Chimps Should Have Rights? How about bacteria?

            Not too long ago, an animal rights organization filed a lawsuit on behalf of four chimpanzees in New York state.  According to Steven M. Wise, founder and president of the NonHuman Rights Project, the lawsuit intended to ask “judges to recognize, for the first time, that these cognitively complex, autonomous beings have the basic legal right to not be imprisoned.”   The lawsuit has since been dismissed, but it does raise serious questions about what it means to be human versus animal.

            Since we cannot communicate with any of the four chimps in question, how do we know they are truly imprisoned?  Suggesting they have a basic legal right not to be imprisoned assumes much that we don’t know.  For instance, do any of the chimps feel imprisoned?  One cannot just assume that if we could talk with the chimps they would prefer some other life.  It’s certainly possible, but we have no evidence it is likely.  Yes, for most people, imprisonment has severe negative connotations.  Chimps, however, no matter what their DNA, no matter what their cognitive complexity, are not human beings and it is neither logical nor rational to thrust human understanding upon them.   Secondly, and just as important, imprisonment implies involuntary cessation of normal human freedoms.  Once a human prisoner has served his or her sentence, the involuntary cessation of freedoms ends and the former prisoner is released into the general society (perhaps with some restrictions, but no longer imprisoned).  Chimps will not be allowed to simply walk around unattended.  Perhaps the goal is to have these chimps released to the wild.  This would be peculiar, as all of them are older and likely have few skills necessary for wilderness survival, making it likely they will die very quickly and, perhaps, painfully.  Human prisoners are released back into a society in which they at least have some familiarity and some ability to negotiate.

            No reasonable person thinks animals should be treated poorly, so if it’s merely a matter of finding more suitable and more humane environs in which these chimps can live, that does not necessitate giving the chimps human-like rights.  Moreover, this is, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion.  Certainly, some conditions might be obviously bad (having a chimp live in a 5 x 5 cell, wallowing in its own waste, for instance), while other conditions might not be so obviously bad.  However, this is a matter for debate among humans as to how we desire to treat animals, not a rationale for providing the animal itself with legal status.

            Finally, note the oddity that the chimps will need legal guardians to make decisions for them.  While I understand we do this with the infirm and the incompetent, we do this for human beings, not animals.  The reason we appoint guardians for human beings is for that reason alone: they are human beings.  Suggesting chimps require such guardians then leads to whether dogs should have such guardians, and so on, and so on.  What about turkeys?  We can spin this out all the way to the most simple one-celled organism.  The absurdity of such a notion can be encapsulated in the imagined exchange below:

            Judge: What are you asking we do for your client?

            Lawyer:  Your honor, my client asks only to be left alone to infect people, as is its nature.

            Judge:  Huh?

            Lawyer:   What else do you expect a bacteria to do but infect people?  Moreover, my client’s relatives have in the past been repeatedly subjected to the death penalty via penicillin and other such drugs without due process.  My client only seeks to avoid such legal atrocities.

            So, I’ve pushed it to the absurd limit.  However, the current moral framework we follow in this country, a sort of smorgasbordish amalgamation of existentialism, post-modern philosophy, Far Eastern panentheism, and tolerance results in our inability to draw rational lines.  Why should chimps get rights, but bacteria don’t?  Upon what rational basis would Steven Wise argue against bacterial rights, if he is so inclined?  Mr. Wise seems to think cognitive complexity is the rational basis for giving chimps right.  How does Mr. Wise know what bacteria are thinking, though?  If cognitive complexity is the rationale for determining who or what gets rights, who gets to decide how much cognitive complexity is necessary for rights to attach?  Does that mean a one year old human child doesn’t get rights, but a five year old chimp does?  I would guess there is some possibility a five year old chimp is more cognitively complex than a one year old child, even though the one year old child has significantly more cognitive potential.  Does potential count?

            The view held by Mr. Wise and groups like PETA stems from the godless notion that we are all by-products of impersonal forces acting in the universe.  Problematically, however, while one can, based on this worldview, conclude chimps should have rights, one can, with equal intellectual integrity, conclude rights should be based solely on power – whoever has the power to define rights gets to say what they are.  The difficulty is that when an impersonal, non-thinking, non-rational universe through some completely unknown means and through no specific direction, somehow has life arise within its borders, there is no basis for claiming that rights mean anything.  The idea of rights presumes some sort of moral reality which cannot exist in such a universe, at least not independently from those making up the rights.  In other words, there are no universal rights, only those we make up.  If rights are made up, then they are arbitrary designations of whatever people happen to want at the moment.  Following this to its logical conclusion, we can give chimps rights, but then, we can take them away, as well.  Moreover, despite the absurdity of my example, nothing prevents us from giving bacteria rights, or plants rights, or even organic but non-sentient things like water, rights. 

            We cannot give chimps rights.  We can agree to treat them reasonably and have laws in place which make poor treatment of animals an offense.  However, we should make animal cruelty against the law because, as humans, we hold ourselves to a higher standard, not because we think animals should have rights due to their alleged “cognitive complexity.”  Why should we hold ourselves to a higher standard?  Because we are NOT by-products of the universe – we are beings made in the image of God, and as such, we have an obligation to act as good stewards of the planet God has given us.  Part of this stewardship means we see to it animals receive acceptable and reasonable treatment, which lies somewhere between doing anything we want with animals and giving animals rights.  Kind of broad, I know, but it’s the best I can do.  One thing, however, is certain: I will always remain in favor of killing harmful bacteria. 

The Earth Needs Some Pepto Bismol

So, let me get this straight, global warming caused Katrina to strike New Orleans in 2005 because Al Gore, et al, said so.  Yet, we have the interesting reality that in 2013 the hurricane total was the lowest in over 30 years and there were no major Atlantic hurricanes for the first time in almost 20 years.  The NOAA is predicting a lower than usual hurricane season for 2014, as well.  Oh, by the way, we just had a “polar vortex” this past winter which caused almost the entire United States to suffer through some of the coldest temperatures in decades for an extended period and we had a ship stuck in Antarctic ice while investigating “global” warming, during the Antarctic summer, no less.   Apparently global warming took a year off.

 I’ve always been skeptical of global warming.  I will admit, frankly, it’s not because I’ve studied the science in any depth.  I’ve always been skeptical because I can recall as a young teenager in the mid-70’s reading that a global ice age was about to descend upon us and it never materialized. When I see people like Al Gore making millions as a result of efforts to convince people global warming is real, it makes me wonder, just like charlatans like Benny Hinn make me wonder about faith healers.  Moreover, some common sense would tell me at least a couple of things.  First, if there is global warming, it’s likely the earth will work its way through it.  The earth is a highly resilient place that has, pardon the pun, weathered many such problems throughout the ages.  Second, simple logic suggests that concluding the entire globe is on some kind of a warming trend is beyond human capability to measure effectively or accurately.  I simply don’t trust the science that told me in 1975 an ice age was coming to now tell me global warming is here.  Third, I don’t deny global warming might well be a reality, but there are alternative explanations beyond human causation that require serious exploration and thought, such as solar radiation cycles. 

Even more importantly, there is an enormous philosophical stake here.  Global warming advocates keep saying things like “the science is clear” or “there is a consensus among scientists” that manmade global warming is real.  Such statements belie what I was always taught about science, namely, science is always in a state of flux because scientists are supposed to let the data speak for itself.  According to many in the professional commentariat, as well as many “amateurs,” science seeks truth.  Yet, I can say from experience that if one attempts any effort to argue about sacrosanct “scientific” ideas like global warming or evolution, the response from the allegedly scientific-minded is often a brick wall.  There is no willingness to discuss, no willingness to think about these “scientific” truths, except through the lens that they are utterly proven realities for which no possible alternative exists, can exist, or ever will exist.  This is not a scientific view of these matters, but a philosophical pre-disposition which arises from a determination to conclude that the only reality is an utterly material reality.

   

Such a pre-disposition ultimately results in an ends justifies the means mentality.  Thus, even if global warming is maybe only a possibility and not a reality, it’s still okay to run around scaring everyone into behaving like it’s true because people will think “green” and thereby help the planet.  Of course, this makes unproven assumptions that (a) we have any real ability to do much to “help” the planet avoid global warming (b) that “green” is some sort of monolithic reality that requires everyone to do exactly the same things in order to help the planet, and (c) any one person or group has a sufficient understanding of the complexities of the entire planet’s weather such that their pronouncements should be received as the last word.  The United Nations has a group that issues pronouncements about climate change, and, interestingly enough, such pronouncements often come with requirements that “rich” nations send money to “poor” nations under the UN’s auspices and oversight, of course.  The UN, however, has no interest in having all that cash flow through its (cough, cough) pristine and completely undefiled coffers, right?  The UN is corrupt because there is no one really overseeing what it does with all the money it gets.  Who can oversee a world body? 

The world may be warming or not.  I don’t mind doing my part by recycling, reducing my trash, growing my own vegetables, walking when I can rather than driving, reducing my electric consumption by keeping my thermostat adjusted higher in the summer, lower in the winter and so forth.  Such, however, is not what the global warming crowd ultimately seeks.  No, this is more about control over people than it is about science.  It provides cover for those who think that a handful should tell the rest of us morons what to do, when to do it, and how to do it.  Global warming has morphed into “climate change” because even Al Gore is smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall.  “Deniers” like me have been branded, but the branding has faded because too much reality is kicking in and global warming appears to have cooled off. 

Al Gore and friends will just move on to the next crisis, make millions more, and continue to herd the sheep, who will bleat whatever Al and friends tell them to bleat.  If I were the owners of Pepto-Bismol, I’d be jumping on the bandwagon – “The science is clear, the science is clear . . . the earth has diarrhea – the UN needs to buy 100,000,000 gallons of Pepto-Bismol right away.” 

Ann Coulter Knows Nil about Soccer and Proves It!

           Ann Coulter wrote a column disparaging soccer claiming that somehow it shows America’s moral decay because it has ties to liberals.  I have previously suggested Ms. Coulter’s caustic approach leaves much to be desired.  I suppose her effort here arose because of the World Cup and while she may be trying to be tongue-in-cheek, her column isn’t funny.  You can read her June 25 column here if you’d like: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html.

            First, in order to poke fun at something you have to understand it.  That’s how satire works.  Ms. Coulter has no clue about soccer if she thinks individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer.  Messi, Ronaldo, Mueller, Benzema, Dempsey – soccer fans know these names and why they are a big deal.  Poor Michael Bradley, America’s best mid-field player, has been beaten up by fans and the press because his “individual” achievement in the Cup has been below his normal standards.  Since Ms. Coulter doesn’t know enough about the game to understand how individual performances matter, maybe she should re-think commenting.

            Second, her analysis about boys and girls playing together shows her further ignorance of how soccer is played.  Most obvious is that men and women have a their own world cups because, well, let’s just say Mia Hamm would have never made the Men’s National Team and leave it at that.  If Ms. Coulter doesn’t know who Mia Hamm is, she only further proves her ignorance.  According to Ms. Coulter the sport requires so little “athletic expression” (whatever that means) that boys and girls can play together and, thus, liberal moms love it.  No, Ms. Coulter, you’re wrong.  As a veteran of two boys who both played a great deal of recreational co-ed soccer, girls’ participation falls off precipitously around the age of 10 or 11 where even these "co-ed" teams become dominated by boys.  Ms. Coulter appears blissfully unaware of this reality.  Better players go on to club soccer, where the boys and girls NEVER play each other on co-ed teams, except perhaps for fun. 

            The rest of her so-called explanations for why soccer is somehow a liberal sport don’t even make sense, so I won’t waste too much space contending with her on them.  Suffice to say, she stretches all credulity by taking enormous leaps trying to link soccer to the New York Times, France (which she, I guess, uses as a euphemism for all of liberalism - maybe rightly so), and the metric system (which she claims liberals love – she may well be right on that, too).  I guess I'm to dull-witted to understand the brilliance of her analogies here.

            I would, however, challenge Ms. Coulter to think about the following features of soccer, which may commend it to her as having more “conservative” qualities than she seems to understand.  First, coaching takes place during practice, so when players are on the field they have to make decisions for themselves about what to do and how to do it.  Contrast football where, despite players supposedly spending  bazillions of hours of watching game tape and studying playbooks (according to the ESPN football jockocracy), most of the game is spent with coaches relaying plays into the players.  For crying out loud, quarterbacks have a wristband full of plays on them at all times!  About 11 or 12 minutes is actually spent playing the game out of the 60 minutes while the clock is running.  Soccer matches run 45 minutes per half, with very little let up and no time outs.  Seems more liberal to me to have people constantly telling you what to do versus teaching you what to do, then letting you do it.  But then again, what do I know?  I’m just a bush league blogger compared to Ms. Coulter, who is a brilliant thinker and pundit, right?

            Ms. Coulter also decries that soccer matches can end in 0-0 ties, as if this is the end of the world.  I have heard it argued the hardest thing in sports is to hit a baseball.  I think the hardest thing in sports is to score a goal in soccer.  As the old saying goes, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.  If something takes enormous skill, discipline, and dedication to accomplish, doesn’t this suggest when it happens it is an extremely valuable commodity? In other words, aren’t soccer goals, then, much like a valuable good or service which someone, by the sweat of their brow and ingenuity brings to the market place and gets rewarded?  If so, doesn’t soccer, once again, prove itself a conservative endeavor?

            Ms. Coulter’s woeful attempt at satire failed.  I’m sure when Clint Dempsey had is nose broken while playing in the match against Ghana, his first thought while the blood was gushing out was how much he wished Ann Coulter were there to remind him that he’s really playing a sissy sport that any 10 year old girl could do while eating a croissant, reading her New York Times, and measuring the blood flow in milliliters. 

Of Guns and Abortions

           Anytime a child dies our hearts automatically go out to the family because we recognize that so much human potential has now vanished.  Sometimes children die because they are shot by guns and such unfortunate events then develop  into a frenzied determination to assert gun control is a national emergency in order to stop the “senseless violence.”  A recent opinion piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal (June 22, 2014) points up how badly gun control advocates will manipulate the statistics in order to get what they want and how little they actually care about children.

            The piece in the Courier-Journal starts with the story about a 2 year old girl accidentally shot and killed by her 5 year old brother.  This tugs at the heart and is tragic.  But if you read the rest of the article you would conclude that this is happening at a frightening and epidemic pace.  A simple check with the Centers for Disease Control, however, shows that in 2010, which appears to be the latest year for which the numbers have been collected, 288 children between the ages newborn and 14 died from gun related deaths, nationwide.  This includes suicides and homicides.  I don’t want to minimize the loss of these 288 children.  However, to claim, somehow that 288 deaths from guns proves the need for massive gun control like every other “developed country” hardly makes the case. 

            As of 2010 there were roughly 61,000,000 children ages newborn to 14.  You begin to see the nature of this “epidemic” when you see these numbers side by side.  The number of children under 14 who died from gunshots was less than one half of one thousandth of a percent of all children in that age group in the United States in 2010 (0.0005%).   Oh, and by the way, according to the CDC homicide dropped from the top 15 causes of death overall in 2010 for the first time since 1965 – this includes homicides among children and teenagers.  Moreover, the number of school shootings is actually down from past years.  What this tells me is the authors of this piece simply don’t care what the numbers really show – they’re more interested in making comparisons of very small numbers and then treating you to a statistical analysis which, while correct, misleads people into assuming gun violence is at some sort of crisis level and gun control is necessary now in order to stop the madness.

            Let me provide a made up example that points out how statistics can be manipulated.  Suppose you hear a report that statistically there is a ten times greater chance of getting killed in a shooting in city one over city two.  Sounds ominous and foreboding.  Certainly no one would ever want to go to city one.  But then you learn that each city has one million people and there were ten gun deaths in city one and one in city two.  When the statistic is reported without giving the raw data behind it, the appearance makes it sound like city one is much more violent.  I could just as easily argue that the since the odds of getting shot in either city are less than one thousandth of 1%, both cities are pretty doggone safe.  It would be patently absurd, and utterly manipulative for city two to take out an advertising campaign claiming it is ten times safer than city one.  No one would be willing to accept this kind of nonsense.

            Moreover, most of the gun deaths which the authors report on are not tragic accidents or even murders of young children.  Most of the gun deaths among “children” are teenagers who are 15 and older.  These are mostly young men shooting other young men (according to the CDC over 80% of gun deaths of people between 15 and 24 are male), and these young men know full well that pulling the trigger of a gun when pointed at another human being is very likely to cause significant injury or death.  Moreover, a number of these teenage deaths are suicides.  Suicides don’t take place because of a gun but because the teenager has spiritual and psychological issues that put he or she in the frame of mind that taking his or her own life is the only path to peace.  The gun is an instrument, not the cause of the death. Drugs, razors, ropes, and cars can do the job just as well.

            The simple facts are that guns are not killing children in the incredible numbers which the authors’ statistics are intended to imply.  They never give any raw numbers because they know that to do so would undercut their argument and that sensible people looking at the raw numbers might well disagree with the idea that there is some sort of crisis going on here.  I will actually take this a step further and say that these authors have so manipulated the data that they have been dishonest.  But of course, the headline tells us where all this is going: “Children too precious to let NRA rule us.”    

            So where does this leave us?  It’s okay to manipulate people if your cause is just?  This is the kind of ends justify the means thinking that seems to permeate much of the political discourse going on in our country these days.  I am not making the case for or against gun control here, just pointing out that making the case for gun control based on pure manipulation, both statistically and emotionally, is morally questionable at best, outright lying at worst.  There’s an old saying in the law: when you have the facts, argue the facts, when you have the law, argue the law, when you have neither, argue the loudest.  It seems to me that’s where we are in our national discourse these days – we bend and sway in our opinions depending on who argues the loudest.  The problem is, as my Dad used to say, if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will assume it’s the truth.

            The truth is that it is sad when children die.  However, I wonder if these authors care about the over 50 MILLION children killed by abortion over the past four decades in the United States?  No statistics necessary here – the number speaks for itself.  Based on the logic of these authors, abortion, like guns, should be banned, right?  Two hundred eighty-eight children dying from gun shots every year is tragic.  One million children dying from abortion every year is a national disgrace.  No manipulation necessary.