As with many other people, my awareness of social unfairness began at home. My parents pointed out and lamented the injustices that plague the lives of the poor—both individuals and societies. Coming from Latin America, we were acutely aware of our differences with the First World—which is to say, aware of the widespread impact of American culture, consumerism, and foreign policy. I was to learn much later that my parents had actually been involved in progressive causes earlier, but growing up, I did not experience their angst and concern being translated to action. Instead, there was always this attitude that charity was just throwing money away: a feel-good measure that did nothing to advance the systemic change needed to solve the root problems. That stance certainly has some merit (“teach a man to fish” and all that), but it can all too easily become an excuse for inaction and helplessness.

As I grew up and my newspaper reading shifted from the comic pages to the front pages to the editorial pages, my sense of urgency around social issues grew. What also changed is that I finally had money of my own: first my grad school stipend, and then a real, honest-to-goodness salary. I now had much more motivation and many more resources than I had ever had before, but I was still confused as to the best means to effect change. I gingerly became an online member of one or two national progressive groups (they were pursuing systemic change!). I soon became inundated with solicitations from many more. Most seemed worthy, and I had money, so I sent fifty dollars here, fifty dollars there, fifty dollars everywhere, and got a walletful of membership cards. But was spreading my money around really effective? Was there a way to become more directly involved in creating change without either giving up my day job or throwing money at the problem as though it were somebody else’s job to fix?

And then 2000 happened. The suspense and non-resolution that followed that election felt to me like the beginning of a nightmare, one in which (I’m ashamed to admit) I disengaged in despair for eight painful years. I knew that disengaging was not helping anyone, but watching the social and political discourse was just too painful, when all I could do—all I knew how to do—was wring my hands at my own powerlessness to make the world right.

But soon enough, I wasn’t alone anymore. I eventually dated and married Knox. One of the many remarkable things about him is how centrally he values reaching out to others and building community. He’ll stop to help or chat with a neighbor just because; he’ll organize a community harvest to glean fruit that would otherwise be going to waste; he’ll spend much time helping folks throughout the country organize Soup Swaps where they can rediscover the fun of cooking and sharing and telling stories. In short, through Knox, I came to understand more viscerally how communities get built from the ground up based on individual interactions. At the same time, I noticed that this community-building was also happening on the national stage, as the left began to coalesce around the Obama campaign. Thanks to what was happening at both the national and very local levels, I came to realize that by fostering community, the isolated helplessness to which I had succumbed could instead become collective progress.

And so this year, at the urging of my friend Jessan, I got involved with the the Next Generation Giving Project run by the Social Justice Fund. I was fascinated by the discussions we had around wealth, class, and privilege—a complex of topics I want to keep exploring. We learned about fund-raising: I wasn’t very successful at that, yet I was still pleasantly surprised at how receptive people were to my pleas. And we evaluated a heck of a lot of applications in a few short weeks. Every night I would grumble at how long that process took, and yet, when I read each application, I would feel guilty about my complaining when it was them doing the hard, amazing, often thankless work down on the ground.

Now, unlike most of the really great SJF members with whom I worked this year, I don’t have a background in social work nor, as you see, in activism. I can’t say “intersectional analysis” without feeling self-conscious. That makes me feel like a bit of an impostor among all of you here tonight. But I know I’m not, because of course this is where my social justice journey has taken me: SJF is working for systemic change, by channeling resources to effective groups while building and sustaining a community working toward a shared vision.

I don’t know yet what form my social activism will take in the future, but I do know that I take to heart the old Jewish saying: “It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but you are not free to desist from it either.”

Thank you.

This is well illustrated, of course, by folks like the town clerk in New York who resigned rather than perform gay marriages, which offend her religious convictions. (Whatever happened to “render unto Caesar…?”)

However, there’s another aspect to the private morality/public policy question that puzzles me. The media talks about the legalization of same-sex marriage as heralding a surge in gay weddings. Marriage licenses and civil marriages, I understand. But weddings? Are people really not getting married if the state doesn’t sanction it? Are we really acquiescing to second-class status? Has the wedding industry really been ignoring this market segment?

I’m not arguing civil marriage does not matter; of course it does. It matters a lot. That’s precisely why celebrating your union before your family and community, in defiance of a government that tries to render it invisible, is a radical, transformative, and liberating act.

What makes a skeptic? An outlook on the world based on the scientific method: the accumulation of empirical evidence and the continuous testing, retesting, rejection, and modification of hypotheses in light of that evidence. Scientists are human, too, and may be led astray by their own biases and quirks, but science is a long-term progressive process aimed at pruning away these false starts and tangents and leaving a coherent, predictive interpretation on matters of fact.

More skepticism would make our society better, I believe. As readers of this blog know, one of my major irritations is the sway that pseudoscience continues to hold. I am a staunch believer in freedom of conscience, so I don’t much care, for example, if people choose to be theists. What I mind is the use of superstition as a substitute for facts and rationality in areas where it matters, like public policy. You want to believe God created the universe in seven days? Fine by me. You want to pass that off as science in the schools? Unacceptable.

It was with delight, then, that I just finished reading Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Shermer is the director of the Skeptics Society, a group dedicated precisely to debunking anti- and pseudo-scientific thinking, particularly in the public sphere (see this TED talk, for example). His book is a good analysis of the distinctions between science and pseudoscience and brief overview of some of the major battle lines in this front of the culture wars: the paranormal, near-death experiences, alien encounters, witch crazes, cults, creationism, and Holocaust denial.

In Chapter 3, Shermer talks about “how thinking goes wrong” for both scientists and lay folk alike, and how legitimate science attempts to self-correct in the face of these errors. Here’s his list, with my own annotations:

1. Theory influences observations
2. The observer changes the observed
3. Equipment constructs results
4. Anecdotes do not make a science. And yet so many people cite them as the bais for their beliefs.
5. Scientific language does not make a science. This is a major pet peeve of mine, people invoking the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality to justify all sorts of mumbo-jumbo.
6. Bold statements do not make claims true
7. Heresy does not equal correctness
8. Burden of proof [is on the outsider seeking to overturn the accepted and proven scientific paradigm]
9. Rumors do not equal reality
10. Unexplained is no inexplicable. This is what really gets me about so-called Intelligent Design: I can’t think of how this complex structure could possibly have evolved, therefore it couldn’t have evolved, therefore there’s a designer.
11. Failures are rationalized. Failures advance science, but tend to be ignored in pseudoscience.
12. After the fact reasoning. *Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”
13. Coincidence. “Synchronicity” my ass. It’s simple probability.
14. Representativeness. The human tendency to remember hits and ignore misses keeps psychic hotlines in business.
15. Emotive words and false analogies
16. Ad ignorantiam. “If you can’t disprove it, it is proven”— the complete opposite of science. Applies to God , psychics, etc.
17. Ad hominem and tu quoque
18. Hasty generalization
19. Overreliance on authorities
20. Either-or. “If your theory is wrong, then mine must be right.” Is it supported by facts? What about alternatives?
21. Circular reasoning
22. Reductio as absurdum and slippery slope
23. Effort inadequacies and the need for certainty, control, and simplicity. Critical thinking requires training and work.
24. Problem-solving inadequacies. We tend to seek supporting rather than contrary evidence for our views.
25. Ideological immunity, or the Planck problem. As the old school dies out, new practitioners are better able to evaluate and embrace what were once revolutionary ideas.

[Shermer also has a chapter at the end on "Why smart people believe weird things," where he cites intellectual attribution bias ("my choices are rational, but your choices are swayed by irrational beliefs") and confirmation bias ("I block out contrary evidence.")]

I highly recommend this book as a skeptic’s manifesto and a reminder that we are not alone in fighting and bemoaning the ignorance around us. I will leave you with an inspirational quote from chapter 15 attributed to Alfred Kinsey (of sex research fame). This is a quote that I found a bit tangential to the points in the book, but which I like for the (perhaps unjustified) hope that with more skepticism perhaps we can make society more supportive of human dignity and differences:

Prescriptions are merely public confessions of prescriptionists. What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual’s life. The range of individual variation, in any particular case, is usually much greater than what is generally understood…. And yet social forms and moral codes are prescribed as though all individuals were identical; and we pass judgements, make awards, and heap penalties without regard to the diverse difficulties involved when such different people face uniform demands.

The inauguration ceremony was very moving. I thought Obama’s speech was inspiring, and his poise and coherence quite refreshing.

I do wish that they would stop having prayers and religious benedictions in public ceremonies. I found Warren’s invocation of Jesus particularly obnoxious. Lowery’s benediction, however, was at least witty and spunky.

On a positive note, President Obama (it feels so good typing that!) gave a nod to non-believers as well as people of faith.

Most importantly, though, the era of W is finally over. It’s time to clean up the messes left behind and strengthen our democracy and ideals once again.

Hallelujah! Don’t let us down, Mr. President.

My impressions:

• Gov. Palin rose from seeming completely out of her element to acting like the typical politician who sticks to the talking points and tries to spin/avoid facts.

• Both of them seemed more articulate and fluid than their respective principals.

• Gay rights: Biden seemed to issue a strong statement on gay rights, though he did not support same-sex civil marriage. It seemed to me he left the door open, though, by saying there should not be a constitutional distinction. If they make all the federal benefits available to same-sex couples, then they’re effectively creating a civil marriage institution (and I don’t care what they call it, as long as it’s the same for everyone!).

We are currently considering a $700B bailout for Wall Street. Assume that the value of the homes being foreclosed because of the crisis is the same order of magnitude (more on this below, but that’s tangential to the thought experiment).

An alternative solution could be for the government to take the money that it is about to give to Wall Street, and instead buy out all the bad debt directly from citizens: in other words, give people with bad debts the money to purchase their homes outright. If you prefer, give them just enough money to bring their debt down to a manageable level, and leave them to pay the rest off. Depending on how the numbers work out, this could be cheaper or about the same as the Wall Street bailout. For the sake of argument, assume this alternative is cheaper. Question: why not implement this?

Under these assumptions, this bailout costs taxpayers less than the Wall Street solution. The beneficiaries of the government largesse would be individuals rather than corporations. The profit from the bailout would not go to the companies that would remain solvent and still require payment of their loans; the profit would go to individuals who have part or all of their debt paid off (though the companies would continue to stay afloat because any remaining consumer debt would now be serviceable).

I doubt this proposal would fly, however. I suspect people would resent that neighbors who got into debt over their heads are now being rewarded with a handout from the government that enables them to own too-expensive-for-their-means houses, while responsible folks who bought only as much house as they could afford receive no such gift and are stuck with more debt for less floor space.

But how is this different than the corporate handout? The companies that issued loans to risky borrowers are rewarded with the higher profits of the bubble and the government cash to survive the crash. Responsible companies that did not profiteer from questionable loans did not get the extravagant bubble profits and need no government handouts to survive the crisis.

Something seems wrong, no? Discuss.

[Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation: One source cites approximately 300,000 foreclosures in August, so estimate twelve times that for the year: 3,600,000 foreclosures. The mean home price in the US is $212,000. Multiplying these two figures, we can estimate that the current value of foreclosed properties is about $763B (actually, slightly higher, since a large fraction occur in CA, where the mean house cost is higher). If we say that only half the mortgage debt needs to paid off for the remaining debt to be viable, we arrive at a $380B bailout, cheaper than but still the same order of magnitude as the current plan in DC.]

UPDATE: DailyKos came out with its own estimate of the numbers, lower than the one I present above.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

But then the convention closed with a closing benediction by a Christian pastor. What about other faiths? What about atheists? Why did they have to inject religion into a political event?

But dammit if it isn’t upsetting to see the unfairness Clinton is up against!

First, there is the sexism and misogyny with which she is portrayed. You can find one compendium of reports here, and a depressing suggestion that we may be better able to shed racial than gender prejudice here.

And then there’s the divisiveness factor. Many people will not vote for Clinton because she is so divisive, and in so doing for that reason, they perpetuate the very divisiveness they seek to avoid. Moreover, by eschewing Clinton in order to get Republicans out of office, they are playing into the hands of these same Republicans who made her a divisive figure in the first place by focusing the nation’s attention on a protracted, expensive, and ultimately useless witch hunt during her husband’s presidency.

Part of me wishes this could be a controlled experiment, with candidates identical save their gender and race—and with equal baggage. Maybe then we’d see whether indeed our sexism and racism are so ingrained (and which one more so) as to determine our electoral choices. But when people are adamant about voting for “anyone but Hillary” in the general election, how can we deny these prejudices abound?

This was my first caucus ever. Here’s how it works: people declare which candidate they support and volunteers tally preferences and determine the initial allocation of delegates. You get a chance to change your mind, and then each candidate’s supporters choose delegates for the caucus at the next higher level.

My impressions: this is a slow, inefficient process that exacerbates the influence of peer pressure from your neighbors. I think that a primary election would be much simpler. (Oh, wait, we have that too in Washington, except it doesn’t count for the Democrats and only half-counts for Republicans). It seems like a good reason to have neighbors coming together is to propose platform items or initiatives to pas up the political chain. I support that. But to back a candidate? There are so many levels of indirection in the American system, beginning with caucuses and ending with the electoral college.

I think both Clinton and Obama would make excellent presidents, and the substantive differences between them pale next to differences they each have with the Republicans. But for all the talk of experience and change, there’s still a lot of the same old bull flying around on all sides:

• Clinton: “When Hillary is in the White House, no American will be invisible to the president of the United States.”

• Obama: Listen the rousing background music of this clip of Kennedy’s endorsement. It’s like watching Star Wars: A New Hope for the Universe

• Obama’s supporters, for all their enthusiasm, would do well to remember that Obama is not Jesus.

• Dirty cybersquatting: http://www.wa-democrats.org/ is the Democratic website; http://www.wa-democrats.com/ is the Republican website.

I’m actually quite excited about this election. Our eight-year national nightmare will (better!) finally come to an end. But I doubt policies will change as quickly and radically as I think they should.

But change is coming.