Vanderbilt all-comers rule

I recently saw a video that pulled the classic dishonest straw man trick.  The video discusses a policy at Vanderbilt university called an "all-comers" policy. This policy is a non-discrimination policy and applies equally to all university student groups (but not fraternities and sororities).  The policy has sparked a debate by christian student groups who dishonestly claim that the policy prevents them from choosing their members based on religious belief.  But, before we get into the debate lets look at the policy itself.

Where can you get Universal Health Care?

Its been a while since I posted anything but a recent CNN health article titled "Where in the world can you get universal health care?" gave me the need to post again.  This CNN article talks about some of the countries that have universal health care but by using the simple rhetorical trick of omitting facts the article makes it appear that universal health care is not widely used in the first world when in fact it is the most common health care system in the first world.  The health care debate in the U.S. is at a peak right now after the recent supreme court ruling upholding the new health care bill.  Thus, this CNN article discussing the countries where universal health care exists is timely.  However, the article is also highly misleading due to its rather absurd omissions.

Un-Labelling GMOs

figure 1.
Modern banana (top)
Wild banana (bottom)

In case you are new to the debate, GMO standards for Genetically Modified Organisms (sometimes called GE—Genetically Engineered) and refers to plants and animals whose DNA have been modified by Humans.  The term GMO is itself a bit of a misnomer; not because it is inaccurate but instead because it is misleading.  In reality every living thing has been genetically modified by evolution which is constantly modifying the DNA of animals through the process of natural selection.  Additionally, nearly all food we eat today has been genetically modified through the process of artificial selection—we have been selectively breeding plants for thousands of years and most of us would not recognize the natural versions of many of the foods we eat today (such as the banana that has been drastically changed by selective breeding).  Thus, the term GMO when applied only to foods modified by humans is a misnomer because it suggests that only synthetically modified foods are genetically modified when in fact all foods have been genetically modified either through natural or artificial selection.  So to use the term GMO correctly we should say that every living thing is a GMO.  However, to avoid confusion I will use GMO in the modern sense of the word that refers only to those living things that have had their DNA modified directly by humans.

Now that we have the definition of GMOs out of the way lets move to the current debate.  Despite the fact that current research is showing that GMOs are safe to eat and are a promising avenue for achieving more environmentally friendly farming techniques there are many groups against GMOs.  One thing these groups are fighting for is to force foods containing GMOs to be labeled so that consumers can choose not to buy them.  Many countries already have such regulations and some countries have even forbidden the selling of GMOs.  In the U.S. this battle is just now starting in places like California where enough signatures were gathered to put up a measure on the ballot this November.  But remember, all food we eat is genetically modified.  Thus it appears a bit absurd to force sellers to label these foods as GMOs unless there is a health difference.

Is there then a reason that we should force GMOs to be labeled?  This question raises up three primary issues: 1. is there any evidence that GMOs are dangerous and thus should be labeled for safety reasons; 2. do consumer's have a right to force labeling merely because they want it; and 3. does consumer choice create a right to know what is in food?

Is there really a Bengal tiger in Puyallup?

Breaking News: Bengal tiger spotted in Puyallup!  If you live in Washington you've probably heard this  exaggerated headline.  The problem is that no one actually even claims to have seen a tiger.  But yet we see headlines like these: Tiger on the loose in Washington State; Tiger on the prowl between Tacoma, Puyallup; or  Tiger sighting reported in Pierce County.

As usual this appears to be a case of exaggerated news reporting.  It is of course possible that people did see a tiger, but from the facts being reported so far it sounds a little far fetched.  In fact there were only two reports of sightings and it appears that neither sightings claimed that it was a tiger just that they saw a "fairly large" cat.

One witness even stated: "it was a blond animal with black stripes, that's all I said."  Animal control then took this description and said it "sounded like" a tiger.  But if we look further at the description given by the witness we have some clues to what this really might have been.

The witness stated that he saw a large cat walking away from him in the tall grass that was blond with black stripes.  In Washington we do not have native Bengal Tigers, but we do have native cougars that are known to range widely.  Tiger's are orange in coloration whereas cougars tend to be tan, or blondish.  Imagine what a cougar would look like walking through tall grass on a sunny day... it would be a blondish big cat with black stripes from the shadows cast by the grass.  So what is more likely, that the man saw a non-native Bengal Tiger or that he saw a native cougar walking through tall grass dappled with shadows?  Remember that this man did not even claim to have seen a tiger, he claimed to have seen a large cat.  It was only animal control who added the tiger label.  I of course am making my judgments based off of minimal information only having seen a brief interview of the man.  Thus, perhaps there was more information that lead animal control to believe it could be a Bengal Tiger.

But from the man's statement: "that's all I said" it appears he may even have been surprised by the Tiger claim.  Additionally, we have to wonder who hasn't at least seen pictures or video of a tiger if not seen one at a local zoo.  Thus, I would assume the man who saw the cat knows what a tiger looks like and if he didn't think it was a tiger on his own I find it hardly plausible that animal control could identify it as a tiger based on his description.

This sounds like a case of exaggeration and misidentification.  It is of course possible that there is a Bengal Tiger on the loose, but judging from the statements being released by the news outlets it sounds much more likely that a cougar was simply wandering through the neighborhood.  Apparently sensationalism dictates that news outlets should should state, as fact, the most implausible explanation for an event and then make sure that the implausible explanation becomes the bold lettered title of the story.

What is "nothing"?

The definition of a fundamental word is often the most important part of a philosophical debate.  This is especially the case in the debate over how “something” arose from “nothing.”  The word nothing is the tricky word here because it is hard to imagine what "nothingness" would actually be or what we actually mean when we say the word nothing.  This difficulty can be seen in a recent criticism of a book by Lawrence Krauss.

Lawrence Krauss recently wrote a book explaining how modern cosmology and quantum mechanics can answer the question of how our universe could have arisen from empty space.  However, this book is not without criticism.  David Albert submitted one such criticism as a book review in the New York Times.  The problem is Albert failed to fully think through his argument.

CAM trying to break into Oregon

Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is a belief system based on faulty reasoning and poor logic. Take for example this article discussing integrating CAM into the Oregon healthcare system.  As usual the article is full of non-sequiturs arguments that sound compelling but do not really support the overall claim. The reason CAM promoters use non-sequiturs is that an actual discussion of whether CAM treatments worked would lead any reasonable person to choose to not use CAM.

Remember the first question we should ask prior to using a treatment is: does it work? Then if it does work we should implement it. The problem is that most of CAM has not been proven to work and for much of it to work it would need to contradict some of our most trusted scientific ideas.

Jamie Sewell, the author of an article discussing Oregon's new Coordinated Care organizations (CCOs) (part of Oregon's Health care system) wants to see CAM used in these new CCOs. Her reasons are all flawed. First she cites the flawed idea that CAM treats the whole patient where modern medicine does not. This is simply a misunderstanding of modern medicine. Modern medicine treats underlying cause of disease when possible and when not it treats the symptoms. CAM often claims to provide treatments for things that modern medicine currently cannot treat.  But when closely scrutinized these CAM treatments are almost universally shown to not work. In reality CAM preys upon those who desperately want treatment when none exists by offering them false hope. Sewell points out that Oregon's CCOs are designed to reduce costs. Providing useless CAM treatments won't make patients any better and will just increase costs. Hardly the outcome intended by the CCOs.

Sewell also points out that CAM often costs less and often results in better patient satisfaction. Well, even if true those points are not relevant. If a cheap treatment doesn't work then every penny paid for it was a waste. A patient who is "satisfied" by a fraudulent CAM cancer cure is no healthier than a person who took no cure at all. Even worse, they may have delayed getting real medical treatment and thus decreased their chances of surviving.

Science has weighed in on CAM and shown most of it to not work. Thus, CAM has retreated to using rhetoric rather than evidence to support its position.  Those promoting CAM need to stop and take a deep look at their arguments. If all your arguments are based on misleading rhetoric it might be time to change your opinion.

The birth control mandate has nothing to do with religion

A common news topic in this election year is the controversy surrounding the birth control mandate in Obama's health care bill. The religious, especially Catholics, claim that the mandate to provide health insurance that covers birth control free of charge violates their religious rights because it goes against their beliefs. Well, they are wrong it does not violate their religious rights.

The bill does not tell Catholics that they must change their beliefs. It does not require them to use the contraception that would be provided free of charge. It does not even require them to personally provide such contraception. It merely says they must have a health insurance plan that provides birth control for those who wish to have it. The Catholics thus are mostly complaining that their funds might be used to cover something they don't believe in but that their employees want.

Well, we have plenty of history of forcing people to do things they don't believe in. We forced racist employers to stop discriminating when hiring. We all need to pay taxes which support wars and public programs many do not believe in. Part of being in a society is realizing that we will not all agree on every program that is ran by our government. That is not to say that we should not fight those programs that we believe are wrong. But claiming that a law discriminates against you because it violates your beliefs shouldn't be taken seriously. The proper argument is to try to show that your beliefs should be accepted by society as a whole.

The Catholic church faces a problem. Society as a whole is largely beginning to disagree with them on the issue of contraception. They cannot win the battle against contraception so they have fallen back and are desperately clinging to a sinking ship and trying to plug the round hole with the square peg of a religious discrimination claim.

Think about what the Catholics are trying to deny. If they have employees who want birth control they want to reduce access to birth control for those employees. They are thus attacking the right of those who believe in birth control to use birth control.  If Catholics wish to claim that their religion is being discriminated against they must also admit that they wish to discriminate against their employees who believe in and wish to use birth control.

But discrimination is really not the issue here. This is simply an issue of social policy debate: is universal access to birth control and other contraceptives a good thing and should we mandate it? That is the true debate. The issue of religious discrimination is merely a sideshow attempt to draw attention away from the real issue because that battle is one the Catholics likely cannot win.