Regarding Controversial Speakers at Public Universities

This past Monday I got an email from the folks at Motion Debates. Apparently, they are short a debater for a public debate they are sponsoring. The topic for the debate is regarding the value of controversial speakers at public universities. Specifically, they were looking for someone to challenge the proposition that "Controversial speakers are good for public universities."

I responded with a quick response as I did find it an interesting topic. I am not sure how the debate will play out or whether I will participate. It is scheduled for May 30th, so we will see. In some respects this essay probably should not have been published just yet. . .

Regardless, I was captivated by the topic since reading Motion Debates email. It is simply provocative. Not because of the issue of controversial speakers, but rather because that topic does unveil some ideas on education and our education system. Specifically, the topic allows some insights into education and the relation of free speech to our education system.

For myself it is obvious that controversial speakers offer little at a university. Examples of such speakers include Ann Coulter who most are familiar with, Ben Shapiro who is an American conservative political commentator and writer. His publications include Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, which he began writing when he was seventeen years old. Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, a controversial book from the 90's which suggested that IQ was genetic and that it, IQ, was also largely prophetic - it was one's fate. He has continued to write largely in that vein. Lastly, I point to Milo Yiannopoulos, the former editor of Breitbart, again author and conservative commentator. He is interesting in that he is gay and yet conservative, which at least is interesting.

I point to ones that are fairly well known. Most are "conservative". They and their ideas are often discussed and pointed to in the media. You can find them on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox often enough. . They are often offered up as public intellectuals. Are they, however, university fare?

The answer is no.

They are entertaining, but they do not, for the most part, offer knowledge. They are entertainers, not educators. They are commentators contributing to a media and entertainment system. They or their ideas might have some standing in our politics. They are not, however, educators, nor are they researchers or scientists. The former are part of a largely for-profit media versus the later, which includes our system of education and scientific research.

I should point out that I am playing with here another tension, which I do not want to dive into, but should be stated. Traditionally, the media has involved both entertainment and news. Today, that distinction is largely blurred. I would argue that historically it has always been blurred. It was only in the recent past that we bifurcated the distinction, but that distinction does haunt us. Regardless, I do not want to argue these points here. The point that I do want to make is that these speakers are of the media and entertainment world, versus the academic or education and scientific research domains.

I have painted a picture of the "controversial speakers". What of the university. I have already given some hints. It is the University which provides an education and likewise offers up scientific research. Most tenured professors are expected to both teach and publish. And their publications are not published with the intent of selling books or generating advertising revenue, Their publications are within peer-reviewed journals focusing on specific domains and areas. These range from Physics to Biology to Philosophy to Women's Studies. Again, the essays found in these journals rarely make it to any best-sellers list. Rather, these essays focus on reporting and documenting the research and studies performed and considered by these people - the professors and faculty of these institutions.

They pursue the truth. I would guess many of them would protest that assertion. To make the claim that they pursue the truth is a big claim. Many would not be ready to use such claims regarding their own research. Not because it is not true, but because most see themselves as part of a larger project and it is that larger project that in fact unveils and reveals truth, and it is a very slow and often tedious process.

To be educated at a university is to be exposed at some level to this project. It is to be exposed to the amount of work required and the potential rewards of that work. One is introduced to the ideas and history, the methods of a domain such as mathematics or political science. Sometimes this is done well, other times it is not. Sometimes what is taught and taken to be true is ultimately wrong. Sometimes what is false is actually taught and embraced. (Another reason why these folks question the value of truth. . .). This system is different in numerous ways from the devices and approaches of media. Both embrace publications, ideas, discussions. Both even offer solutions to ongoing issues and challenges in the world. Yet they are simply different.

Further, I offer that they, the media and the university are mutually exclusive. One is largely truth based and the other is largely profit driven. One must choose between them in some way. The scientific research done in the university simply is not provided via the media. At best, the media reports the facts and offers some limited analysis of those facts. The university not only observes the facts, but it takes those facts and applies various theories and approaches to them, and then tests the conclusions they arrive at again and again and again. And they do this not with the intent of finding an audience but of gaining understanding, of gaining knowledge.

So when I assert that the above controversial speakers distract, I mean they take away from the universities primary mission - to educate. And to educate is to appreciate this process and method of understanding, which the university represents. Now, one could say that these speakers are critics of the university, of the system. A valid and noble point or goal. However, what makes them controversial is less their offerings and more the protests and incidents we hear of happening on campuses and involving their speaking engagements. And it is considering this fact that I say they are a distraction.

In short, the media courtesy, of these speakers, suggest to the public that Universities are corrupt or biased against such speakers, conservative thinkers and the like. I have two responses to that: The first is that those who accept this picture of the University as liberal and biased, and I use "liberal" in the context of today's usage have accepted the media's depiction of the university.; and number two, they are in a certain light largely right, the University is biased and rightly so. As a critic, you come to the institution with different methods, and agendas and you will be challenged. If you want to come and discuss ideas at a University, and be recognized, then submit those ideas in a proper peer reviewed journal and proceed in the way described above. It is a case of when in Rome. Otherwise you arrive for a night of emotional if not Dionysian pleasures.

And it is with that that I quickly turn to free speech. The the right to free speech is a right to not be silenced by the state. It is not a promise of being provided a newspaper column, a Youtube video,  or a microphone. These are in fact rewards and recognition for something already achieved. At the University, the person handed the microphone is published, is a department chair, or at the least a promising student. No one is just handed a microphone.

I would argue that student bodies today have too much freedom regarding who they can invite and the settings for such controversial speakers. They do not recognize nor appreciate the institution they are a part of, nor the challenges of maintaining such. There is a component of brand management here which is being neglected by universities when they allow their students or faculty to invite such speakers and then to have the event result in embarrassment or even violence. And then to have such incidents used by their critics is simply to illustrate the tension between media and academia. And perhaps it is a failure of university administrations to appreciate what they have and what they are responsible for.

I leave you with an example of something or someone the University should be celebrating, as opposed to bringing celebrities authors and the like in. Meet Mike Zimmerman. That is how Nova, the PBS Science program introduces him. He is a Professor of the Practice in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University up in Medford MA. That does not really reveal the story. For the past five years he has been developing a new "solid" lithium battery, used in our cell phones and other devices. His device is far safer than today's "liquid" lithium batteries which were causing issues such as Samsung's Galaxy debacle.

He is a bit of a showman as he can be found on Nova and on the below Youtube video driving nails and cutting up his battery, but with no flames, no ignitions, no dangerous consequences. He has developed a safe alternative to what is in our cell phones today and keep in mind lithium batteries play a vital role in another new market - electric vehicles.

You read the New York Times article from late 2016 regarding Zimmerman's work that he also has a start-up, Ionic Materials, which was awarded by Obama's Department of Energy $3 Million Dollars to continue to research, develop and ultimately manufacture such batteries. This is the beauty of the university. That a researcher can take a problem such as Samsung's battery issue, which is really not just their problem and spend several years working on it, pursuing a solution, and then if he has something promising, can open up a start up, and work out a deal with the university and in this case with the Department of Energy and run with it. It started with a concrete problem and a researcher in a lab.

I was watching him on Nova as I pondered some of the above. At one point he acknowledged that someone in this race will figure this out - developing a safe non-exploding lithium battery. He did not boast that he would solve this problem. Him and his team could offer up that solution, a solid and safe lithium battery, but we just do not know yet. He would love for it be his team, his start up. It does not have to be. He is pursing this to figure it out. From the interview and exchange, it is for him an engineering challenge. For him it is a search in a way for truth. And in this case, he or she who gets closest to that truth will also make out handsomely.

Last point, the spirit he exhibits is not exclusive to the university, but it remains a core value of the institution. Further, there are those in the media who engage in similar quests. The difference is that the university, despite their sports teams, and the like, have retained some component of this. Further, they have developed processes, where if you develop something that is of value in the market, they will work with you, but the primary driver, which seems to have propelled Mike Zimmerman for several years, was just looking at an engineering challenge and trying to figure it out. It was and is a quest for truth.

It is with these points in mind that I assert that controversial speakers are of little or no value to the university. Considering the function of a university, and that people such as Mike Zimmerman, who continue to populate universities, I offer that controversial speakers simply distract from something we sadly take for granted or even worse neglect.

A Post-Truth World - My Take

I am currently working on another essay which ultimately compares two sub-cultures found in America: the media and the university. That essay focuses more on one part of the media and the University's response to it. That is in process.

While working on that though, I discovered or rediscovered the tensions found with in the media. Those include a focus on truth in journalism versus profits, and journalism versus entertainment and more recently journalism as entertainment. All are common issues.

Meanwhile I do continue to read a book now and again. I do try to get away from my technology and do something else! Really, I do! And two books on my list are Post Truth by Lee McIntyre, and Us vs Them: The Failure of Globalism by Ian Bremmer. Yes they are real page turners. . .

The second, Ian's Bremmer's is more regarding economics and the challenges of free trade, yet I suspect it will bring us back to the challenges of truth. The former, Post Truth by Lee McIntyre is a philosopher's take on the state of truth in the world today.

All of these make me pause regarding the topic. The value of truth in today's world has diminished. That seems to be the case.  Anyone who is on Facebook and attempts to discuss politics pretty much knows that. Rarely is any agreement or consensus arrived at there. Often times it is a struggle to just agree on the basic facts.

So what follows is my stab at exploring this topic, my two cents, before reading up on the subject. It is a listing of various threads that point me again to the question of what is the value of truth. I offer them up to myself and anyone else reading, to keep in mind as we read the above and as we continue to encounter the events and trends that I have listed below play out around us.

The position I offer is that this uncertainty and the challenges to the truth, are in fact more the norm. Normalcy might just involve a world where truth does not reign supreme. Each of the items on the below list could involve a post. . . a chapter each, but I will only barely hint at each here.

Philosophy 
There are at least two major movements in American and Anglo philosophy. In the beginning of the 20th century it was Pragmatism. Positivism came to dominate mid-century. Those two have continued to battle it out for the most part. Challenging those two movements was and is Continental philosophy, which dominates in European culture

Each of these has its take on truth. Truth plays a role in each of their tales, but the importance of it, the place that it takes at the table varies. The easiest way to see the placement of truth at the table is where and how each considers science. Not only must one look at how they deal with science, but what they consider science.

The postivists were interested in things that could be objectively observed and based on those observations truth can be determined. They looked to the achievements of science and the scientific method and built on that. The challenge of course is that much of our lives and our world cannot be objectively observed. Truth plays a prominent role in this system, as did a reliance on science. Sadly this reliance though limits us.

Pragmatism values truth but but reassesses the scientific method and the domain of truth. In short, truth is now tied to consequences. This approach is much more focused on action. We must test what are the consequences of certain actions and then proceed accordingly. This provides a method of proceeding in the social sciences, which could not comply with the demand for objective observations. They loosen the definition of truth allowing for more to be considered, but also at times leading us to conflicting truths.

Lastly, we have the Continentals, who are skeptical of scientific achievements. They are critical of our modern industrial landscape and the value or diminished value for human life, replaced with an emphasis on technology and science. They see science and technology as taking away from what is human. We lose our humanity in technology. Truth here is not a scientific truth but a bigger larger truth. Almost a theological truth - perhaps mysticism.

In this overly short sketch we have several ideas on truth and its place in each of the three systems. Truth plays a role in each but a very different role. The positivists look to science. the Pragmatists, acknowledge such achievements but want to roll out such to the social sciences and beyond, changing or stretching the definition of truth to achieve such. And the Continentals are not having any of it. They do not look to observation statements and the like for truth. They would rather turn to literature and poetry for truth.

I simplify, but there is no clear defining picture of what truth is in philosophy.

History
What I offer here are again snippets of what I consider important to a tale of truth. I look to three areas: media, politics, and again technology

Starting with the media, I will then go to politics and technology and back. Regarding media, I point to three periods. the first of those takes place in the 18th century. Specifically the time of pamphleteer. This goes hand in hand with the American Revolution. People such as Thomas Paine. Basically anyone who had access to a printing press, and who was able to write and respond to the events of the day. Paine was only one of many. A quick search of the web illustrates this. You have people such as Samuel Loudon or John Dickinson's series of pamphlets, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania". For a fuller reading check out "Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776, Volume I: 1750–1765", edited by Bernard Bailyn and Jane N. Garrett.

These were how the American Revolution was communicated and came about. They were not in agreement regarding what were the primary issues or challenges, nor how to proceed. Each had a position. Each probably shared in the frustration, but regarding what it was that was causing the challenges - that varied. In the end I guess enough of them agreed that much of their frustration and problems were caused by an English presence. It started with a printing press.

I would argue that the reformation would have been very different without Gutenberg preceding Luther by 70 years. There would not have been a reformation without Gutenberg's printing press. One cannot come to know the Lord without the Bible in hand. Before that time, one connected to their God by partaking in the Eucharist, as the priest performed the service in Latin, a language few understood. Language and words meant little until the printing press. Connecting to one's God was to accept the body and blood of the Christ in a church with your family and fellow townspeople surrounding you. That changed with the printing press.

By the time the American Constitution is being debated, newspapers have begun to replace the pamphlet. Hamilton, Jay and James Madison do not publish pamphlets, but provide their essays to the newspapers of the time. Newspapers such as the Independent Journal, the New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser. By 1835 there are 1200 newspapers in the US.

They start out as political tools. The political parties embrace the idea of a pamphlet and out of it evolves the newspaper. Again, it was in such an environment that Jay and Hamilton thrived. We know of them today as they were the victors. What was the truth in the course of that debate and discussion? Today, we accept their logic, but at the time, their principles were not seen as so obvious.

Jump ahead to 1935 or 1965. Now we have radio in the former, and TV in the later. Newspapers have already begun to consolidate and play a diminished role. You have the newsreels. Before a movie or series of movies at the local cinema would be a newsreel, updating viewers on the War in Europe during the 2nd World War. They highlight what President Roosevelt or the first Lady are busy with, and tell of what Greta Garbo and Bogie are up to. Mass media has arrived, and news is part of that. With that comes a steady diet of standardly accepted facts and details.

Technology and political context allowed for mass media to thrive. All could listen to and see the facts presented to them on the radio and or the big and little screens. With these there was no room for a differences of facts. We might have a difference of opinion but facts are established. Everyone aspired to have a radio and go to the movies. And when TV was offered up properly in the 50s, it too was embraced. We were in this progression perhaps experiencing progress.

Further, considering the series of events in the world, this was not a time to challenge and dispute the facts. We had the Great Depression. There was the Second World War, and then we moved right on into the Cold Ward for the next 40 years. Each of these required or demanded that we do not challenge what was being presented. And there was the Great Depression, which we struggled with. Likewise, the the armies of the Germans under Hitler along with the Japanese in the Pacific did require a response. Mass communication helped drive home those messages. It unified.

You can see the cracks in the 60's and 70's, with the various protest movements. The new forms of music that embrace technology and electricity, but likewise challenge the status quo, and what people accept as the truth. Political protest comes out full force in the late 60's with the demand for civil rights, and the protest over Vietnam. The threat of nuclear annihilation hang over us but even so, opinions become more varied and facts become something to discuss. This might be the impact of the blues, Bob Dylan and amplified music. We found a way to challenge the standard facts and opinions offered up by mass media outlets and largely enforced by the FCC.

It was Reagan in the 80's that loosened that bridle, allowing for cable channels to not need to follow the ways of broadcast media, not be regulated by the FCC. We have initially the rash and youthful MTV. Roughly ten years later, however, we have Fox News. MSNBC follows suit.

In all of these truth begins to be seen in different lights again. What was restrained and constrained by the mass media in the 30's, 40's and 50's begins to crumble. New outlets allow for new ideas and new approaches. Technology both limits and broadens the truth. Likewise, the Cold War in 1991 is done. D'Souza does offer a certain insight here.

No doubt, this is an overly quick list of poorly constructed views of history and ideas. I know I can be challenged on numerous points and angles. I would welcome some of that. Yet the basic point is there. Truth does vary. Philosophically and historically what we believe and hold dear does change. It is much more driven by the moment than what we would like to claim. Eternal Truths are a challenge.

That said, our reliance on science does challenge this, and our faith though waning is still there too.

I look forward to those two texts I began with and what they offer. We shall see.

Human or Citizen? It Use To Not Be An Either / Or

Watching Fareed Zakaria this morning provoked the below. In short you can see our attitudes towards refugees and human rights changing. To be more specific you can see both refugees and human rights being abandoned. Further, considering the renewed focus and interests on nation states today, it is or should not be surprising.

Syria, one of the biggest producers of refugee populations in the last five to ten years is in the news currently, not because of the refugee problem, not because it's government continues to bomb and attack is own people, but because in one instance they used chemical weapons as opposed to the usual barrel bombs they are known for. And then of course there are several handful of attacks involving chlorine gas in between to further muddy waters. I digress.

Of course Syria is complicated. With ISIS having attempted to build their caliphate there, plus the Iranians and Russians propping up up the Assad regime, it is a mess. No one really wants to jump into that. Talk about a pit into which, one can lose one's treasure, both lives and gold. That said, we have now twice made a commitment, an assertion there regarding chemical weapons. And yes we did largely clean up ISIS, but twice now we have also spoken out about and responded to the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are inhuman and will not be tolerated.

That is where we have drawn the line. Chemical Weapons will not be tolerated. Regarding the use of 'normal' munitions such as barrel bombs and the like, or the disputed claims of hospitals being attacked and bombed. We will not visit these. Nor the fact that these bombings are on Syria's own people. We are not going to challenge any of these items. And it is noted that to raise these would require some investment, and it is proper that if you cannot or will not put your money where your mouth is, then perhaps do not bother. Yet, in the end, something more should be said and done.

And this does not mean purely military action. I include diplomatic, humanitarian, and military action. We have pretty much done nothing. We have sent a hundred cruise missiles or so and that is it. And diplomacy and humanitarian aid is needed as much if not more. There goes that treasure. . . We have done nothing there. Nothing.

Syria illustrates our inability and our disinterest in diplomacy and humanity. Yes I said humanity. There is a growing trend to focus not on humanity but on citizenry. Our lack of action in Syria goes hand in hand with the nationalism that is discussed today. It goes hand in hand with the dislike, distaste and fear of globalism and globalization. There are two concepts under attack there. Free trade as in international trade, and human rights.

I have supported free trade previously but I have not touched upon human rights before. Not directly. My essays on the "two freedoms" does approach the issue, but I want to comment on the idea of human rights here briefly. Syria becomes an example, it becomes the canary in coal mine, of our abandonment of human rights, in our lack of interest in its refugees, and with that our lack off interest in humanity, humanitarian causes.  They are all one in the same.

Our disinterest is these refugees, which so far this year we have allowed eleven into our our country. confirms our disinterest in human rights, which can be seen in our diplomacy. It can be seen in the resignation of the UN Human rights Chief, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Hussein. His resignation and those refugees are tied together. And part of it is the cost of human rights. To properly defend human rights does require a budget, but that budget was never a major piece of the US Government's budget. Cost is part of why we walk away from refugees, and human rights. It is not the primary reason we walk away from such.

The reason we walk away is our current acceptance of the idea of taking care of those within. It is said today that we need to take care of our people. take care of our homeless. take care of our veterans, our children. . . all noble causes and propositions. Previously we have felt that we could work on all of these, and help those outside our borders. . . and chew gum at the same time. We no longer accept that. we have come to accept that we cannot serve both those in need in and beyond our borders.

That is again an argument based on wealth and riches. We do not have enough to share with all. At no time in the past did we ever believe that we could solve the problems of the world. If we did, that was a mistake. I believe we for the most part believed that we could improve the situation in and beyond our borders, but that no where could we solve anyone's problems. They are not our's to solve. And then of course there are other motives for helping others, both in and outside our borders. I focus not on these here.

Here I point to two words: human and / or citizen.

Do we have rights as humans or do we have rights as citizens? Do we recognize the other as a human who is entitled to certain rights, or do we first ask of their nation of origin, and their personal history and then make a decision as to how we proceed? Further, what is a right? Seriously, how does a human have a right if not under a government. Can one have a right without some type of political force, a state or the like, to protect and serve that right.

That is today's challenge. Previously it was a mix. You were both, and people could be creative regarding their answers. That solution seems unacceptable today. You are today either a citizen or a human. You no longer can be both.

Who are my Russian fans?

There is something going on in Russia. I experience it first hand. I maintain this blog where I today mainly post about politics and philosophy. Nothing too exciting. Now when I post I have a few hits. those mainly come from the US. Not many. I am talking maybe 50 for a good post. I write them for myself and a handful of folks and anyone else who might trip over them. Now if I do not post then I just get random visitors. This week I posted nothing. The last post was regarding the EPA and was posted on March 27th. This past week I had a total of ten visits to the site. Eight of those were from Russia. And unless I post that is the common consequent. The majority of visitors for weeks where I do not posts are coming from Russia. Regardless of whether I post or not, the Russians, probably bots check out my site and it has been that way for awhile. Interestingly, Russian visitors do not bother with the Wild West, just my political blog. No idea who or what they are. I am posting this here on this site. I want to see if I get any response, Who knows maybe some Russian Poli-Sci student is a fan. I doubt it. If I have such a fan or fans. . . please identify yourself! If I see no response, I am going to look for some way to at least eliminate "bot" traffic. Thanks. Bob Schaffer

Science and Regulation at the EPA Today. . .

The New York Times had an Op Ed piece this past week written by two former EPA officials discussing a new tactic being embraced by Scott Pruitt and they fear will be adopted by other regulatory agencies. 

Scott Pruitt’s Attack on Science Would Paralyze the E.P.A.

The new tactic in fighting or diminishing the EPA's regulatory regime is to challenge the science it is based upon. For Pruitt, the head of the EPA, (and also one of its biggest critics), and Republicans in Congress, transparency has become the rallying cry. You have to give them credit. Transparency. Has there ever been such an over-used word? Originally associated with the need for transparency in the halls of Congress and in financial transactions, Pruitt and the Republicans have now embraced and applied it to scientific research.

Actually it does seem like a reasonable request. Regulation should be based on publicly available science. It is not. Due primarily to two reasons: patient privacy rights, and intellectual property. In short we want to protect patients’ case histories being shared and discussed in public discussions. And the other is trade secrets, which in some cases businesses spent years and who knows how much on research to discover these drugs and chemical compounds. There is a reason they patent and protect such knowledge. Neither of these; neither patient details, nor patented products and copyrighted information should be shared and distributed publicly for obvious reasons.

Yet you do need to regulate these fields, these domains: the medical, the pharmaceutical and the chemical. The solution has been to engage in “secret science”, though peer reviewed, yet not publicly published, not publicly shared.

Pruitt and Republicans want to abandon this process of using non-published science. If it cannot be shared then it should not be the basis of regulation. There is a certain reasonableness to the request.

The consequence, however, is to simply abandon regulation. It basically forces regulators to use publicly available science. the challenge becomes with new research, new discoveries, there is little publicly available research. I don’t think any patients wants their medical records shared, though they might reconsider, considering the alternative, I.e. no or limited review of the research nor the resulting regulations to protect them from the new drugs and chemicals they are being offered.

Jump to the chemical industry which is regulated by Pruitt’s EPA. Due to their patents, the latest and greatest chemical compounds cannot be regulated. Insecticides, detergents, and the like, if they are new and we know little publicly, well the regulation will arrive in a few years, when we do have publicly available information. So out of a respect for the patent holder we must accept that we cannot have a regulatory regime. Not until we have publicly available research. What?

So in the the name of transparency pharma and the the chemical business have found an argument against not regulation, but the science that leads to it.

Ultimately, it comes down to trust. We traditionally and historically just trust science. We have up until now put our trust in the scientific method. In short, we have up  until now placed our faith in peer reviewed research or something close to it.

You have to give Pruitt and company credit. We boast about our peer reviewed research which typically entails journals. Yet we are compromising here.

Of course there must be some hypocrisy here also. Those same companies who developed those drugs and chemicals somehow developed them in secret. And yet the products are still considered the products of science.

At the root of this is an issue involving trust. Who do we trust? The pharma and chemical companies? Big government? Or the process we have created between the two? The later is an ongoing battle, between three parties. Those parties are pharma and chemical companies, the regulators, and the environmental groups. And the three of these will ultimately resolve this in court. So historically, we really have trusted that between these three, some good science, and a solid court system we would ultimately sort this out. and we acknowledge that project is never done. 

One does, however, pause when the validity of the science is questioned. And this is a common theme today. Yet perhaps a bit of skepticism is a good thing. To challenge and review the work done and considering how it is done, what is the actual process embraced by the scientists, is a good thing. The process we have in place will either stand and be reinforced by such a challenge or we will find the bugs and ultimately enhance the process. 

So despite my concerns about this assault on science and the issue of eliminating regulation based upon this attack, I do still have faith in the overall system and specifically our courts.I know that the environmental groups will not allow this without a court battle. So this will be sorted out, and I am pretty certain that science will continue to drive a proper regulatory regime. And I do see a certain legitimacy to the challenge of transparency and its lack in a secret science, That said, I am annoyed that they even try to challenge it. It being science. How could they(?) is my response.

So I wonder in the end if I am perhaps a bit dogmatic in my acceptance of science? It is perhaps a blind spot? It is possible that the EPA is doing shitty secret science? It would not be the first time, And Pruitt, the environmentalists, and the courts will sort through that and proceed. That is the hope. So yes I have little little use for Pruitt, and I do believe he is basically attempting to destroy and sabotage the very agency he supposedly directs and manages. 

That said, this exercise of looking at various processes and procedures might actually be a good thing. We might just find some issues, and will get to find out how resilient the system is, even with or especially with people on the inside trying to blow it up. 

This might truly be a case of that which does not kill us or the EPA, will make us or the EPA stronger. Maybe.

Tariffs, Markets and States

The President's reintroduction of tariffs betrays a larger theme. We are, whether he is aware of it or not, dealing not just with the issue of whether China is getting the best of us. His Presidency along with Brexit, and the nationalists in countries such as Poland and Hungary, in Turkey and India point to something more regarding how we view the nation-state, or countries, today. In this essay, focusing on the relation between nations-states and trade I try to flush out the issues at a very high level, in the process, eliminating the smoke and haze of the local politics. At least that is what I attempt.

The Menu or Basic Options

Tariffs focus us on what is happening inside a country. The question becomes what is important: the market or the people? Are we to focus on constituents who are being hurt in the marketplace or do we focus on the market. Obviously, any good politician, any good political leader, must have a concern for their constituents. So what does one do in this situation? Does one focus on the pain inflicted, or does one trust the market?

Now there are traditionally three ways to deal with this: tariffs on the abusive import, subsidies for the domestic producer-the victim, or take the offending nation, where the products are originating from, to court.

Tariffs basically impose a tax on the products being imported into the country and that are causing the economic pain. You are basically forcing the imports to compete at the price point that your domestic companies are able or willing to compete at. It should be noted that this only helps your domestic producers domestically. They still cannot compete outside of the domestic markets.

The second option is to subsidize those being harmed-your constituents. to give a subsidy to them allows them to now offer their products at the same price or lower than those being imported. They can now compete with the import. Unlike the tariff, the subsidy allows the the domestic producer to not only compete domestically with the import, but also allows the domestic producer to export the product and compete abroad. Of course, the state or government is paying for this.

Lastly, you could take the offending nation to court. Basically, you take your case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and prove that they are engaging in unfair trade practices, or at least discuss the issue with the nation(s) that are causing the problem. To embrace these solutions is to reveal a reliance upon diplomacy at the least, and more importantly non-state and non-market players.

A fourth option, which is often done, is to ignore the issue. To select this option is to either stick one's head in the sand, or to simply trust the market. Obviously to stick your head in the sand is silly. The other, however, is almost radical. It simply assumes that there are winners and losers and that in this case the losers happen to be constituents. In short, to trust the market is to accept the fact that the role of a government is largely not to pick winners and losers at the market place. There is a dash of idealism here, as no state or government can afford to not pick winners and losers. A state, in its normal functioning, must pick winners and losers. In its taxation policy it decides such. In its selection of government contracts, it does such. Yet, regarding markets, and who will survive in the market, and being aware of and concerned about constituents harmed by such, the fourth option is common.

To go back to my opening, these four approaches betray a larger theme or themes. You can infer, assuming that a state is acting rationally, what their intent is, what their values are by their selection of the above four. Let us assume that states are rational actors. What is revealed in such a process is their attitudes towards markets, both domestic and international, the role of nation-states, and the role of what I described above as non-market non-state actors.

Tariffs and Subsidies

Both tariffs and subsidies involve the power of the state or nation-state. In both, the nation-state protects the domestic industry being challenged. With the tariff it not only protects the domestic industry, but punishes the perceived challenger to that industry. What it does not do is encourage the domestic industry to go beyond the borders of the nation-state. Tariffs focus on only the domestic market. They offer nothing aside from perhaps the capital, to explore the world beyond its borders, and that is, in this case, a decision made by the leaders of the various firms in this sector.

The second option is to respond to the trade opponent with subsidies. Typically, unfair trade practices occur due to another nation-state subsidizing an industry. With subsidies, we are fighting fire with fire. Regardless, this subsidy allows the businesses in the sector to offer lower price points, below what was the normal market ranges previously. The subsidy allows the domestic sector to cover cost and compete against the exports being sold below costs. Subsidies, unlike tariffs, allow for the domestic industry or producer to sell abroad. The domestic industry, with a subsidy, is now able to compete in both the domestic market and the international market.

Both subsidy and tariff are the tools of nation-states, but each involves its own domain and history. The tariff is based upon the ability of the state to tax. It takes that ability and uses it to protect domestic producers and industries. It focuses these industries on the domestic markets. The tariff says nothing about the market beyond the nation-state's borders. The state is encouraging industry to look no further than the domestic market. In fact, it is basically insuring that the domestic industry cannot compete outside its borders, as it facilitates and encourages prices and practices that cannot be afforded in the global market.

The subsidy is the opposite. It is preparing the domestic industry or company(s) to dominate not only  the domestic market, but also the global market. It is a step beyond the tariff in that it can be done through a national bank, a set of tax breaks and tax incentives, or an outright joint venture between the state and business. With an eye towards global markets, and the willingness to actually invest in a business or sector, the subsidy is a higher risk to a nation-state. The nation-state is here providing capital in some form and betting on certain businesses or sectors to thrive. There is no guarantee that will happen, regardless of a state's actions. Not only is there a business risk here, but also there are risks inherent to a nation-state.

So, in short, the tariff insures that the domestic producers continue to dominate in the local domestic market. It really no assistance regarding the export of goods outside the nation-state. The subsidy on the other hand encourages business to take their product abroad. it facilitates the domination of global markets. A nation-state that wants to see their industry thrive in the international markets, will subsidize them. And a nation-state that values their domestic market, will simply impose tariffs.

Diplomacy, the WTO, and doing nothing. . . 

Now we move onto the second set of options. Diplomacy, appeals to the WTO or the World Trade Organization, and doing nothing, all defer to trade. In each of the three is an acknowledgement that trade is of value and wherever possible should be left alone. Further, nations-states embracing the above three, and that value trade, see trade as different from and separate from the state. Here it is simply not the function of the state to engage in or manipulate trade. Those who subscribe to the above three, largely accept that nation-states, countries, though they will facilitate trade, will ideally not limit or support, or partner in trade. Such negotiations or actions to limit or enhance trade are the exceptions. Even going to the WTO is an exception. Doing nothing is the norm.

And just to qualify, doing nothing is in reference to trade. It is not in regard to what is traded, and likewise trading partners like to be known. Nation-states reserve the right to determine if slaves can be bought or sold. Likewise, military weaponry is largely not freely traded. Banking and healthcare are highly regulated. Each nation-state will have regulations and procedures, laws protecting property, the transfer of property, copyrights, patents and so forth, but again, they will not themselves actively engage in the trade of such items. In short, the goal of these countries is to embrace the rule of law and with that insure that transactions are fair and equitable. Nothing more.

It should be noted that typically a contemporary successful nation-state will also offer a solid infrastructure, access to high-speed internet, solid educational options and healthcare. All of these lead to success as a nation-state and in trade. Trade beyond one's borders again tries to insure merely that trade is fair and equitable.

What I describe is perhaps the ideal of those countries that embrace this second set of options regarding trade. They will negotiate trade agreements, they will if there are issues work through diplomatic channels, they will go to the World Trade Organization, but in general, they do not dirty their hands with trade. There are plenty of exceptions. Agriculture in the US is such a case. Steel and solar panels are one of many cases for China. Rice in Japan is another common example.

Consequences

The result of these actions, the use of diplomacy, the appeal to the WTO and the like, can be seen, however, as simply limited actions. They really are limited actions, a small step away from doing nothing. Further, they lead inevitably to the diminishment of the nation-state that embraces such. If what you can offer in response to trade abuses is a series of diplomatic responses, and an appeal to the World Trade Organization, which is often seen as itself ineffective, you do not have much to offer.Your rule of law does not protect domestic industries, nor does it enable those same industries to get a step up in the international markets.

Not only is the nation-state which embraces only diplomacy and the like unable to compete with foreign competitors, foreign traders, it creates its own problems. The international conglomerates or corporations, which grew out of free trade, now have little or no obligation to any one nation-state. A corporation is not a citizens of any country. Their employees flow between countries continuously, and its business is global and follows the sun, 24 7. Its only loyalties are to its shareholders and senior management.

Worse is that the contemporary nation state, seeing itself as a rational actor has created multiple institutions which usurp the nation-states' authority. We have in this category, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organisation itself. In Europe you have the European Union. Entities which are neither states nor corporations, yet make decisions on trade and other matters, which will effect all of us, and yet we have no direct representation in these institutions.

Considering the above, the choice becomes do you subsidize and go the way of China, or do you embrace tariffs and bolster your domestic markets, basically attempting to return to the nineteenth century?. Is there a third option?

The EPA, and the application of the Joshua Principle. . .

On my first readings of various articles detailing the EPA's Pruitt and his decision regarding researchers on advisory panels, I basically arrived at asking WTF? Scott Pruitt at the EPA several weeks ago announced that Scientists must now decide if they want to serve on an advisory board or do grant driven research, much of those grants from the EPA. They can no longer do both. Historically, they have been able to do both. Their removal from these panels will most likely allow for industry representatives to fill those roles. Pruitt wants industry and local groups to participate, but scientists and researchers have no seat at that table. Most articles point to the idea that a scientist or researcher's offerings are tainted as their funding is often coming from the EPA. It is interesting that the other groups are perceived as having no dog in this race. Local representatives and industry representatives seem to have no interest, no conflicts. So we have industry folks having a greater say on how the EPA proceeds. It appears that there is no conflict of interest in their case, despite the fact that it is industry which is typically regulated by the EPA. Strange. Now I have some strong opinions on the above. I may also actually believe industry reps do deserve a seat at the table along with researchers and local folks, but lets hold that thought. Pruitt uses a bible verse to introduce this subject. A bible verse, what is referenced as the Joshua Principle, which involves the Israelites being asked to choose between the true God or the idols they had come to embrace. Pruitt is demanding that scientists choose between grant funded research or advisory panel. Which is your god? Is it science or advisory panel? One is the true God and one is a false idol? And this is part crazy, but also part interesting. We do put scientific researchers in a privileged class. We do. They know the science. They know the truth. Are scientific researchers entitled to this privileged place. Is it appropriate that they be perceived as without bias? Or forget bias for the moment. Is it the case that their knowledge actually does grant them access to the table? They have no personal interest in this matter. They have neither a horse nor a dog in this race. They have no stake in this game. They only have a rational offering - their research. The industry rep wants his industry to thrive, and the local representatives wants their region to likewise thrive. The researcher is not interested in either of these. He or she can only offer the conclusions of his research. He has knowledge, and the others have goals and intentions. Perhaps it is not bias that is at issue, but rather that science is a false idol. It distracts us from what is in front of us. Its truths do not allow us to move or improve our lives, but only consume us with further research. Science has imposed itself between the local and industry reps who desire to push and advance their causes, the groups and the people in those groups. To remove scientific researchers from the table seems a mistake. If they are not there, how is their research introduced? Obviously, all want to make an informed decision, which entails the latest research on the matter at hand. And to simply replace them with industry representatives is craven. Now, this piece really requires more knowledge of these panels. Much of this is speculative, but at first blush we not only have the issue of bias to consider, but also the nexus of knowledge, policy, and life. How does the later work? It is possible that we are focused too much on knowledge, science and research? Yet, to totally deny a place at the table for science is just as problematic.