The Cutoff Score

Cutoff Score – The Quality of our Leaders

2005-12-21T14:48:00.001-08:00

When a group suffers a tragic event, hopefully the leaders of the group possess two qualities:

The wisdom to avoid taking extreme actions, and
The integrity to avoid using the tragic event for personal gain.

Unfortunately after 9/11, our national leaders lacked both qualities. Worse then simply lacking wisdom, the President (always a solid “C” student) lacked the intellectual acumen and curiosity to make balanced decisions. Furthermore, his “advisors” were the same ethically challenged people who helped him get elected “by hook or by crook” as the saying goes (witness the trashing of John McCain in the Primaries by the Bush campaign).

Add to the mix, the radical neo-conservative ideology, the Christian fundamentalism of the religious right and the belief by the President that God chose him for a “crusade” (Bush’s word), and you have a prescription for disaster with the following results:

Osama Bin Laden is still free.
Afghanistan is not secure.
The US is spying on its own citizens.
We went from a budget surplus to the worst deficit in history.
Over 2,000 American soldiers are dead for reasons unrelated to 9/11.
The administration hyped the war and laundered from the so-called intelligence all the critically important disclaimers put there by the intelligence gatherers (making the case for war a “slam dunk”).
The Patriot Act removes basic protections that help define American freedom.
The Geneva Convention has become a “quaint” anachronism (it’s now okay for America to torture its enemies – or in other words, the ends apparently do justify the means)
“Pre-emption,” for the first time in its history, is now the policy of the United States.
Iraq is a costly mess (it’s like killing your neighbors husband and wife, who supposedly were “out to get you,” and then trying to decide what your responsibilities are toward their children).
The oil companies are charging unprecedented prices and making unprecedented profits.
The US is thumbing its nose at the world regarding environmental policies.

The list goes on and on. Will the balance be restored? I believe it will, but not before a lot of damage has been done, which will tempt the next group of leaders (probably also lacking in wisdom and integrity) to swing to some other dysfunctional extreme. And so it goes.

Posted by Dr. John

Cuttoff Score - The Perfect Metaphor

2005-12-02T15:31:00.000-08:00

I was watching the evening news the other night when a story featuring the lighting of the National Christmas Tree flashed across my television screen. There he was, our Commander in Chief standing on the podium with a couple of small children and his wife Laura at his side. As the President addressed the audience on the White House lawn, I noticed clearly in the background, the wail of a police siren that served as an audio overlay of the event that was meant to impart the message of peace and joy.

Suddenly, I got it. The metaphor that summed up the way I feel whenever I see the hapless President on television. A police siren, going off in the background, a sure sign that somewhere, something is going terribly wrong. Maybe it’s because I spent so many years as a deputy sheriff that I have such an intimate understanding of what that wail can really mean.

Perhaps it is because my formative years came about during the 1950’s. I’ll never forget the third Friday of every month when our civil defense officials would set off the air raid sirens, which would in turn, spark a feeling of panic in me. I remember seriously contemplating just where on the concentric circle of atomic doom our house would be. This concentric circle was posted on the wall at my elementary school for reasons that I still have not reconciled nor comprehended. I suppose that it was published by the Department of Defense to give people hope that they might escape total annihilation from an atomic blast. I thought about it over and over trying to understand what would be the strategic military advantage of blowing up Los Angeles. I would hope that the Russians would really target the Naval Ordinance Test Station far away in the desert where my aunt and uncle lived. Better I mourn the loss of my aunt and uncle, better them than my family and me.

So hear it is so many years later still haunted by the sirens that go off in my head every time I see our President on TV. Sirens, the perfect metaphor!

Cutoff Score - Counting the Dead

2005-10-30T21:08:00.000-08:00

I confess that I’m a cable news junkie. Actually, just an ordinary news junky, inasmuch as I peruse a number of daily newspapers on line as well as the traditional news journal that is delivered to my doorstep each day. While watching the usual line up of so-called public policy experts this weekend I came across a Fox news program with a panel of journalism experts who provide a weekly critique of the news media.

Now keep in mind that Fox in particular likes to refer to the “main-stream” news media as purveyors of twisted and left leaning news. In particular Fox loves to target the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times as being representative of all that’s bad, and the Fox news channel of all that is, well, fair and balanced. They also imply in their reporting that the “main-stream” media is a monolithic entity that works in a carefully choreographed way compliant with the orders of the liberal-leftwing media authority (who ever that is.)

What really caught my attention was the debate that these journalism experts were having that concerned news reports marking the milestone of 2000 servicemen that had been killed in Iraq. The discussion of the panel questioned whether this story was newsworthy or just more hype from the “main-stream” media. One journalist even dismissed the relevancy of the body count by pointing to the fact that many more Americans had died in World War II in a week as during the entire war in Iraq, as if there were any comparison to the two conflicts. At the end of the segment the panel unanimously dismissed the importance of the body count as irrelevant media hype.

Later that day I called my brother to catch up on how things were going with him and during the conversation he spontaneously brought up the fact that over 2000 GI’s had fallen in Iraq. His comments were cynical and displayed a little crack in his, heretofore-unquestioning support of our military adventure in Iraq. Now this is important to me, because my brother was a career military man and is a staunch supporter of our President and his commitment of troops to fight in Iraq. His comment confirmed what was looming in my mind during the news program that the number of Americans killed in this war is important to everyday people and that it shouldn’t be dismissed as media hype.

This brings us back to the overriding theme of this blog, namely the Cutoff Score. In this context I had to wonder at what point would the real violence begin in the debate over our involvement in Iraq. The Presidents dismal approval rating may be a measurement of how debate is going. Despite the gains made by the people of Iraq to construct a democracy, the simple truth is that the war is not getting any better as a result of those advances. The real truth is that in Iraq the electricity is still only on for a few hours a day, the Iraq economy is in shambles and the quality of life in Iraq is worse that when Sadam Hussein was in power.

The rising body count will remind the American public that despite the showboating by President Bush proclaiming victory in Iraq aboard the Aircraft Carrier Lincoln in May of 2003, things are continuing to go badly. The rising body count is also a reminder of the clumsy attempt to occupy and stabilize Iraq by Paul Bremmer and the hardheaded insistence by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield that more troops were not needed in Iraq to secure the peace.

In the final analysis history will reveal that the talking heads at Fox news are wrong about the body count not being important. Still I can’t help but wonder what the cutoff score will be for the American people? Will it be three, four, or perhaps five thousand dead soldiers? Maybe fifty thousand dead solders, a body count similar to the Viet Nam war? I couldn’t help but wonder if the folks at Fox were so welded to the politics of the right that they would rationalize any number no matter how high.

I am a veteran of the Viet Nam War and so when I visited Washington D.C., I made it a point to pay homage to the Viet Nam War Memorial. Interestingly, my emotional response to seeing the thousands of names on that black marble wall representing the vanquished lives of young Americans was not one of sorrow, but rather one of deep anger. I was angry because of the misguided action of our leaders had caused the death of over fifty thousand fine young people. I was angry because President Johnson lied to the American people about Viet Nam, just as the Bush administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. I was angry because the war tore our country apart, and because decades later Viet Nam continues to be Communist country, and yet the worldwide communist threat that we feared so much has disappeared. In an instant, my belief that the Viet Nam conflict was not worth the price we paid was irrefutably confirmed.

History will bring this current conflict in Iraq into focus; perhaps then we will conclude that the body count is really is important. The body count is in fact the cutoff score.

Cutoff Score - Dancing with the Devil You Know

2005-10-23T13:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve always been taught that it’s usually better to dance with the devil you know rather than to risk casting your lot with a concept that is not well understood. Anything else holds the prospect of dealing with unintended consequences—take tax reform laws for instance. Much is being written about Nevada crafting a law similar to Colorado’s “Tax Payer Bill of Rights” or TABOR.

My own personal experience on tax reform comes from the grandfather of all tax reform initiatives, California’s Proposition 13. Some still tout this landmark initiative as an effective control on government spending. Others, including billionaire Warren Buffet say not so fast, that the unintended consequences of Proposition 13 have had a deleterious effect on the quality of life in California due to the unintended consequences that came about because of that tax initiative.

Principally, the most troubling aspect of Proposition 13 was the shift in power from locally elected officials, who tend to be more responsive to their constituents, to the lumbering ineffective bureaucrats in Sacramento. With this shift in power and control from local governments to the state, local officials were forced to develop other ways to meet their constituents’ demands for service. Local officials turned to more arcane methods to raise revenues such as user fees, special districts, and other taxes. While the property tax is easily understood, these new sources of revenue are unintelligible, more complex and expensive. To simplify the argument even further, one only needs to ask this question, if Proposition 13 is so successful then why are so many Californians migrating to Nevada that has no so-called tax reform laws?

This year we had a tax surplus in Nevada, some of which was returned to the taxpayers. Pretty good I would say, astonishing say my friends in California. Unfortunately, for some in Nevada the thoughtful tax refund supported by the Nevada Legislature wasn’t enough. So now some of these folks in our state are clamoring for a TABOR like law in Nevada.

Herein, lies the problem—TABOR is the devil that you don’t know. Republican Colorado Governor Bill Owens is now giving TABOR a second look. It seems that Colorado’s spending caps are working a little too well with a very real threat of closing community colleges, privatizing the university system and releasing inmates early. Governor Owens, when asked about TABOR was quoted as saying, “I don’t think it was designed to cripple government, this is an unintended consequence.”

As for me, I say forget TABOR, I’ll stick to dancing with the devil I know.

Cutoff Score - Just What is the Cutoff Score?

2005-10-22T13:33:00.000-07:00

I probably should have started off this Weblog with an explanation as to how I arrived at the use of the title “The Cutoff Score” as a concept in debating issues of the day. A good friend who happens to be an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist, and does clinical work specializing in psychological issues involving law enforcement officers, conveyed this concept to me. The cutoff score quote was often used during friendly debates in the lunchroom among my group of workmates and was a centerpiece to guide our critical thinking to find a place that is closer to the truth.

During a recent email exchange with my friend Dr. John, he recently reacquainted me with the concept and related that the “cutoff score” theme came to him many years ago during a time in which he was developing employee testing. Dr. John went on to explain that he began thinking about how we set test cutoff scores that are used to make hiring decisions. For instance, in the public sector a passing test score used in a competitive exam was traditionally set at a pass score of 70%. Dr. John observed that when given any particular test, the test takers who got only about half of the answers correct rarely complained. However, those people taking the test who received a score of 69% (just below the cutoff score) would often challenge the fact that they were denied a job because they missed passing by just one test item. This area of controversy that surrounded the development of employment tests set Dr. John thinking about employee testing issues, which later became a metaphor that he could apply to other areas involving critical thinking. Dr. John concluded that in almost every case when he would hear people arguing he noticed that the people involved in the argument think they are debating whether the "truth" is this way or that way. The individuals engaged in the debate did not understand that the real issue is the cutoff score. Dr. John offered up the observation that if people understood that, then quality of the discussion would be quite different. Dr. John reasoned the following:

Everything in life comes down to the cutoff score.
The cutoff score is always arbitrary.
There is always violence around the cutoff score.

As an example, let’s use of the concept involved with the taking of a human life to examine the cutoff score principal. Certainly, this is a contemporary debate given the public discourse over embryonic stem-cell research, abortion rights and the death penalty. Take for instance the killing of a store clerk during a robbery. Not much debate on this one, save the defense lawyers. I think most people would agree that this example clearly qualifies as an unlawful taking of a life. However, what about the right of privacy between a woman and her medical provider to determine a course of treatment, including the right to an abortion? The debate becomes more complex and much louder. Yet again, what about embryonic stem cell research? With each issue the debate becomes more strident, some say violent.

So just what is the cutoff score on the variety of complex issues that we as a society encounter on a day-to-day basis? What is the tipping point that causes our society to move one way or another in response to the political, social, religious and scientific events of our time?

Let’s also examine the concept that the cutoff score is always arbitrary. Using the example of the test taker who masters 69% of the test items when the cutoff score requires 70% mastery. Ask the question, why 70%? What’s magical about that number? As it turns out the 70% cutoff score is an arbitrary cut score based on an assumption that people that score at 70% or above are more likely to be successful in the position that they are testing for. How much better, who knows? But somewhere along the process someone draws a line in the sand to discriminate between those who pass and those who fail.

More germane to the use of this metaphor in the context of this Weblog is that the cutoff score is not always static and in fact is always subject to variables that impact the issue. Take for instance the 70% cutoff score for employment. What if during a time of increased competition for a small pool of qualified workers the employer could not find many candidates who could score at the 70% pass point. In this case it, were it critical to get people on the job, lowering the cutoff score to say, 60% would increase the prospective pool of candidates, which could be quite acceptable. Conversely, if the job market was tight and there were many highly qualified candidates looking for a job you might have the luxury to raise the cutoff score to 80% or above.

And so it is with the complex issues of our day, the cutoff score changes for a variety of reasons depending upon the variables that come into play. For instance what happens if science makes miraculous medical discovery using fetal stem cells? Let’s say that this discovery led to the cure of all types of cancer. Would this fact change the debate for some people? Would this variable change the cutoff score?

It is for this reason that I become concerned about the clamoring by the conservative right to have a Supreme Court made up of so-called strict constructionist. What did the framers of the constitution know about stem cell research or any of the other myriad of scientific, technological and social changes of today? They didn’t, but they were wise enough to understand that the evolving nature of a democracy requires a thoughtful deliberation of the issues brought before the court that conforms to our ever-evolving society. I think that the framers of our constitution understood the notion of variability and would have very much appreciated concept embodied in the Cutoff Score metaphor.

Cutoff Score - Coming Soon to Your Television - Political Commercials 24/7

2005-10-13T14:54:00.000-07:00

When I was growing up if my mother caught me making an ugly face or sticking my tongue out at someone she would admonish me that if I didn’t stop it that my face would freeze in the grotesque pose that I was making. I couldn’t help but think of that old, but effective threat as I was watching Brit Hume on Fox News and couldn’t help but roll my eyes back into my head with every absurd piece of commentary. Does this mean that if I don’t stop watching Fox news that my eyes might stick that way?

I also observed on Fox that day was a short news story that concerned a political hit piece that was developed by some obscure conservative group that was critical of Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle who has led a grand jury indictment of House Member Tom Delay. Since I am an insufferable cable news junkie I spend a fair amount of time watching the three major cable news channels. It occurred to me that Fox spends a considerable amount of time covering these right wing hit pieces or even broadcasts them on their channel. Now I’m not positive that these attack ads don’t run on the other news channels, but I only seem to notice them on Fox (hmmm… fair and balanced eh?)

Lately, the ones that I have seen involve the Supreme Court nominees, John Roberts and more recently Harriett Miers. Now it’s Ronnie Earle. I suppose that the conservative right figured that they had struck gold in the mother of all attack ads, the now famous “swift boat” ads. You remember, the ads played during the last election that painted the only candidate that served in combat as a coward and the other candidate who used his position to join the Air National Guard in order to skip service in Viet Nam as a hero.

Okay, so maybe I’m overstating the swift boat ads a bit, but not much. I just hated that ad and every other carefully crafted political ad designed to dumb down complex issues into a 15 second sound bite. I’ve been able to put up with them during the heated campaigns that precede an election, but now we are beginning to be subjected to them on an ongoing basis to highlight and sway public opinion on the political issue of the day. I’m talking about the propaganda that grinds out of the Democratic and Republic public relations firms.

So anyway, if you happen to stuck watching one of these simple minded commercials just scrunch up your mug and make an ugly face. Don’t worry your face won’t stick that way.

Cutoff Score - The Quality of the Presidents Decision Making

2005-10-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

During my morning ritual of coffee and pouring over the daily newspaper I came across a fascinating editorial piece written by Doug Bandow who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. The editorial was the garden-variety complaint about the Presidents pick of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. What really caught my attention was how brutally straightforward Bandow’s piece was in defining the quality of our President’s decision making. Not that most presidents don’t have a rough go of it in their second terms, but it seems that President Bush has been regularly getting his ears boxed from every direction, from both the left and the right.

Brandow’s editorial comes from a direction neither of the left or right, but rather from the perspective of the Cato Institute, which promotes the Libertiarian perspective. I must admit that I find the Libertarian Party to be fascinating. Delving into their political philosophy is like roaming around in a carnival house of mirrors. Things aren’t necessarily as they appear. The Libertarian Party is a strange mix of people with right and left leaning views that somehow converge and meet in the middle supporting the proposition that America is best when the government stays out of their lives. What seems like a liberal view might come from the right and what might seem like a conservative view may come from the left, you just never know.

In any case Bandow summed up my feelings about our current President, and in his editorial he stated, “George W. Bush is not at bad person. But he’s a bad decision-maker. Intellectually uncurious and seriously unread. Emotionally he remains a cocky collegiate jock, sure of his own decisions and quick to consider opposition the equivalent of disloyalty. Finally, he is unwilling to reflect on past decisions, acknowledge mistakes, or hold people accountable.”

Reflecting on Bandow’s take of the president concerning Presidents tendency to treat opposition as disloyalty, the treatment of Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki immediately came to mind. General Shinseki you might remember suggested that the United States would need a much larger force in Iraq in order to secure the peace and insure the transition of that nation to a democracy. There is little disagreement in hindsight that Shinseki was correct in his assessment, yet the Bush Administration in their rabid need to quash any dissent was not satisfied to simply disagree with Shinseki, but rather found it necessary to discredit this loyal American by an unprecedented decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance, effectively ending Shinseki’s otherwise unblemished career. The resulting effect of ignoring General Shinseki’s dissenting point view has been a disastrous occupation of Iraq that is starting to look like Viet Nam more and more each day.

Brandow also accurately points out the folly of the Presidents tax cut plan while at the same time engaging in what he calls an orgy of spending that makes Bush the Republican version of Lyndon B. Johnson. Keep in mind that this is a President and political party that espouse family values. What I can’t quite reconcile is how saddling our children and grandchildren with paying back this huge debt is family friendly. At least the Democrats, although at times untrustworthy of fiscal management readily admit that they will raise taxes for their spending. While tax increase may draw the ire of many taxpayers at least it’s an honest approach that people understand as opposed to the fiscal slight of hand practiced by this President.

Cutoff Score-Judicial Activisim of the New Radical Right

2005-10-10T10:21:00.000-07:00

As I watch the Republicans self immolate over the Presidents nomination of Harriet Miers, I couldn’t help but think of the title of an old song, “Is you is or is you ain’t my baby?” On October 6, 2005, after meeting with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas said he is prepared to vote against Miers if he finds out that he disagrees with her judicial philosophy. Yet on September 14, 2005, during the Senate Confirmation hearing of John Roberts, Brownback wasn’t quite so strident about knowing Robert’s judicial philosophy. Here is an excerpt of the text of the hearing between Brownback and Roberts.

BROWNBACK: Could you state your view as to whether the unborn child is a person or is a piece of property?

ROBERTS: Well, Senator, because cases are going to come up in this area, and that could be the focus of legal argument in those cases, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that one way or another. I will confront issues in this area as I would confront issues in any area that come before the court, and that would be to fully and fairly consider the arguments presented and decide them according to the rule of law. And I don't think it would be appropriate for me to express views in an area that could come before the court.

BROWNBACK: I hope you would agree with me that this is at the core of the issue, obviously, the competition between the woman's right to choose and the legal status of the unborn, and it permeates so much of our debate, and it's why a lot of us believe it should be within the political system to discuss. I want to point out one thing to you, and I don't think it probably needs to be addressed, but I want to point it out….

The Bold Italics are mine, but I meant to point out that Senator Brownback stated on the record that the nominee Roberts did not need to respond to his comments and by extension Brownback could not know what Roberts philosophy is. So what’s the deal, Miers needs to comment but Roberts doesn’t. What’s the cutoff score here?

Roe v. Wade is the Holy Grail for Brownback and most of the conservative right, but interestingly, according to a study conducted by USA Today, in a state-by-state analysis, it is expected that only about 11 conservative states would pass laws prohibiting abortion if Roe v. Wade were to be reversed by the nations highest court. With the exception of Texas, most of those states are in fly over country, sparsely populated or populated only by amber waves of grain.

While we are on the subject of abortion rights, consider this, most women in their child bearing years have never known a day in which they didn’t have a right to choose. I can’t think of a better issue to energize young voters around the Democratic Party than a ruling that dismantles Roe v. Wade and the Bush Administrations foot dragging on the morning after pill. Certainly the conservative right will nibble around the edges of Roe v. Wade a bit, but that’s probably as far as it goes. After all, if the pro-life stand is so pervasive then why not just amend the constitution to outlaw abortion and be done with it? I’ll leave you to ponder what the cutoff score is on this one.

But the real issue here and the point I should have stated much earlier is that our Constitution is constructed in such a way that it often pushes justices toward the more liberal view. Going all the way back to Madison v. Marbury (a ruling establishing the role of Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution,) to the many rulings throughout our judicial history, courts have rendered decisions that the “New Radical Right” would consider to be judicial activism. Actually, some of the finest liberals on the Supreme Court have been Republican appointees. Why is that? Could it be some Kim Philby like conspiracy to infiltrate the highest court in the land, or could it be that the framers of our Constitution designed a document that most often favored liberty over prohibition, you know the stuff that drives the “New Radical Right” nuts? Things like keeping the government from intruding into the privacy of the bedroom, or a woman’s right to privacy in health related matters, reigning in government officials who want to dictate what adults read and view on the Internet or even personal end of life decisions made by terminally ill patients.

Consider the fact that prior to the Roberts ascension to the Chief Justice position that 7 of the 9 justices appointed to the Supreme Court were Republican appointees, yet it has become quite clear that a numerical majority is not enough for the “New Radical Right.” Rather the numerical majority must also be accompanied by a total, complete and unquestioned obedience to the ultra conservative political philosophy of the “New Radical Right.”

I was going to start out by saying that the conservative view of the “New Radical Right” just does not get the fact that lawyers by virtue of their training and our system of adversarial jurisprudence are pretty adept at looking at more than one side of an issue. Additionally the lifetime appointment of judges insures political independence of the Federal judiciary, hence many justices feel unrestrained by political dogma in their review of constitutional issues. But my original assumption was wrong. The “New Radical Right” understands this all too well, and wants to insure that there is a litmus test for all justices on issues that are precious to the social conservative movement. Isn’t this view also just another form judicial activism?

I’ll use the concept of a enacting a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion to illustrate my argument that the “New Radical Right” practices judicial activism as a means to reach their political objectives. Consider this—a constitutional amendment banning abortion would clearly be the most effective way to ensure total and complete obedience to the right to life position. A constitutional amendment would bypass the Supreme Courts ability to rule on its constitutionality,” and therefore would cement in perpetuity the so-called right to life view (baring another amendment overturning the first amendment, as was the case with prohibition.) The reality of course is that there is no overwhelming public support to ban a women’s right to choose, and therefore it is highly unlikely that a constitutional amendment would pass the political muster that is necessary to successfully amend the constitution.

This takes us to the current debate over the appointment of persons to sit on the highest court of the land and the absolute determination of the “New Radical Right” to fill judicial vacancies by people who are without question in political lockstep with their so called right to life philosophy. This is a strategy conceived by “New Radical Right” to counter what that they consider as judicial activism on views that they disagree, to be replaced with judicial activism supporting positions that they agree with, particularly Roe v. Wade. Sounds like a litmus test to me.

Until the Republican Party changed their primary philosophical position of fiscal conservatism to that of social conservatism, the appointment of individuals to the Supreme Court, while important, was not all consuming. This is a point not missed by the “New Radical Right” whose greatest desire is to dismantle the independence that has historically been enjoyed by the judicial branch of government. I can’t help but wonder what the framers of our constitution would think about that.

Cutoff Score—Do Intelligent Design Advocates Propose Scientifically Determining the Correct God?

2005-10-04T11:56:00.000-07:00

Pondering the recent controversy concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classes, I had to wonder why in the world a person of faith would want to promote Intelligent Design in the scientific context? It seems to me that by it’s very definition an intelligent designer would have to be a supreme being, and herein lies the problem.

In the scientific context, if you agree with the intelligent design theory, wouldn’t it then necessitate a scientific discussion of who the intelligent designer is? Using science as the model, you would eventually need to try to unravel that mystery in order to be true to the science. There are many competing religions, societies and individuals that are quite sure that they know who the intelligent designer is and use as proof their theological texts or mythical lore. The problem of course is that there is very little consensus on a worldwide basis as to whom or in what form the designer is. So whose belief is correct? Is it the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or the Shinto belief system? Or do the “Intelligent Design” supporters simply propose that there is an intelligent designer and leave it at that? Hardly very scientific, if indeed that is the case.

In my mind the whole notion of the theory of evolution and belief in supreme being are not mutually exclusive, yet I believe that the scientific revelations about the origins and processes of life included in the evolution theory is a much more elegant path in the context of science. The science of evolution readily acknowledges the gaps in the evolutionary knowledge base and is patient in its attempt to fill in those gaps and assemble the scientific theory once discoveries are made. Science is not so obsessed with “knowing the answer,” but accepts some ambiguity in the mysteries that surround our universe until the scientific facts are available, proven or dispelled. Since science relies on peer review to support or disprove any particular aspect of the scientific hypothesis, I am unable to imagine anyone trying to scientifically disprove the existence of God. Yet, if you teach intelligent design in the scientific context that is what you must be willing to do, or else it is quite simply, not science.

The science of evolution only determines the question of how life evolves, not why it evolves. Mainstream scientists leave the “why” part of the equation to theologians and philosophers in the study of religion and faith where it rightly belongs. The question of whether or not there is a supreme being is always answered the same way, that science is unable to answer such profound questions involving faith. The answers to those questions reside within the hearts and minds of people throughout the world who should explore and ponder those questions in their respective homes and places of worship and not attempt to compete with the ideas of science in taught in the classroom of public schools.

Cutoff Score—What Type of Events will Initiate an Emergency Response from President Bush?

2005-09-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

The recent disaster that occurred in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with the controversy surrounding the Federal response to these events, set me to thinking about the five days that it took for the President to respond from his vacation retreat in Crawford Texas to Washington D.C. where he began in earnest to deal with this disaster of epic proportions.

According to news reports it was only early on Thursday, September 1^st, the day before the president returned to Washington that presidential staffers who were watching the disaster unfold during the proceeding days made up a DVD containing television news coverage of the disaster for the President to watch on his return to the White House in order for him to see what was being reported by the news media in the aftermath of Katrina. Why it took the President a week to see what people around the globe had been viewing as events unfolded remains a mystery.

In contrast to this lethargic response, I couldn’t help but think of another incident that had occurred several months prior to Katrina that had aroused the Congress to meet in emergency session—Terri Shiavo. I thought of President Bush flying hurriedly from his ranch in Crawford to Washington D.C. in the middle of the night to sign emergency legislation directing the Federal Court to intervene in the Shiavo case.

At the time, Terri Shiavo, laid in, what we know now, was a persistent and vegetative state. The fact that this case had been argued in the courts for the past seven years made me curious as to why the President made such a dramatic and immediate show of resolve in favor of Federal intervention of this case. Flying in the middle of the night from Crawford to Washington D.C. no less!

What was it about Terri Shiavo—just one single person, which demanded the urgent middle of the night response from our leader? I compared the break-neck speed in which the President attended to this one individual against the response that involved the devastation of property and the lives of several hundred thousand Americans. Whatever the difference was in the mind of the President, Terri Shiavo did in a few hours what Hurricane Katrina could not do for over five days—budge the President.

As you might recall, during the Shiavo ordeal many prominent Republicans such as Tom DeLay and others lined up to vehemently decry the ruination of our country by so-called “activist judges.” Each and every one who held this opinion used Terri Shiavo as the poster child to illustrate their case against an out of control Federal judiciary (never mind that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents).

The dirty secret of course was that Washington insiders including the President knew of the pending retirement of Justice Sandra O’Connor and the poor state of health of the late Justice William Renquist. The President and others used the publicity of the Shiavo case to further their political agenda and set the stage to influence the American public on the predicted vacancies on the Supreme Court.

President Bush and others in the Republican apparatus used Terri Shiavo as a rallying point for the anticipated judicial vacancies. His response to this political agenda was shamelessly expedient. By contrast his lackadaisical response to many thousands of people suffering in the aftermath of Katrina underscores the breakdown of leadership and lopsided priorities of our Commander in Chief.

Cutoff Score—How Bad Does It Have to Get Before the President Takes Control?

2005-09-11T11:40:00.000-07:00

As I watched the horrors inflicted by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent breech of the levies surrounding New Orleans on my television set, the scene cut from the devastation to Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff addressing the nation along with a chorus line of cabinet level officials. Mr. Chertoff and the other Cabinet Secretaries who gathered there with him, one-by-one described what they intended to do to address this terrible calamity. Each politician took a turn speaking to the American public and concluded their remarks with a cacophony of platitudes and backslapping, pleased as punch for the actions and cooperation among government agencies that in fact had not yet been delivered. Great theater to be sure, but then I thought of another scenario that I liked much better, a scene that could have played out but didn’t. At that moment I wanted to hear from our leader, the President of the United States and I imagined the speech that he would give.

Television announcer, “Ladies and gentlemen the President of the United States.” President George W. Bush walks to the podium and looks directly at the red light on the television camera and by extension directly into the collective eye of the American viewing public.

“My fellow Americans. A few days ago the Gulf Coast of the Unites States was hit by a natural disaster of epic proportions, wiping out much of the Gulf coast of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. In addition, a breech in the levy system that protects New Orleans has caused wide spread flooding that is resulting in a massive loss of life, human suffering and property damage. Under normal circumstances the Federal role in response to domestic disasters, both natural and man-made would be in support of local and state emergency responders. In the case of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, I have determined that the magnitude of this disaster has gone far beyond the resources of local and state authorities to handle in the first response. They are in fact, overwhelmed. Therefore I am taking immediate and unprecedented steps to address this situation and do hereby declaring the following action.

The costal areas of Alabama, Mississippi and New Orleans and surrounding areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are now under Federal Marshal Law. I am federalizing the National Guard and I have ordered the Secretary of Defense to send all available and necessary military personnel and assets to take over the affected areas to establish law and order and deliver immediate aid to those in danger and begin the rescue and recovery of citizens in the affected areas.

While current federal law may not be totally adequate to support all of these actions; due to the enormity of this catastrophic event there is a high probability of the widespread loss of life and property. We are also facing a significant and serious public health risk due to contamination caused by the flooding. Therefore, I believe that there is a clear and legitimate interest on the part of the Federal Government and the President of the United States to act quickly to lead this desperate effort against the clock to save American lives. If we fail to act now many more may die and many more will suffer. Because of these dire circumstances our national security is in jeopardy, for this reason I have determined that I must act, and act now.

I have requested the leaders in the House and Senate along with their colleagues meet immediately in an emergency joint legislative session to review existing Federal statutes and if necessary to provide for the temporary legal authority in support of my actions retroactive to this date.

As your President, I accept full responsibility for the actions that I have taken and will fully accept any and all repercussions, if any, for my actions in the days and weeks ahead. But for now rest assured we are moving forward with swiftness and determination.

May God bless the people affected by this terrible event, and may God bless the United States of America.”

Unfortunately, this speech didn’t happen. It seems now that since September 11, 2001 we have been under the mistaken belief that our government has been improving it’s national disaster response. Taxpayers have spent millions of dollars on the Department of Homeland Security and the legislature has amended laws to reorganize the government bureaucracy to shore up our internal defense against a national disaster. Pitifully, like this speech that was never given, a competent and timely Federal response did not materialize.

September 11, 2001, changed everything in America, particularly our confidence in the ability of our Federal Government to protect and deliver us from catastrophic event, be it foreign or domestic. Hurricane Katrina has proved that four-years later and after a lot of tough talk from this administration not much has changed, and that is truly a shame.