Barry Lynn on radio program with Ken Ham

I just listened to the show, but I do not have time to comment right now. They say a podcast will be available in an hour or so, and the show will be rebroadcast at 6 p.m. EDT Sunday.

      2) Ham is big on Mammon worship, and, therefore, a blasphemer.

Mr. Ham's argument boils down to this: The state will get a lot of money that it would not otherwise get.

Rev. Lynn's argument boils down to this: Yes, but you are getting a portion of that money, which amounts to a subsidy given to a religious ministry.

Mr. Ham's rejoinder boils down to this: The state may not discriminate against us because we are a religious institution; it has to give us the same tax break it would give anyone else.

Rev. Lynn also stated his opposition to the idea that the earth is 4000 years old, which Mr. Ham (correctly, I think) claimed was out of order, since the topic was supposedly limited to the tax break. Perhaps that is why the program was so boring.

Rev. Lynn at one point stated that he did not care whether they built an Ark "Replica" [obviously, my quotation marks, not his], as long as they did not do so with public money. <rant>Here, I simply cannot agree with him: I care very deeply that, frankly, a bunch of fools who reject almost all of modern science is building a display peddling disinformation. I grant that they have the right to do that, but, dammit, we cannot be neutral about something like the Ark Park. Yes, they have a legal right to build it, but they certainly have no intellectual right to disseminate that kind of nonsense, and I am not willing to be coy and say it is OK because they have a legal right.</rant>

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham's rejoinder boils down to this: The state may not discriminate against us because we are a religious institution; it has to give us the same tax break it would give anyone else.

Yes, they have a legal right to build it, but they certainly have no intellectual right to disseminate that kind of nonsense, and I am not willing to be coy and say it is OK because they have a legal right.</rant>

Matt Young said: <rant>Here, I simply cannot agree with him: I care very deeply that, frankly, a bunch of fools who reject almost all of modern science is building a display peddling disinformation. I grant that they have the right to do that, but, dammit, we cannot be neutral about something like the Ark Park. Yes, they have a legal right to build it, but they certainly have no intellectual right to disseminate that kind of nonsense, and I am not willing to be coy and say it is OK because they have a legal right.</rant>

Left unspoken is that Ark Park refuses to play by the same rules as all the “anyone else’s” who get tax breaks. ‘Anyone else’ could not have a religious test for hiring - Ark Park does. “Treat us the same as everyone else” should cut both ways. If the state should give you access to the tax breaks ‘anyone else’ can get, then the state should also sue your ass like it would ‘anyone else’ who practiced religious discrimination in hiring.

What is an ‘intellectual right?’

What are you suggesting “we” should have done? What would have been the basis for the government to deny them a building permit? As long as they are following all of the building codes and other laws, they can build their museum. How could “we” have stop them from collecting money for the project? Unless they are engaging in fraud, they can collect all of the money they want to build their museum. The state responded correctly when they started engaging in illegal hiring practices. Unfortunately for “us”, Ham walked into the perfect situation: he had a judge for their law suit who ignored the law and then an election occurred where the new elected officials choose to not appeal even though the state would have easily won. All we can do is ensure they do nothing illegal and continue educating people. The billboard campaign around the Ark Museum was a good idea, but was mean spirited in its message.

Tri-State Freethinkers to Protest Ark Encounter and Rally for Science and Reason Afterwards Cincinnati, OH - Tri-State Freethinkers will protest the grand opening of the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, KY on July 7 at 10am. Joining them will be American Atheists, Secular Coalition of America, Freedom from Religion, United Coalition of Reason, Secular Student Alliance, Kentucky Secular Coalition, and Young Skeptics. Their controversial “Genocide and Incest Park” billboard will be displayed at the protest on July 7th. “Their mission is anti-science, the story is immoral, and they practice discriminatory hiring practices while receiving up to $18 M in state tax incentives. We are making a stand for equal rights and the separation of church and state” said Jim G. Helton, President of the Tri-State Freethinkers. Following the protest, Tri-State Freethinkers will host a Rally for Science and Reason at the University of Cincinnati at 7pm. The Rally will feature national speakers to celebrate the importance of science education, freethought, critical thinking, and the importance of challenging religious fundamentalism. The event is free but seating is limited. Please RSVP in advance http://goo.gl/mBxOPj . Adopt a Highway We adopted the highway in front of the Ark Encounter! Billboard We have not given up on finding a company to display our Genocide & Incest Park billboard! More updates to come!

Matt Young said: I never suggested that the Ark Park should have been denied a building permit (though it is surely an intellectual fraud, if not a legal fraud). I think it should never have been built because it is peddling pseudoscientific crap. That is not the same thing as saying that it should have been prohibited.

PaulBC said: The constitutional right to free expression is so vital to democracy that I'm uncomfortable with saying that a pseudoscientific and fraudulent museum "should" never be built. Whether it "should" be built is up to the person who owns the property and intends to use this to express a viewpoint, and I think that's true even if the outcome is potentially very bad (however, it's a no-brainer that public funds and preferential tax treatment should be not be provided, which is unfortunately not the case).

The billboard campaigners, incidentally, are planning a protest. They sent me this announcement, Tri-State Freethinkers to Protest Ark Encounter and Rally for Science and Reason Afterwards Cincinnati, OH - Tri-State Freethinkers will protest the grand opening of the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, KY on July 7 at 10am. Joining them will be American Atheists, Secular Coalition of America, Freedom from Religion, United Coalition of Reason, Secular Student Alliance, Kentucky Secular Coalition, and Young Skeptics. Their controversial “Genocide and Incest Park” billboard will be displayed at the protest on July 7th. “Their mission is anti-science, the story is immoral, and they practice discriminatory hiring practices while receiving up to $18 M in state tax incentives. We are making a stand for equal rights and the separation of church and state” said Jim G. Helton, President of the Tri-State Freethinkers. Following the protest, Tri-State Freethinkers will host a Rally for Science and Reason at the University of Cincinnati at 7pm. The Rally will feature national speakers to celebrate the importance of science education, freethought, critical thinking, and the importance of challenging religious fundamentalism. The event is free but seating is limited. Please RSVP in advance http://goo.gl/mBxOPj . Adopt a Highway We adopted the highway in front of the Ark Encounter! Billboard We have not given up on finding a company to display our Genocide & Incest Park billboard! More updates to come!

I agree that we all basically agree, and (at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton) any possible disagreement partly hinges on what the meaning of "should" should be. Mr. BC's comment reminded me of a discussion I had not so very long ago over whether a hedge trimmer (or something) "should" have a switch that you have to hold down in order to keep it going (a dead man's switch). The purpose of such a switch is obviously to prevent people from hurting themselves by leaving the trimmer running or to mitigate their injuries by stopping the trimmer when they are in fact hurt and let go. But my interlocutor reasoned, not completely incorrectly, that he was highly competent and did not need a dead man's switch, and indeed found it to be a nuisance. So do we require dead man's switches to protect the general population, or do we not require them because an individual prefers not to have one? I claim that we should require dead man's switches as a matter of public health and safety – a lot of people would otherwise get hurt and indirectly pay the bill for reducing slightly my friend's annoyance.

Same thing with the Ark Park. Building it is plainly detrimental to public education and to the public's understanding of modern science. If you reason that way, the Ark "Replica" should not be built, or at least should not be an attraction open to the public. But public education is harder to quantify than public health or safety, and, further, banning the Ark Park would be detrimental to freedom of speech. I think, therefore, that we have essentially decided that it is better to let an ignoramus build a monument to pseudoscience than it is to enjoin him from doing so, that is, that the danger to free speech would be greater (or at least more important) than the danger to modern science. I think that was the correct decision, but I still think that the Ark Park "should" not have been built.

Sorry, I forgot to add: I think Ms. alicejohn is completely correct, and a heavy-handed approach such as the proposed billboard is self-defeating, in part because it allows creationists to pretend that they are a persecuted minority. I think Mr. Ham made such a point during the radio program, but I cannot find it in my notes and may be thinking of someone else. No matter; I think everyone recognizes that pretense, and we do not want to feed it.

Maybe we should develop an alternative curriculum for those visiting the park.

There could be the argument made that the existence of the "Ark" serves the purpose of educating the public of the inanity of Young Earth Creationism. How many 10-year-olds are going to understand just how impossible it is to make a floating Ark as a refuge for all the animals?

Matt Young said: Sorry, I forgot to add: I think Ms. alicejohn is completely correct, and a heavy-handed approach such as the proposed billboard is self-defeating, in part because it allows creationists to pretend that they are a persecuted minority.

alicejohn said: If they want a billboard try these: Do you like driving your car? -Amount of oil used today found by creationist based on the Earth being 6000 years old: NOT ONE DROP. -Amount of oil used today found by science knowing the Earth is 4.5 billion years old: ALL OF IT. Why? The power of education. Or how about: If your loved one got sick tomorrow, would you want their doctor to do everything possible to save them? -Number of new drugs introduced last year based on the Earth being 6000 years old: NONE -Number of new drugs introduced last year based on evolution: ALL OF THEM. Why? The power of education.

I suspect that people like Ken Ham will continue to play on the persecution complexes of their followers regardless of whether anybody expresses an opinion about his ark. Since he is going to act persecuted anyway, then it seems to me that his ark and his pseudoscience are fair game for mocking.

Science instructors can use this kind of nonsense and pseudoscience as examples to deal with misconceptions and misrepresentations of science. The examples coming out of the ID/creationist movement are so egregious that they can easily be used as examples of bad math as well as bad science.

Never debate an ID/creationist; but definitely do rip their pseudoscience to shreds. ID/creationists should not be allowed to see this happening because then they will want to debate. I think the best defense against the ID/creationists is for each and every scientifically literate "nobody" coming out of nowhere to take them down and then disappear back into "nowhere."

As far as the "replica" of the ark is concerned, it makes a good example of the issues of scaling in the calculation of strength-to-weight ratios. Strength of any given structural member (resistance to breaking apart) scales as the cross-sectional area of a structural member; weight scales as its volume. So if one scales up the dimensions of a wooden ship like the ark, its strength-to-weight ratio decreases as one divided by the scale factor; eventually it reaches a point where the structure can't support its own weight. Ham's ark is not a replica of anything that ever existed. A few numbers and some data on the structural strength of wood can illustrate the point quite nicely; as can the calculation of the rate of energy deposition on the Earth's surface during the so-called flood.

Galileo already knew all this and wrote about it in his
Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. Not only is this a legitimate topic for unit in a beginning physics course, it also demonstrates that the kind of sectarianism of people like Ken Ham and his followers keeps people ignorant of the most basic concepts in science going back several centuries. The not-so-hidden message: Don't buy their sectarian religion.

If sectarians want fly their persecution complexes in our current political winds, then we have nothing to lose by mocking their gratuitous whining while demonstrating exactly how ignorant they really are. And any politician who panders to sectarian whining can find himself painted with the same brush; if they are with Stupid, then everyone should know it.

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect that people like Ken Ham will continue to play on the persecution complexes of their followers regardless of whether anybody expresses an opinion about his ark. Since he is going to act persecuted anyway, then it seems to me that his ark and his pseudoscience are fair game for mocking. Science instructors can use this kind of nonsense and pseudoscience as examples to deal with misconceptions and misrepresentations of science. The examples coming out of the ID/creationist movement are so egregious that they can easily be used as examples of bad math as well as bad science. Never debate an ID/creationist; but definitely do rip their pseudoscience to shreds. ID/creationists should not be allowed to see this happening because then they will want to debate. I think the best defense against the ID/creationists is for each and every scientifically literate "nobody" coming out of nowhere to take them down and then disappear back into "nowhere." As far as the "replica" of the ark is concerned, it makes a good example of the issues of scaling in the calculation of strength-to-weight ratios. Strength of any given structural member (resistance to breaking apart) scales as the cross-sectional area of a structural member; weight scales as its volume. So if one scales up the dimensions of a wooden ship like the ark, its strength-to-weight ratio decreases as one divided by the scale factor; eventually it reaches a point where the structure can't support its own weight. Ham's ark is not a replica of anything that ever existed. A few numbers and some data on the structural strength of wood can illustrate the point quite nicely; as can the calculation of the rate of energy deposition on the Earth's surface during the so-called flood. Galileo already knew all this and wrote about it in his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. Not only is this a legitimate topic for unit in a beginning physics course, it also demonstrates that the kind of sectarianism of people like Ken Ham and his followers keeps people ignorant of the most basic concepts in science going back several centuries. The not-so-hidden message: Don't buy their sectarian religion. If sectarians want fly their persecution complexes in our current political winds, then we have nothing to lose by mocking their gratuitous whining while demonstrating exactly how ignorant they really are. And any politician who panders to sectarian whining can find himself painted with the same brush; if they are with Stupid, then everyone should know it.

Matt says: I think you could say that they are peddling an indefensible claim, and that strips them of their right to be taken seriously, intellectually. That said, I would never try to prohibit their making that claim but rather would oppose it by legitimate means such as countering it in the press or even demonstrating against it.

After looking at Ham's nearly finished ark, I have a suspicion that Ham has built himself a maintenance nightmare.

Look at all that wood that is exposed to the weather. That is a lot of area of wood exposed to sun, wind, rain, and changing temperatures. Sealing that much wood has to be repeated at regular intervals. And the joints between slats will gradually open up over time, the wood will turn a gray color. And the buffeting by the wind will begin to pull those long slats away from the structure. Large area; large wind forces, even with relatively mild winds.

Then there are the seals between the wood and the concrete towers. Those will have to be resealed at regular intervals. The expansion coefficients of wood and concrete are very different; and with the long lengths of the boards on the side, the actual length changes at those seals will be considerable.

Then there is the top deck. Even if they have provided gussets and drain pipes, there will still be water that will run off the top deck and down the sides of the structure. Freezing water will contribute to the destruction of joints that leak even a little.

I also suspect that the structure will begin sag over time because, even thought it is supported with concrete and steel, there are still large lengths of wooden structures that have to support a lot of weight. Sagging will open up more joints that will need to be sealed again.

So, after about five to ten years, what happens to the ark? What will it look like after some weather beating? Who maintains it? What will those maintenance costs start looking like?

I'm guessing that after about five to ten years, that thing is going to start looking pretty shabby. But that will be Ham's problem. I don't think he can go after public money for maintenance.

I don’t think he can go after public money for maintenance.

Mike Elzinga said: I don't think he can go after public money for maintenance.

I posted once that I thought that Ham's Folly would have a life of perhaps five years. Past the first couple of months, tops, it would never pull enough paying customers to cover its own maintenance. The County and the State will be in the hole, and the stockholders will have done their dough. At that point the thing's high maintenance costs will become a feature, not a bug: a reason to cut and run, before it becomes a real embarrassment. Ham will close it down. There will be a statement to the effect that this proves that the Ark lasted as long as it needed to, and anyway God was calling him to new witness. It might be profitable to someone to saw it up, and possibly the county will insist on its removal. Otherwise it will become derelict, a curiosity to be glimpsed, if anyone bothers, through a rusty chain link fence.

Ham, of course, never having put a penny of his own money into it, will be found far away, still preaching the word in perfect safety and comfort.

It's always been interesting that Ham's ark requires concrete, high tensile steel backing up the wooden structure, steel bolts holding it altogether, high strength glue laminated beams, and plywood sheeting behind those wooden slats. The brochure claims that the seven-story concrete towers are needed to hold up the structure under the onslaught of 120 mph winds.

I wonder what kind of winds Noah experienced during the flood?

Mike Elzinga said: As far as the "replica" of the ark is concerned, it makes a good example of the issues of scaling in the calculation of strength-to-weight ratios. Strength of any given structural member (resistance to breaking apart) scales as the cross-sectional area of a structural member; weight scales as its volume. So if one scales up the dimensions of a wooden ship like the ark, its strength-to-weight ratio decreases as one divided by the scale factor; eventually it reaches a point where the structure can't support its own weight. Ham's ark is not a replica of anything that ever existed. A few numbers and some data on the structural strength of wood can illustrate the point quite nicely; as can the calculation of the rate of energy deposition on the Earth's surface during the so-called flood.

Oh, and don't forget all of the cranes, power tools, steel nails, metal screws, glue, Tyvek, computer aided design, and an army of highly experienced workers. All to build something that wouldn't float. Not that it couldn't float; for a while. Heck, even an aircraft carrier "floats".

But I would love to see the buoyancy and stability calculations of the seaworthiness of a ship that has the essential cross section of a rectangular box.

Scott F said: Rather off topic: While science fiction is replete with space ships that are miles long, I always wonder about how those could have been built. Even with futuristic "battle steel", wouldn't such multi-mile long structures crack like eggs if you tried to apply any kind of propulsive force to them? A "surface" or "point" force, like a rocket simply wouldn't work. I imagine that you'd need a "body" force, like a gravity drive, to be able to propel such a structure without the drive unit simply separating from the rest of the vehicle. I recall my early, rudimentary naval architecture class, where you have to calculate the stresses on a vessel supported at each end by the tops of corresponding ocean waves. You don't even need a wave trough deep or long enough to expose the keel in the middle of the vessel. Simply the differential in support between the ends and the center would be enough to crack a vessel this size made of wood.

Scott F said: I recall my early, rudimentary naval architecture class, where you have to calculate the stresses on a vessel supported at each end by the tops of corresponding ocean waves. You don't even need a wave trough deep or long enough to expose the keel in the middle of the vessel. Simply the differential in support between the ends and the center would be enough to crack a vessel this size made of wood.

We're considering conditions which are violent enough to carve out the Grand Canyon. That's stronger than anything that has occurred on the Great Lakes.

And it doesn't require structural damage, only that the boards separate to let in enough water to drown the animals.

And this is on a vessel which has no way of maneuvering itself in the wind and waves: no power, no steering.

TomS said: And this is on a vessel which has no way of maneuvering itself in the wind and waves: no power, no steering.

Just Bob said:

TomS said: And this is on a vessel which has no way of maneuvering itself in the wind and waves: no power, no steering.

I still want to know why a "boat" that lacks any form of propulsion except wind on the freeboard needs to be "boat shaped" at all. I am certainly not a marine architect, but it seems to me that a square or even round hull (as seen from above) would be more stable; less in danger of being suspended lengthwise between two crests; and not being long-and-narrow, would have much less risk of broaching and being capsized.

Scott F said: Oh, and don't forget all of the cranes, power tools, steel nails, metal screws, glue, Tyvek, computer aided design, and an army of highly experienced workers.

Correct, TomS. Look at the painting of the flood scene on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Michaelangelo depicted the Ark as a requillary, a sort of ornate box serenely afloat notwithstanding strength or stability problems, and the waters around it as flat calm. None of that is physically possible. It would take separate miracles, part of an extensive suite of them.

But that would not have detained our ancestors for a moment. They knew that the whole event was miraculous. Why would anyone think otherwise? Why would anyone defend the indefensible idea that any part of it need be consistent with the known laws of nature?

Why would anyone defend the indefensible idea that any part of it need be consistent with the known laws of nature?

Dave Luckett said: Correct, TomS. Look at the painting of the flood scene on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Michaelangelo depicted the Ark as a requillary, a sort of ornate box serenely afloat notwithstanding strength or stability problems, and the waters around it as flat calm. None of that is physically possible. It would take separate miracles, part of an extensive suite of them. But that would not have detained our ancestors for a moment. They knew that the whole event was miraculous. Why would anyone think otherwise? Why would anyone defend the indefensible idea that any part of it need be consistent with the known laws of nature?

Silly it was, of course. But where does it say that we human beings get to question God's judgement on us? Or his methods?

Where does it suggest that the means used to save eight humans and a population of animals were natural? The flood was impossible by natural means, the Ark could not float or survive by natural means, the animals could not have been gathered, fed, sustained or redistributed by natural means, the Earth could not have remained habitable by natural means, the water could not have been removed by natural means, and so on, more and more.

But those of Ham's kidney insist that whatever parts of the story they wish to regard as physically possible are physically possible. The animals could so have fitted into the Ark. The Ark could have floated. The water came from some physically real place and was removed into a physically real place. Etcetera.

I think the reason for this idiocy is the enormous power of science. They would like to co-opt it. They can't, of course, and a little knowledge - even as much as I possess - or a few simple calculations - so simple that even I can do them - are all that is needed to demonstrate that they are asserting self-evident nonsense. The regrettable implication is, however, that the demographic they have captured is even more ignorant and mathematically illiterate than I am. And that, let me tell you, is a sobering thought.

I should have added that, after surveying the results of the Australian Federal Election, so far as they are known, and having taken the necessary anodyne which is the only possible reaction to them, I am badly in need of sobering thoughts.

Dave Luckett said: I should have added that, after surveying the results of the Australian Federal Election, so far as they are known, and having taken the necessary anodyne which is the only possible reaction to them, I am badly in need of sobering thoughts.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: I should have added that, after surveying the results of the Australian Federal Election, so far as they are known, and having taken the necessary anodyne which is the only possible reaction to them, I am badly in need of sobering thoughts.

Apparently the ignorant are everywhere; not just in the United States. One of the most frequent responses to a survey in Britain asking about the vote to leave the EU was, "What is the EU?". I am not surprised by the ignorance among sectarians who follow the likes of Ken Ham or the ID/creationist movement; they go out of their way to remain ignorant. But I sometimes am gobsmacked by the ignorance I see among the general population. I suspect that having a comfortable existence with easy access to goods and services leaves many folks with little motivation to dig in and learn what is going on around them. Even with easy communications on the Internet these days, the main topics of communication - on sites like Facebook, for example - are often interpersonal social issues that should have been resolved by the end of middle school. One of the problems with a cushy existence in a society with an efficient distribution system for basic needs and the ability to absorb the consequences of stupidity is that, when enough stupid people vote, they can bring down the whole apparatus without having a clue of what they are doing.

Just Bob said: In some of his novels, Heinlein seemed to favor some qualification for citizenship (and hence voting privileges) more stringent than our current one of basically having a metabolism. In Starship Troopers one of the ways to earn citizenship (maybe the only way?) was to do a tour of duty in the military. Question for readers here: Do you think it would be beneficial for the US body politic to limit suffrage in some way? To require voters to qualify somehow, say with a test similar to that given to naturalized citizens?

Just Bob said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: I should have added that, after surveying the results of the Australian Federal Election, so far as they are known, and having taken the necessary anodyne which is the only possible reaction to them, I am badly in need of sobering thoughts.

Apparently the ignorant are everywhere; not just in the United States. One of the most frequent responses to a survey in Britain asking about the vote to leave the EU was, "What is the EU?". I am not surprised by the ignorance among sectarians who follow the likes of Ken Ham or the ID/creationist movement; they go out of their way to remain ignorant. But I sometimes am gobsmacked by the ignorance I see among the general population. I suspect that having a comfortable existence with easy access to goods and services leaves many folks with little motivation to dig in and learn what is going on around them. Even with easy communications on the Internet these days, the main topics of communication - on sites like Facebook, for example - are often interpersonal social issues that should have been resolved by the end of middle school. One of the problems with a cushy existence in a society with an efficient distribution system for basic needs and the ability to absorb the consequences of stupidity is that, when enough stupid people vote, they can bring down the whole apparatus without having a clue of what they are doing.

In some of his novels, Heinlein seemed to favor some qualification for citizenship (and hence voting privileges) more stringent than our current one of basically having a metabolism. In Starship Troopers one of the ways to earn citizenship (maybe the only way?) was to do a tour of duty in the military. Question for readers here: Do you think it would be beneficial for the US body politic to limit suffrage in some way? To require voters to qualify somehow, say with a test similar to that given to naturalized citizens?

Cogito Sum said: Bob, think I'll go with Thomas Jefferson: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Just Bob said:

Cogito Sum said: Bob, think I'll go with Thomas Jefferson: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

For the sake of discussion, I'll go with Jefferson also. The thing with education, though, is that if there's no compulsion or incentive, then some, or maybe many, will simply opt out. If they're going to get to vote anyway, then why attend or pay attention to the boring education? Note that we have compulsory education in this country, and truancy laws to enforce it. Why not, as part of that educational system, a citizenship test, similar to that given for naturalization? Give it at age 18, to those who freely elect to take it. I wouldn't give it as part of the school curriculum, but in a separate setting, like an SAT. Prospective voters should have to make some minimal effort to take the test, not just sit in class when their 9th grade Civics exam is given. And yes, careful wording of the law, oversight, and vigilance would be necessary to ensure that all prospective voters are treated equally, with severe penalties for any unfair discrimination in administering the test.

Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and the Institute for Creation Research are examples of a mindset that has developed in this country that began back in the 1960s. It is part of a larger phenomenon that demonizes experts, hates science, wallows in conspiracy theories, hates regulations of any kind, can't stand diversity, hates foreigners, wallows in sectarian bigotry, belittles women, and wants to eliminate the Federal Government. And of course, education is demonized because it is dominated by those damned "Liberals."

These are the prople who make up much of the Far Right in this country. Politicians pander to these groups in order to win their support because they can be easily inflamed to get out and vote. Since the Reagan years, we have had political "strategists" like Lee Atwater and his protege, Karl Rove tapping into these groups and offering them part of the political spoils. Once these characters get some power, there is no going back; and they will demand ideololgical purity tests for anyone who runs for a political office.

Add to that the fact that the Earth's population is somewhere around 7.5 billion and rising, human activity is affecting climate, and there is increasing competition for resources, we are seeing increasing pressures for people to panic and try to get what they can, and damn the government for trying to tell people what to do.

Trump plays to this; as have most of the Republican candidates in recent years. The Republican party, because it got in bed with these Far Right screamers, hasn't been able to field very many good candidates and has had to resort to scare tactics, gerrymandering, and voter restriction laws to maintain itself in the majority in Congress and in most state legislatures. They have become the Fear and Loathing Party that gets elected by fear and demonizing but has no ideas on how to govern and deal with real issues. It has come down to get-and-grab and IGMFY.

Just Bob said: In some of his novels, Heinlein seemed to favor some qualification for citizenship (and hence voting privileges) more stringent than our current one of basically having a metabolism. In Starship Troopers one of the ways to earn citizenship (maybe the only way?) was to do a tour of duty in the military. Question for readers here: Do you think it would be beneficial for the US body politic to limit suffrage in some way? To require voters to qualify somehow, say with a test similar to that given to naturalized citizens?

We should be ruled by saints, the problem is that you have to be dead before you can be a saint. Unless you are Desmond Tutu - or have we been deceived again? Or maybe a saint would be powerless as a politician? I don't think we would enjoy saintly rule.

TANSTAAFL

Yeah, in theory it would also be nice if you had to pass a parenting test.

The problem with all such things is that systems where others get to decide on your rights are fraught with abuse, and even simple neglect.

The best alternate reality I remember reading about was where those for political office were selected by computer from among those best qualified to lead, those with the academic qualifications and demonstrated successful experience. There were prison terms for those who refused, and many often did. After all, which academician would want the damn job of trying to herd cats?

Dave Luckett said: May their decisions always be right, but nevertheless, the people, right or wrong.

I think the primary purpose of democracy is to establish government by consent of the governed, which (if you accept certain widely held premises) is the only legitimate form of government. So if you find yourself disenfranchising large segments of the population for whatever reason, then your government is illegitimate, independent of any other merits. Note that you can dispute the basic premise of rule by the people and propose some kind of benevolent dictatorship or oligarchy, but accepting the need for consent of the governed (as we do!) really does rule out many ideas for "optimizing" the outcome of elections.

It's also natural that specific constituencies will vote in their own interest, not in the interest of the "common good" and that is how it should be. Nobody's supposed to be taking a bullet for the team, at least in peacetime (so for instance, NIMBYism, while annoying, is understandable). The whole thing is a very rough compromise. If anyone is completely pleased with the outcome, something probably went wrong.

I find it interesting that when the subject of uninformed voters comes up, the proposed remedies are almost always screens to eliminate the uninformed votes. Maybe the real point is that we're not doing enough as a society to produce informed voters. If you start with the assumption that you can't just disenfranchise people because you'd like to, and if you're not complacent about having a terrible outcome again and again, the only remaining lever is to increase the proportion of informed voters among the population. This isn't easy and also gets into some subjective issues of what it is to be informed. It also goes against vested interests that prefer to have voters who are easily manipulated. But it strikes me as the only conclusion that fits the ideal of government by consent of the governed.

One thing that strikes me about governments is how long a state can last while the government is really awful. Think of how so many kings were totally incompetent, how many ministers were crooked, how many generals were blunderers. How many decisions were made on the basis of astrology.

PaulBC said: Maybe the real point is that we're not doing enough as a society to produce informed voters. If you start with the assumption that you can't just disenfranchise people because you'd like to, and if you're not complacent about having a terrible outcome again and again, the only remaining lever is to increase the proportion of informed voters among the population.

WEKU reporter Cheri Lawson has an entirely too measured segment on NPR here (it is not "controversial" to say that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted; it is flatly wrong). Our sometime informant Dan Phelps has a few seconds of fame, as does Baptist minister Bob Fox, who says he favors separation of church and state. Ken Ham was right, for once, when said that you leave the modern world when you enter the Ark Park.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: May their decisions always be right, but nevertheless, the people, right or wrong.

Umm, for me, when the people (in a democratic system, that can mean 51% of those that voted) go very, very wrong, as they did between 1933 and '45 in Germany, then I can no longer be a part of that 'people' and must take action against them.

Scott F said: It's always been interesting that Ham's ark requires concrete, high tensile steel backing up the wooden structure, steel bolts holding it altogether, high strength glue laminated beams, and plywood sheeting behind those wooden slats. The brochure claims that the seven-story concrete towers are needed to hold up the structure under the onslaught of 120 mph winds. I wonder what kind of winds Noah experienced during the flood?

To me, offering a reward is a better option: "You can vote if you pass the test given to naturalized citizens."

The same was used to enforce the now long-defunct "White Australia" policy. Intending immigrants were required to pass a reading test administered in a European language. That was bad enough, but it was also used to exclude the politically incorrect as well. Egon Kisch, who was a Czech anti-Nazi activist, was issued a test in Scottish Gaelic, for example. But that turned out to be a triumph for democracy. The government of the day (1938) was forced to accept him as an immigrant after popular outcry. But there can be no doubt - and it is to our national shame - that the test was mainly used to exclude Asians.

But it was dismantled, and the policy repudiated, as a result of the democratic process. A majority of the electorate voted to elect a government that specifically promised to do that. And it did.

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott F said: It's always been interesting that Ham's ark requires concrete, high tensile steel backing up the wooden structure, steel bolts holding it altogether, high strength glue laminated beams, and plywood sheeting behind those wooden slats. The brochure claims that the seven-story concrete towers are needed to hold up the structure under the onslaught of 120 mph winds. I wonder what kind of winds Noah experienced during the flood?

So it *may* be able to withstand an EF 2 tornado, but certainly not an EF 3.... Could be interesting if an EF 3 or higher one comes along...

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott F said: It's always been interesting that Ham's ark requires concrete, high tensile steel backing up the wooden structure, steel bolts holding it altogether, high strength glue laminated beams, and plywood sheeting behind those wooden slats. The brochure claims that the seven-story concrete towers are needed to hold up the structure under the onslaught of 120 mph winds. I wonder what kind of winds Noah experienced during the flood?

So it *may* be able to withstand an EF 2 tornado, but certainly not an EF 3.... Could be interesting if an EF 3 or higher one comes along...

What would be interesting would be a flood. Just a plain old local flood. Just enough to flood the first floor a couple of feet.

Just Bob said: Question for readers here: Do you think it would be beneficial for the US body politic to limit suffrage in some way? To require voters to qualify somehow, say with a test similar to that given to naturalized citizens?

Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a very misunderstood book. To start with, he didn't write it as a serious proposal for how a society should be governed, but only as a thought experiment and conversation starter on the nature of the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship.

In-story, he also makes it clear that it was not a perfect system, only that in general "it worked", and that it evolved out of necessity from turbulent past times. In the Federation's constitution, every person was guaranteed every right, speech, assembly, due process, except one... the right to participate in government was not automatic, but had to be earned.

What most people miss, however, is that their constitution also guaranteed every person the right to go through the enfranchisement process. They could not turn you down if you applied, and they could not kick you out once you got in. They could make the process as difficult as they wanted to, but the only way you could fail to gain franchise, outside of dying or committing a felony-level offense, was to quit.

In other words, the only test involved was one of determination -- do you really, really want it badly enough?

See here for an excellent, in-depth analysis of the novel (and the abomination of a movie that unfortunately carries the same name): http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

As for me, I've often thought that a scaled-down version of Heinlein's idea might work well enough. Two years of life-threatening service is overkill. Instead, I imagine simply making the applicant go through a simple 3-4 month program that includes a stint of public service, a period sitting in a jury pool, and a full education in how the government operates. No tests, no screening, no exceptions, just go through the process, and you get the vote. Just as in the story nobody could be turned down, nobody could be ejected without due cause, and they would have to find some way to accommodate any handicaps you might have. All you'd need to have is enough determination to go through it.

I think that one of the problems we have in our current system is that too many people don't want to be involved. They will find all sorts of ways to get out of jury duty, dodge regulations, and generally avoid any obligations they have as citizens to be knowledgeable and participate in the decisions that go into keeping a socity running.

In short, they want to do their own thing without any "interferrence" by government or others; and in a fairly affluent society, a lot of people can get away with that and shift the burdens onto everyone else.

Years ago I heard someone categorize people in a society into three groups; the working birds, the sitting birds, and the shitting birds. We seem to be seeing a decrease in numbers of the first type and a large increase in the third type; especially in Congress.

AltairIV said: I imagine simply making the applicant go through a simple 3-4 month program that includes a stint of public service, a period sitting in a jury pool, and a full education in how the government operates.

All you'd need to have is enough determination to go through it.

Mike Elzinga said: I think that one of the problems we have in our current system is that too many people don't want to be involved.

Many countries have free university in which they not only pay your tuition but even living expenses. 3-4 months for a young person is nothing. In those countries, civic engagement generally is much more sane and informed than in the U.S.A., and religious fundamentalists are completely marginalized. Voter turnout is higher too.

A training course like the one suggested by AltairIV would be much more efficacious than civics as taught in school now. In most countries, civics is not a taught course in school yet people are more aware of their governments' workings than are Americans (on average, of course).

The civics courses are not working, obviously; if they were, Americans would be more knowledgeable about the U.S. government than Canadians are. As it stands, more Canadians can name the parts of the American government and its houses, than can Americans. That's crazy bad.

I think this proposal is very interesting, and possibly lacks the pitfalls associated with the history of voter exclusion in America.

While we're at it, let's ditch the absurd Electoral College!

Four times we have had a president who LOST the popular vote, but won on the electoral. That spits right in the eye of "one man, one vote". (Not to mention the US Senate: California gets two senators; Delaware gets two senators.)

"In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote.... Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

Mike Elzinga said: Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and the Institute for Creation Research are examples of a mindset that has developed in this country that began back in the 1960s. It is part of a larger phenomenon that demonizes experts, hates science, wallows in conspiracy theories, hates regulations of any kind, can't stand diversity, hates foreigners, wallows in sectarian bigotry, belittles women, and wants to eliminate the Federal Government. And of course, education is demonized because it is dominated by those damned "Liberals." These are the prople who make up much of the Far Right in this country. Politicians pander to these groups in order to win their support because they can be easily inflamed to get out and vote. Since the Reagan years, we have had political "strategists" like Lee Atwater and his protege, Karl Rove tapping into these groups and offering them part of the political spoils. Once these characters get some power, there is no going back; and they will demand ideololgical purity tests for anyone who runs for a political office. Add to that the fact that the Earth's population is somewhere around 7.5 billion and rising, human activity is affecting climate, and there is increasing competition for resources, we are seeing increasing pressures for people to panic and try to get what they can, and damn the government for trying to tell people what to do. Trump plays to this; as have most of the Republican candidates in recent years. The Republican party, because it got in bed with these Far Right screamers, hasn't been able to field very many good candidates and has had to resort to scare tactics, gerrymandering, and voter restriction laws to maintain itself in the majority in Congress and in most state legislatures. They have become the Fear and Loathing Party that gets elected by fear and demonizing but has no ideas on how to govern and deal with real issues. It has come down to get-and-grab and IGMFY.

Pardon me. I think maybe your problem is colporteurism: Religion is the perfect snake oil, and lucrative to boot. Creationism is ancillary.

There is a movement effectively to block the Electoral College. Some states have passed a law to award their electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. See "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" in Wikipedia.

The Senate is a more difficult situation. The US Constitution forbids any amendment which changes the equal representation to each state without the consent of that state.

TomS said: There is a movement effectively to block the Electoral College. Some states have passed a law to award their electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. See "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" in Wikipedia.

I think most here can agree that a proposed 'citizen training period' paid by the state is very unlikely, but it would require acts of the legislature only. Changes to the Electoral College or senatorial representation, which require amending the constitution, are far more unlikely.

RJ said: I think most here can agree that a proposed 'citizen training period' paid by the state is very unlikely, but it would require acts of the legislature only. Changes to the Electoral College or senatorial representation, which require amending the constitution, are far more unlikely.

eric said: Why ... would you downgrade the importance of your state in such a way?

Just Bob said:

RJ said: I think most here can agree that a proposed 'citizen training period' paid by the state is very unlikely, but it would require acts of the legislature only. Changes to the Electoral College or senatorial representation, which require amending the constitution, are far more unlikely.

Yet we have amended the Constitution 27 times in 227 years, or about once every 8.4 years (misleading average, I know, since 10 came in one fell swoop).

eric said: You can also go with a district-by-district granularity.

Just Bob said: Yet we have amended the Constitution 27 times in 227 years, or about once every 8.4 years (misleading average, I know, since 10 came in one fell swoop).

TomS said: It seems to be that those which have adopted it are almost all predominantly Democratic ... DC and Hawaii (among the small) and California and New York (among the large).

Swing states like Florida and Ohio certainly like the the current winner-take-all kind of system. They can wield a certain amount of power when it comes to electing a president. Which is why the presidential candidates will spend nearly all of their time in a few states while never visiting a state like Maryland (which will go Democratic unless it is a landslide). It is literally a waste of a person's time to vote for president in a state like Maryland. Their vote is worthless.

And since urban population centers tend to vote Democratic and rural areas tend to vote Republican, conservatives also like the current system because it can favor the conservative candidate by giving rural areas more power as it did when George Bush "won" in 2000.

But a popular-vote system could significantly change the dynamics of US presidential races. It could significantly reduce the influence of the two party system by giving power to independent candidates. For example, what could have happened if Ross Perot agreed to teamed up with George Bush in 1992 and brought his 19% of the vote with him. Even though Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote, he did not get a single electoral college vote. Independent candidates have no power at all with the current winner-take-all system we now use. But they could wield enough power in a popular-vote system to make a huge difference. With the reduced power of the two-party system, the changes in Congress could follow. It could change national politics in this country.

By the way, the Constitution does not have to be amended to change the way a state allocates its Electoral College votes. An individual state can locate their Electoral College votes however they choose. The state doesn't even have to hold a presidential election. The state legislature can decide, the governor can decide, the state can conduct a coin flip, electors can be picked in a lottery, or whatever other method the state legislature chooses is within the Constitutional right of the state to decide who the state wants to vote for president.

If another country elected their leader the way the United States elects their president, the politicians and people of the US would probably condemn them as undemocratic.

Yup, and once again in Texas my vote for president will be completely worthless. It will be essentially thrown away, and all the electors from Texas will come down on the 'R' side, just as though not a single Texan voted 'D'.

That pisses me off royally.

alicejohn said: But a popular-vote system could significantly change the dynamics of US presidential races. It could significantly reduce the influence of the two party system by giving power to independent candidates...Independent candidates have no power at all with the current winner-take-all system we now use. But they could wield enough power in a popular-vote system to make a huge difference.

With the reduced power of the two-party system, the changes in Congress could follow. It could change national politics in this country.

If another country elected their leader the way the United States elects their president, the politicians and people of the US would probably condemn them as undemocratic.

Don't forget that in the US we're only a heartbeat away from having a president that wasn't really voted for: the vice president, who basically rides in on the coattails of the president. I dare say that very few voters make their presidential decision based on the VP. Just think: we could have had Dan Quayle!

And in a true nightmare scenario, given some last minute pre-election scandal, or maybe an assassination of the Democratic candidate, followed by a not-at-all-unlikely heart attack of an aged president, we would have had ... Sarah Palin!

Just Bob said: Don't forget that in the US we're only a heartbeat away from having a president that wasn't really voted for: the vice president, who basically rides in on the coattails of the president. I dare say that very few voters make their presidential decision based on the VP. Just think: we could have had Dan Quayle! And in a true nightmare scenario, given some last minute pre-election scandal, or maybe an assassination of the Democratic candidate, followed by a not-at-all-unlikely heart attack of an aged president, we would have had ... Sarah Palin!

"I do wonder sometimes if picking Palin as the VP candidate was McCain’s way of indicating that he didn’t really want to be President."
The idea of a walking bullet-proof vest was suggested as a description for both Quayle and Palin. I mean, seriously, would you assassinate the president with them waiting in the wings?

W. H. Heydt said: I do wonder sometimes if picking Palin as the VP candidate was McCain's way of indicating that he didn't really want to be President.

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: I do wonder sometimes if picking Palin as the VP candidate was McCain's way of indicating that he didn't really want to be President.

My guess is she looked excellent on paper and he thought her inability to string two thoughts together probably couldn't be worse that Dan Quayle's; and hey, Bush won with Quayle. In any event, with Trump's son suggesting to the media that The Donald might pick is daughter Ivanka as VP, to my amazement I find myself thinking tha McCain's choice may only turn out to be the second worst in the history of presidential campaigns. Nothing against Ivanka, but the optics and PR of picking your own daughter...I think that would catapult Trump way into first place in the 'bad veep choice' category.