On Being a Libertarian Skeptic

With the presidential campaign season in full swing (for the republicans at least), I've been thinking a bit lately about politics and skepticism. Generally I call myself a Libertarian, but that's pretty much just a convenience so I don't have to identify with either of the dominant US political parties. I resist affiliation with either the democrats or the republicans so that I don’t have to accept or justify rejecting the very significant parts of each party’s platform with which I disagree.

My libertarianism is therefore shorthand for a somewhat common refrain - like many others, I consider myself  to be fairly conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. I agree with the Republican party on many economic issues, but part with them vehemently on things like gay rights, abortion and their antipathy to science. The democrats drive me crazy on fiscal and economic issues, but I'm with them on the social issues.

So there I am, in my libertarian middle ground, cherry picking candidates from the major parties to vote for (I don't actually vote Libertarian, but I would if they’d bring forward some sane candidates: Bob Barr? Really? Ron Paul? God help us!).

When I first happened on the skeptical community a few years ago, I quickly figured out that it was a community that leaned pretty hard to the left. That wasn't a surprise, but it made me hesitant to actively join the fray. One doesn't want to risk getting flamed by someone online for suggesting that, maybe, just maybe, everyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich isn't actually evil.

Luckily there are prominent skeptical voices out there who help make it safe for Libertarian skeptics like me to come in out of the cold and not feel quite so unwelcome. It was encouraging and refreshing to hear Michael Shermer on a skeptical podcast expressing his belief that the best way to deal with climate change is less government interference in the economy and more unleashing  of bright human minds.  And Penn Jillette’s libertarianism, based in a firm belief in the rights of the individual, is a very appealing philosophy.

So, yeah, it’s good to know that you can be libertarian and find acceptance in the skeptical community. I have a hard time imagining a true blue conservative who would feel very welcome, but I also have a hard time imagining a true blue conservative wanting to be accepted there.

Our "Nation of Believers" is on Display Again!

The headlines about Mitt Romney's Mormonism (Is Mormonism a cult? Are Mormons Christians? Will Evangelicals ever vote for a Mormon?) reminds me of why I wrote the song "Nation of Believers."  It's not the non-religious asking these questions - it's another round of believer-on-believer crime.  The circular firing squad is on display once again!

Mitt Romney and the Republican Debates

It’s probably a sign of some deep-seated psychological problem, but I really love election seasons. I particularly enjoy the debate stage, when you get to see the oddest assortment of political bedfellows duking it out for a party’s nomination.  Since there’s not going to be a democratic debate-fest to enjoy, I’m getting a kick out of the GOP’s.  Most of these characters will ultimately recede back to the world of irrelevance from which they sprang, but its fun to see  them groping for their spot in the sunshine.

This year’s republican debates have been highly entertaining. The sudden rise and subsequent declines of Bachman, Perry and Paul; the constant struggle of the party to find someone - anyone!? - to run against Mitt Romney; the current, nearly inexplicable, boomlet around Herman Cain - all have been fascinating to watch.

Mostly I’ve been impressed with Romney. I certainly don’t agree with all that he espouses (I find his China-bashing to be a xenophobic embarrassment, for example), but he’s sure come a long way since the last time around, and, to my mind, he has come across as a grownup among children in these debates.

Last night was a perfect example. The debate organizers decided to dedicate one section of the debate to letting the candidates ask questions of each other.  Predictably, most of them tried to tee off on Romney, asking him questions designed to show his flip-flopping nature or his lack of conservative bona fides.  But he’s gotten so good at this game, all they did was give him a platform to speak forcefully about his positions. For nearly forty minutes the stage was pretty much Romney’s - in each case he quickly dismissed the insinuation of his rival’s question, then spoke confidently about his plans, proposals and/or visions. Again, agree with him or not, it was an impressive performance.

And when it was his turn?  He didn’t give the stage to Perry or Cain or anyone perceived to have a chance to unseat him as front-runner. He asked a positively-phrased question of Michelle Bachman, setting her up to lay out her conservative principals in a way that would appeal not to Romney’s backers, but to Perry’s. It was, I thought, quite a brilliant strategy.

It certainly seems likely that Romney will secure the Republican nomination, and that will bring a fascinating year of electioneering. Having been raised Mormon myself, I don’t have any qualms about Romney’s religion, but I’ve been surprised at opinions expressed by some of my acquaintances, who feel his Mormonism will be a crippling handicap for him. It will be interesting to see.

Are There Any Grownups in the White House?

When I first heard about it, I thought it was some Internet meme gone viral – a classically satiric riff on today’s wired world. The Obama administration was launching a new website where concerned citizens can report unfair attacks on the President – attacks that could then be countered by facts from the White House.

And then I found out it was real. Yup, real. Truly real.

Sigh.

And once again one ponders the eternal question: What the fuck were they thinking??

As Reason online puts it here, some adult in the White House should perhaps have pointed out that “encouraging Americans to inform on their fellow citizens carries a whiff not just of Nixonian creepiness but of totalitarian menace.”

Sure, I get it, nobody’s being asked to report their neighbors as communists, atheists, tea party activists or other fellow travelers (well, maybe tea party activists), but the whole business is just juvenile and pointless.  Given the connected landscape out there, the White House can both track unfair attacks and put out its own arguments or counter-arguments without needing to enlist citizens in the dirty business of opposition research.

It’s unseemly and tiresome. Not what we were expecting when we elected President Obama.

A Rift in the Fraud/Hoax Continuum!

This morning my usual routine of reading our great metropolitan newspaper was partially spoiled when I noticed an ad for an upcoming appearance in Sacramento by the famed mentalist John Edward. His "show" is called "Behind the Curtain" and the ads promise that there will be "question and answer sessions and messages from the other side."  Ooooooh.


The price for this hogwash:  A cool $150 (not counting the inevitable handling charges, I'm sure).


Nothing quite gets my blood boiling like this kind of blatant exploitation of people's gullibility and/or grief. In the immortal words of Tim Minchin, do we really think that that dead would want to talk to pricks like John Edward?!


Edward is appearing at a local Holiday Inn, but really he ought to be appearing at our basketball stadium, which is now the Power Balance Pavilion (since Power Balance bought the naming rights last spring).  Seems to me that John Edward appearing at the Power Balance Pavilion might just bring enough pseudoscientific nonsense into one place that it could cause a major rift in the fraud/hoax continuum!


(Oh well, I think that's a funny line).

Faith, Works and Magic!

Early in his new book God No! Penn Jillete riffs on the dubious intersection between faith and magic.  He scoffs at the idea that “any magician can be spiritual,” and the he criticizes “hippie Magicians” who use cheap magic tricks and then pretend “they're expressing something real,” and on “gospel magicians” who’ll do a “cheesy ‘cake in the hat’ trick and tie it to the resurrection of Christ.”

Those comments got me reminiscing about a moment in my own life when faith and magic intersected. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog, I spent the first 25 years of my life is a fairly active member of the Mormon church . But I also started to enjoy performing at a fairly young age. I was in several song and dance groups, rock bands, and other performing groups in the suburbs just south of Seattle.

Along the way, one of the groups I was in was taught a number of magic tricks. I can't remember exactly why, but we were going to incorporate some magic into a performance. I learned a couple of pretty impressive card tricks, how to vanish a thimble, and how to make small objects disappear and reappear in a “magic” handkerchief.  I was pretty impressed with myself, armed as I was with this awe-inspiring assortment of magic tricks.

About that time, I was asked to give a talk in church. For those unfamiliar with the Mormon faith, there is no paid clergy, and all members take their turns giving talks in the various church meetings. Since I always struggled with the idea that I had anything to say to anyone about faith, on this occasion I decided to treat it more like a performance.

When the particular Sunday rolled around I took the podium in front of the congregation to speak about the concept that faith without works is dead. I pulled my “magic” handkerchief from my suit coat pocket and told the congregation that I was going to demonstrate the concept of faith and works for them.  I pulled out a scrap of paper on which the word faith was written in letters large enough for the congregation to read.  And then I made this paper magically disappear into the handkerchief. Just like that, I said, faith alone is insufficient. I produced a second scrap of paper on which the word works was written. This too disappeared into the magic handkerchief and I explained that doing good works alone is also not sufficient to achieve salvation.

I then managed to make a third piece of paper appear from the void into which the first two had vanished - and on this this third sheet were written the words Faith + Works = Salvation!

A pretty good demonstration of the concept, I thought, and I expected to receive widespread applause for the way I had demonstrated an important concept of Mormon theology (not actual applause, mind you, as that would not be acceptable in a Mormon church meeting). But alas, I was mistaken.

Although no one took me aside and told me why, I did definitely get the impression that my approach to demonstrating church doctrine was not greatly appreciated by the powers that be. People were clealry and decidedly uncomfortable that I had used a magic trick to illustrate a principale of faith. Only much later did I realize that I had moved close to some dangerous ground. If you start showing through magic tricks how easily people can be deceived, then perhaps you're getting a little too close to causing people to think critically about the mystic aspects of religion itself. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I was surprised and disappointed at how little positive feedback I got for my little performance.

So I definitely agree with Penn that magic and religion really don't mix.  And who knows, maybe it was that brief flirtation with the art of magic that set me on my ultimate course away from faith and to a secular mindset.

One final note on this, I forgot the card tricks soon enough, but I continued to do my thimble trick for years and I was gratified when my son Ryan, now a professional magician in San Francisco, referenced it in one of his routines. Click on the link below when you can see him performing and demonstrating just how strong my magical influence was on his ultimate destiny (right Ryan?).

New Song and Video: Nation of Believers

It takes, of course, no brilliant insight to point out that most religions do not get along very well. Centuries of animosity, war and hatred are quite well documented, and most people would simply shrug and assume that the fault lies with whatever systems of faith lie outside their own.


But we are often told through the media that 1) nearly everyone believes in some kind of religion or holds some kind of spiritual faith in America and 2) that's supposed to mean something (like the old argument that you need faith to be moral).  So this song tries to playfully point out that we may be a "Nation of Believers" but that doesn't really mean anything in the long run.


Enjoy!