Those of us who study and teach ethics know there are times when a person can say something that is untrue, yet not be lying. On the other hand, there are times when a person can make a true statement, yet be lying. Politicians are masters in the use of these ethical conundrums.

Barack Obama’s statement about keeping tires inflated is an excellent example of a true lie. That is, he made a true statement, but the message he communicated is a lie. It is true that keeping a vehicle’s tires inflated properly improves the fuel mileage the vehicle can achieve. The lie is the implication that everyone can easily achieve this standard.

Mr. Obama’s comment made it sound like this was an easy way to save gas. His tone was flippant, dismissive and incredulous. Why, if we’d only keep our tires inflated, we could reduce fuel consumption more than 3 percent. Given his flippant tone, it is unlikely Mr. Obama has ever tried to maintain recommended tire pressure on his vehicles. Perhaps, a little education is necessary.

Tire and automobile manufacturers state that tire pressure must be checked when the tires are cold. In practical terms, this means tires should be checked when a car has not been driven in at least four hours, or before it has been driven more than a mile. After a mile of driving, heat begins to build up, and heat causes tire pressure to increase. Once this happens, trying to inflate tires may result in over inflation. Or, tires may appear over inflated, and lowering the pressure may leave the tires under inflated.

The bottom line is this. Keeping tires inflated is not rocket science. It is not however, as simple as Mr. Obama seems to think. Drivers wanting to follow Mr. Obama’s advice need their own equipment, or they need to live less than a mile from a place that has the equipment. Additionally, they need to check their tires regularly. Or, as in Mr. Obama’s case, they can have their drivers check the tires on a regular basis and make certain they meet manufacturers’ specifications.

Flippancy aside, the truth of the matter is this. Maintaining proper tire pressure takes more effort, time and money than most people are willing to spend. So, Mr. Obama is right, but his advice is simply political rhetoric. The average car owner is simply not willing or able to check their tires and keep them inflated properly. Of course if Mr. Obama is elected, maybe he can set up a new government agency to provide tire inflation services to those who cannot do it for themselves. After all, we’d save enough money on oil imports to fund a lot of government jobs!

 

Anyone listening to talk radio after "Super Tuesday" might be convinced America had arrived. America was finally the "color blind" society many civil rights activists have been awaiting. Barack Obama’s success to that point was seen as evidence that society had made the shift. A person’s color did not matter.

Many believe a color blind society will be the ideal outcome of more than forty years of civil rights progress. Unfortunately, the people who think that way are likely not people of color. People of color, that is, people who are not "white" may be happy that a so-called color blind society made Barack Obama a viable presidential candidate. However, the same people will probably be quick to react, negatively, if a white person fails to "respect" their color.

As a white male, I am stepping into the deep stuff with statements like the ones above. Regardless, I stand by them, and I think my experience, education and training give me the necessary expertise to make those statements. Read on and see if you agree.

I was introduced to discrimination in late fifties. A young black man worked for an electrical supplier where my dad did business. He was a frequent visitor to our home and helped my father with some of his projects. However, I noticed my dad called him by his first name, and he always called my dad Mr. Jackson. One day I asked my father why, and his response was very pointed. I cannot remember the exact words, but it clearly meant this person was not his equal. That did not sit well with me, and I never forgot it.

My professional career started in 1970. I became a police officer in a medium sized town in north central Texas. It was a time when racial tension was high, and police departments around the nation were trying to find ways to lessen those tensions.

Our leadership worked with the community to establish lines of communication. One tactic was to set up meetings between police officers and members of the minority community. We had "rap sessions" where we tried to talk openly about issues and problems.

One evening we were discussing our hopes for the future of race relations. I expressed my hope that in the not too distant future our children could be friends and even date across racial lines without prejudice or negative reaction. To my surprise, the black members of the group were the ones objecting. They did not agree that was an acceptable goal.

As I matured and my horizons broadened, I found new opportunities to grow and learn in the areas of racial understanding, bringing about positive change in racially charged environments and addressing institutionally supported discrimination. In 1991 I was introduced to an internationally recognized conflict resolution organization dedicated to developing leaders who could facilitate social changes in organizations and communities.

I dedicated eleven years of my life to this organization’s approach to celebrating and embracing diversity. I led workshops for state agencies in the northeast, trained public servants in Texas, published articles about dealing with racism in law enforcement and was invited to speak at President Clinton’s 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crimes. In short, I was a poster boy for the enlightened white male in the diversity training community.

I was one disillusioned poster boy when I shut the door on my diversity training and advocacy activities. After almost thirty years of trying to make a difference, I like to think I helped hundreds, if not thousands of people lay aside their differences, stereotypes and outright phobias. Unfortunately, few of those people were people of color, or for that matter, a member of any oppressed group.

In my experience, most people of color have more difficulty moving beyond their biases than most members of the majority. It is not just the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who revert to name calling and threats when someone has the temerity to treat them as an equal instead of a member of an oppressed group. It is also the Henries, Cheryls, Shaniquas and Joses.

I readily admit my position is based on anecdotal data. However, it is a lot of anecdotal data, and it is backed up by the reaction to current events. The response to the revelations that Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor preached hate from his pulpit was disappointingly what I expected.

Obama’s remarks in response to criticism of his pastor, and the remarks of such people as former Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas defending Obama on Mike Gallagher’s radio show clearly demonstrate the position of many Blacks in the United States today. People of color have a "right" to say hateful things from the pulpit, from the radio and from the campaign stage. And, typical white people are just expected to put up with it.

Rampant Rationalization

Republican has become synonymous with conservative, even religious conservative, over the past three decades. Critics, liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever, constantly attack "conservatives," pointing out any character flaw or mistake and crying hypocrite. Our defense has always been sinning does not mean we are hypocrites. It just means we are human. This defense was blown completely out of the water on March 4, 2008 in Texas!

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh and a few other talking heads, an unknown number of Texas Republicans voted in the Democrat Primary in an attempt to derail Senator Obama’s seeming juggernaut. Their actions proved that they at least are hypocrites. The rest of us, unfortunately, may be seen in a similar light.

I would like to think this was simply the result fear or frenzy over the challenge we face in November. However, I am afraid that like our elected officials, many of us are becoming hard to distinguish from those we allegedly despise. A liberal, progressive, secular Democrat would likely have little problem lying to further his party’s goals. Apparently, many so-called conservative, Christian, Republicans felt the same way.

It is, disappointingly, a sign of the times. Rationalization and situational ethics are the standards in the United States today. Politicians on both sides of the aisle can rationalize their ethics away. Regrettably, it seems many Christians can as well. If it furthers a cause that is RIGHT in our minds, we seem willing to bend the rules or simply lie to achieve that cause.

Critics of this article will undoubtedly argue no one really lied. No one really sinned. Simply using a tactic a Democrat might use to damage another party’s candidate is not wrong. It is just politics. In fact, it sounds like something Teddy Kennedy would endorse in a similar situation.

Thanks Rush!

    What happened to playing by the rules? The talk radio airwaves recently were full of discussions about cheating and the lack of a moral compass in the U.S. The impetus for this discussion was the infamous home run number 756 of the even more infamous Barry Bonds.

Hosts and callers moaned about the loss of integrity. They wailed about the sad state of affairs within the younger generations. They lamented that cheating was accepted as the norm in classrooms at all levels. In addition to mourning the loss of basic decency in our country, they pondered the question. How did this come about?

    Sociologists, psychologists and Dr. Phil will argue that many of society’s ills are the result of family of origin issues. They will postulate and pontificate that the lack of two parent homes is the root cause of the problems. Or, they will claim the problem is due to dysfunctional two parent homes.

    There is a problem in this country. People seem to feel rudeness, cheating, self-indulgence and insensitivity are character traits to be coveted. Likely, family problems, school problems and the lack of good role models contribute to the sad shape in which we find our society to day. However, these items may be symptoms and not cause.

    In law enforcement there is a concept known as the "broken window syndrome." Basically, it postulates that if a broken window in a building is not repaired, eventually all the windows will be broken. In macro terms, it says that failing to address little things, vandalism, petty theft, etc, will lead to larger problems.

    It is hard to believe that ignoring a broken window can lead to crime in the streets. Still, anecdotal evidence supports the theory, and many police agencies and other entities use it to improve life in the communities in their care.

    This concept can be applied to situations beyond crime prevention. It can be applied to societies rules, or lack there of. Consider the anarchy that reigns in the doorways of America today.

    As a first year baby boomer, I was raised in a dysfunctional, heterosexual, two parent home. Yet, I was learned to be polite, considerate and thoughtful, at least to a degree. I learned to open a door for a "lady." I learned to for my elders to enter ahead of me, unless they ushered me in. Most important, I was learned to enter and leave through the right side of the doorway!

    I know that sounds silly. It sounds especially silly in today’s world. Regardless, the next time you have the chance, watch people walking into and out of the local convenience store. How many do you see barging in ahead of someone else? How many do you see pushing their way in through the "out" door, or out through the "in" door? How many do you see holding the door for someone else, and if they do, how often are they thanked for their courtesy?

    Where did I, and others in my generation, learn there were in and out doors? Where did we learn that you entered through the right side of double door, and exited from the right side as well? No, I am not contradicting myself! The right side in is opposite of the right side out. As my drill instructor said many times, "Your other right stupid!"

    Some of us learned from our parents. Some of us learned from our teachers. However, we learned more quickly from complete strangers. The kind of stranger who gave you "the eye" if you pushed in through the out door. The kind of stranger who said, "What would your mother say young man!" Or, young woman for the PC crowd. We also learned because things worked better when we walked and entered on the right. When we lost that concept, we started down a slippery slope toward the anarchy we see growing this country today!

In the last few days there have been two excellent examples of how bad science and bad press coverage work together to distort our world. In both cases, it is possible to see examples of so-called scientists pandering to the politically correct world view and the politically correct press. In one case, the result is a mildly amusing news item, with little real impact on the world as we know it. In the other, the results could have significant impacts on our lives and the lives of our children.

James Pennebaker, PhD, Chair of the Department of Psychology at The University of Texas published a study concerning the number of words spoken during a day by males and females. The inspiration for their study was the often repeated belief that women talked about three times as much as men. The results of the study indicated this was a myth, and the news media had a field day with those results.

The study, while frivolous, was a legitimate academic exercise. Dr. Pennebaker and his team studied 400 college students in the United States and Mexico. Using recording devices they were able to record and count words spoken by the test subjects. The findings, according to Pennebaker and company, were that there was no statistical difference between the number of words spoken by males or females. Additionally, according to published accounts of the research, other psychologists agreed with the findings.

One report stated that psychologists agreed the college environment was somewhat unique. Still, the psychologists believed any real difference between the number of words spoken by men and women would have shown up in the study. Once again, so-called scientists are taking one small sample, and extrapolating to the rest of the world.

Anyone who has taken the time to study how research is conducted would know this study is of limited value. At one time, researchers would have gone out of their way to explain that the study’s scope was limited, and generalizing from those results would be dangerous. Today, if enough scientists believe something is a certain way, well by golly that is the way it is.

It does not matter that the study consisted only of college students. It does not matter that students from two different cultures were studied. It does not matter that the college years are arguably some of the most social years in a person’s life. It does not matter that life in the world after college is a totally different environment, and only a small percentage of the population actually goes to college. The only thing that matters is the psychology world, at least the ones quoted in the media, think the study is correct.

Luckily, the UT study has limited implications. It does not really matter who talks the most. Unfortunately, the same rigid scientific principals of subjective evaluation are applied to other areas as well. A good example of this sort of fuzzy thinking is the concept of carbon tradeoffs or carbon credits.

If you are not aware of carbon or emission credit trading, you must be living under a rock. Al Gore has justified his extravagant use of electricity and gasoline products by claiming to buy carbon "credits." During his mostly unwatched Live Earth Concert, much was made of the bands that donated money to plant trees or took other steps to offset the amount of carbon emissions they generated as part of the event. At one point, NBC’s Lester Holt was interviewing the founder of a "green" activist group concerning the issue of carbon footprint and carbon credits. Lester’s carbon foot print was approximately twice the national average, according to the organization’s scale. When Lester asked what he could, other than actually reducing his carbon footprint, he was told he could donate to an organization that was planting trees or in other ways working to reduce carbon emissions or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Any scientist seriously supporting that concept that planting trees in one part of the country will affect the pollution in another part of the country is either delusional or lying. Carbon tradeoffs or carbon credits are simply a way for the rich people and countries of the world to continue to pollute with a clear conscience. Al Gore or Madonna can pollute all they want by donating a few percent of their income to a "green" activist group or program. At the same time, they can use questionable science and a liberal media to force the rest of us to conserve, without regard to the costs or inconvenience we incur.

There is an irony in the two areas of pseudo-science discussed above. Listening to Al Gore speak is stressful. Still, it clearly contradicts Dr. Pennebaker’s study. There is no way Al Gore could use 16,000 words a day. By the time he utters 5,000 words it is way past dinner time.

In "Dark Science" (June 12, 2007) I implied modern scientific research is comparable to the suppression of science during the Dark Ages. That article started several weeks ago. The day before it was published evidence to support my argument appeared in papers across the country.

Robert Tanner, AP National Writer, published an article reporting academic studies concluding the death penalty may deter murders. One study went so far as to say that for every person executed for murder an average of eighteen lives might be saved.

The anti death penalty crowd is attacking the studies with all guns blazing. (Sorry, I could not help myself!). According to Tanner, they attacked the methodology, the results and the "second-tier journals" publishing the studies. After thirty-seven years of involvement with one of the largest universities in Texas, I am well aware of the shortcomings of academic studies. Still, the attacks on these studies, as reported by Tanner seem extreme.

Statistical studies based on a small number of cases are subject to criticism. Drawing conclusions from a handful of cases is dangerous. However, if researchers waited until they could obtain a sample large enough to assure statistical significance, many avenues of research would be stymied.

Consider the studies in question. If the relationship between capital punishment and murder cannot be studied until there are enough executions to assure statistical significance, then the study will never occur. If the relationship is to be studied, small numbers must be used.

The ironic aspect of this debate is that critics of the pro-deterrence studies are not worried about small numbers if the results support their beliefs. For example, anti death penalty forces quote studies that show death penalty laws have no discernible effect on homicide rates. However, these studies can be challenged on grounds similar to those used against the pro-deterrence studies. If a small number of executions annually cannot be used to show a deterrent effect, how can it be used to prove there is no deterrent effect?

The response to the pro-deterrence studies by anti death penalty scholars clearly illustrates the direction science has taken. Like their political counterparts, liberally oriented scholars, scientists and researchers discount opposing views as unworthy of serious consideration. Civil debate is not possible from their perspectives. They KNOW they are right, because they and all their cohorts agree on their theories.

 The concept of Dark Energy made the main stream media with Professor Meg Urry’s article in the May 23, 2007 issue of Parade. The article was well written, and apparently designed to give the layman a taste of the next big challenge facing physical science today.

The idea of an unknown form of energy making up "the biggest part of our universe" is exciting for many. For others it may be frightening. Still, the truth to be found in this article has little to do with Dark Energy. As Professor Urry wrote, "‘Dark’ is code for ‘we have absolutely no clue what it is!’"

Studying the unknown has been a noble pursuit of science for centuries. The idea that current scientists do not have a clue about Dark Energy is not startling. The fact they wish to study it is understandable. Unfortunately, scientific research seems to have taken a wrong turn, and the hope of really understanding Dark Energy is slim at best.

At one time, scientists observed, as Professor Urry suggests in her article. After they observed, they developed hypotheses. From hypotheses they developed theories, and then they tested the theories. If their theories were supported by controlled experimentation, they could be considered laws.

For example, there was a time when people thought a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter object. Galileo hypothesized, then theorized this was not true. He believed objects of different weights would fall at the same speed if other factors such as density and resistance were controlled. (Note: Galileo may not have used the words density and resistance, but the concept was there.) He then proceeded to develop an experiment to prove his theory. He proved that similar objects fall at the same rate, regardless of weight.

It seems today’s scientists depend on peer review to prove their theories. Today’s scientists postulate theories, they observe nature, according to Professor Urry, and from those observations they decide their theories are correct. Then, they write papers and make presentations concerning the theories. Their peers then read the papers, listen to the presentations and decide whether they believe the theories. If they do, it carries the same weight as a "law of nature," according to some scientists.

What happened to experimentation? What happened to measurable data? Granted it is difficult to experiment with something you do not understand. Many school and college chemistry labs have witnessed the consequences of someone experimenting with chemicals they did not understand.

Peer approval carries the same weight as experimentation in today’s sciences. Peer approval means anyone disagreeing with a theory risks of being labeled a charlatan or worse. Peer approval means never having to say you are mistaken, even when your theory turns out to be crap based on subjective observations of so called "facts."

Dark Energy, if it exists, is being studied by scientists trained to trust their reasoning processes and the reasoning processes of their peers. Essentially, Professor Urry and her peers are saying, "If I believe something, and my peers believe my beliefs are correct, then I must be correct and my beliefs are true." If anyone dares to say they are wrong, the nay sayers are roundly criticized, even attacked for their disbelief.

During the Dark Ages, science was held back by the reasoning of the so-called religious leaders of the time. Those leaders believed they were right, based on their observations. They presented their beliefs to their peers. If their peers agreed with those beliefs, then their beliefs were accepted as true. Anyone disagreeing with their beliefs was labeled a charlatan or blasphemer. It sounds frighteningly similar to modern scientific research doesn’t it?