Monday Links - 3.2.2015

Some of the stories I found interesting in the past week...

1.  Several stories related to science and, in particular climate change.  The first, is the absurdity that is Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the biggest climate change deniers out there, and unfortunately, one whose position makes his denialism actually dangerous.  Sen. Inhofe believes that because he is able to bring a snowball to the Senate floor in February, meaning it is cold in Washington D.C., means that the scientific consensus of climate scientists is really just a hoax.  Because of a snowball; that dude is a United States Senator - wrap your mind around that fact.  This link also mentions Inhofe's snowball absurdity, and actually references some actual data of what climate change means, and how it has nothing to do with eliminating winter.  This piece from National Geographic is excellent, discussing why so many seemingly reasonable people don't trust science, including the science of climate change, vaccines, evolution, and so on.  As the Nat Geo article I think does a good job of showing, science is a process and way of thinking about things - which is why its not emotional - it does not care about being wrong (in fact - being wrong is necessary; it eliminates faulty information and possibilities).  Thus, the idea that practically every climate scientist, (or every biologist for evolution and vaccines) is making stuff up in conspiracy, is truly, again, absurd.  The Nat Geo piece is very, very good; I'd recommend reading it.

2.  What you think about millennial is wrong - piece from the Washington Post detailing how recent studies seem to disprove many of the generalizations, particularly the negative ones, about the millennial generation.  Not that I'm shocked by this.  All generations are shaped differently by certain events that happened during their lifetime, that they collectively experienced - World War II, the 1960s (Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK, moon landing, etc.), September 11th - but I think all generations tend to view the other generations negatively.  I think this happened with so much of the branding of millennials as weak or narcissistic (that lovely Time article from a couple years ago comes to mind).  But people are people, and I think this article kind of gets at that.

This other piece, also from the Washington Post, shows how the "younger generation" seems to prefer, at least somewhat, reading print as opposed to digital.  I think this is a positive trend, chiefly due to the research that has been done about the improved reading comprehension and retention when reading print as opposed to digital, based upon how our brain reads versus skims those formats.  But its a good reminder, in general, not to believe that the newest technology will automatically render certain things obsolete (though we did have a State Senator tell our Library Director that we wouldn't have books anymore because everything would be digital).  Certainly, things will evolve over time and sometimes out of necessity; but I think its important to remember that it does take time, and its okay to be patient with the process so we can better understand the impacts and effects of any change.

3.  From the Indiana Law Blog - an invaluable resource for me in my work, is a quick summary of some of the recent trends in States utilizing "religious freedom" statutes as a way to, in essence, allow certain forms of discrimination (the main impetus seems to be in response to the widespread gains made by the same-sex marriage campaigns in recent years).  Its fascinating to me to watch these pieces of legislation be drafted, including by Indiana.  Religious freedom from the State is already protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  While I can understand why this is an uncomfortable topic for many, I don't see (to use an ubiquitous example in this debate), how baking a cake for a gay or lesbian couple impacts the baker's ability to practice their religion.  I'm not aware of any doctrine in Christianity or other major religion that says that it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married, presumably, just because the baker's religion wouldn't recognize the marriage.  Does that mean that a Catholic baker can not bake cakes for a wedding of two divorcees who never got an annulment?  What about serving someone you know committed adultery? Or who eats shellfish? Or lies a lot?  It all seems in poor form, particularly considering religious freedom were arguments used in South Carolina (in a reported appellate case!) to justify not serving African-Americans in restaurants.

But what really gets me with the time and energy (and lobbying money, on both sides) spent on this issue in Indiana, is how the middle class is shrinking in our State, but we don't address that.  Over the last two years, the Indiana Legislature, under a super majority control of Republicans, have spent time in a highly divisive debate on trying to define marriage in our State Constitution (which failed only because of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the State statute, already in place defining marriage, violated the federal Equal Protection Clause (makes you think about the ultimate fate of any "religious freedom" statute)), has endeavored to remove the State Superintendent of Public Instruction as Chair of the State Board of Education, after creating another agency to directly compete with the Board, in a continued attempt to push forward an educational agenda that led to the election of the Superintendent in the first place, and is repealing the common construction wage, after passing right to work legislation, further gutting unions (after already basically taking all powers away from teachers union (who tend to vote Democratic), but, oddly, leaving other public unions like police and fire (who tend to vote Republican) alone (shocker).  Yet, there is loads of evidence, in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, 20th Century Edition, showing how the rise of unions helped lead to the rise of the middle class, and how the slow pull back in the last 35 years has led to increased inequality; a finding supported by multiple studies.  Inequality is still a huge problem, especially in Indiana, and our Legislature spends time on legislation that either distracts from addressing those issues, or ignores overwhelming data in enacting policies.  Not a good process, but I've digressed enough.

4.  A trio of articles on food - the first an interview with Marion Nestle on how certain information and policies about food gets set and disseminated.  Somewhat disturbing, but based on how certain other things go in government policy, not necessarily all that surprising.  Another article with an interview discussing the case for treating sugar as a controlled substance.  The headline is a bit over-zealous, as the interviewee is aware that such will never happen.  But it speaks to how sugar is similar to a drug in its effect on us.  I remember reading an article awhile back that talked about how sugar was dangerous because it is in abundant supply today, but our evolution was based on sugar being in short supply.  Anyway, it was an interesting read.  The last, another interview with a Congresswoman talking about how difficult it is to get Congress to do anything about how our antibiotic use in the meat that we eat is having, and will continue to have, significant health effects in the future as the viruses evolve and adapt and build up resistance.

5.  Lastly, because of perhaps the over-seriousness of the above links, a link to John Oliver's video about the problem with electing judges.  I completely agree as I have always felt that electing judges is fraught with concerns.  Oliver's take is spot on here, and funny (though some of the language/humor is a bit edgy).