I am a beer snob, plain and simple. I admit it because it's true and because I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I love beer. I love all kinds of beer styles, and I like to try new beers all the time. I make beer at home and I like to experiment. My friends make beer and I like to try what they make. I am working to open a brewpub in Amarillo, TX where we will make beer. The takeaway? I love beer of all sorts and I'm a beer snob because I turn my nose up at the swill that the AB InBevs and MillerCoorses of the world produce.
I also hate Untappd. Untappd is a website where people create a profile and keep a record of what beers they are drinking or have drunk, and share this with their friends, and earn "badges" for drinking certain quantities or styles or labels of beer. Basically it is social media for beer snobs. But I hate it, and here's why: it showcases the worst aspects of beer snobbery. Whereas I am a beer snob with an emphasis on "beer," a lot of people on Untappd are beer snobs with the emphasis on "snob."
Why do I say that? The goal on Untappd, and the goal outside of such websites for people who are of the same mind, is to be cooler than everyone else. So if you drink a beer as soon as it's available, you're cooler. If you drink beers no one else knows about or can get their hands on, you're cooler too. If you can wax poetic on the hop schedule of the important new IPA release from hole-in-the-wall cool-ass brewery X in California, you're super cool. Do you get my drift? The whole vibe with this thing is that we need to be outdrinking each other by finding the most esoteric or sought after beers in the industry and telling everyone that we drank them.
I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, and not just from the Untappd devotees. I've already been accused of being a narrow-minded beer drinker. Admittedly I have a limited range of beers I truly enjoy, and a very limited variety of commercial beers I will regularly buy. If I tried to keep up with the level of beer snobbery currently running amok within the Craft Beer Scene, I'd have taken a second mortgage on my house just to cover the cost. Have you seen how much a limited edition Dogfish Head beer can be? And I used to scoff at the winemakers and their inflated prices! But that's just it - the craft beer industry has become so popular, and so many damn fine brewers have entered the market and made so many damn fine beers, that we the craft beer drinkers have become less beer snobs and more, well, just plain snobs. We're creating an atmosphere within the craft-beer-drinking community that is frankly overwhelming, because there are so many beers that we're all clamoring to find, meanwhile ignoring the vast array of fantastic standby beers that we should all be drinking and talking about too!
Remember Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? Remember Anchor Porter? Hell, remember Fat Tire? When I was a new, young craft beer drinker, I eased into the wonderful world of full flavored beer by way of Shiner Bock and Fat Tire. I explored the entire New Belgium lineup during college, and learned the difference between ales and lagers as my love for beer grew. Each time my wife and I visited a new brewery we would order a beer flight. We loved the variety of flavors, not just in a single brewpub but between and among breweries and pubs. The point is, I came into the craft beer market at a time when you weren't assaulted with beers and breweries and styles that everyone who seemed to know what they were doing was telling you you had to get your hands on. Should a new craft beer drinker be buying the latest Belgian-Tripel-IPA brewed with cherries and aged on Tahitian beechwood? Hell no! I'm not even sure anyone should be drinking it!
I'm being facetious of course, but you know what I mean? We're at that point that any given industry reaches when excitement is high and growth seems unlimited. Remember the dotcom boom? How every other commercial during the Superbowl was for a website that hadn't turned a profit yet? Remember AOL? While I don't buy the argument that the craft beer industry is in a bubble that will pop, I do think that the craft beer culture is creating a bubble that will need to be poked with a needle of beer purity. You can only add so much shit to a beer before it ceases to be pleasurable. In fact, I'd personally draw the line at watermelon. Watermelon in a beer is a novelty. For me watermelon beer is a sign of the beer apocalypse; it signifies that the end is coming. Truth be told I welcome that end, and while the four horsemen trample the coconut stouts and blueberry IPAs under their hooves, I will sit back with my Anchor Porter and watch and smile to myself, knowing what wonderful beers will survive.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
All of Us
We are all of us a milieu
Of millions strung together
Brought as we were from everywhere
Else on the Earth. Torn from fields
And sold in cities. Or tempted
Out of our ancient places
By Golden Gates and gold,
Forty acres and a mule,
Or more often by the golden promise
Of life on our own terms.
We are all of us a patchwork
Held delicately but willfully by young
Thread; not rope or chains,
But a tenuous thread which at times is pulled
So tightly it sings.
We are all of us contained
But just barely. Wild and free as we are
We are all of us bound with this thin thread,
Knit together by the common pattern
Of hopeful living.
We are all of us together
Only slightly contained
A quarter inch on one side from self destruction
And on the other side maybe
A half inch from God.
Of millions strung together
Brought as we were from everywhere
Else on the Earth. Torn from fields
And sold in cities. Or tempted
Out of our ancient places
By Golden Gates and gold,
Forty acres and a mule,
Or more often by the golden promise
Of life on our own terms.
We are all of us a patchwork
Held delicately but willfully by young
Thread; not rope or chains,
But a tenuous thread which at times is pulled
So tightly it sings.
We are all of us contained
But just barely. Wild and free as we are
We are all of us bound with this thin thread,
Knit together by the common pattern
Of hopeful living.
We are all of us together
Only slightly contained
A quarter inch on one side from self destruction
And on the other side maybe
A half inch from God.
Friday, February 1, 2013
No Right To Waste: why Amarillo needs watering restrictions
It is undeniably reasonable to conserve water in an arid climate. It is reasonable to conserve in the sense of being both arguably wise and inherently preferable. Obviously no community anywhere wants to run out of water, but when a community is subject to erratic year-to-year rainfall and shrinking supplies of groundwater, concerns about water conservation are greater, as they should be.
Let's be frank: Amarillo is not quite a desert. We live in a semi-arid plains environment. Our average annual rainfall is of sufficient quantity for survival. We also sit above vast underground stores of water. With a little effort and a lot of pipe, we can bring those underground sources right to the heart of our city and not really notice whether water supplies are shrinking.
Let's also be frank about the reality of water in the panhandle. Amarillo's 30 year annual average for precipitation is 19.71 inches. But in the 21st century, we have so far averaged 18.79 inches, almost a full inch less per year; and remember, these are averages. In 2011, only 7 inches were recorded in Amarillo, the lowest year on record. While one inch per year on average may not sound like much, the effect is significant. To put it another way, considering the area of Amarillo at 90.3 square miles, one inch of rain in the city limits is about 1.5 billion gallons of water. That volume represents about 9% of the total water used by Amarilloans last year.
Obviously we are using a lot of water, and as the city continues to grow we should expect that we will use more. More homes will be built, more businesses established, and with those things come more lawns and landscaping, more toilets and sinks, and more demands on the water system. While growth in our city is unavoidable, especially given our prospering economy, water use does not necessarily have to grow, too. There are ample opportunities for water savings, if only the citizens of Amarillo, and especially our leaders, are willing to recognize the water problem as just that: a problem.
We need watering restrictions. Up to this point, Amarillo has pursued only a policy of voluntary watering restrictions, and based on the data from the last three years alone, that policy has undeniably failed. In 2012 we set a daily record for water use: 92.1 million gallons on July 31st. That's about 450 gallons per person in the city, and that was just one day. And this in one of the drier years on record, a time when we should actually have been concerned about the availability of water.
Restricting water use is not a novel idea. Cities like Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and many other cities in these metro areas have watering restrictions, and this is in areas that receive on average 50% more precipitation per year than Amarillo. These localities, with ever increasing demands on water systems and ever shrinking water supplies (both above and below ground), recognize that they need to manage how much their customers use. These cities and their citizens have decided that the water supply is a resource that needs to be managed.
Lest someone raise the argument of personal liberty against any attempt to implement watering restrictions, remember that most of the public water systems in the state which have mandatory restrictions are in areas no less conservative than ours. Texas is largely a conservative state, and attitudes and beliefs about personal liberty do not tend to differ much from region to region. Yet in the city of Amarillo there seems to be a deeply rooted hesitancy to the idea of restricting water use for customers on the city's water system. This hesitancy is not only irrational relative to the problem of water availability, it is also irrational relative to the actions of populations much like ours.
There is another problem with any argument against watering restrictions, namely that any argument against conservation is an argument in favor of waste. While few would probably voice such an opinion -- that waste is preferable in the name of personal liberty -- in light of our actual water situation and climatic conditions, every effort against conservation is effectively an effort in support of waste. Personal liberty is inarguably an important thing, but the reality is that we are running out of water, and conservation is a small price to pay for a largely theoretical loss of liberty.
When it comes down to it, we can't live without water. We can live without lawns, golf courses, and water parks, but not the water which makes them possible. I am not advocating the eradication of these things per se, I'm only highlighting the importance of water for life-sustaining uses. It's time for Amarilloans to realize that we are in fact a semi-arid climate, a climate with unreliable precipitation, significant evaporation, and limitations to what vegetation will thrive here. Among the many actions we need to take in order to thrive in our environment, restricting our water use is primary. We need watering restrictions in Amarillo if we're going to continue to be a great and thriving city for the decades to come.
Let's be frank: Amarillo is not quite a desert. We live in a semi-arid plains environment. Our average annual rainfall is of sufficient quantity for survival. We also sit above vast underground stores of water. With a little effort and a lot of pipe, we can bring those underground sources right to the heart of our city and not really notice whether water supplies are shrinking.
Let's also be frank about the reality of water in the panhandle. Amarillo's 30 year annual average for precipitation is 19.71 inches. But in the 21st century, we have so far averaged 18.79 inches, almost a full inch less per year; and remember, these are averages. In 2011, only 7 inches were recorded in Amarillo, the lowest year on record. While one inch per year on average may not sound like much, the effect is significant. To put it another way, considering the area of Amarillo at 90.3 square miles, one inch of rain in the city limits is about 1.5 billion gallons of water. That volume represents about 9% of the total water used by Amarilloans last year.
Obviously we are using a lot of water, and as the city continues to grow we should expect that we will use more. More homes will be built, more businesses established, and with those things come more lawns and landscaping, more toilets and sinks, and more demands on the water system. While growth in our city is unavoidable, especially given our prospering economy, water use does not necessarily have to grow, too. There are ample opportunities for water savings, if only the citizens of Amarillo, and especially our leaders, are willing to recognize the water problem as just that: a problem.
We need watering restrictions. Up to this point, Amarillo has pursued only a policy of voluntary watering restrictions, and based on the data from the last three years alone, that policy has undeniably failed. In 2012 we set a daily record for water use: 92.1 million gallons on July 31st. That's about 450 gallons per person in the city, and that was just one day. And this in one of the drier years on record, a time when we should actually have been concerned about the availability of water.
Restricting water use is not a novel idea. Cities like Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and many other cities in these metro areas have watering restrictions, and this is in areas that receive on average 50% more precipitation per year than Amarillo. These localities, with ever increasing demands on water systems and ever shrinking water supplies (both above and below ground), recognize that they need to manage how much their customers use. These cities and their citizens have decided that the water supply is a resource that needs to be managed.
Lest someone raise the argument of personal liberty against any attempt to implement watering restrictions, remember that most of the public water systems in the state which have mandatory restrictions are in areas no less conservative than ours. Texas is largely a conservative state, and attitudes and beliefs about personal liberty do not tend to differ much from region to region. Yet in the city of Amarillo there seems to be a deeply rooted hesitancy to the idea of restricting water use for customers on the city's water system. This hesitancy is not only irrational relative to the problem of water availability, it is also irrational relative to the actions of populations much like ours.
There is another problem with any argument against watering restrictions, namely that any argument against conservation is an argument in favor of waste. While few would probably voice such an opinion -- that waste is preferable in the name of personal liberty -- in light of our actual water situation and climatic conditions, every effort against conservation is effectively an effort in support of waste. Personal liberty is inarguably an important thing, but the reality is that we are running out of water, and conservation is a small price to pay for a largely theoretical loss of liberty.
When it comes down to it, we can't live without water. We can live without lawns, golf courses, and water parks, but not the water which makes them possible. I am not advocating the eradication of these things per se, I'm only highlighting the importance of water for life-sustaining uses. It's time for Amarilloans to realize that we are in fact a semi-arid climate, a climate with unreliable precipitation, significant evaporation, and limitations to what vegetation will thrive here. Among the many actions we need to take in order to thrive in our environment, restricting our water use is primary. We need watering restrictions in Amarillo if we're going to continue to be a great and thriving city for the decades to come.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Avalanche (A Short Story)
Note: I originally wrote this in 2006 for a creative writing class assignment. The assignment was to write a short story using the letters of the alphabet in order, each subsequent sentence beginning with the next letter. I wrote this while I was at the Army Cold Weather Leader's Course, a training school in Alaska about 120 miles south of Fairbanks. One of the classes we took there was on avalanches.
Avalanches happen over a million times a year worldwide. Because they're essentially unpredictable, and because they rarely kill more than a couple of people at a time, they aren't a general concern. Compacted snow from the barreling slide forms an airless pack around the body. Don't breath, because your breath will melt the snow and form a mask of ice and suffocate you. Everybody dies, of course, some day. Forget about going peacefully, though. Gather your last breath and hold onto it like a string of rosary beads, praying. Hope your friend is digging for you, and digging in the right place. In fifteen minutes you will have a fifty percent chance of survival. Just hold that breath, though. Keep hoping, you could be just below the surface. Listen to the sound of the snow settling, a constant groan. Move, try to scratch at the unbelievable weight. Nevermind the cold, you can live without fingers and feet. Only your friend can save your air, your life, scraping his gloves into the crust above you. Picture the scene unfolding there. Quiet sun, the settled snow, mounds of it each the size of a pickup. Rocks and uprooted spruce trees with their trunks exposed, roots opened to the sky like arms in praise. Somewhere nearby the noise of your friend. Two million tons of snow and here you are, beneath him. Up there the world is as peaceful as ever, the din of the rolling snow long since echoed away. Very close now; you hear him coming. When he finds you, how will you feel, what will you say, when you devour the blue air? X your heart and tip your hat to fate? You think, for a second, of what you will do if you live. Zero in on that thought, hold it like a rosary bead, like a last breath.
Avalanches happen over a million times a year worldwide. Because they're essentially unpredictable, and because they rarely kill more than a couple of people at a time, they aren't a general concern. Compacted snow from the barreling slide forms an airless pack around the body. Don't breath, because your breath will melt the snow and form a mask of ice and suffocate you. Everybody dies, of course, some day. Forget about going peacefully, though. Gather your last breath and hold onto it like a string of rosary beads, praying. Hope your friend is digging for you, and digging in the right place. In fifteen minutes you will have a fifty percent chance of survival. Just hold that breath, though. Keep hoping, you could be just below the surface. Listen to the sound of the snow settling, a constant groan. Move, try to scratch at the unbelievable weight. Nevermind the cold, you can live without fingers and feet. Only your friend can save your air, your life, scraping his gloves into the crust above you. Picture the scene unfolding there. Quiet sun, the settled snow, mounds of it each the size of a pickup. Rocks and uprooted spruce trees with their trunks exposed, roots opened to the sky like arms in praise. Somewhere nearby the noise of your friend. Two million tons of snow and here you are, beneath him. Up there the world is as peaceful as ever, the din of the rolling snow long since echoed away. Very close now; you hear him coming. When he finds you, how will you feel, what will you say, when you devour the blue air? X your heart and tip your hat to fate? You think, for a second, of what you will do if you live. Zero in on that thought, hold it like a rosary bead, like a last breath.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Saved by the Bell: A Short Story
On the last day of school before the Christmas break, the school was tense. No one had seen Screech all day, and at Bayside High, no one ever missed school unless it was serious. Zack had been on his phone all morning. In Chemistry class he had teamed up with a nameless nerd who was sure to get all of the work got done while he called everyone he knew. By lunch he hadn’t heard anything, and as he headed into The Max, his feet followed the familiar path, but his mind was somewhere else.
He hadn’t seen Kelly yet that day, which was disconcerting, but then again she had been avoiding him a lot the last couple of weeks. For at least the last week she was often sick in the mornings, and would spend her first period – volleyball – in the girl’s bathroom. Self-absorbed as he was, Zack wasn’t blind to what was happening; he recognized the symptoms for what they were, though he had said nothing. Kelly was pregnant, he knew it. And he knew this much, too: it wasn’t his.
As he sat down at a booth, fellow students in bright denim talking animatedly to one another all around the restaurant, he realized he hadn’t really seen any of his friends this morning. He had been so busy trying to find out about Screech that he hadn’t wondered where Slater and Jesse were. Or Lisa, he thought with a pang of guilt. He thought he knew why Lisa hadn’t been coming around him, especially after last weekend’s party. He hadn’t meant for anything to happen; she had just been so drunk. And so had he. And in that state, it had been easy to act on what he had over the years often wanted to act on. He wouldn’t blame Lisa for how she felt, he just wondered what exactly she felt. Was it anger? Fear? Confusion? He hoped it was confusion, because that’s sure what he felt. Did he love her? And more importantly, did she love him?
Just then Slater walked in, looking lethargic. He had a glazed over look: the hundred-yard stare, as Mr. Belding would have called it. Zack knew why without asking, but he cleared his throat and braced himself anyway, prepared to talk about it. Slater sat down without a word on the other side of the booth, his hands in his sweatshirt pockets. Even though he was wearing his workout clothes, he appeared impeccably clean, from his glowing black curls right down to his polished white sneakers. His skin seemed to pulse with a kind of bronze glow, and Zack again admitted silently to himself that, without a doubt, Slater was the best looking guy in the senior class. He cleared his throat.
“What’s up Slater?” And tentatively he added, “Where’s Jesse?”
Slater looked up suddenly, his eyes watery, before looking away again. The noise and chatter in The Max was a din at that moment. Why was everyone so happy?
Slater cleared his throat and shifted in the seat. “She’s not feeling well.” He rolled his head around as if his neck was stiff. “I don’t think she’s coming to school again.”
Zack gritted his teeth. He wanted to be sympathetic, but damn it, why did Slater have to be so somber about it? It was Jesse’s fault, after all. Zack love Jesse, had been her close friend since they were kids, but he didn’t think he could put up with this any longer. If she wanted to ruin her life with No Doze, that was her choice, but she shouldn’t be allowed to bring everyone else down, too. Zack plucked up his courage suddenly, and the words were out of his mouth before he knew it.
“Slater, we’ve got to tell somebody, anybody. Mr. Belding even. Slater, she’s addicted.”
Slater flinched, and hung his head. Somewhere a tray of food dropped, but the noise was mixed with the conversation around them. Zack gritted his teeth again. “It’s not use, A. C. I can’t keep faking it. Everything’s falling apart.”
Slater looked up, looked in Zack’s eyes, and there were definitely tears there now. And they seemed to exchange an understanding. A conversation was held in that shared look; in that moment they said everything there was to say about everything that had happened to them the last several years. Their rivalry, their friendship; the romances and heartbreaks; the adventures, the crackpot schemes, the hijinks; the lessons, the wisdom; and the finality of what was coming at the end of the next semester. That is what they were both thinking, Zack knew it. They were both thinking, What would happen after high school? What would happen to their group of friends?
Just then the door of The Max burst open. There in the doorway, framed by the bright Southern California sun behind him, stood Mr. Belding, his gray suit glimmering silkily, his bald pate shining, his thick smile beaming. He walked toward them, and following behind was Screech. Schreech! His giant goofy grin lighting up the place. And then Lisa, and Kelly, and Jesse. And there was Miss Bliss! And behind here came in a whole cast of characters, people Zack knew by face but not by name. And he knew then that it would be okay, that they would make it. He knew then that, against all odds, like a school child on the verge of failure, he had been saved, saved by the bell.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Decline of Evangelical America
The title is from an op-ed piece in the New York Times, seen here. John Dickerson, the author and a pastor of a relatively small church, is onto something important, although his most important point, which I'll mention below, is muddied by his insistence on perpetuating an "evangelical culture." I part ways with him on several points, including the notion that we (Believers) can or should "refashion [our]selves." The idea that we can fashion or refashion ourselves implies that Belivers exist as some kind of entity, like Focus on the Family or the Southern Baptist Convention. The very existence and prominence of these two groups, and of many others, is very much a part of the problem of "evangelical culture." In fact, the notion of "evangelical culture" is itself a problem.
Believers should not have a marketing problem; we are not selling ourselves. I can tell you that Jesus does not have a marketing problem, and even if we think he does, he doesn't care. God is accepted on His merits, not on ours. That does not mean that we shouldn't embody His merits - in fact, the whole pursuit of the Christian life is to be more like Jesus. What it means is that Evangelicals don't save people, God does. Jesus does. What we do is carry His glory around, display it, walk in His power, and love everyone we possibly can. He has called us to love, and so that is the only way we need to "fashion" ourselves.
Mr. Dickerson reaches a proper conclusion when he writes:
Believers should not have a marketing problem; we are not selling ourselves. I can tell you that Jesus does not have a marketing problem, and even if we think he does, he doesn't care. God is accepted on His merits, not on ours. That does not mean that we shouldn't embody His merits - in fact, the whole pursuit of the Christian life is to be more like Jesus. What it means is that Evangelicals don't save people, God does. Jesus does. What we do is carry His glory around, display it, walk in His power, and love everyone we possibly can. He has called us to love, and so that is the only way we need to "fashion" ourselves.
Mr. Dickerson reaches a proper conclusion when he writes:
"For me, the deterioration and disarray of the movement is a source of hope: hope that churches will stop angling for human power and start proclaiming the power of Christ."However, it is apparent from his essay that he still holds out for a movement of some kind; that he still finds an "evangelical culture" desirable. The problem with his view - and with the view of most American evangelicals - is that we can't control the "movement" any more than we can control the Holy Spirit. The movement of God's People is nothing unless it is His movement. He is and has been moving, long before this election or any other one, and the imperative for all Believers is to move when, where, and how The Lord is moving. That, my friends, is A Real Movement.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A Quick Case for Debate
I would like to make a quick case for debate. Specifically I would like to make the case for debating ideas that are considered Conventional Wisdom, also known as Common Knowledge. The Danger of this idea of Conventional Wisdom is that once and idea becomes Conventional Wisdom, it isn't really open for debate. It's settled, so don't question it. Get over it. The opposite danger is my very proposition of debating Conventional Wisdom, which often manifests itself as paranoia and conspiracy theory. But in general I believe that the latter danger is insignificant when compared to the former, so debate we must.
In order to make this case, let's use an example of Conventional Wisdom. I will choose one of my favorites: vaccination. It is Conventional Wisdom that vaccinations are good. They are touted as safe, effective, and important. They are regimented into our lives through doctors, schools, and especially large-scale public health agencies: the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and many others. Perhaps most effectively and importantly, they are described in terms that are meant to frighten those who would question their use.
Now why would someone debate vaccinations, given the widespread support for their use? Conventional Wisdom says we shouldn't, that we should trust the experts, their studies, their proof. And Conventional Wisdom also dismisses many of our points of debate or argument, essentially claiming that this issue is settled and should not be open for debate. But there are questions worth asking, even about something so widely accepted. For example: what are the ingredients in vaccines, and what do they do? What happens to viruses as large populations are immunized against them: do they mutate into something more insidious? What are the secondary and tertiary effects on immunized populations, i.e. what are the unintended consequences?
In my mind, this last question is the only reason we really need to continue to debate Conventional Wisdom: what are the unintended consequences? Because there are always unintended consequences. Sometimes they are innocuous. Oftentimes they seem innocuous, only to prove significant, if not downright dangerous. And because there are always unintended consequences, it is irresponsible to stymie debate of Conventional Wisdom. Neither is it ever acceptable, in my mind, to stymie debate by way of fear. In the example offered here, the experts usually do just that, especially by raising the specter of an outbreak of pandemic disease. People assuredly respond to fear, but rarely if ever in constructive ways.
For me, it comes down to liberty: the freedom to make a choice. Conventional Wisdom discounts Personal Choice by establishing the Right Choice - or the Only Choice. Debate provides the opportunity to tease out the pros and cons and discover what other choices there may be. In the example of vaccinations, the problem is a social or corporate one, but the choice is a private or personal one. The proofs and arguements for the Conventional Wisdom in this case are cold, impersonal, statistical. The debates against the Conventional Wisdom are heated, sincere, and personal. Conventional Wisdom, when it dismisses Personal Choice, runs the risk of sacrificing its legitimacy for the sake of establishing its proof. And Personal Choice runs the risk of sacrificing legitimacey for the sake of argument. The danger is greater for Conventional Wisdom, by virtue of the very fact that it is Conventional; legitimacy is everything.
I did not intend to argue a specific point here, but rather make the case I stated initially, in favor of debate. I will add one important point: debate requires us to be informed. We don't have to be experts to debate; in many cases being an Expert is a liability. The Experts have limited vision by virtue of their knowledge of the debate. Again, Conventional Wisdom. So let's keep the debates alive.
In order to make this case, let's use an example of Conventional Wisdom. I will choose one of my favorites: vaccination. It is Conventional Wisdom that vaccinations are good. They are touted as safe, effective, and important. They are regimented into our lives through doctors, schools, and especially large-scale public health agencies: the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and many others. Perhaps most effectively and importantly, they are described in terms that are meant to frighten those who would question their use.
Now why would someone debate vaccinations, given the widespread support for their use? Conventional Wisdom says we shouldn't, that we should trust the experts, their studies, their proof. And Conventional Wisdom also dismisses many of our points of debate or argument, essentially claiming that this issue is settled and should not be open for debate. But there are questions worth asking, even about something so widely accepted. For example: what are the ingredients in vaccines, and what do they do? What happens to viruses as large populations are immunized against them: do they mutate into something more insidious? What are the secondary and tertiary effects on immunized populations, i.e. what are the unintended consequences?
In my mind, this last question is the only reason we really need to continue to debate Conventional Wisdom: what are the unintended consequences? Because there are always unintended consequences. Sometimes they are innocuous. Oftentimes they seem innocuous, only to prove significant, if not downright dangerous. And because there are always unintended consequences, it is irresponsible to stymie debate of Conventional Wisdom. Neither is it ever acceptable, in my mind, to stymie debate by way of fear. In the example offered here, the experts usually do just that, especially by raising the specter of an outbreak of pandemic disease. People assuredly respond to fear, but rarely if ever in constructive ways.
For me, it comes down to liberty: the freedom to make a choice. Conventional Wisdom discounts Personal Choice by establishing the Right Choice - or the Only Choice. Debate provides the opportunity to tease out the pros and cons and discover what other choices there may be. In the example of vaccinations, the problem is a social or corporate one, but the choice is a private or personal one. The proofs and arguements for the Conventional Wisdom in this case are cold, impersonal, statistical. The debates against the Conventional Wisdom are heated, sincere, and personal. Conventional Wisdom, when it dismisses Personal Choice, runs the risk of sacrificing its legitimacy for the sake of establishing its proof. And Personal Choice runs the risk of sacrificing legitimacey for the sake of argument. The danger is greater for Conventional Wisdom, by virtue of the very fact that it is Conventional; legitimacy is everything.
I did not intend to argue a specific point here, but rather make the case I stated initially, in favor of debate. I will add one important point: debate requires us to be informed. We don't have to be experts to debate; in many cases being an Expert is a liability. The Experts have limited vision by virtue of their knowledge of the debate. Again, Conventional Wisdom. So let's keep the debates alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)