We have to start somewhere

Creating committees to study issues is back in vogue, and my first reaction tends to be, "So what were we doing BEFORE about this problem or challenge?" 

President Biden is reportedly organizing a bipartisan committee to study ways to restructure the Supreme Court. In Colorado, at least two proposed state laws, one on drastically altering policing inside schools and one that would significantly add regulation to social media and other online companies, have been withdrawn and the sponsors have settled for less contentious legislation that creates study committees.

When a city or state or nation encounters a large number of problems, some of which have obviously been building for many years, these study committees proliferate. 

For people who want relief RIGHT NOW, of course, hearing that any concrete solutions or progress will be delayed is frustrating. When people get frustrated and angry enough, ANY new ideas may be welcome, even if they entail unintended consequences and even downright negative effects.

If we can step back a bit and adopt a somewhat longer term view of things, we realize that it's a good idea to start sometime to think analytically about solutions to long-standing problems. Legislation needs to start somewhere and that starting point is right now for a lot of things.

Should these study committees have begun earlier, maybe years ago? Have past studies been left to gather dust long enough that circumstances have changed, thus leaving us feel pessimistic about any potential for progress? Will enough legislators be persuadable, if new ideas are presented to them?

Yes, yes, and probably not.

But gathering of facts and analysis of options must come before "smart" actions, just as most argumentative writing must begin. Otherwise we are simply flailing about, hoping something works.

So bring on the study committees. The challenge for the media and for citizens is to not forget they exist and to demand to know what they come up with.

Our ignorance is showing... again

Today's rant has been building and I seem to find myself more often yelling at the TV during newscasts, and it's about -- of all things -- vaccination passports. 

I hear governors and commentators and legislators and people on the street objecting to the VERY IDEA of "creating division among Americans" by creating some sort of system to prove that people have been vaccinated against COVID-19 (or 21, or whatever variation we are on). 

I accept that there is some small fraction of the populations that, for whatever reason, should NOT take the vaccine -- under 10 percent? -- but it's time for everyone else to get on board. 

The misunderstanding of some people in this country concerning the idea of freedom lies at the heart of why we can't seem to get things done. The ship has sailed on the idea that Americans can pretty much do as they please. From traffic laws to "no shoes, no shirt, no service" to wear a seatbelt to drivers licenses to mandatory school ages to being cleared for a passport... the list of requirements is never-ending. 

All of them, in some sense, create restrictions of some sort, and almost all of them benefit the larger society. 

So here is one guy who will gladly favor some method of assuring those around us that we have done at least the MINIMUM in making everyone just a bit safer.

Politicians and pundits will always create whatever confusion and division in whatever ways serve them. To argue, somehow, that getting vaccinated is part of some mythical American freedom that never existed is criminal.

Just remember: you won't see any "no smoking" signs in church. Turns out that people know how to "act right" if the manipulators butt out.

End of today's pointless rant.

When the very idea of civic trust seems lost

I see that a bill requiring owners to report a lost or stolen gun to authorities within five days of the loss/theft is going to soon pass the Colorado legislature and likely become law. This seems like a no-brainer to me, much as mandating that a person who wants to own or carry a gun should have some sort of training or license, like a drivers license. 

I also see that zero Republicans voted for the House version of the gun theft bill. This also, unfortunately, is a no-brainer, or at least entirely predictable.

The primary objection is that the government would then need to keep track of who owns guns, or at least some of them. I'm not certain how such a law works if the government does not know anything about who owns guns and how many PRIOR to a theft or someone just misplacing a gun. So I guess I understand some of the discussion and opposition on the pragmatic level.

But American politics have now sorted us in to two basic camps: one has faith in government (assuming good intent, though no one should be naïve about government always functioning perfectly) and one has little faith in government and assumes bad intent or negligence.

Sometimes the party positions can reverse, which is frustrating but entertaining in a macabre way. 

At this point, neither major political party can get by a lack of trust in one another. We are stuck in a never-ending "ad hominem" rhetorical fallacy in which merely identifying as subscribing to a political party means you are suspect. More than that: you are now fair game for attacks.

I know politicians have behaved like this in the past quite often. The difference now is that a large percentage of citizens have adopted this same "us vs. them" approach. 

But there are occasional glimmers of hope and even agreement, as in polls showing that a large majority of Americans approved of the Biden rescue plan, despite universal opposition by Republicans. 

Actively hating a few neighbors is exhausting and actively hating huge groups of people even more so. 

I became a bit weary of actively hating Donald Trump, for instance, though if pressed I would say I still do. But the reality is that what I really enjoy is the absence of Donald Trump. 

I value a bit of calm and opportunities to enjoy spring and baseball and surprising TV shows and so much more. I know I can't hide from the world forever -- the world has a way of seeking us all out.

But I CAN choose not to seek out conflict that has little to do with me.

 

If you build it...

The word of the day is "infrastructure," and somehow just defining the word has become the argument of the day in politics.

Dictionaries were invented partly to avoid such controversy by providing accepted definitions for words, and the farther back the word could be found in past books, poems, and newspapers, the stronger the basis for the definition.

Here's a typical dictionary definition: the system of public works of a country, state, or region. Also, the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity.

That definition seems a bit limited, since many businesses depend much more on software and computer hardware systems than on buildings or even people. But "system" likely includes all sorts of unlisted items and contributing subsystems.

The interstate highway system, which was born in 1956 and eventually produced over 45,000 miles of new highways that fundamentally changed the country, began as a bill titled, The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. Even back then, getting the key word -- defense -- in the title of the bill was important.

I dimly recall I-80 finally opening from Davenport to Des Moines when I was a sophomore in high school, and the basic system took over 14 years to construct and billions of dollars.

It's another reminder that the country can do big things, and that change can come rather quickly, in historical terms. I can be as impatient as the next guy, but I have to admit that the sheer volume and impact of technological systems, not to mention infrastructure systems, that I have experienced over seven decades is breathtaking.

I have no idea how to even measure the potential benefit of the current effort to create a new push for American infrastructure (and there will always be costs and downsides of such huge programs). But the country's last giant government infrastructure program is now over 50 years old. 

I get it: no matter the disagreement, it all becomes tribal these days. And tribes often settle for disagreements over definitions rather than addressing common needs and challenges.

But if Americans end up seeing real benefits from whatever Congress creates, all will be forgotten. And then we can get back to arguing over the need to arm ourselves because we fear our government and our fellow citizens. Oh, and bathrooms. And British royalty.

You know. Important stuff.

What happens when more students get a chance?

We don't really know, but the pandemic may provide a few answers.

I read today that more high school seniors are applying to selective colleges and to MORE colleges and that experts say that is due to SAT and ACT tests being optional in the admissions process due to the pandemic limiting who could take those tests over the past year.

If a wider range of applicants are admitted -- and it appears that Ivy League schools will reveal who is in, who is waitlisted, and who is out on Tuesday night -- then we all will be left with questions about the importance of those national tests. Of course, there will be a lag in discovering if admitting a wider range of seniors will result in any changes in college success. It's one thing to get in, and another to do well once on the Harvard or Yale campus.

I have a suspicion that we would be pleasantly surprised at how successful an almost random selection of applicants might be, no matter the campus. I also suspect that Ivy League schools admitting students in roughly the same percentages of the American population might be the biggest single "game changer" for the future of American society across the board.

It would be a cool experiment to run, IMHO, with no real downside. Those rich white kids who would not make the cut would be "forced" to attend a great state school or some local private college and I am certain they would be fine. 

After all, they would still be rich and white and it's tough to go wrong with that combination.

I will add one caveat: critics often question the value of those standardized tests, and there are all sorts of reasons to wonder if they really can predict future success. But I have been an independent ACT panel member for many years, and my basic job is to confirm that there is one and only one correct answer for each test item (if you think about it, THAT is quite important for testing). A secondary job is to catch text items that favor one group of students over others based on experience.

That second one is challenging, since students who were lucky enough to enjoy great schools and teachers and supportive family for years really are, by definition, "advantaged." 

What is too bad is that we maintain a system that guarantees that some children will NOT receive a great education. We also live in a system that guarantees a percentage of children will not have enough to eat. 

I would hate to see my little side gig of being a test reader for ACT go away as tests lose their influence, but I am excited to see what happens when those tests are not blocking applicants and when all that tutoring for well-do-do kids loses power.

We should be checking the make up of this coming fall's Ivy League new freshmen on Wednesday. It's a small group of people but a solid indicator of trends.

Today's key rhetorical fallacy

Most rhetoric courses spend some time on defining and warning against using logical fallacies when composing arguments. 

Most people are aware that using an "ad hominem" argument is not acceptable -- that is one where we simply attack the person making a point, and was popular on the playground when I was a kid: "You're a butthead!" Most of us have heard of the slippery slope fallacy -- "OMG! This horrible thing will happen because we made that unwise choice, and then things will get even worse. Arghh!" 

Politics are awash in both of these.

But the political fallacy most on my mind these days is a form of "a priori" argument. This is a corruption of logos that begins with a made up fact or trend and THEN builds arguments to counter that fictional starting point.

Despite there being no discernable evidence of election fraud in 2020, many states are considering legislation that is designed to make voting "more secure." That seems like a classic case of a solution in search of a problem, and I'm sure this strategy will face all sorts of legal opposition and will animate both political parties for years.

To overcome an "a priori" fallacy you need to be able to prove that it is false but also get those who hold those false beliefs to change their opinion about that original set of "facts."

That is where things are stuck right now. One party has invested so much effort in creating and sustaining the election fraud Big Lie that it is unlikely that it can quickly pivot to another strategy. The other major party is forced to oppose even reasonable adjustments to voting. 

The bad news for a writer looking to sharpen arguments is that logic fails when there are errors in the "a priori" assumptions the writer or audience hold. 

A classic syllogism:

Socrates is human.
All humans are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If we dispute that first statement, or if we simply choose to ignore it, confusion and misinformation prevails. 

Need further evidence as to why establishing clear and supported basic facts are essential to creating successful arguments?

Play ball in memory of me

By sheer calendar coincidence, today, April 1, falls on Maundy Thursday plus Opening Day for Major League Baseball plus April Fools Day. There is no inherent importance here but this confluence of celebrations/events is given some extrinsic importance due to the human need to find connections.

I am just as intrigued by such coincidences as the next guy, I admit, but let's look at each of these briefly before we simply smile and enjoy the near-70 degree temps here on the Front Range that are promised.

I had to do some research to understand the meaning of the word "maundy" -- my memory from Catholic school was that we called today Holy Thursday. But I like what I found, which is that "maundy" comes from the Latin word for "command," and the command Jesus issues is a good one: Love one another as I have loved you. It's part of the last supper story but this command seems like a good one to apply to all our relationships, particularly in these challenging times.

The Rockies begin their long season this afternoon here at home for the first time in a decade. There could be snow on the ground but this year we are looking at sunny skies, temps near 70 (and maybe 80 on Sunday). They are letting about 21,000 attend in person and I plan to watch on TV.

Opening Day is symbolic of hope. All the teams start even, though logic tells us that most of them will not win a majority of their games and that baseball is the toughest sport. Batters who are successful 30 percent of the time become celebrities. Imagine boasting to your boss that you are successful 30 percent of the time as a cashier or bank teller or chef... And don't get me started on the success rates we expect from parachute packing (99 percent is unacceptable!).

Reality is likely to strike Rockies fans early this year, with future Hall of Famer Nolan Arenado now with St. Louis, with one starting pitcher our for at least a month with an injury, and with everyone predicting a 100-loss season. Oh, and their first four games are against the World Champion Dodgers. 

The Dodgers are heavy favorites to repeat as champions but predictions are wildly inaccurate about any ONE baseball game. After all, even the very best teams will lose 60-70 of their 162 contests.

So it won't be a shock if the Rockies win today. We could easily find ourselves at the top of the National League West, at least for a day. And THAT is why April Fools applies. This silly day reminds us that stories that seem too good to be true or that are too outrageous even for social media eventually give way to reality.

Still, as spring beckons we can all enjoy a day of reveling in a bit of hope.