⇒ To vote and die, but not to drink

Twenty-one is a triangular number, an octagonal number, a Harshad number, a Fibonacci number, and a Motzkin number. It is the name of a movie and numerous songs. And since January 1, 1985, it has been the legal drinking age in Nebraska, and every other state in the union.

And the number is back in the news thanks to the Amethyst Initiative, a petition of over a hundred college presidents, which has certainly proven successful in its goal of generating discussion about the drinking age in the United States. As usual, the discussion has quickly made its way through the beating public pulse to the opinion pages. One of the most effective arguments in favor of lowering the drinking age appeared in a very short letter to the editor today in the Grand Island paper:

I am writing as a Veteran of the US Navy. At 18, we could sign up, vote, give our lives for our country……but can’t have a drink. What’s wrong with picture?

This was essentially the same argument that encouraged the ratification of the 26th amendment, which lowered the legal voting age to 18 in 1972. Later that year, the drinking age was lowered in Nebraska to 19 (which is the age of the majority in our state, another peculiar law that Nebraska shares with only one other state–Alabama). There it would remain for only 8 years, before being raised to 20 in 1980 and finally to 21 in 1985. Young adults retained the right to vote, but lost the right to drink. Which is interesting, considering the number that drink between the ages of 18 and 21 is a great deal higher than the number that vote. Perhaps if we actually voted in higher numbers we would be able to regain the latter right. Now there’s a good political slogan: “Vote and drink!”

⇒ Short, but to what point?

I like pithy letters to the editor, but a few too many aim for pithy and end up incomprehensible. Here’s an example in the Lincoln paper:

This N-word, R-word, Q-word anti-intellectualism is on the borderline of killing the C-word: communication.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, unless denied otherwise.

Leave freedom of speech alone.

I understand the general gist, but I’m perplexed as to the meaning of the middle paragraph and how it relates to the first and last sentences. On the other hand, it would make a good fortune cookie. I’m also a little confused how those words would in any way add to intellectual communication. I suppose we could have an intellectual discussion about those words within the context of a piece of literature, but I rather suspect that isn’t what the writer is talking about.

My guess is that this letter is in response to the recent letters arguing that the use of the word “retard” in Tropic Thunder is offensive. Still, it hasn’t much to do with the proposed boycotts, since freedom of speech guarantees right to express opinions, while the boycott is arguing it’s rude to use a few particular words. They’re not saying that Congress should ban the use of the word “retarded,” just that such use deserves a boycott. Final thought: when I first saw c-word–horrible person that I am–I immediately thought “cunt.”

⇒ At least they know which party controls Congress

Many of the pro-drilling letters over the past few weeks have mentioned the Democratic-controlled Congress, usually in a sentence such as “the Democrat-controlled Congress [has] continually blocked legislation to increase our domestic oil production” (from a letter I discussed earlier). That knowledge puts these letter writers in the slim majority of American adults (53%) who know which party controls the House, as determined in a recent pew poll.

The poll asked two other knowledge questions: Can you name the Secretary of State? and Who is the Prime Minister of Britain? These were correctly answered by 42% and 28%. My immediate reaction was surprise at the high number who knew Gordon Brown was prime minister. Was it a multiple choice question? So I looked at the questionnaire itself (page 32) and sure enough, respondents were given four names to choose from, although they did have to come up with Condi’s name unprompted. Here are the four names (followed by percentage who chose that name):

• Gordon Brown (28%)
• Robert Gates (4%)
• John Howard (5%)
• Rupert Murdoch (5%)

Hmm, I wonder why they picked two Australians for the list (well, one Australian and one Australian-American). I guess Australia and Britain are both islands. What a depressing poll, to make the letters to the editor seem positively politically well-informed.

⇒ The subtle slip-in

I knew the local commentary in the Grand Island paper was going to be a little wacky from the start. After all, it was titled “‘Keynesian economics’ asserts socialism.” Apparently there has been a back-and-forth argument going on between a couple of the local op-ed writers about Keynesian economics, and this article is one saying the other must logically be a socialist because he supports Keynesian economics. Par for the course really; a lot of things that are merely liberal get labeled socialist in Nebraska. I suspect the people using the word would have a heart attack if they heard the ideas of a real socialist. The op-ed didn’t disappoint, but the real craziness came in one simple statement that had nothing to do with economics:

In my English classes, I taught the students to write persuasive essays and demanded they use history, the Bible, and logic to support their thesis. Simply stating your beliefs (often generalizations), no matter how sincerely held, does not make them true and seldom persuades anyone.

Wait… what? They had to use the Bible to support their theses? So if a student were to write an essay arguing that the school dress code should prohibit girls from wearing pants, Deuteronomy 22:5 would be sufficient support? I wonder what they did when logic and history contradicted the Bible. Of course, the best part is the following sentence, which he manages to write completely unironically. An accurate statement, which completely misses the point that his “biblical support” is equally the same to just stating his beliefs to people who don’t believe in the bible or in its inerrancy. He could be quoting the Vedas for all I care. Better check your premises, Mr. English teacher.

⇒ Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Ah, statistics. I do love it when letters to the editor bring in the graphs to augment their arguments. Forget pictures, a good statistic is worth a thousand words (thus making it 80% of the total value of a letter reaching the usual maximum word count of 250). Today’s example of mucho statistic use comes from the Fremont Tribune:

[...] Here are some facts Mr. Kappeler: In 1980, when the highest tax bracket was 70 percent, the richest 1 percent paid only 19 percent of the total taxes collected; now, with the top rate of 35 percent, they pay 39 percent of total taxes collected. In addition, the top 25 percent of earners pay in 86 percent of all federal income taxes, and the top 50 percent of earners pay 97 percent of all federal income taxes! The Bush tax rate cuts you complained about are responsible for unprecedented increases in revenues to the federal coffers. [...]

Pretty damning statistics, but are they lying? As usual, the numbers check out, but more statistics provide a fuller picture: the richest 1% of Americans own 38% of the wealth. Thus the 39% they pay in taxes is an accurate reflection of their wealth. Considering the bottom 40% own only 1% of the wealth, it’s hardly surprising they’re not paying much in taxes. Amounts contributed in taxes are fairly proportion to wealth.

The amount the wealthiest 1% contribute to total tax revenues has been going up because their share of total wealth has been going up. I couldn’t find the statistics for total wealth, but share of total income shows a large portion of the story. According to the New York Times, “The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980.” If the aggregate income to the top 1% has doubled since 1980, it’s not surprisingly that their percentage of the tax burden has also nearly doubled (from 19% to 39%). The rich are paying more because they own a larger share of the pie.

The difference between wealth and income is the key point for massaging the numbers to tell a different story. The top 1% get 22% of income, but own 38% of the wealth. One of those numbers will make their 39% contribution to total taxes seem fair, the other won’t. This distinction is also important in discussing the Bush tax cuts, because one of the main cuts was to the capital gains tax, from a top rate of 35% to a top rate of 15%. This change primarily benefits the wealthy, because capital gains is when your investments make money, and the wealthy have the most investments. Which is all just a lot of writing to show that yep, Twain’s famous proverb holds true.

⇒ Fighting the Forces of Fluoridation

Verily, the Nebraska legislature did pass a mandate calling on all towns of 1,000 or more people to add fluoride to their drinking water and lo there was much gnashing of teeth. And so the towns decided to punt the issue to the people themselves, with many, such as Grand Island (the 3rd largest city in Nebraska with about 50,000 people) putting the measure up to a vote. Which means–yes!–letters to the editor. Anti-fluoridation has always enjoyed an odd following, and some of the arguments against it are just plain kooky, like the idea that it allows government mind control. The letter today in the Grand Island Independent can’t top that, but it adds its own distinctive craziness to the mix:

If it would cost $400,000 to add fluoride to the water in Aurora how much would be added to the cost of water in Grand Island if fluoride were added?

Since there already is more than enough fluoride in our water why would we want to add more fluoride endangering the lives of infants and the pre-born according to health authorities? After all it is a drug.

God has given us pure water. Let’s thank Him and keep it that way.

Vote yes for pure water to prohibit fluoridation on Nov. 4th.

The first argument is a reasonable one. Do the benefits of decreased tooth cavities outweigh the costs? Considering the CDC reports that fluoridated communities end up paying 50% less for their Medicaid dental programs, I think it’s safe to say the benefits are pretty darn likely to outweigh the costs. The second paragraph is where the fun begins. First off, cities with enough natural-occurring fluoride don’t have to add any. Grand Island is not one of those 41 communities. And many things that are deadly in large amounts are beneficial in small amounts. Too much iron is dangerous, but a small amount is vital. Heck, chlorine is poisonous and we add it to the water–because a small dose poisons the bacteria, purifying the water for us.

But the 3rd paragraph’s line has got to be the best: “God has given us pure water. Let’s thank Him and keep it that way.” God’s water has given us Giardiasis, a lovely little disease nicknamed “beaver fever” that gives 200 million people a year the runs, and that’s only one of the thousands of water-borne diseases that kill some 1.8 million people a year, mostly children and infants. And that number is a significant decrease from year’s past thanks to more water treatment efforts. Of course, we’re extremely lucky in the United States to not have to worry about clean water. Instead, we get to have debates about fluoridation. I guess I can look forward to more fun on the opinion pages. I really hope someone sends in a letter about mind control.

⇒ Tropic Thunder and the “R-word”

I have to admit, I didn’t think the trailers for Tropic Thunder looked all that good, because there is one thing I absolutely detest in movies and that is slap-stick comedy generated by contrived character stupidity. And not just any sort of stupidity, but the kind that happens when a character that is portrayed as otherwise reasonably intelligent, or at least of average intelligence, does something really stupid for a laugh. They’re left holding the idiot ball, as it were.

A prime example of this would be a scene in Get Smart: the main character needs to break out of some handcuffs and he pulls out his super-tech swiss army knife. The implement he decides to use to break out of his predicament? A miniature harpoon. Hilarity supposedly ensues. What makes this even worse is that later in the movie he uses a knife from the very same gizmo. The writers could have at least made sure the item didn’t actually have a knife. It could have even been mildly amusing as he searched through the various functions, muttering “How could it not have a knife? It’s a Swiss Army Knife, it’s right there in the name!”

I suspect, and the trailer leads me to believe, that Tropic Thunder would have more of those idiot humor situations. So I was already predisposed to skip on seeing this film when I began to read the articles about the Special Olympics complaining about the movie’s use of the word “retard.” All controversies wind their way down to the letters to the editor sooner or later, and sure enough, a letter appeared about the issue in the Lincoln Journal Star today:

I was disheartened to read the glowing review (LJS, Aug. 13) of the Ben Stiller movie “Tropic Thunder.” The reviewer described the movie as a perfect comedic farce and declared it Stiller’s “magnum opus.”

What the reviewer failed to mention is the fact that throughout the movie, people with developmental disabilities are routinely disparaged and the word “retard” is frequently used. The use of the word “retard” sets the tone of how society views people with developmental disabilities, and movies that glamorize the “R-word” and catchphrases like “Never go full retard” set us all back a generation. [Really? Has it perhaps retarded our emotional growth?]

Apparently making fun of a group of people least likely to be able to advocate for themselves is what makes a perfect comedic farce. Shame on the reviewer, shame on Ben Stiller, and shame on those who make the choice to see “Tropic Thunder” and play a part in promoting the idea that hurting others for a laugh is all in good fun.

My hope is that the people of Lincoln will stand up for kids like my daughter, Baylee, and all others who share her disabilities by refusing to see this movie. I also hope that everyone will become more aware of how they include the word “retard” in their vocabularies. Maybe some day the use of the R-word will be as unacceptable as disparaging words that describe race or ethnicity. The only R-word people with intellectual disabilities deserve is respect.

I’m certainly sympathetic to the pain and anger a word can cause within a community of people. It’s not pleasant to feel like your group is the butt of a movie’s crappy jokes. But I think it’s foolish to expect that a word connoting a sense of extreme stupidity isn’t going to eventually be dragged along the euphemistic treadmill–the process by which neutral or polite terms devolve into ruder meanings. “Idiot,” “imbecile,” and “moron” were once benign terms for an adult of toddler, preschool, and primary school mental ages, respectively. Obviously they no longer hold these meanings. Retard looks like it will follow the same path because adolescent boys have never been known for their empathy or concern for others. The uncomfortable part is during the transition, when the word is still tied to people with mental disabilities.

“Respect” is another word that gets dragged into the weirdest situations. I can see why people are moving away from tolerance (since it suggests we “tolerate” certain groups of people), but I’m not sure “respect” is the right way to go. I prefer empathy or consideration as descriptions of the way to treat other people. When there are words that are just as good (ie moron vs. retard), it’s rude to use the one that offends people. However, I’m willing to grant comedy a long lease in using vulgarities to cut to the heart of a matter. I won’t be going to see this film, but it has more to do with my distaste for stupid comedies in general than the rude use of a word. Their task is Sisyphean in its never-ending quest to lift words out of the gutter, but there are many impossible quests printed on the opinion pages, and this is at least one of the more sympathetic.