Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Education Meets Evolution(again)
Darwin’s theory, like all other attempts to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural.
— Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, Evolution and Permanence of Type (1874)
It’s time for an update on the progress of evolution. Oklahoma and Tennessee are in a closely matched race to put a new law addressing this contentious issue on the books but who will win cannot be known at this time. Missouri is in third place. New Hampshire? and Indiana hoped to be part of the race but their efforts were sidetracked so they’re out of the running for 2012.
Oklahoma and Tennessee’s legislators’ most recent attacks on evolution started in each state’s legislative session in 2011 and were carried forward into this year’s sessions. House Bill 1551 that has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives and is now before the Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has the catchy name of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act. (Bills that want creationism taught often include the word “Scientific” in their titles to give added luster to their efforts.) Its sponsors are opposed letting teachers teach science exclusively as it is commonly accepted by those knowledgeable in the field. The Bill says its purpose is to “create an environment within public . . . schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions. . . and respond appropriately to differences of opinion about controversial issues. . . . Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” One of the scientific theories proponents of the Bill think should be thought is “creationism.”
“Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education” commented on the proposed legislation saying: “Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy [about evolution] is just plain dishonest. . . .” With respect to the bill’s reference to the “weaknesses” of evolution the scientific group describes them as “phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don’t like evolution.” Their comments were seconded by Douglas Mock, a Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma who said: “Wrapped in the deceptive language of promoting critical thinking, they aim to get the nose of a malodorous camel (pseudoscience) inside the tent of science. . . . The low scientific literacy of our citizens is a serious concern that’s not helped by adding fake controversies.” Although it cannot be said with certainty that the bill will get through the senate and be signed by the governor, the odds would seem to be in its favor. The Oklahoma legislature was one of the first states in the country to refer to voters for approval a resolution known as “Save Our State.” It was passed by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters and it forbids Oklahoma courts “from considering or using Sharia law.” (A temporary injunction was issued against its enforcement within a few days of its approval by voters and on January 11, 2012 the injunction was made permanent by the United States Court of Appeals in Denver.) If Oklahomans can take a stand against Sharia that had never been used in its courts, it seems like a good bet its Senate and governor will have no trouble taking a stand against evolution that its action suggest has little effect in Oklahoma.
On March 19th, four days after the Oklahoma House approved HB 1551 and sent it off to the Oklahoma Senate, the Tennessee Senate passed Senate Bill 893 that is with one minor exception, a virtual carbon copy of the Oklahoma statute. The Tennessee legislation was attacked by the Tennessee Science Teachers Association as being “unnecessary, anti-scientific , and very likely unconstitutional.” Having passed the Tennessee House it is now before the Republican controlled Senate where its approval seems assured. Tennessee’s governor has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. He told The Tennessean that he intended to discuss the legislation with the Tennessee Board of Education before deciding whether or not to sign the Bill. As he explained to the newspaper: “That’s why we have a state board of education.” There are no reports on whether the Oklahoma governor feels the need to consult with any professional or can rely on the proven good sense of the legislators.
Missouri is the other state that is currently contemplating enhancement of its curriculum by introducing alternative theories about how it all happened. Rick Brattin, a new member of the Missouri House has introduced House Bill 1227. The Bill would require “intelligent design” to be taught in the schools. Explaining the reason for this legislation, Mr. Brattin told the Kansas City Star that “ the jury is sill out on evolution.” (He did not say to which jury he was referring.) He expressed dissatisfaction that “our schools only teach that we emerged from primordial ooze. I think students should get both sides of the issue and get to come to their own conclusions.” The Bill has been referred to the committee on Elementary and Secondary Education.
Given the history of these kinds of bills and the climate of the states in which they’re being considered, it is not unlikely that all three bills will become law. When they emerge they will be covered with some kind of ooze. Probably not primordial, since everyone knows there’s no such thing.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Goldman's Lust for Gold
I cried all the way to the bank.
—Wladziu Valentino Liberace, An autobiography
It was just an unfortunate coincidence that the two events came within a couple of weeks of each other. The first was a legal opinion by Chancellor Leo Strine of the Court of Chancery in Delaware in the case of In re El Paso Shareholder Litigation and the second an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Greg Smith, a former employee of Goldman Sachs and Co. The events and attitudes described in the court opinion and the op-ed piece could apply to many investment banks since they are all in the business of making money and sometimes that interferes with doing what’s right. In the case about which the judge wrote, money came between doing what’s right and what Goldman did. In the op-ed piece we were told how money corrupted Goldman’s corporate culture.
In October 2011 Kinder Morgan Inc. made a 2.1 billion bid for El Paso Corp and retained Goldman to advise it on the deal. Goldman was not only expert in advising on these kinds of transactions but, in this case, had a particular interest in how it was structured. It not only owned 19 percent of Kinder Morgan but also controlled two seats on that company’s board of directors. Goldman realized that some people might think that an insurmountable conflict of interest since the less El Paso was paid the better the deal was for Kinder Morgan and, since it was a 19 percent owner of Kinder Morgan, a better deal for Goldman. Accordingly, Goldman advised El Paso to bring in an independent advisor so that Goldman’s financial interest in having a low price set for El Paso would not taint the deal. Morgan Stanley was retained by El Paso. This was a brilliant solution except for a couple of things that were articulated by Chancellor Strine when ruling in the shareholder suit. In his ruling Chancellor Strine commented on Goldman’s attempts to solve its conflict of interest problem by observing, as Goldman apparently had not, that Goldman continued to “intervene and advise El Paso on strategic alternatives. . . .” He then said that what was even more egregious was that Goldman achieved “a remarkable feat: giving the new investment bank an incentive to favor the Merger by making sure that this bank (Morgan Stanley)only got paid if El Paso adopted the strategic option of selling to Kinder Morgan.” In case any one didn’t understand the foregoing the Chancellor added: “In other words, the conflict-cleansing bank [Morgan Stanley] only got paid if the option Goldman’s financial incentives gave it a reason to prefer was the one chosen.” In short, either the Goldman deal went through or Morgan Stanley got no money.
It was a bit of downer for Goldman to have Chancellor Strine’s opinion so widely commented on. It caused people like Jonathan Weil who writes for Bloomberg to comment that Goldman had “every incentive to maximize its own investment and fleece El Paso’s shareholders.” The word “fleece” is not, in common parlance, considered a compliment. That was not, as it turned out, the end of Goldman’s March opprobrium.
March 14, 2012, scarcely two weeks after Chancellor Strine issued his opinion, an op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times in which Greg Smith, a former Goldman executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, announced his resignation from Goldman. In his piece he observed that at Goldman the interests of the client are “sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. . . . I attend derivative sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. . . . I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again.”
There was no internal memorandum to employees after Chancellor Strine’s opinion became public because the Chancellor had said all there was to say. That was not the case with Mr. Smith’s commentary. The day the op-ed appeared Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer of Goldman, and Gary D. Cohn, its Chief Operating Officer, sent a memorandum to the firm employees. They lamented the fact that Mr. Smith’s opinion “is amplified in a newspaper and speaks louder than the regular, detailed and intensive feedback you have provided the firm and independent, public surveys of workplace environments.” The “you” to which they refer are the firm’s employees. The two men observe that in an earlier survey, 89 per cent of the employees expressed the feeling that the firm “provides exceptional service” to clients. In other words, people who work at Goldman like working there and think highly of themselves and of the firm. That makes Chancellor Strine and Mr. Smith a minority of two. Someone should give Messrs. Cohn and Blankfein a copy of Chancellor Strine’s opinion. That might cause them to revise their memorandum. Probably not.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Science and Santorum
The progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin.
—Henry Brooks Adams, The Education of Henry Adams
Now that it appears that Rick Santorum is more than a flash in the hot (albeit not globally warmed) evolutionary pan, I confess to an oversight that occurred in this space in 2011 when I suggested that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry were the only ones among the Republican presidential candidates who believed that evolution was nothing more than a theory. I did Mr. Santorum a disservice by failing to acknowledge his long-standing support of creationism and his contempt for the idea of global warming. His support for creationism in the classroom goes back at least as far as 2001.
When Congress was considering the 2001 education-funding bill now known as the “No Child Left Behind Act”, then Senator Santorum introduced an amendment that he said was intended to be a sense of the Senate that “deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom.” His amendment would have promoted “good scientific debate within the classroom” which would include creationism. Although his amendment was not included in the final version of the Bill, it has become a talking point for those who want creationism taught in the public schools. Defeated but unbowed, Mr. Santorum continues his support of creationism and now that he has the possibility of becoming the Republican nominee for President of the United States (thus making the United States the laughing stock of the rest of the world) it is only fair that his scientific views be given their due.
In an interview with the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph, a paper in Nashua, New Hampshire Mr. Santorum said teachers should be allowed to “teach the controversy” between the theory of evolution and any gaps in the study that would allow for dialogue on a divine beginning. He explained: There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak, who are afraid of that discussion because of my goodness you might mention the word, God-forbid, ‘God’ in the classroom, or ‘creator’ . . . and of course we can’t have that discussion. It’s very interesting that you have a situation that science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that’s scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn’t explain all these things. . . .”
Mr. Santorum was critical of John Huntsman, one of those seeking the Republican nomination. Commenting on the fact that Mr. Huntsman accepted evolution as an established scientific theory, Mr. Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an email that: “I believe in Genesis 1:1-God created the heavens and the earth.” Displaying an astonishing ignorance (since most creationists know that it took seven days) he said: “I don’t know how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that He did it. If Gov. Huntsman wants to believe that he is the descendant of a monkey, then he has the right to believe that-but I disagree with him; on this and the many other liberal beliefs he shares with Democrats.”
In that column I also failed to acknowledge Mr. Santorum’s approach to global warming. He doesn’t believe in it. He said on the Glen Beck show that: “There is no such thing as global warming.” To make sure no one thinks that this was simply a mis-speak,the Daily Coz reports that he told Rush Limbaugh that global warming is “an opportunity for the left to create-it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life . . . .It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
The foregoing explains Mr. Santorum’s dismissive attitude towards President Obama’s support for making higher education available to more people. As Mr. Santorum said in Ann Arbor before the Michigan primary: “President Obama has said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.” Mr. Santorum realizes that the less educated people are, the more likely they will be to agree with his feelings about science and, even more important, the more likely it is that they will enthusiastically support his candidacy.
My apologies to Bachmann and Perry. They were not the only science skeptics among the Republican candidates. Mr. Santorum is their equal. Should he become President of the United States, the country would be the butt of jokes around the world. Given the sad state of the world from Syria to Somalia to Afghanistan to Iraq and hundreds of other places, a bit of laughter would be welcome. It’s just too bad it would be at our expense.