

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.” 

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said on Wednesday [in her concession speech to Trump].

13. What else is there? There has to be more than just this. Oh yeah, 26 women have publicly accused Trump of sexually assaulting them. That's a lot. Trump has made well over 20,000 false or misleading statements to the public. That's a lot. (At least most of his supporters no longer claim that Trump never lies to the pubic) Trump's leaked tax returns show (i) he lied about his business successes, (ii) he lied about his sources of income, (iii) he is in serious debt, making him a national security threat, and (iv) he is probably a felon tax cheat. Also he is a serial business failure, deep in debt, a grifter and a draft dodger who used fake bone spurs to avoid being a loser and a sucker.

What a guy. A real stud for sure.

The lesson seems pretty clear: Vote for Biden or don't complain if Trump stays in power for another four years.

Website offers chance to 'live under a rock' during election week

Oct. 8 (UPI) -- An accommodation-booking website is offering weary voters an escape from "election stress disorder" with the opportunity to "live under a rock" for the week of the election.

Hotels.com said the Nov. 2-7 stay in a man-made cave 50 feet below ground in New Mexico will be available to book on its website on a first-come, first-served basis at 9 a.m. Friday.

The website said the opportunity is perfect for "those who are experiencing election stress disorder (this is a real thing!)."

The five-night stay costs an "Abraham Lincoln-inspired" $5 per night.

"After you've cast your ballot, you can check out of the newsfeed negativity and check in to a man-made cave built 50 feet below ground," the website said.

Hotels.com said it will also be offering a 20 percent discount on selected properties with "rock" in the name using the coupon code "UnderARock" starting Friday morning.

"Political fatigue is real regardless of the year or election," said Josh Belkin, vice president of Hotels.com.

"We're transforming an age-old idiom into a bookable experience, so individuals can relax, recharge, and recover... because who knows what else 2020 has in store for us."

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2020/10/08/Website-offers-chance-to-live-under-a-rock-during-election-week/8211602170666/

 

Climate Science Denial: The Motte-and-Bailey Logic Fallacy

The motte is the structure on the high ground and the bailey is 

below and inside the fenced area:

the bailey is easier to attack than the motte

(10th century technology)

Wikipedia: The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

Employing logic fallacies to deceive, distract, disinform and so forth is a common tactic among purveyors of dark free speech or epistemic terrorism. In the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence used the motte-and-bailey fallacy to deceive and confuse people about climate change. At the Neurologica blog, Steve Novella explains it nicely:

“Pence represented the typical denial strategy. He started by saying that the climate is changing, we just don’t know why or what to do about it. This is the motte and bailey fallacy in action – pull back from the position that is untenable to defend an easier position, but don’t completely surrender the outer position. Pence was not about to deny that global warming is happening at all in that forum because he would be too easily eviscerated, so he just tried to muddy the waters on what may seem like an easier point.

But of course, he is completely wrong on both counts. We do know what is causing climate change, it is industrial release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. At least there is a strong consensus of scientists who are 95% confident or more this is the major driver, and there is no tenable competing theory. That is what a scientific fact looks like. We also know what to do about it – decrease global emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And we know how to do that – change our energy infrastructure to contain more carbon neutral sources with the goal of decarbonizing energy. Change our transportation industry as much as possible over to electric (or perhaps hydrogen) vehicles. Advance other industrial processes that release significant amounts of CO2. And look for ways to improve energy efficiency and sequester carbon efficiently. It’s not like there aren’t actual detailed published plans for exactly what to do about it.

Pence, however, will rush from his perceived motte into the bailey of total denial when he feels he has an opening. So he also said that the “climate change alarmists” are warning about hurricanes, but we are having the same number of hurricanes today as we did 100 years ago. This is not literally true (there were six hurricanes so far this year in the North Atlantic, and four in 1920), and it looks from the graph like there is a small uptick, but let’s say it’s true enough that statistically there isn’t a significant change in the number of hurricanes. This is called lying with facts – give a fact out of context that creates a deliberately false impression. In this case the false impression is also a straw man, because climate scientists don’t claim that global warming increases the number of hurricanes. They claim (their models predict) that warming increases the power and negative effects from the hurricanes that do occur.

Pence next tried to take credit for dropping CO2 release from the US, as if this is tied to pulling out of the Paris Accord. It is true that CO2 emissions are decreasing, but this is a trend that has been fairly linear since 2005. Between 2005 and 2018 US CO2 emissions dropped 12%. This is largely due to shifting energy production to less CO2 producing methods, including rising renewables. But also, I will acknowledge, this is partly due to a shift from coal to natural gas. There has been a huge drop in coal as a percentage of US energy. Pence selectively used this fact to defend natural gas, glossing over the fact that this is a greater knock against coal, which he does not want to criticize.

Admittedly a live debate is not the place to get into all these details, but pretty much everything Pence said on the climate was misleading and tracked with fossil fuel industry talking points rather than the scientific consensus.”

A couple of things merit comment. 

First, Trump, Pence and the GOP generally have been ruthlessly using logic flaws, lies and deceptive rhetoric for decades to confuse people and sow doubt in the face of contrary climate science evidence they cannot refute using either evidence (facts) or sound reasoning (~logic). Since they do that with climate science, it seems reasonable to believe that they would do that for all other things they dislike or want to deny, science-related or not.

Second, special interests with threatened economic interests have been doing the same thing for decades. 

Third, conservative politicians and special interests who distort or deny realities based on science or anything else are deeply immoral in their unwarranted distortions and denials. In this regard, they are moral cowards.