Frozen Transparency

Today is the day Americans celebrate their independence from Britain. The choice of date is a little odd, seeing as the actual resolution declaring independence (the Lee Resolution) was passed on July 2nd, and the Declaration of Independence was signed on August 2nd. (Although in all fairness, the declaration was adopted on July 4th).

That document now has absolutely no legal bearing. Some people like to cite sections of it as rails against our government, ignorant of this fact. But it still has importance as a document in history—much as the Mayflower Compact does—and is worth studying, especially in our history. Its opening is one of excellence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What I find most interesting about the document, though, is that while it has no legal bearing, it in a sense proclaims the basic political philosophy of the country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But furthermore:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

History classes (rightly) talk very much about how revolutionary the document was—no pun intended. And philosophically speaking, the very idea that a group of guys would openly declare this was astounding—although not as surprising as some people like to think, seeing as many of the ideas of the document had been floated around Europe for the century prior.

But a lot of people today seem to miss the fundamental philosophical basis for this proclamation. If you go back and read that very famous line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You’ll notice something very odd. It says “they are endowed by their Creator” (emphasis added). Capitalized. As in, God. That Judeo-Christian “I Am” God. Alpha and Omega. Creator of heaven and Earth.

Whoa, hold on. What about separation of church and state (a phrase that never actually occurs in the Constitution, no matter how much some people claim it does)? What about tolerance and religious understanding? Hey wait a moment, what about atheists, Buddhists, Hindu, Aztec, or any of the other five sixths of the world?

Yeah, about that…

See, when you look at the philosophical underpinning of the American Revolution, it comes down to the radical idea that when God created humans, He endowed them with something more than just a body, but a soul with dignity. Because God created all humans like this, all humans should be treated equally by law. That they have inalienable rights. None of this “king is more important than peasant” bullshit.

It all flows from a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world. I can think of no other religion that has this basic philosophical notion. It is explicitly stated in Galations:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is, of course, quibbling to be done here on several accounts. Judiasm and Christianity have different views of sin and the rights of humans, for instance. Plus, there is that fun topic of slavery. And likely a host of other things.

Yet, as I consider what I know of the world’s religions (which is admittedly limited), I cannot think of another religion that has such a core tenet in its faith: that all men are endowed by a creator with certain inescapable rights, that the abrogation of such is sufficient to overthrow a government. It’s possible that it’s out there, and I would be interested to learn of other religions that have this ideal.

Even if there are, it’s still worth noting that the entire philosophical basis for the American Revolution (and subsequently the American governments) is very Christian in nature and ideal. It’s difficult to escape the religious underpinnings of our country, and it saddens me when people deny the obvious so vehemently. So I shall finish with the last of the Declaration, in which they once again cite a religious influence:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

And the torrents of liberty should flow like a mighty river, engulfing all in their wake.

I recently stumbled upon this YouTube video, which is of Steve Jobs first presentation at MacWorld after having been hired back into Apple. It’s been eleven years since then, and it’s interesting to watch it purely in terms of history.

Just a few thoughts:

• I hear it in his voice, and I see it in his smile, but it’s hard for me to imagine that as Steve Jobs. He looks so young!
• We often forget that it was Microsoft that bailed Apple out back then. The stock was later sold, but it forms an interesting dynamic in the history between the two companies. Has the student now become the master—or does Microsoft actually want Apple around?
• I thought Powerpoint presentations made today often looked bad. Those slides are horrendous.
• He was a smooth performer then, but he’s gotten even better as the years have gone by.
• Apple really hasn’t changed since Steve Jobs took the helm again. They’ve just gotten popular.

When I was young, around nine or ten, my usual breakfast at my mother’s house was instant oatmeal. You poured the oatmeal into a bowl, added some water, then put it in the microwave for ninety seconds. Being the age we were, I and my siblings were tremendously impatient for even those ninety seconds. At one point, though, my step-father explained to us that we should actually put it in for seven seconds less. If we put it in for ninety seconds and watched, during those last seven seconds it would get super-hot or something like that. Inevitably, what happened was we kids sat and watched the microwave heat up the oatmeal—and in the process, shut up.

It took me a number of years before I realized it was a lie. Though I’ve never confirmed it, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was concocted just to get us kids to be quiet for a while (since we tended to be quiet once we got food anyways). It’s interesting what parents will say, however false, just to get their children to do things.

I recently read a very interesting book called Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers. The book’s primary purpose is to debunk a large number of the myths about gender that are being perpetrated by modern feminists. She goes back to the original studies (when she can obtain them; a surprising number were never published in peer-reviewed journals and were instead simply reported on by the media) and examines the data. She finds alternate studies. And she delves into the rhetoric paraded by politicians and feminists and exposes it for what it is.

Now, one could argue that her bias is just as bad as what she is trying to combat. It’s possible, and as a skeptic, I would like more investigation. But I was struck by her chapter on rape statistics, and how blatantly overblown they tend to be.

There was a point in college when I attended the Vagina Monologues with some friends. During the performance, they wanted to call attention to sexual abuse and how it needs to stop (a goal I agree with). To further this, they asked everyone in the audience to stand if they had been sexually abused or knew someone who had. I stood, as one of my friends in college had been raped when she was younger. I looked around, and I would say about one tenth of the audience had stood up.

One of the standard statistics that Sommers quotes is that “one in four women” has been raped. If that statistic were true, I would have expected half of the audience to stand. Not one-tenth. There may have been some who sat for fear of being exposed, but the caveat of “someone you know” largely dismissed that. And such shame does not explain the massive disparity between that statistic and what I saw.

The sample was, admittedly, skewed due to the audience being all in college—although most people in college know people who are poor (rape being inversely correlated with income, in general). There are possibly other explanations for the disparity, but let me suggest one (which Sommers also proposes): the statistic is wrong. Sommers explains how they derived that statistic and exposes their flawed methodology. And at a certain point, a quote she includes from another skeptic resonates with me: if one in four women were raped, why haven’t I heard more about it from my friends?

Now let me be clear: I do not condone rape. It is wrong. It can be a massive traumatic experience, and people who have been raped should get the therapy and support they need (though I don’t think the government should pay for it). I am not in any way trying to suggest that we should trivialize the impact it has on people.

What I am instead saying is that people (in the media, government, and schools) are lying.

When I pointed out this disparity to an acquaintance who is a rather hardcore feminist, she glibly replied, “It’s okay, because it raises awareness of the problem and gets those people the support they need.”

To rephrase: it is okay to lie because it gets the results we want.

This leads me to the Holocaust. I am not a Holocaust denier; on the contrary, I am quite convinced it happened. I am quite convinced that it was horrible. But I am not convinced that the statistics I hear about it are true.

Why? Because anyone who contests them is labeled as a denier. So we are willing to accept the statistics we are given, because it emphasizes the horror and tragedy of what happened.

I think there can be honest quibbles with official figures. I think historians should be allowed to go through the evidence in an attempt to learn more. It may be the case that we over-estimate the number of people slaughtered. If it is, we should adjust the statistic. It does not de-emphasize the horror of what happened. It does not reduce its enormity. It brings us closer to the truth.

And I would say that an over-inflated figure trivializes it.Edit for clarity:And I would say that if we have an over-inflated figure, than doing so would trivialize the event.End Edit I would say that it shows disrespect to those who survived it, because we are essentially telling them that the truth of their suffering does not matter. Likewise, claiming such a high rate of rape in society shows disrespect to those who have actually been raped. To have such a high number requires such a liberal definition of rape (a teenager reluctant to kiss can be classified as ‘raped’ according to some cited studies) that it trivializes those who actually were truly raped by all definitions.

It is okay to proclaim a false statistic in order to advance a point. To question the statistic is to be insulted, shouted at, and to be a horrible person.

Which leads me to another anecdote. Some time ago, one of my friends was at my apartment, and had brought her three-year-old daughter. Being a child of that age, she was inordinately curious about the world, and especially about all the fun things I had around my apartment. She would go around pointing at things and asking me what they were, and in good humor I would tell her. In time, she made her way to my printer (a Kodak All-in-one) and started inquiring about the various buttons. As she explored the printer, she stuck her fingers into where the paper comes out—clearly potentially dangerous, due to the moving gears and other things that are unkind to child fingers.

I admonished her not to do it, and in an attempt to quickly explain why it was bad, I told her that it would eat her hand. It was mostly for a metaphorical sense, as I wasn’t entirely sure what it could really do, but I was aware of its danger. Her mother then embellished the story, explaining how a monster was in the printer. It had the desired effect: the child stopped playing with the printer.

Yet I worried about the lie. Even my small exaggeration about eating her hand; was it right for me to deliberately tell her something false in order to have a good result (in this case, to not stick her hand in a dangerous place. I didn’t mind her otherwise playing with the printer)?

Another anecdote along the same lines: an acquaintance of mine was once convinced by his father that he (the son) was under consideration for inclusion in a spy agency or some such. At one point, during a several-hour car trip, the father explained to the son that the lines on the back window (the defrosters) were actually a secret cloaking device, and he had to sit absolutely still for it to work. The trip was a test or something along those lines. And sure enough, the child sat in the back perfectly silent and still for the entire trip.

My acquaintance laughed about it as he told me about it, because he realizes now that it was a lie, but it had the right result: it made the drive far more peaceful.

In fact, telling children deliberate lies to get them to do something seems to be a very popular parenting technique. Clearly, given its prevalence and especially through history (consider Santa Claus as the lie to induce good behavior), it is not that harmful. But I still worry.

If, when our children are young, we lie to them to get an effect, are we not essentially telling them, then, that it is okay to lie to get the results you want? To quote knowingly false statistics in order to siphon more government funding?

That the ends justify the means?

Is that what we really want our children to learn? Is that what we really want our culture to be?